Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Anatomy of a Keurig



Timeline of events: Roy Moore--an Alabaman Republican candidate for a US Senate seat--is accused of sexual harassment and assault by several women. Roy Moore refuses to back out of the race. Roy Moore does an interview with Sean Hannity. Many people feel Hannity glossed over the allegations. Several advertisers, including Keurig, pull their advertising from Hannity's show in protest of his apparent lack of outrage. Some Hannity fans destroy their Keurig coffee makers.

Really?

Yes, really. And here's an example:

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/929777702537543681

As the Keurigs shatter on the ground, it seems their pieces reveal a lot about the state of public discourse these days.

First, I'm struck by the language of "offend a liberal" in the above tweet. This is language that is hardly limited to this instance. Google "offend a liberal" and you can find countless memes and images with the same mentality (interestingly you get many of the same conservative memes even when you Google "offend a conservative"). Some progressives likely have the same approach as well, albeit with different language. Whether we label others as "libtards," "libiots," "Teabaggers," or "Re-thug-licans," the effect is the same. And of course, both sides love to throw around the "snowflake" label.

You can completely forget about higher ideals like listening to the other side. We've even moved past trying to persuade the other side. All that matters is winning and upsetting one's opponent. If we can annoy and "offend," that's all we need to do.

I'm also struck (but not surprised) by the oversimplified view of others demonstrated. Seriously, what "liberals" are you hanging out with who would be offended by you destroying your overpriced coffee machine?! I know the friends I have who hold to more progressive/liberal political views wouldn't be "offended." Most of them would just laugh at you. You probably made their day by showing how easily you get "offended" by an advertiser. But, we live in such isolated echochambers that we don't know what people on the other side of the fence are really like anymore. All we're left with are caricatures, stereotypes, and strawmen.

Lastly, it shows how ridiculous we sometimes can be in our "protests" when living in a materialistic culture. We burn jerseys of NFL players we disagree with. We destroy coffee makers of companies who upset us. We refuse to eat fast food chicken because of the owners' position on homosexuality. It's all ridiculous. Ghandi is probably rolling around in his grave wondering why he went on a hunger strike if all he could've done is threw some British furniture out a window. The reality is such "protests" don't actually cost anything. You know those individuals will just turn around a buy another jersey, coffee maker, or chicken sandwich (maybe even from the same place). Where there's no sacrifice, there's not really much substance to that protest.

The sad truth is our public dialogue is utterly empty. It's not even fair to call it a "dialogue" anymore. If you put several angry men together in a room to shout and throw things at each other, is that really a "conversation" just because words exist? Because that's a more apt description of what's happening.

We're not even really concerned with winning arguments any more. We just want to win, period. Dominate the opposition at all costs. But this is a dangerous position. If winning is the ultimate value, then we will be willing to sacrifice our ethics, morals, and our very souls to do so. But once we've sacrificed everything we care about upon the altar of the god of power and triumph, what will we have left? Nothing except a bunch of broken plastic bits, caffeine withdrawals, and a video testifying to how idiotic we look.

Friday, September 30, 2016

A Christian Politic- Pt. 3



If you're reading this, thanks for your endurance. If you missed the first two entries in this blog series, check out the previous two entries which set the stage for this final post. In Part 1, I laid out some of the basic underlying theology of my political views, namely my focus on the Kingdom of God as revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Part 2, I attempted to critique the American Christian tendency of compartmentalizing faith and politics into separate realms. In that post I tried to demonstrate that our faith should impact all aspects of life, and therefore can be applied to all political issues, including those not typically thought as "religious" issues.

That leads to today's final post. As I mentioned at the end of Part 2, one of the concerns of applying faith uniformly to all political issues is that faith might be easily co-opted by political ideologies. Another concern I'll identify now is that such a tactic also opens up the potential for abuse of faith, particularly on the part of religious leaders and pastors. Or conversely, how can we prevent faith from abusing our political systems and creating an oppressive "theocracy"?  If our faith is to impact our political views, how can we practically mix faith and politics without poisoning either of these two realms?

Before offering some suggestions to help navigate these difficult waters, I think it's important to emphasize one point that could easily get lost. When I refer to "a Christian politic" I am not naively assuming following this will mean all Christians will come to the same political conclusions. In fact, far from it. The truth is every Christian's political conclusions are heavily informed by other forces besides just their faith. For instance, a Christian in a rural setting and one in an urban setting will likely see the same issue very differently. Likewise, an Asian Christian, a Black Christian, and a White Christian will also likely come to different conclusions. Similarly, Christians will settle on different political ideas due to different experiences, education levels, and access to facts.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in some cases it can be a good thing. Often, a single political policy or law will not be equally beneficial in every place. For example, a law that works well and promotes justice in New York City may not be very effective or just in small town America. Furthermore, if Christians always came to the exact same conclusions this could be a recipe for disastrous group-think.

As such, a "Christian politic" is not so much about coming to the exact same conclusions as it is about having common ground in the process. It's about ensuring we as Christians seek a consistency in what we advocate. It's about coming together around Scripture to seek policies, laws, and candidates that most closely approximate the ethics of the Kingdom of God while simultaneously remembering that no earthly government will replace or realize God's Kingdom.

With those considerations in mind, here are several practical suggestions for how we might live out a Christian politic:


1) We must live out our politics in community

While America is inherently an individualistic culture, the culture of the New Testament was extremely communal. Additionally, the nature of the church should drive Christians to recognize the importance of community. The church is a communal body, and likewise a Christian politic should be communal in nature. This means a few things.

First, we cannot arrive at political decisions in isolation from others. Dialogue is essential. If humans are damaged creations, then no single one of us has perfect insight. We need to hear the voices of others around us and need to be corrected by others. As I addressed above, we all come from different backgrounds and will draw different conclusions about specific policies. In order to seek the best options for our specific community we need to learn the practice of listening to others.

Second, the Bible's view of the end of the age gives us a picture of the type of community the church is called to be. In Revelation, we get a beautiful depiction of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue standing before the throne of God as the people of God. If we try to live out this eschatalogical reality in the present, then our politics must leave room for diversity. This is particularly a struggle for white Christians. It's way too easy to listen to political rhetoric that is one-sided or only favors a particular race. However, as Christians we must fight this temptation and create space for listening to viewpoints that are different than our own. For white Christians, this means listening to black, Arab, and Hispanic/Latin@ voices. A truly Christian politic must reflect input from the full diversity of God's Kingdom.

Finally, a communal politic means we recognize the need for the common good. My politics cannot be just about my own personal good. Neither can it just be about the good of Christians alone. Rather, a Christian ethic calls me to care for my neighbor, even at my own expense. Not only is the process of discovering a Christian politic a communal one, but the end result is also communal in nature.


2) A Christian politic must be grounded in humility

If we take seriously the message of the cross discussed in Part 1, then we will recognize that a Christian ethic must be dominated by a radical humility. Much of this echoes point one above. Christians engaging in politics should not be proud or arrogant. We are quick to admit that we are not God, and therefore we might be wrong. Unlike the self-righteous rantings of both the political Right and Left, Christians must stand ready to learn and be corrected. We are also ready to compromise on personal preferences for the well-being of the wider community when necessary. If we follow a man who became nothing on the cross for the sake of enemies, then we too should practice humility and self-sacrifice in our political endeavors.

3) A Christian politic must be committed to free-will and non-coercion

As one studies early Christianity from the New Testament era through the first several centuries, it become clear that Christianity was at its best before it came into political power. After Constantine legalized Christianity and after Christianity became the official religion of the empire, so much of the true power of Christianity was lost. When people were forced to become Christians, Christianity became hollowed out and even committed gross atrocities and crimes (the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, opposing science and learning, etc.)

In contrast, many Christians throughout history, particularly the Baptists and Anabaptists, have advocated for religious liberty and free consciences. "A coerced faith is no faith at all," they have said. This principle is especially helpful in our current conversation.

First, this concept means that the goal of a Christian politic is NOT theocracy. The goal is not to establish a "Christian nation" or to have a "Christian" government. History has shown time and again that such tight equivalencies between religion and state only lead to oppression. Rather, our faith should inform our decisions, but also allow room for the free practice of other religious opinions.

This also means Christians should advocate for the religious liberty of all religions, not just their own. One of the travesties of most current discussions about "religious freedom" is that Christians seem preoccupied with the supposed "persecution" of Christians, but rarely raise their voices against the very real discrimination against other faiths, such as Islam.

This principle also suggests that Christians should be cautious when it comes to "legislating morality." Yes, it is good to seek Christian values in policies and law. However--and this goes back to my first point--such policies should be made in conversation with the wider community (including non-Christian voices) and should always seek the common good.


4) Christians, especially leaders, should give priority to general values above specific policies

This is perhaps the most important point of this post. As I alluded to in Part 2, the Bible does not comment directly on most political issues. Rather, we must look at the story of the Bible, study its original context, and draw out principles that can guide our current debates.

It would be nice if this process were easy and straightforward, but it's usually not for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post. For instance, in the immigration debate, what Biblical principles do we look at? And, how do we best apply those principles? One principle could be that we need to have compassion on our neighbors. Another principle could be that we should "seek the welfare of the city" in which we live. However, what does this mean practically? Does having compassion mean we allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country and establish a better life than the dangerous one they had? Or does "seeking the welfare of the city" mean we should send illegal immigrants back home because failing to enforce immigration laws opens the door for drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, or diseases to come into our country and hurt our fellow citizens?

These are tough questions, and I frequently see Christians come to very different conclusions on the matter and get angry with each other. However, it seems to me that most of these Christians debating each other have not stopped to have a meaningful conversation about the underlying values driving their policies. That is putting the cart before the horse. Before we can discuss what specific policies we should advocate for as Christians, we as Christians need to have more meaningful discussions about what values and principles we can agree on.

This fourth suggestion is especially important for pastors and Christian leaders. Some pastors get criticized for being "too political" in their preaching. I think this is a bit misleading. The truth is that Christianity is a political faith. Jesus was crucified by Rome for a political crime--proclaiming to be a King. So, I don't think the problem is that some sermons are "political."

Rather, I think the problem is that such sermons are political in the wrong kind of way. Namely, such sermons go beyond advocating for common principles and values from the Bible all Christians can agree upon to advocating for (or against) specific candidates or policies. They become partisan. For instance, I have heard way too many preachers over the past 8 years blast Obama and his policies in sermons. This is a dangerous strategy.

Going beyond promoting values to promoting specific political agendas or persons is damaging in several ways. First, it falsely connects those policies or candidates to having faith. As such, it can imply that if you don't agree with this particular political stance that you are sub-Christian (or maybe non-Christian). But that is simply not true. In the case of pastors who criticize Obama explicitly, what does that say to members of the congregation who voted for or who support Obama, perhaps on equally Christian grounds? Bringing such specifics into the sermon can easily abuse the spiritual authority given to pastors and church leaders and drive a wedge between the pastor and certain members of the congregation.

That being said, there will be times when church leaders need to become more specific in their political preaching. For instance, pastors in Nazi Germany most certainly should have spoken out against Hitler and the Holocaust. Pastors during the civil rights era in the South should have stood up against racism and Jim Crowe laws. However, how does one know when it's acceptable to preach directly about specific policies, laws, or people?

This is a tricky question--and one I can't answer completely--but here are a few thoughts. First, the issue-at-stake must be a severe injustice, particularly injustices that are costing lives. Second, the values at play should be indisputable. In other words, the specific cause must relate directly to a certain Christian value, and that value should be accepted by Christians throughout history and in the present. Third, such decisions should preference the voices of the oppressed. If we are going to speak out to something specifically, we should choose to speak on behalf of the oppressed, not the powerful, as they are the ones with no voice. Finally, such decisions to speak on specific issues should only be made after much prayer and fasting. They should not be made hastily.

In general, though, pastors and church leaders should stick with preaching the values that are common to all Christians. They should leave room for those values to be applied differently by different Christians, and should leave room for dialogue and free will. Incidentally, when we preach about Christian political values and get congregations to abide by those, then the policies usually have a way of working themselves out.

As an example, since I am currently not serving in a leadership role in a church, I have made it no secret that I strongly oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump (although I have also been careful not to publicly disclose who I am voting for or if I will be voting at all). However, if I were currently serving as a pastor, I would be more reserved in condemning Trump specifically for several reasons. First, I know a number of Christians who plan on voting for Trump for one reason or another and I don't want to make them feel excluded from our community. Second, I recognize that such Christians are often trying to apply their own Christian principles, but are simply applying them differently than myself. Finally, I don't want to imply that a vote for Trump will throw into question a person's salvation or Christian faith. Therefore, I would choose to speak more generally about Christian principles all Christians should agree on that incidentally challenge Trump as well--compassion for the poor, love for enemies, humility, sexual purity, honesty, hospitality for foreigners, etc.

None of this excludes ever talking about specifics. In fact, we must talk about specific policies at some point. However, we should only do so through dialogue within a community and only after we have examined the Christian principles that will guide those policies. Specific policies also should arise from the community and not unilaterally from church leaders or pastors.


5) Read the Bible and listen to the Spirit

Ok, I know I said point 4 was the most important point, but it's actually this one. Gotcha! The truth is, a Christian politic can only be accomplished when we are reading the same story of Scripture and when we are listening to the same Spirit. Yes, it's important to undertake this task in community. Yes, it's important to have humility and allow freedom of choice. Yes, it's important to focus first and foremost on guiding values before policies. However, none of this matters if we are not engaging the story of Scripture which forms those values. None of this matters unless we listen to the Spirit of God who binds together the church in love and unity.

----------------------------------------
Engaging in political discussions is a difficult endeavor. It can easily go wrong in so many ways. People get so worked up over political matters and debates and will even cease speaking to each other because of politics. That is why politics (in addition to religion and sex) often is taken off the table for ordinary conversation.

But we can't escape politics. We live in a democracy and are impacted by politics every day whether we choose to vote or not. If you do vote, you are forced to make decisions about what you value, who should represent you, and what laws you'd like to see. Even if you don't vote, you likely have opinions on political matters, whether those be economics, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, welfare, or the weather (just kidding on that last one).

As such, Christians have a responsibility to think (and talk) about political matters. It's not a matter of if you'll be political, but of how you will be political. But for a Christian, that "how" matters quite a bit. The Gospel is not just a belief, it is a way of life. As such, the way we live, including the way we live politically, is a reflection of our faithfulness to Christ.

Developing a Christian politic takes much careful work. We must mine our theology for values that can inform our politics. We must resist the urge to compartmentalize our lives into sacred vs. secular. And we must approach political decisions with great humility and in dialogue with a Spirit-filled community of faith rooted in Scripture.

I hope these past several posts have been helpful to you in this election year. I'm sure I'm off on some points, but that's the purpose of dialogue. Maybe these posts have given you some ideas to incorporate into your own life and practices. Maybe they've just given you insight into where I am coming from when I post about political issues. If nothing else, I hope they will allow us as Christians to have better conversations with each other and to develop healthier political views that can perhaps shape our culture into something beautiful, just, and compassionate.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Christian or Realist?


Those of us who are Christians frequently make the claim that we desire to "follow Jesus." We want to "be like Christ." Indeed, the very name "Christian" means "little Christ," which carries the same implications. But often, I wonder if this is really what we want to do.

The tension between "following Jesus" and our actual actions often becomes painfully obvious during election years when political conversations are at the forefront of our minds. You frequently hear Christians defend their political stance by referring to how it is a "Christian," "conservative," "godly," or "moral" position, but rarely will you hear anyone make a defense by arguing "Jesus would do this."
Perhaps it's because we're often afraid of what Jesus would do were he physically walking around today in America. When I was in elementary school, WWJD bracelets became a major fad. WWJD, of course, stood for "What would Jesus do?" However, think about if we were to apply that basic question to our political debates:

"Would Jesus own a gun? Would Jesus use a gun against a home invader?"

"Would Jesus say the pledge of allegiance?"

"Would Jesus fight in a war?"

"Would Jesus execute a terrorist or murderer?"

"Would Jesus support tax breaks for the rich or for the poor? Would Jesus pay taxes at all?"


To be sure, some of these questions are immensely complicated and may not have a clear answer, but many of these questions would see the vast majority of Americans and Christians arrive at the same answer.

The fact that we don't ask these types of questions more frequently perhaps betrays that we fear many of the answers. We know they won't line up with our decisions and actions.

Now at this point, there are two common responses. People will either say, "These are modern questions that Jesus did not address, so we can't make an appeal to Jesus" or they'll say, "Yes, it may not be Christ-like, but it's necessary."

The first form of push-back ("It's a modern issue") seems to be disingenuous. We hear from pastors over and over again that the Bible is relevant and that the Gospel can be applied to the whole of life. Why not to our politics? There are countless issues not found directly in the Bible, and yet we make faith judgments about them. The modern concept of abortion is not directly addressed in the Bible, and yet it's easy to bring the Bible to bear on that issue. The modern idea of romantic same-sex attraction as an orientation is a far cry from the types of "homosexuality" referred to in the Bible, and yet most Christians have an opinion on the matter informed by the Bible. Why should we not turn to the teachings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, to inform other modern debates, such as on guns, war, nationalism, death penalty, health insurance, sexual violence, poverty, economics, etc.?

However, I find the second argument the more common: "It's not realistic to live out these standards in a fallen, evil world." If someone brings up Jesus' words about "turning the other cheek" or "loving your enemies," the response is almost always, "Well that's great for Jesus, but let's be realistic..."
Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of "Christian Realism," a
position that states Jesus' ethics cannot be fully realized on
earth because of the sinful tendencies of society
When faced with the tension of Jesus' words and actions compared to our reality, we always rush to use these types of phrases. "That's not realistic..." "These [sub-Christian] actions are necessary..." "We have to be reasonable..." "That just won't work because..." The argument always seems to be that the ethics of Jesus won't work in the "real world."

But the problem I have with this is the incarnation. We cannot relegate Jesus to being some far-off, spiritual deity. He was a real human who lived in a real place at an actual point in history. He faced his own very real political realities and was ultimately executed for a political crime--treason. If Jesus lived out His ethics in the real world, why do we rush to believe that we (His followers) cannot?

The question I'll leave you with is simply this--How many times are we able to do what is "realistic" or "necessary" before we fail to live like Christ? At what point does our compromise on the ethics of God's Kingdom and the Gospel lead us to cease following Jesus? At what point do we forsake the name of "Christian"?

The reality is you are either following Jesus and seeking to imitate His life, or you are not. "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the Kingdom of God." Yes, following Jesus' example may seem foolish, stupid, or suicidal at times, but isn't that the way the Gospel works?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God.”
1 Cor. 1:25-30