A Community of Unity

Share

Last week I wrote about how our political discourse has become so infected by violence. Then, as if to put an exclamation mark on those comments, this morning we learned of the horrible shooting targeted at Republican lawmakers.

However, while we could hope that such tragedies would bring our nation together, the opposite actually seems true. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers saw an uptick in threats today, a reminder that this culture of violence plagues both the Right and Left as I observed last week.

And although Capitol Hill showed a few flourishes of bipartisanship and unity today, as the day draws to a close even that begins to break down. The finger pointing and blame-games have already begun. The LA Times observed that the shooting may actually have further aggravated the tensions and violent discourse. In their words, "brief harmony proved a mere pause as the country descended into an even deeper slough of animosity and political loathing."

In such a culture, where can we find hope?

"The faithful have been swept from the land;
 not one upright person remains.
Everyone lies in wait to shed blood;
 they hunt each other with nets." (Micah 7:2)

This is where the church comes in. In the midst of darkness and hopelessness, the church is called to be "salt and light," to be a "city on a hill."

The Mennonite ethicist and theologian, John Howard Yoder, repeatedly made the claim that the "meaning of history" lies not with government or the world, but within the Church. By this, he meant that the church does not need to follow the world, but that the church must live out its true, counter-cultural identity since the world will ultimately follow the church. The Church does not need to seek power or influence over the world, but simply needs to be the Church.

John Howard Yoder

In The Politics of Jesus, Yoder gives several examples of this. For instance, he argues it was the Church that first really pursued the concept of hospitals as a means to care for the poor. Indeed, many hospitals still retain a faith-based name or identity (both hospitals here in Waco have Christian roots--Baptist and Catholic). However, as the world saw this form of Christian witness, it eventually caught up and created its own versions of Christian care for the sick. Likewise, victim-offender mediation within the criminal justice system also began with Christians attempting to practice Gospel-informed reconciliation.

If we believe, like Yoder, that the purpose of God within history is the "Creation of the one new humanity" beginning with the community of the Church (Yoder, "A People in the World," 1969), then we must take seriously that how the Church acts does in fact matter.

Embedded within the Bible are beautiful pictures of a Church without borders and without divisions:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:28-29)

"After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands." (Rev. 7:9)

"Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves." (Phil. 2:2-3)

"Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." (1 Cor. 12:12-13)

The Church is to be that place where we are united. Now, unity does not mean uniformity. We will still have different politics, different skin colors, different theological opinions, and different places in society, but the true Church does not let these things turn into division or dissension.

Imagine the impact on our political discourse if Christians who were Republicans and Democrats sat down together on a regular basis and could talk civilly with each other. Imagine if our churches were less divided along lines of race and political party to begin with. What if Christians practiced humility in their speech and were actually willing to listen to those who have alternate opinions? Evangelicals often talk about the need to be "counter-cultural," but let's be honest, what could be more counter-cultural than this?

http://www.cookstownparish.com/category/news/diocesan-and-national-news/

However, this is certainly not an easy road. At the same time our nation was being torn apart by a horrific political shooting, the Southern Baptist Convention was stumbling toward its own attempt at racial reconciliation with both success and frustration. Such incidents remind us that this work is often difficult. It's easy to talk, but harder to practice.

Nonetheless, our culture needs the Church to stand up more than ever and be a voice of unity and humility. We need the Church to become the kind of community our country cannot. While the world continues along its path of polarization, the Church must resist that temptation and draw people from both extremes in together through the worship of a Triune God. When the Church models this kind of life--this kind of community--it is a witness to the Kingdom God wants to bring here to earth. However, if even the Church cannot model this community of unity, then we shouldn't hold out much hope to see such unity in the world around us.

Share

American Violence & Political Discourse

Share

This past week, comedian Kathy Griffin received much criticism and lost numerous business contracts due to a video she posted of her holding up a fake severed head made in the likeness of Donald Trump.  Many people on both the political Right and Left (rightfully) condemned Griffin's actions. Trump himself tweeted about how the images were disturbing to his children, especially his 11-year old son.

Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump

However, for anyone paying attention, much of this criticism seems a bit hypocritical because Griffin's video is merely the symptom of a larger problem in our society. Were the images Griffin posted offensive and disgusting? Definitely. But, it's also disgusting how often we tolerate such violence on behalf of our political party or our nation.

The truth is violence has always been embedded in American culture. Our nation was forged in the fires of violent revolution, and ever since then we have found ways to sacralize the myth of redemptive violence. We even have national holidays that strip away the ugliest parts of war and serve the public a cleaner version of "honor" and "valor." Looking at our history, we not only spend the most of any nation on our military (more than the next 8 nations combined or about 37% of the world's total military spending), but our country has also been at war for 224 of our 241 years of existence. We truly are a military-warrior nation.

But violence not only permeates the national stage, it also infects our homes. In American, 1 out of 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner or loved one at some point in their lives. Furthermore, this is not just a problem for any single demographic. Domestic violence cuts across all demographic markers--rich/poor, all ethnicities and races, urban/rural, educated/uneducated.

We even see violence infecting the world of sports. Much good work has been done recently on sports and the "warrior culture" within athletics that often fosters violence. Athletes, especially males, approach games as "battles," wear UnderArmour, and celebrate hyper-masculinity. Fans likewise get into the action wearing body paint like warriors, organizing themselves into tribes, and cheering on the events below. Some sports, such as football and hockey, have violence inherently built into the game. And who doesn't love to see a good hit or tackle in these sports? Sure, we might criticize the Romans for their gladiatorial games, but is the heart of our celebrations of violence in our arenas (and the insane amount of money we throw at them) really all that different simply because it's less bloody?

The point is, we cultivate a culture of violence everyday. We could go on to mention other examples. Violent video games, violent movies, violent language, gun culture, news that highlights murders and terrorism. This is the air we breathe and the water we drink.

So, it's no surprise that violence has infected our political rhetoric as well. Kathy Griffin was not the first, but simply the most recent example. Some of Griffin's most fervent critics were Trump's own supporters. However, there's a certain hypocrisy in this as these same individuals often tolerated (and sometimes endorsed) the violent discourse used by Trump during his candidacy. Trump frequently talked about assaulting protesters, argued we should kill even the wives and children of terrorists, and had to deal with a video where he bragged about sexual assault. Trump's violent rhetoric has spurred violence among some of his supporters as well, with one judge even stating Trump may be partially to blame for violence at his rallies.

And Trump isn't the only politician to talk about or use violence in recent months. During the campaign season, Joe Biden made remarks about wanting to "take [Trump] behind the gym," an allusion to physical violence not all that different from Trump's drooling over the "good 'ole days" when you could "just punch" someone you didn't like. Just late last month, a Republican congressional candidate was cited for assaulting a reporter just a day before the election. And yet, such violence did not seem to bother voters as he still managed to win his congressional seat. Likewise, following Trump's victory in November, a number of anti-Trump protesters started violent riots.

As we examine the use of violence in our political discourse, it's evident that violence is a problem for both sides of the aisle. This is because violence begets more violence. We see this phenomenon over and over. Police brutality and violence spurs violent riots. Wars against terrorism fuels more terroristic extremism. As Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

But, an interesting fact is that such violence in political discourse is not altogether new. Despite the fact that many feel like our country and our politics are going up in flames, the truth is we've always had violence in our politics. As mentioned earlier, our country's very inception was in violent revolution and rhetoric. And, throughout American history, our politics and political figures have always been marred by assaults and assassinations. We've even fought a war among ourselves over political differences.

In 1856, Senator Preston Brooks assaulted Sen. Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate building.

Why is this? I suspect it is for the reasons given above--that we are a culture surrounded by violence and in love with violence. Such violence tends to become more extreme when we also throw in the forces of political polarization and hyper-masculinity/patriarchalism, but the seeds of violence are always there because it's embedded in our culture's DNA.

For Christians, this should be disconcerting as followers of a man who preached "blessed are the peacemakers" and who demonstrated that the way to overcome evil is not through utilizing violence, but through compassionate sacrifice.

To overcome this culture of a violent political discourse, Christians cannot wait on their politicians. We must start this work themselves. We must begin to replace the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of sacrificial love. We must listen more to the values of the Kingdom of God rather than to the values of the nation of America. We must heed the words of peace from our Lord and Savior, rather than the siren call of strength and power offered by our culture.

Calling out the violence of the "other side" is not good enough and often just feeds polarization. We must be willing to also name violence within our own tribe and party. And even harder, we must be willing to take a hard look at our own lives and confess the ways in which we participate, tolerate, and advocate violence in our day to day routines. Most of us don't assault others, but we do all fetishize violence in various forms, benefit from war, have misaligned concepts of "justice," use violence or aggressive language, and otherwise allow violence to sneak into our lives in countless other ways. Until God's people can learn to be a "people of peace" and teach others to do the same, we will continue to see (and support) a violence political discourse.

Share

Climate, Trump, and keeping perspective

Share

The big news this afternoon was that President Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Here are a few thoughts:

1) This is an unfortunate abdication of American world leadership

Although exact percentages vary, one fact is certain--a majority of world scientists believe global warming and climate change are primarily the result of carbon emissions and human activity. And, contrary to many denial narratives about "global cooling" as the previous concern of scientists, climate change is not a new concern that simply arose in the 1990's. Rather, it has been a concern of scientists going all the way back to the 1960's, and warming was actually a bigger concern than "cooling" during this time period.

Even most oil and gas companies today publicly state their belief that climate change is real. BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron have all expressed support for reducing greenhouse emissions. One survey of oil and gas business professionals found that 74% of these professionals were at least "somewhat sure" that global warming is happening (58% were at least "very sure" or "extremely sure.") Furthermore, 57% of those individuals believed this warming is being caused by human actions, and 75% stated that humans could take steps to reduce global warming. Keep in mind, this is from oil and gas professionals, those who have a financial interest in denying human-caused climate change.

The bottom line is that mainline science concurs that this is a problem and that there are steps humans can take to reduce the problem. This is evidenced by the willingness of 195 nations to sign the Paris Agreement. If climate change was actually scientifically debatable, you would not have seen this kind of overwhelming support. So while climate change deniers often charge that this whole push is merely a plot by socialists to increase government control, the scientific consensus begs to differ.

Now, is it possible that the current science on climate change could be wrong? Sure. That's why science always runs tests to try disproving prevailing theories. However, up to this point, the scientific evidence lines up with current theories. As such, our nation's policies should heed the best available science and not deny it.

That's why Trump's decision is a failure of global leadership. If the science is correct, climate change does pose a risk to humans, particularly to humans in poor countries. It's clear the rest of the world recognizes this (indeed the U.S. has the highest percent of climate change deniers of any country in the world). As long as the science holds, it's inevitable that other countries, like China, will step up and continue to lead in this area. If the U.S. backs down, other countries will rise up and become leaders in technology innovation and energy independence.

2. For Christians, our concern should go beyond the truth or falsehood of climate change

For sake of argument, let's say that in 20 years scientists learn that climate change is not actually a human-induced phenomenon. Even if that is the case, Christians should still advocate for cleaner energy for a variety of reasons. First, there is no debate that fuels like oil, gas, and coal are polluters. Even "cleaner" versions of these fossil fuels still produce pollution. And the bottom line is that pollution is harmful. From a public health standpoint, we should attempt to reduce pollution as much as possible. No one wants to be breathing smog or drinking dirty water.

Additionally, Christians have a biblical commitment to creation. In Genesis 2, God places humanity in the Garden and gives them the command to "work it and take care of it." Yes, creation is for our enjoyment and use, but we are also to be good stewards of the good gifts God has given us. Furthermore, throughout the Bible, creation repeatedly has a voice in God's story and continues to come up as something God cares for but gets harmed by sin:

"God said to Adam...“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life." (Gen. 3:17)

"For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:19-22)

"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; Let the sea roar, and all it contains; Let the field exult, and all that is in it. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord, for He is coming, For He is coming to judge the earth." (Ps. 96:11-13)

"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:7-10)

There are many other such verses. For instance, many places in the Bible reiterate the point that the earth is "the Lord's" and that it  does not simply belong to humanity. Passages like Exo. 19:5-6, Lev. 25:23, and Ps. 50:9-12 all caution humans about their use of natural resources because ultimately it is God who created and owns the land, the beasts, and the fields.

With such a biblical narrative, Christians should be among the first people to advocate and push for more renewable and sustainable forms of energy that not only improve our health, but also the health and well-being of God's good creation.

3. Market forces will trump Trump

While many environmentalists are lamenting Trump's decision, the truth is things aren't that bleak. The reality is the economy, public opinion, and market forces will continue to push us toward cleaner energy regardless of Trump's actions. Sure, Trump may slow things down a bit, but we are at the point where fossil fuels are not likely to make a strong comeback. Even with low oil prices, renewable energy has continued to boom. And it's not just because of tax subsidies.

Like any new technology, the cost of production and operation for renewable energy sources has dropped significantly in the past 5 years. Solar, in particular, has become much cheaper to produce, even to the point where India recently scrapped plans for new coal power plants in favor of solar power.

Here in the U.S., many large corporations are demanding renewable and sustainable power sources. For instance, in the traditional coal country of Kentucky, companies like Ford, Wal-Mart, and Toyota have all expressed plans to reduce their emissions and have demanded cleaner energy. Toyota has even gone so far as to build their own sources of clean energy when the Kentucky energy grid failed to offer enough clean energy. Likewise, most American consumers want cleaner, more sustainable energy if offered the choice. Even entire American cities have signaled they'll ignore Trump and continue to abide by the Paris Climate Accords.

Furthermore, for all the talk politicians have done over the years of needing  to be "energy independent," it's worth noting that one of the best ways to do this is to switch to renewable and sustainable forms of power. There is no shortage of sun or wind in our country, and unlike oil prices, wind and sun are actually more reliable over the long run.

This means that even if coal, oil, and gas industries get a bump from Trump, the long-term outlook is still not great. With the forces of the free-market moving towards cleaner power, Trump will not be able to save many of these jobs, which brings me to my final point.

4. Jobs are an important piece, but we must expand our thinking about jobs

Trump's main pitch in this area has been that environmental regulations and support for clean energy have strangled oil, gas, and coal industries and have put people out of work. This is certainly partly true (although as pointed out above, market forces have had as much, if not more, of an impact than environmental regulations). One of Trump's main reasons for pulling out of the Paris Agreement was that the concessions in the agreement were "bad for jobs" in America.

One of the mistakes environmental advocates make (and that Hillary Clinton made in her campaign) is not taking seriously enough the struggles of families who rely on work in fossil fuel industries. Living here in Texas, I've gotten to know a number of individuals who work or have worked in oil fields, offshore oil rigs, and coal plants. They are good people and don't hate the environment or anything. However, they also need the income that comes from these jobs. As such, the necessary move to renewable energy is a real threat to their livelihoods and their financial security.

So, yes jobs are an important issue. However, we must also look at the whole picture. For the reasons stated above, we need to be making the switch to cleaner energy. Just because there are costs to an action does not mean we avoid that action. For instance, the government's crackdown on tobacco companies over the years certainly hurt those businesses and cost people jobs, but this was a move that needed to be made to promote the public's health. Likewise, there are equally good reasons to pursue an agenda to combat climate change and pollution. The challenge is how to do this while minimizing the damage and pain to real life families caught in the crossfire.

No one can really dispute that renewable energy is what will be used in the future. The only question is when the switch will be complete. Just like automated elevators, "horseless carriages," and automation in factories, technology will continue moving forward and changing the job landscape. Our task is not to oppose these inevitable changes, but to embrace them and change with them.

So we do need to talk about protecting jobs, but we need to do so in a way that neither Republicans or Democrats have done. Republicans typically just try to protect "dirty energy" jobs, while Democrats inhumanely try to put an end to those industries in favor of cleaner industries while real workers get lost in the mess. What we should be doing is supporting efforts to offer education, job training, and job opportunities for those in oil and coal industries. As clean power takes off, this will inevitably create new job opportunities both in the energy sector and elsewhere. We need to take advantage of this and help people move into new jobs. Just as we talk about moving to "sustainable energy," we need to do more to move people into more "sustainable" jobs. This should be a bipartisan effort.

Until clean energy advocates find meaningful ways to help those currently working in coal and oil, there will continue to be opposition to climate change initiatives, and rightfully so.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, yes it was unfortunate that Trump bailed on the Paris Agreement (particularly when the U.S. had the option to modify the conditions without jumping out completely), but it's not the end of the world. The world and the U.S. will continue moving in a direction that will reduce greenhouse gases, but as we do so we must all come together from both sides of the aisle and talk about how to make these transitions as smooth as possible for everyone involved.

The Johnson Amendment and a Diverse Church Life

Share

Yesterday at a National Day of Prayer ceremony, President Trump signed an executive order directing the government to "honor and enforce" protections for religious liberty. He also said this order would make it easier for churches and pastors to engage in politics so their free speech would not be "bullied" or "punished." These comments were in line with others Trump has made in the past about discarding the Johnson Amendment and telling the IRS to use "maximum discretion" before penalizing churches that get involved in political campaigns.

Trump signing his "religious freedom" executive order on May 4, 2017. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Admittedly, the actual text of the executive order does not actually change the application of the Johnson Amendment, but nonetheless, the general trajectory of this administration does seem to be to minimize or do away with it. And it's not too much of a stretch to think that Congress may act on this issue as well between the urging of Trump and the voices of some swooning conservative religious leaders. As such, Christians need to think intentionally about what such moves might actually mean for their congregations.

First, Christians need to recognize that the Johnson Amendment really does not pose a serious threat to their churches. The IRS has only investigated a few church violations of the Johnson Amendments in its history. There have been even fewer negative results as only 1 church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. One main reason for this is because the Johnson Amendment does NOT prohibit political speech from the pulpit or for pastors and ordinary Christians as Trump has often characterized it as doing. Rather, the Johnson Amendment simply prohibits any registered, tax-exempt non-profit (which many churches are) from endorsing a political candidate or participating in political campaigns of candidates (activities like donating church money to a political campaign). However, pastors and Christians are more than free to discuss political issues and positions. You can take positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, war, taxes, and other political issues from the pulpit all day long. You just can't say "this candidate is horrible" or "I endorse this candidate" or give congregants' tithe money to a campaign.

It's also important for Christians to note that the few investigations that have occurred have been opened against both conservative and liberal churches. So, when you hear Republicans like Trump depict the amendment as an attack on conservative religious values, please remember that this is simply not true. In fact, the original intent of the law was to target supposed communist funds flowing from non-profits into the campaign of Lyndon B Johnson's campaign rival.

The Johnson Amendment was proposed by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson

In short, churches have little to fear from this amendment. It's unlikely an actual violation will even get investigated (especially if you don't attend a megachurch with a famous pastor), and even if your church or pastor got investigated, it's even less likely that anything will come of it. But if it did, Christians would do well to remember that this would really only impact their tax-exempt status, not their ability to gather, worship, teach, preach, evangelize, or anything else.

All that aside, Christians need to think about this from another angle, namely the role of politics from the pulpit. After all, that's really what this debate is about.

Personally, even if Trump succeeds in repealing the Johnson Amendment, I strongly believe churches should still abide by its restrictions. Here's why:

When we allow pastors to start going beyond teaching general Christian principles or worldviews and let them begin advocating for specific candidates, parties, and policies, we run the risk of doing incredible damage to the health of that congregation. Let me give you an example.

A few months ago, I visited a church where the pastor decried "liberalism" as evil and as a sin in the middle of his sermon. This immediately turned me off for several reasons. First, his usage of "liberalism" was really nothing more than a scare word as the word "liberalism" is incredibly vague. What do you mean by "liberalism"? Are we talking theological liberalism, political liberalism, economic liberalism? Each of those are very different concepts and don't always go hand in hand. The use of that phrase was not substantive but simply a way to energize the rest of the congregation, who by-and-large held to conservative theological and political views, which leads to my second concern.

My second concern with the pastor's denouncement of "liberalism" is that it only served to further the uniformity and lack of diversity within his congregation. I don't personally consider myself a "liberal" or "progressive," but I tend to be a moderate who does happen to share a number of perspectives with liberals on some issues. As I listened to that sermon, I immediately felt excluded because the sermon's assumption (at least what seemed to be communicated) was that any liberal ideas (including political ones) were sinful. As such, I was to be viewed as an outsider to faith.

Now, if I felt that way, imagine how any number of my sincere, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, Christian friends who are much more liberal than myself would have felt sitting through that sermon. That pastor might as well have said, "Your faith is wrong and invalid. You don't really love Jesus or believe the Bible. You're not welcome here unless you repent."

Take that another step further. If we start having pastors condemn or praise specific candidates or politicians (haha, I said "start," when in reality I've sat through too many such sermons already), how is that good pastoral care or good church practice when a healthy church will hopefully have members who sit on both sides of the political aisle and who will vote for different candidates. Those members with different opinions will feel uncomfortable or maybe even be driven away from the congregation.

Even worse, what if a church donated tithed money to a political campaign. If there are members of the congregation who plan on voting for an opposing candidate, do you think they want the money they gave to the church to be used for a candidate they don't support?

At this point, I can hear some Christians say, "Well, if they want to believe differently they should just find a more liberal/conservative church to attend." But this is not how it ought to be! As we look at the book of Revelation, we see a picture of the people of God united together from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. The Kingdom of God is diverse. A few years ago, I heard a saying that aptly describes what the Church should look like: "Unity without uniformity; diversity without division."

Thankfully, many Christians agree with me that pastors should avoid becoming too political. According to Kimberly Winston of the Religious News Service, "A 2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement 'it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service,' and a 2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates." Nonetheless, according to research done by the Barna Group presented in the book UnChristian 10 years ago, one of the top perceptions of churches by those outside the church was that churches are "too political." Given the intensification and polarization of the political arena recently, I suspect that perception has not changed much in the past 10 years. It may be even worse now.

But this goes so much beyond the Johnson Amendment and politics. A few days ago, I blogged about how our lack of a corporate theology in the act of baptism reinforces homogeneous churches and potentially feeds racism in the midst of the Church. We so desperately need more diversity in our congregations!

Sadly, much of the way we teach and preach in churches is both the cause and symptom of this lack of diversity. Pastors and teachers within a church make polarizing, one-sided statements because there is no differing opinions within the congregation to put a check on them or to help those leaders think about different perspectives. At the same time, when such statements are made from positions of leadership, it also drives away any diversity that might happen to come through the door for a visit. It's an endless cycle of confirming uniformity, and this creates an echo-chamber of group-think.

So, if you are a pastor, teacher, or church leader (or even just a congregation member), please think abut your public speech within the church. How would your comments be interpreted or accepted by a Christian of a different political viewpoint, or a different race, or a different social class or country? Too much of what gets confidently declared as "truth" is actually more influenced by the micro-cultures we create within our congregation and community than it is by the Bible or God. So, whatever happens to the Johnson Amendment, let's be careful in our words and find way to increase cross-cultural dialogue and diversity within our congregations.

Share

Baptism and Racism

Share

I recently started reading Jim Wallis' newest book "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America." I'm only part way through it, but so far there has been lots of good food for thought for white Christians and white churches who often neglect issues of race in our liturgy and worship, preferring to pretend that racism is a "political issue" not a "faith issue."

However, early on, there is one quote that jumped out at me. In the opening chapter, Wallis writes:
"The political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem. The churches have too often "baptized" us into our racial divisions, instead of understanding how our authentic baptism unites us above and beyond our racial identities."

I think Wallis is onto something here. In American Christianity, particularly the white evangelical variety, we tend to preach and adhere to what Scot McKnight calls the "soterian (or 'salvation') gospel." The "gospel" that gets preached from our pulpits is that you are a sinner, Jesus died for your sins, and so you must believe these truths and put your faith in Jesus and you will be saved from hell and death. Frequently this gospel is also accompanied by a gnostic over-emphasis on heaven as the final destination of the saved, rather than an emphasis on bodily resurrection.

As McKnight and others point out, this "soterian gospel" ends up being extremely individualistic. The "Gospel" is good news for me. Jesus died for my sins. The point of Jesus' life and death was so I could get into heaven. Even within more Reformed traditions that point back to God's glory as the purpose for His actions, the center of the narrative still remains focused on God's actions for individuals.

To bring this back to Wallis' quote, if we are believing an individualized gospel, then it naturally flows that we are also practicing individualistic baptisms. In most baptism services I have seen, the focus of the moment is almost always on the personal profession of faith and the salvation of the one being baptized. Don't get me wrong, that focus is good, but it's incomplete.

Usually absent from modern baptisms is any language of being baptized into a community or of entrance into a new kingdom and people that crosses cultures, race, and language. This is unfortunate because the early church understood this concept.

Certainly, such an individualistic gospel and baptism will cause (and is causing) countless theological and practical problems for our churches, but I had never really made the connection between this watered-down baptism (pun not intended) and racial problems we face within the church. This is likely because of my own white privilege. For us white Christians, we simply don't think about race and racism enough and so it's natural never to ever bring such communal aspects into our baptismal liturgies. But, we would if we were paying attention to the Gospel found in the New Testament and to the modern realities around us.

There's good evidence to suggest that Paul's words on baptism and community in Gal. 3:26-29 were actually part of an early baptismal liturgy used during baptisms. In contrast, we reduce the baptism moment into only a celebration of that individual and their own personal salvation. But what would it look like if we used language similar to Gal 3?

"For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:26-29)

For the early church, baptism was less about a symbol of personal conversion to a religious or psychological belief. It was more about an initiation into an entirely new people, culture, and society. Being submitted under the water was not just a symbol of death to sin (as we commonly approach it). It was a ritual depicting death to one's entire old way of life, including one's cultural, racial, and social identities. All those old identities were washed away and you were raised up into Abraham's family, into the people of God. Imagine what it would look like if we recaptured that essence? What if we too disposed and repented of our racial, cultural, and national identities at baptism and allowed ourselves to truly take on a new identity in Christ?

It's no secret that, as Dr. Martin Luther King used to say, that Sunday morning is "the most segregated hour in this nation." Perhaps one reason for this is because the gospel we preach and baptize into falls short of the gospel and baptism of the New Testament. Central to the Bible's Gospel is the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the story of Israel, and that He is creating for Himself a new people drawn from every tongue, tribe, and nation.

Paul reiterates this Gospel truth in many of his writings, including when he writes in 1 Corinthians:

"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit....But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it." (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 24-27)

Central to our baptism is the truth that all other identities are submerged beneath our identity in Christ. We are no longer defined by nationality, gender, race, language, or social status. We are all part of Christ. Perhaps if the Church in America could better grasp and preach this communal truth from both the pulpit and the baptismal, then maybe the Church could be the one to finally lead our country toward the racial equality and healing we so desperately need.

In the words of William Stringfellow, "The issue here [of racism] is not equality among human beings, but unity among human beings....The issue is baptism. The issue is the unity of all humanity wrought by God in the life and work of Christ. Baptism is the sacrament of that unity."

Share

A Few Florist Thoughts

Share

One of the news stories that broke this past week was that the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a florist who decided not to offer her services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. This case has ignited much furor in both the LGBT and evangelical worlds because it seems to place the debate as a battle between civil liberties and religious liberty. I have only slightly followed this case, but as this discussion will soon (and already has) become heated, here are a few thoughts I have to hopefully bring some nuance to this case that addresses both sides:

• If you hear conservative Christians saying this story was "buried" this week in some attempt to secretly take away religious liberty, don't believe the hype. Mainstream media did in fact cover the story (how else do you think people became aware of it?) Furthermore, if this story did not rise to the level of prominence many conservatives felt it deserved, it was likely the result of the current chaos in the Trump administration, not because of some conspiracy theory.
• It seems pretty obvious that Barronelle Stutzman (the florist) was in violation of the law. Our current laws clearly state that same-sex unions enjoy the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, it is a crime to discriminate against a person based on either gender or sexual orientation. A business refusing to provide a service because of a person's sexual orientation is a crime. Under the eyes of the law, it is really no different from refusing to provide a person a service because of their race or ethnicity. This is why the Washington Supreme Court was unanimous--it's pretty cut and dry.

Conservative Christians at this point will say this infringes on Stutzman's religious liberty. But here are a few things to consider:

• One's religious liberty is not unlimited. The law only grants religious liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe upon the well-being of society (this is how all rights work). For instance, I cannot kill my child even if I followed a religion that said this was acceptable. In this current case, the laws and perception of our society state that such discrimination is detrimental to society. Thus, the court ruled that the practice of her religious conscience in a place of business was problematic.
• What all does religious liberty actually cover? I am not a constitutional scholar, so I'll largely leave this question open. However, it is good to note that the State is not forcing Stutzman to change her beliefs, per se. She can still worship as she pleases, she can still speak out against gay marriage, she can refuse to attend gay weeddings, etc. The court simply said that, if she is going to operate a place of business in the public sphere, then she must treat all citizens equally.
• Which leads to this last point on religious liberty. I'm not sure religious liberty extends to a business. An individual can be a "Christian," and a church congregation can be "Christian," but I'm not convinced a business can be "Christian." The reality is that when you open a business, you agree to abide by the laws and regulations affecting businesses. This include anti-discrimination statues. If you are not willing to serve certain customers because of demographics that fall under those statutes, then you probably shouldn't run that business or you should be willing to face the consequences of breaking the law. It may even be right to defy a law you see as unjust, but be truthful and don't whine or complain when you get in trouble for breaking that law. Ironically, I've seen a number of conservatives this past week say, "You're free to express your beliefs, but you're not free from the consequences of those expressions" in response to employees getting fired for taking off work on the "Day without Immigrants." Shouldn't we say the same about Stutzman? She was free to express her beliefs, but she's not free from the legal consequences of those actions.

But before my more liberal friends get to excited, I do have a few thoughts for that side as well.

• This court case has often been characterized in terms of "civil liberties." As noted above, I won't argue with the legal realities here, but there is one aspect of the LGBT movement that's never set quite well with me, and that's the comparison between LGBT rights and the racial civil rights movement. In this particular case Stutzman's actions have been compared to refusing to serve a customer because she is black. While legally speaking this is true, I think we'd be amiss if we didn't acknowledge some substantial differences. The main difference I see is that most educated Christians who don't approve of same-sex unions take issue with the ACTS of homosexuality, not the impulses or orientation itself. This is quite different from discrimination based on race which is a trait you are born with and can't escape. There is no way to not act out on being your color. Your race race remains the same regardless of your actions. Regarding being gay, even if sexual orientation is genetic, a person still has a decision about whether or not to act out on those impulses, which makes it somewhat different than racial discrimination.
• Bring this point onto the Stutzman case. What if a man who identifies as gay but chooses not to act out on those impulses (perhaps because of a religious conviction or some other reason) decided to buy flowers from Ms. Stutzman, perhaps for his mom. And let's say the florist sells him flowers and she knows he identifies as gay. But, at the same time, she refuses to offer services for a gay wedding. Is this truly discrimination against a person for being gay, or is it discrimination against the actions of homosexuality? It may be a fine line, but I think it's worth at least acknowledging.
• Additionally, I think it's easy for LGBT advocates to get overly militaristic at times (just as evangelicals often do). From some of what I have read, it seems Stutzman did attempt to offer the gay couple a referral for another florist. So, it does not seem like she is some evil lady trying to hate on "the gays." Rather, she is a person of conscience (like a significant minority of Americans) who are not comfortable with gay marriage and who view homosexuality as a sin. For many of us, we strive to love our LGBT brothers and sisters, but the liberal narratives of being anti-gay marriage as equivalent to being hateful or bigoted or uneducated are simply not fair. Those who are pro-LGBT rights would do well to remember that it has only been very recently that a majority (and only a slim majority) of Americans back their cause. Triumphalism and shouting down the opposition does nothing to draw us toward unity or truth. Not all who oppose gay marriage are hateful. Many of us continue to wrestle with the issue.
• Finally, pro-gay rights individuals should remember that (for Christians) this is a debate about sin. Is homosexuality a sin or not? This is no small question and the Church remains incredibly divided on this issue. So, for Christians who have become convicted that gay marriage is acceptable because it is something different than what the Bible addresses, be patient with the other half. Don't get angry or judgmental just because you are passionate about what you see as an issue of "justice." Remember you are asking your brothers and sisters to change their minds about sin. For any Christian, this is not a matter to be taken lightly as getting the answer wrong (in either direction) could amount to an offense against God. So, be filled with grace (both sides).

So there are my thoughts. In summary, the law seems pretty clear, but the underlying issue is not. I don't think Christians can really argue that Stutzman wasn't breaking the law (I think she probably was), but what remains open is whether those laws themselves are unjust or how people on both sides of the debate choose to relate to and characterize each other going forward.