A six year old sinner?

April 1, 2008 by justthischris

To me it’s much more honest to reference the personal theologically rather than the universal. So, let me tell a humorous but serious story about our family devotions this morning. The topic was Jesus’ hard work for sinners. We use the tried and true devotional Little Visits with God. My parents used the 1960s version and that’s what we use now. Anyway, I got to asking my youngest daughter what a sinner was.

“Someone who sins.”

“That’s right. Who’s a sinner?”

“We are.”

“But are you a sinner?”

“No.”

“Really? Are you sure?”

“Yes.”

“What about when you fight with your sister and say mean things. Aren’t you a sinner then?”

“No. I’m not a sinner.”

My wife and I looked at each other and did our best not to break into laughter. Somehow I guess she imagines that she’s too cute to be a sinner. On Sunday in our small group in church we prayed for her that she’d come to know Jesus. I made a little remark about her being a heathen to my old friend and he seemed uncomfortable with that. He knew that she wasn’t a heathen. It must be hard to consider a six year old a heathen. I suppose that especially with our children this business about sin is difficult to talk about.

I wrote about sin last year. It takes faith to believe in sin. That old idea that sin is the one universally self evident truth is dangerously untrue. This is why coercing someone into a “sinners prayer” is unhealthy, because the faith to understand our status before God has to be cultivated. In many ways this is why it is delightful to teach children about Jesus. They hear me talk about sin and then they see me sin and confess and repent. Last night I was grumpy with my daughter because she was so antsy and high strung and I was feeling sick. I lay in bed last night and repented for making her feel like I didn’t want her around. This morning when she came into the room the first thing she heard me say was that I needed her forgiveness.

To learn to have faith in Jesus is not the same thing as learning social mores in order to keep from getting into trouble. But I think that all children spend time thinking that way. I once overheard my older daughter saying to her younger sister, “Did you know there are people who don’t know Jesus? Isn’t that scary!?! They’re going to go to hell!” That alarmed me because I realized that she begins learning about faith in terms of the in-group (those saved) and the out-group (those yet to be saved). I tried to explain to her that we shouldn’t fear people who don’t know Jesus, but I think she still struggles with that.

Maybe the biggest struggle for raising children in the faith is teaching them that Jesus called his disciples to take up their cross and follow Him, and that in our own Scriptures to share in Christ’s sufferings is part of the privilege of faith. Six year olds called to suffer?  Yes, this will take some time.

Rom. 5:1  (NRSV)

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2  through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.
And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
4  and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
5  and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.
6  For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

arab in america

March 28, 2008 by justthischris

So before their time it hurts.

March 24, 2008 by justthischris

The year was 1991. Johnny Cash hadn’t been “discovered” again by Rick Ruben yet. Punk hadn’t been “discovered” by the Christian world yet. The cowpunk and Alt. Country idea was sorta kinda taking off, but certainly not yet reflected in sales. Anyway, a group from Houston Texas known as One Bad Pig asked Johnny Cash to record his “Man in Black” with them. Check out the song on their MySpace page. If you haven’t heard it you may agree with me that their cover was something special. No Depression should put it on their next sampler if they’re still going to do those.

they were right

March 21, 2008 by justthischris
“Now my boy goes like a house on fire

He’ll never burn out and he’ll never retire

And I remember when I used to think like that

When I was young and the world was flat

But I’m forty some years old now and man I don’t care

All I want now is just a comfortable chair”

—James McMurtry “Childish Things”

My parents were right when they said, “You’ll understand when you’ve lived awhile longer.”This morning I pulled out my guitar and softly strummed and sang “Children of the Heavenly Father” and “I am Jesus Little Lamb” for my daughter and my wife. I was taught these in middle school in the children’s choir at my Lutheran church. I did not appreciate them then. They seemed like sentimental drivel and I probably made fun of them. Now that mom is gone and I have three young children myself they mean the world to me.

 

 

“Neither life nor death shall ever

From the Lord His children sever;

Unto them His grace He showeth,

And their sorrows all He knoweth.

Though He giveth or He taketh,

God His children ne’er forsaketh;

His the loving purpose solely

To preserve them pure and holy”

—Lina Sandell “Children of the Heavenly Father”

 

“I am Jesus’ little lamb,Ever glad at heart I am;

For my Shepherd gently guides me,

Knows my need, and well provides me,

Loves me every day the same,Even calls me by my name.

Day by day, at home, away,

Jesus is my Staff and Stay.

When I hunger, Jesus feeds me,

Into pleasant pastures leads me;

When I thirst, He bids me go

Where the quiet waters flow.

Who so happy as I am,

Even now the Shepherd’s lamb?

And when my short life is ended,

By His angel host attended,

He shall fold me to His breast,

There within His arms to rest.”

—Henriette L. von Hayn, “I Am Jesus Little Lamb,” A Moravian hymn.

Lust and the Church

March 17, 2008 by justthischris

There is something completely sinister about lust. What do I mean by lust? Wikipedia calls it “any intense desire or craving for self gratification and excitement.” I guess that’s about as “point blank” as I could get. Usually it’s a reference to sexual gratification. I think it’s fair to call it a religious word because faith has everything in the world to do with its origin. To “wish” or “desire” describes an active imagination, does it not? But not just an active imagination, but an imagination informed by a given context: Christianity. We trace the Western sexual norms that inform what we call “lust,” (ie. unacceptable dress, fornication, pornography, sodomy, and yes–even still homosexuality) within the context of Christendom. So, in reference to a time we now call PostChristendom, a time when Christendom as we knew it has waned but leaves its fractured definition of lust everywhere, what sort of Church has what it takes to speak to lust in this era?

Maybe I should begin by acknowledging that when Christendom was quite strong it had no real control over the sexual imaginations of men and women. Ever read Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales? It’s a collection of tales about people on a pilgrimage from Southwark to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral. These people are certainly not free of lust, even on a pilgrimage! Then of course we know of the roles that prostitutes and mistresses played to priests, bishops and kings at that time in such a large way that, though not “accepted,” was socially condoned and yes, economically subsidized. Did the Church ever consider lust a virtue? Of course not. It topped the list of deadly sins and became representative of the devil’s work in art.

What did the demonization of lust accomplish? For some, it chastened their minds. For others it only fueled their imaginations. They got creative with it, learned new ways to hide and practice it within the social norms, and then of course it only made lust that much more powerful for some.

It should be noted that like gluttony and sloth, lust rules the lives of some people and seems to have barely a place in others. It should also be noted that what lust represents within Christian faith, namely the deification of desire, is more important than what it represents to society, namely an obsessive mind that has the possibility of getting the body into naughty places. What is it that’s so sinister about lust?

It thrives on all that is good about being human, all that is God given, all that is pure. Faith depends on the faithful use of our imaginations. Lust depends on our imaginations, but drags them into a corner to be alone. Love depends on the habitual use of our bodies to serve others. Lust depends on the habitual use of the body to take from others. Our minds were created for relationships. Whatever we do functions best when brought into a shared context. Lust too needs relation, it desires it, craves it, but is all the while fearful that somehow its needs won’t be met. Like a child with a starvation complex lust hoards the other because it sees what it wants with the constant fear that it will soon disappear.

What can the Church do for its members whose wills and imaginations have been overtaken by lust? First, it should acknowledge that, yes indeed, they are members of the Body of Christ! The teaching of the Church should be informed by the Scriptures and its wealth of experience and history. There is a wealth of great teaching out there on the subject. But, we should acknowledge that because lust, like faith, depends on the imagination, the effects of lust themselves on a body so warp that imagination that one can be absorbing faithful teaching one minute and giving full leash to lust the next! In this way the very heart that prays to be faithful knows that it has a mind so informed by past lust that it cannot desire and wish correctly. It knows that at its very core it is broken.

The Church that acknowledges its members and their sin must be faithful not to want to hide them or their sin when society wants a prettier picture. Too often the Church has wanted to reveal itself in power. In America this means mimicking the business community. The problem is that Jesus Christ is Lord of our hearts and minds and he makes claims that even the business community won’t dare. He claims Lordship over work and leisure, asking all of our imaginative strength.

The Church in a PostChristendom society must demonstrate its power in Repentance. It must show that repentance does not mean “I’m sorry.” It means shedding the old and putting on the new. It means “taking the actions of love to improve our relations with others.” (The AA Big Book) In order to care for those overtaken in the sin of lust, Christians must be the kind of people willing to confess sins and receive the discipline of the Church. Of course this is all voluntary, which means we will usually take the path of least resistance—and not do it! Instead of asking “Do I want to confess my sins and be restored to the Church?” maybe the inverse will help for a time. “Do I want to hide my sins and play Church even though it’s destroying me and real Church is what I desperately need!”

Now for the most sinister side of Lust. Lust creates its own telos or end. This writer knows first hand that lust is its own religion. It is a doppelgänger for love, using the same physical senses most creative and sacred for humans, but with an economy of instant gratification. In this way lust is perfect for Americans. It creates need in keeping with our social impulse to buy, consume and protect. Yes, this is an end in itself. But it’s clear that it is no true fulfillment. Lust has devastating effects. It creates humans with little caves in their hearts and big serpents in their minds.

But here, into this very point of broken obsession walks Jesus. Look at all the sexually broken people he included in his ministry. The unfaithful woman set to be stoned in John 8:3-11 is set free and becomes perhaps the first public example of Jesus’ antipathy toward Church authorities whose hearts are just as sullied as the accused. The sinful woman who anointed his feet hears the good news that “her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” [Luke 7:48] And finally, Mary of Magdala, a woman of the night with demons, becomes the first to meet Jesus after his resurrection and the first Evangelist. [John 20:16-18]

In so far as the Church has the power to call men and women to repentance it remains a Church with power to help its own members get free of lust. The “wink, wink, nudge, nudge, now turn a blind eye and put on our best face” approach has the same effect as the clothesline sermon or the “scare the devil out of them” approach, namely to cause the person with lust to hide and practice the addiction. We’ve used both too often and neither works. Our only hope is to return to Jesus, the One who with the Father and the Spirit provide all the love we’ll ever need.

What’s your conflict threshold?

March 13, 2008 by justthischris

In my consensus reading I see that conflict is an important part of consensus. One of the main problems in consensus is the avoidance of conflict. This made me ask, “What is my own conflict threshold?” I’m getting better, but on a scale of one to ten I’d reckon I’m at about a three. If I hear two people arguing about an issue I care about and I feel they’ll want to involve me, I’ll usually try to dodge them. I’m starting to get a better picture as to my own political person. As much as I talk politics, when it comes down to confrontation and conflict—I’m your classic long neck in the sand.

Consensus is work!

March 12, 2008 by justthischris

In Jacques Ellul’s spirit of making a statement and then quickly arguing three sides of it that seem contradictory, my last post on Consensus built largely on a popular notion of what consensus is, namely, a majority rule. Brian Grover reminded me that that’s actually what consensus is not. Since yesterday I have been reading On Conflict and Consensus: a handbook on Formal Consensus decisionmaking by C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein. You could consider it an alternative to parliamentary procedure, namely Robert’s Rules of Order. Does this sound boring? I mean—who likes meetings?

Consensus is a decision making process. Every community and every church have decision making processes, but what Butler and Rothstein’s book address is the fact that many needed people get left out of that process. What quickly becomes apparent however is that in order for people to be included they have to want to be included.  Consensus relies on the assumption that we all have an important voice with matters to be considered. Herein lies the problem with politics in America.

Instead of believing that as citizens we each have a voice capable of thoughtful political discussion, we are a society of people content with uninvolvement. We get angry about the war or angry at people who are angry at the war and we clam up and turn on Fox News or MSNBC (sorry Jon) and fill our brains with rhetoric rather than formulating actual positions. Do you all know what polling places want to see on election day? What they would say is a good day? 50% of registered voters.  And then we have theorists who say, “This demonstrates a healthy democracy. People are satisfied with the economy and our system of checks and balances. That’s why they don’t vote.” Now that is something to be angry about!

Real consensus is hard to achieve because as Americans and as Christians we are not adequately equipped with resources necessary to formulate real dialogue. I know for instance that in church calling a large meeting to discuss the war would have a lower turnout than if we handed out fifty dollar bills and assigned seats in a van to go and collectively get root canals at the dentist! (In fact I think a lot of us want those!) Why? Because as a society we’ve been trained to feel helpless on international issues. Now isn’t it the church’s job to empower people? To let them know that Christ’s Kingdom reality can change the world? Yes, but I would argue that this must happen one person at a time, and you know what? People forget. People revert to old bad patterns of thinking. People are sinners. Yes, consensus is work.

On seeking consensus

March 11, 2008 by justthischris

A friend of mine here at JPUSA has brought to my attention that there are quite a few people who think that my leftist (his term) views, particularly on the war in Iraq, are the official voice at JPUSA. Well, let me set the record straight. I do not personally speak for JPUSA, and neither should anyone ever think that my politics are the result of a majority consensus. With this in mind, let me open a huge can of worms and say that I believe consensus to be a dangerous thing.

The Christian Church has quite a rich history that can inform this matter of seeking consensus. It’s not a pretty picture. It’s quite messy. In Jesus’ name Christians too often have sought to be “on the same page” politically, socially, and doctrinally in a way that left many people ostracized, shunned, and yes—dead. St. Augustine’s position on the Donatists and Luther’s position on the peasants and the Jews is one example.

Here at JPUSA I am proud of the fact that we don’t stipulate that members must share a particular position on the War in Iraq. I am far less proud that I don’t have more open conversations about it. I have too often sought the path of least resistance. Sometimes that’s been good and sometimes that’s wrong. God knows far better than I where I stand in that regard.

I came to Chicago from Southwestern Missouri.  I think of Chicago, and my neighborhood in particular, as a bubble politically. I feel safe to speak my mind politically without fear that I’ll lose my job or be shunned by my family. I know that’s a luxury that not everyone has. It is possible for me to surround myself with an alternative “progressive” faith that affirms everything I want to hear. I don’t have to listen to SRN news or Prime Time America with Greg Wheatley on mainstream Christian radio stations (which I consider propaganda) I can pick NPR and the BBC for my news. Jim Wallis can be my new little pope as an alternative to James Dobson, and together we’ll pride ourselves on the New Christian Left, using revival language to snare people who like Jonathan Edwards (sans the “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon). But I also know what this is—it is building for myself a little safe camp of consensus, a world of 24/7 agreement where I get to hear, “Oh you’re so smart Chris! And look at those fools, they’re so dumb!” This makes me think of the episode of Spongebob where Squidwerd finally finds a town where everyone is just like him (anal). And you know what happens? He hates it!

Lack of consensus is painful. Someone always feels left out, alone, and yes resentful. There are those who chide us at JPUSA because we won’t come up with a clear statement on issues like the war, or who the next president should be. They argue that lives are at stake. You know what I say? I say that my life is richer because of my brother or sister who disagrees with me. That guy I stand in the dinner line with is more important to me than a position paper making some of us right and some wrong. It’s true that a refusal to join the Left or Right is an invitation to get shot at by both sides. It is a divestment from power, and it makes me think of the kenosis in Phillipians 2.

2:1  If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy,
2  make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
3  Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.
4  Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.
5  Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6  who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
7  but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,
8  he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death– even death on a cross.
9  Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
10  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11  and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12  Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13  for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
14  Do all things without murmuring and arguing,
15  so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world.
16  It is by your holding fast to the word of life that I can boast on the day of Christ that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
17  But even if I am being poured out as a libation over the sacrifice and the offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you–
18  and in the same way you also must be glad and rejoice with me.

Regardless of where our country heads politically this year I will be on the losing side—intentionally. Why? Because I care about human beings more than being right. Because I refuse to be any demagogue’s patsie–be they left or right. And because I believe in those Scriptures that call the Lord judge over all the earth, the real Ruler.

Now, on Iraq, I am against all forms of military occupation. The economic sanctions destroyed Iraq and killed countless civilians long before Bush ordered one bomb dropped. The US has proven itself a biased and illegitimate broker in Middle East peace under both Clinton and Bush. (Israeli settlements grew least under George H.W. Bush!) Find me a candidate that will say that!

The Scandal of Evangelical Politics by Ronald J. Sider

March 7, 2008 by justthischris

The Scandal of Evangelical Politics by Ronald J. Sider
Baker Books, 275 pages, 2008. Reviewed by Chris L. Rice.

This is an exciting time to be an Evangelical with an active interest in politics. In the early part of the twentieth century Evangelicals were known to be withdrawn, and then, in the early 1990s we rushed headlong into a single partisan agenda. One leader within the movement at this time (Ed Dobson) typified the approach as “ready, fire, aim.” The movement lacked careful reflection and a wholistic Biblical ethic that focused on the whole person. In his latest book, The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Why Are Christians Missing the Chance to Really Change the World?, Ron Sider lays out a new framework for political engagement that draws on his many years of learning, teaching, and practicing mainstream political diplomacy. The work is stunningly ecumenical, drawing on what Sider sees as the need for consensus among several streams of Church history and tradition. Sider draws on Jurgen Moltmonn, Reinhold Neibuhr, Abraham Kuyper, Karl Barth, John Howard Yoder, and alludes to the important work of Lutherans such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Dr. Sider successfully shows us that we need a methodology that carefully and prayerfully engages politically, but that does not neglect the important role of the Church as an equally important and uniquely separate realm from the State. This simple point is a minefield for theorists. How much, if at all, can the State be trusted? How much can fellow Christians be trusted when we disagree on so much? In his own irenic manner, Sider concentrates on the Scriptures and the issues on which Evangelicals have had success, and looks forward to a better future despite the many setbacks. Sider knows that politics, like life itself, is full of tragic failure.

Over the last twenty five years Evangelicals have pursued a path that neglected the Church’s true riches and instead sought power for its own sake. Sider seems sure that that era is waning. He continually draws our attention to the document “For the Health of the Nation,” which he helped draft for the board of the National Association of Evangelicals.

“The Bible makes it clear that God cares a great deal about the well-being of marriage, the family, the sanctity of human life, justice for the poor, care for creation, peace, freedom, and racial justice.” (pg. 233)

On the personal side, I’m excited by Ron Sider’s treatise (for that’s really what this is) and especially his desire that Evangelical politics be communal in nature, that instead of separate camps we have open think tanks. I’d just love to see that in action. Are Richard Land and James Dobson going to faithfully attend open dialogues on Peacemaking and Creation Care? Will they be endorsers of Dr. Sider’s idea (pg. 205) that churches invest millions on CPT styled peacemaking delegations to the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe? Will Land and Dobson change their minds on the Global Warming and the earth’s oil supply?

See what I’m getting at? Evangelicals have sharp differences on peacemaking and the environment, and let’s not forget economics! It was only one year ago now that these same leaders who signed the NAE document sought Richard Czik’s ouster for supporting it! With this in mind is consensus really possible? If we’re looking at real numbers, most Evangelicals are Southern Baptists! Hello! I hope to God Dallas Theological Seminary adopts Ron Sider’s book into its classes. But I’m not holding my breath.

I believe in what Ron Sider is doing in this book. I’m not always satisfied with his approach in particular chapters. Having cut my own teeth on Bonhoeffer and Barth, Sider is certainly no dialectician. He can’t seem to speak backwards and forwards at the same time. At times he seems to fear postmodernism, and sounds downright pollyanish about democracy in another place, but then the further I read, I realize he’s not speaking of any particular democracy on earth but the idea of democracy within his own model. He believes in democracy in so far as it has checks and balances, fair courts, and ability to fairly distribute wealth. But then again, what is American democracy really like?

At any rate, this book really inspired me, educated me, taught me that there’s so much more to be learned about political diplomacy. James Skillen of the Center for Public Justice is prominent in this book along with many other policy analysts such as Stephen Monsma, and Stephen Carter. (Buy the book for the bibliography alone.) If you’ve ever felt alone or unique in your political vantage point as an Evangelical, pick up this book. Its one of those that you have to bookmark in front and back, reading the text and the notes together very carefully. I’ve spent a month of in depth reading with it, and quite honestly I could go through it again. Most importantly, this book fosters intelligent conversations. Its real heart is to create honest dialogue in our churches. Lord knows we need more of that.

BTW, Palmer Seminary’s conference is coming up March 28-30. Find a schedule here.

Lowering the Upper Case in Evangelical

March 3, 2008 by justthischris

It would seem almost to be a minor detail. All of a sudden the word Evangelical has become lower cased. Evangelical is now diversified into evangelicals. Once it was a reference to the Billy Graham Evangelical. The NeoEvangelicals, to be exact. Fundamentalists who interacted with society and loved the poor. Now it’s become evangelicals, meaning anyone with enough media pull, a big enough church, or a book on the New York Times bestseller list. Thus evangelicals are those who Christianity Today says they are. Or the National Association of Evangelicals. Or the National Religious Broadcasters. Sigh. This still doesn’t answer the question. The question of who claims to speak for evangelicals doesn’t answer the question of who they are.

Let’s face facts. Evangelicals have long been using opinion polls, government and private statistics to form their identity. Why do we do this? For umph, for pull, and yes for power. But let’s ask what polls cannot do. They cannot with any real determination define us as humans. If the central tenet of evangelicalism is belief in a Personal God who loves and relates to each part of humanity without bias, then why are evangelicals so concerned with power as a group and maintaining the distinct market grouping known as evangelical? Why do we take advantage of every wind of change in order to broker power? If, as Chuck Colson says, there is a changing of the guard going on, I pray the next guard sees through the power game and begins a divestment from it and a focus on people and creation.