A key influence in my life half a lifetime ago was Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (1978). I haven't read more of his writings since, though I assume he is still producing thoughtful works on the Christian's responsibility to live the life of faith and fight for justice on behalf of the world's oppressed. The other day I checked out the internet to see what he has been doing more recently. Particularly he's come out with an update (2005) of this earlier seminal work that has been so widely read and discussed.
A main theme of Sider's writings, particularly in a more recent book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (2008) is that there is within evangelical Christianity a great inconsistency between Christian beliefs and Christian living. Anecdotally, I wholeheartedly agree, which for me is the reason the field of Ethics is so essential. Ethics, to give it my sound-byte definition, is "living out what we believe." Francis Schaeffer once asked, but never fully answered, the question, "How Shall We Then Live?" It is an answer Sider continues to pursue.
An ongoing theme in Sider's writings and in the organization he founded, Evangelicals for Social Action, is that the Evangelical political agenda refuses to embrace the poor. In stark contrast, there is extensive evidence that Evangelicalism (worldwide as well as with its American version) is on the frontlines in ministries of compassion. Historically, Evangelicals were agitators for political change on behalf of the poor during the 19th Century - everything from abolition of slavery to child labor laws. But since what David O. Moberly has called the "Great Reversal" (1972) at the beginning of the 20th Century, white American Evangelicalism, in particular, has focused almost exclusively on the individual poor and resisted becoming involved in systemic change (thus the preponderance of the word "conservative" in Evangelical political discourse). The most glaring example of this is the Civil Rights movement of mid-century in which, unlike the abolitionist movement of 100 years earlier, Evangelicals either sat on the sidelines or, more accurately, pushed back against the cause for racial justice and equality.
I think about that. Does Christian social and political involvement extend only to the personal? The role of government plays heavily in political discourse among American Christians. The size of government -- which seems to be a key defining point in American politics -- may be an important issue to grapple with, but how does it play out biblically speaking?
Which brings up another point, just what biblical issues are there that we as Believers need to devote our lives to? How are we to be involved with God in fulfilling the prayer Jesus taught his disciples? "Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven." Whatever our beliefs about the "end times", we as Evangelicals wholeheartedly assert that God does indeed have a preferred vision for this world and that we as Believers are called to execute that preferred vision, not just wait for the "by and by."
As I've studied the Good Book over the years, I keep running into foundational themes - themes like justice and righteousness (which so often go hand in hand); mercy and compassion for the most vulnerable; the value of human life at every stage and in every diverse form; God's love for His created order; and the (sometimes grotesquely abused) gifts God wills His children in the forms of prosperity, health, wholeness, and freedom for all peoples.
God's Word doesn't have a lot to say about forms of government, but it has tons to say about how any government should behave. And I don't find the kinds of distinctions we moderns make between personal and systemic justice and righteousness, only that it is God's will that every last person, every last government and social unit, and even all of creation receive and extend all the goodness God desires to bestow -- which is a whole lot.
What I also notice is that God does not distinguish between worthy and unworthy recipients of His blessings. God is said to send rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous, to be no respecter of persons, which means He treats us all alike. There is, in God's eyes, no odd distinction such as "worthy" poor. We are all unworthy -- that is why God's blessings are filed under the category of "grace."
So, I come to the conclusion, once again, that God's preferred vision lies far beyond our left-right continuum. And it is out there in the "far beyond" that we are called to as well. Stick that in your political pipe and smoke it.
2009-11-18
2009-11-11
Beyond Right and Left - Part II
In an engaging column in the 2009.11.16 print edition of Time magazine, James Poniewozik raises some thoughtful questions about our right-left take on politics: "Categories like Pew's 'liberal,' 'conservative,' and 'neither' imply that our society is as simplistic about media bias as we are about politics (when in fact both involve nuanced positions)."
Poniewozik goes on to speak of the unspoken bias of the moderate or centrist position and he concludes that when we speak of bias, there is a whole plethora of biases in society, right, left and even center. Moreover, there is, he says, no one conservative bias or one liberal bias or even one centrist bias, but all kinds of ranges and variations. Which makes the rantings of talk show hosts sound all the more incredible (as in absurd). Particularly disturbing in all the present polarization is the demonization of the opposition. If someone can never find anything good to say about those "on the other side", then I immediately question the rationality of the speaker's "reflections." (I put reflections in quotes because the word implies something far quieter than ranting provides.)
Which brings me to the point that there is little room in our current world for nuance of thought. And yet no two people are ever going to agree on everything, unless one of them is a master of mind control. But we generally do not acknowledge the existence of nuances or at the least assume that any differences are immaterial.
However, as I advance on what I trust is an authentic journey of faith, I realize that these subtleties do make a big difference. Friends have encouraged me to watch this video claiming that Obama is a Muslim. I guess it balances out videos friends on "the other side" have sent me. Otherwise I find nothing in it of value or truth. But I do note that the video makes a big deal of apparent nuances, such as word choices and posturings. It is what I wrote of a couple postings ago in this blog about "where there is smoke, there is not necessarily fire." Nuances are tricky things to differentiate.
This past weekend I got into a fun scrap with some FB friends over some political ramblings and one of those friends said that some position I had or he claimed I had was an oxymoron. My oldest son read that later and clarified that it was a paradox more than an oxymoron because too many words were involved. My investment in his education is proving useful.
What makes something oxymoronic or paradoxical (depending on how many words are involved)? Really it comes down to perspective. From one person's viewpoint a pro-life Democrat or a pro-environmental Republican is an oxymoron. If we look at these things on a right-left continuum, we are forced to conclude that the truth must lie somewhere on this continuum and the truth is that truth cannot therefore be oxymoronic.
Or can it? I take a fresh look at faith and realize that faith is always oxymoronic, paradoxical from a human perspective. God exists beyond the realm of human perspective. Somehow God the Infinite through Jesus the Revealer has invaded and inhabited our finite time-space dimension, but this God is not confined by that continuum as we are. Thus the biblical writer speaks of Jesus as being yesterday, today and forever the same. He is beyond our 3D universe.
If we can, in the same way, see the relationship between God and our finite world of politics and faith, then it gives us a fresh perspective. If there is a right-left continuum, there is no one point on the continuum that embodies truth. Truth is beyond our human reasoning, be it right, left or middle. Truth, in Jesus Christ, invades and inhabits our right-left continuum, but Truth is not confined by that continuum as we are. The truth, therefore, does not, as the saying goes, lie somewhere in the middle any more than it does on the right or on the left. It is much richer, more nuanced and far more dynamic than that. But what the truth of Jesus Christ reveals to us is that it can be known by us mere mortals, even in our one-dimensional political universe.
Poniewozik goes on to speak of the unspoken bias of the moderate or centrist position and he concludes that when we speak of bias, there is a whole plethora of biases in society, right, left and even center. Moreover, there is, he says, no one conservative bias or one liberal bias or even one centrist bias, but all kinds of ranges and variations. Which makes the rantings of talk show hosts sound all the more incredible (as in absurd). Particularly disturbing in all the present polarization is the demonization of the opposition. If someone can never find anything good to say about those "on the other side", then I immediately question the rationality of the speaker's "reflections." (I put reflections in quotes because the word implies something far quieter than ranting provides.)
Which brings me to the point that there is little room in our current world for nuance of thought. And yet no two people are ever going to agree on everything, unless one of them is a master of mind control. But we generally do not acknowledge the existence of nuances or at the least assume that any differences are immaterial.
However, as I advance on what I trust is an authentic journey of faith, I realize that these subtleties do make a big difference. Friends have encouraged me to watch this video claiming that Obama is a Muslim. I guess it balances out videos friends on "the other side" have sent me. Otherwise I find nothing in it of value or truth. But I do note that the video makes a big deal of apparent nuances, such as word choices and posturings. It is what I wrote of a couple postings ago in this blog about "where there is smoke, there is not necessarily fire." Nuances are tricky things to differentiate.
This past weekend I got into a fun scrap with some FB friends over some political ramblings and one of those friends said that some position I had or he claimed I had was an oxymoron. My oldest son read that later and clarified that it was a paradox more than an oxymoron because too many words were involved. My investment in his education is proving useful.
What makes something oxymoronic or paradoxical (depending on how many words are involved)? Really it comes down to perspective. From one person's viewpoint a pro-life Democrat or a pro-environmental Republican is an oxymoron. If we look at these things on a right-left continuum, we are forced to conclude that the truth must lie somewhere on this continuum and the truth is that truth cannot therefore be oxymoronic.
Or can it? I take a fresh look at faith and realize that faith is always oxymoronic, paradoxical from a human perspective. God exists beyond the realm of human perspective. Somehow God the Infinite through Jesus the Revealer has invaded and inhabited our finite time-space dimension, but this God is not confined by that continuum as we are. Thus the biblical writer speaks of Jesus as being yesterday, today and forever the same. He is beyond our 3D universe.
If we can, in the same way, see the relationship between God and our finite world of politics and faith, then it gives us a fresh perspective. If there is a right-left continuum, there is no one point on the continuum that embodies truth. Truth is beyond our human reasoning, be it right, left or middle. Truth, in Jesus Christ, invades and inhabits our right-left continuum, but Truth is not confined by that continuum as we are. The truth, therefore, does not, as the saying goes, lie somewhere in the middle any more than it does on the right or on the left. It is much richer, more nuanced and far more dynamic than that. But what the truth of Jesus Christ reveals to us is that it can be known by us mere mortals, even in our one-dimensional political universe.
2009-11-04
Beyond Right and Left - Part I
"Moderates do not have principles." Time to switch back to the station I usually listen to. I was on my way home from a fundraiser breakfast in Salem and had stopped by to see my son at college. As the favorite station was getting a bit fuzzy, I had moved over to AM. A famous radio talk show host was bombasting away, explaining to the world why there was only one way to think. At the least, he kept me awake.
Yesterday was election day in a few places across the country, places like New Jersey where I grew up, local and state elections that I hadn't been following. Limbaugh was attacking moderates who advocated for the Republican "big tent" concept. Moderates like the big tent idea in the two main parties, otherwise they'd have to be independents and independents don't usually fare too well in this nation, especially moderate ones.
I take what Rush was saying to mean that people on the political right and left (as we Americans traditionally define right and left) have principles. But those in what is called the middle are compromisers. They lack principles. He did use those terms that way.
I'm not sure my political beliefs line me up in the middle -- or on the right or left for that matter. Which is why I put "unique" as my political persuasion on both my website and on my Facebook info page. I find it a very arduous task to sort out Biblical and Kingdom principles in this human life -- a task nonetheless worth pursuing.
In the life of Faith, there are no neat categories of actions to be taken or positions to be staked. The Bible is not a one-answer fits all catalog of dos and don'ts. It is filled with principles and parables and perspectives that cover all areas of life -- along with some very specific commands, some of which are for all times and all peoples and some of which are very time and people specific. If the Bible were more catalogish and specified, we would not need faith's other two anchors -- the Holy Spirit and the Community of Faith -- to help us sort out life.
So I don't feel totally comfortable with any one position on the traditional left-to-right line on which we tend to paint political, moral and religious persuasions. I like better the idea that, at the least, this line is more a circle in which the most liberal libertarians and the most conservative libertarians meet somewhere on the other side, opposite those big tent moderates who hang between the Republican and Democratic parties. (Every country has its own variations on these themes, so to my non-USA friends, please pardon my culturally specific applications.)
Even at that, I am not sure such a circle captures the heart and passions of God. Make it into a sphere and you get closer. But God is so beyond our three-dimensional world, the sphere would have to have an unlimited number of dimensions.
However, we mortals don't live in more than three dimensions, at least not on an ordinary basis, though I think that is what the Ancient, Paul, was referring to by being caught up to a higher level. Still, it is hard to bring those dimensions into everyday life -- witness the intense and passionate controversy surrounding applications of John's book known as "Revelation".
I don't think God purposed that life be all so complicated for us earth-bound humans. The complications are what we theological and philosophical types call "sin" and "evil". Which is why God sent Jesus, to help us rise above sin and evil and complications, and why Jesus said he'd come back and why many Believers talk about something called the Millennium, a futuristic time when he would show us what God intended all along, a time of living uncomplicatedly in the unlimited dimensions of God here on earth as human beings.
Most Christians agree to some degree with this notion of God's Kingdom on earth. Where we really disagree is how and how much God's multidimensional intentions and expectations impact our here and now. It is what theological types have called the "Already but not yet" of God's reign on earth, something people like Rush and other Righties and Lefties don't quite get.
Yesterday was election day in a few places across the country, places like New Jersey where I grew up, local and state elections that I hadn't been following. Limbaugh was attacking moderates who advocated for the Republican "big tent" concept. Moderates like the big tent idea in the two main parties, otherwise they'd have to be independents and independents don't usually fare too well in this nation, especially moderate ones.
I take what Rush was saying to mean that people on the political right and left (as we Americans traditionally define right and left) have principles. But those in what is called the middle are compromisers. They lack principles. He did use those terms that way.
I'm not sure my political beliefs line me up in the middle -- or on the right or left for that matter. Which is why I put "unique" as my political persuasion on both my website and on my Facebook info page. I find it a very arduous task to sort out Biblical and Kingdom principles in this human life -- a task nonetheless worth pursuing.
In the life of Faith, there are no neat categories of actions to be taken or positions to be staked. The Bible is not a one-answer fits all catalog of dos and don'ts. It is filled with principles and parables and perspectives that cover all areas of life -- along with some very specific commands, some of which are for all times and all peoples and some of which are very time and people specific. If the Bible were more catalogish and specified, we would not need faith's other two anchors -- the Holy Spirit and the Community of Faith -- to help us sort out life.
So I don't feel totally comfortable with any one position on the traditional left-to-right line on which we tend to paint political, moral and religious persuasions. I like better the idea that, at the least, this line is more a circle in which the most liberal libertarians and the most conservative libertarians meet somewhere on the other side, opposite those big tent moderates who hang between the Republican and Democratic parties. (Every country has its own variations on these themes, so to my non-USA friends, please pardon my culturally specific applications.)
Even at that, I am not sure such a circle captures the heart and passions of God. Make it into a sphere and you get closer. But God is so beyond our three-dimensional world, the sphere would have to have an unlimited number of dimensions.
However, we mortals don't live in more than three dimensions, at least not on an ordinary basis, though I think that is what the Ancient, Paul, was referring to by being caught up to a higher level. Still, it is hard to bring those dimensions into everyday life -- witness the intense and passionate controversy surrounding applications of John's book known as "Revelation".
I don't think God purposed that life be all so complicated for us earth-bound humans. The complications are what we theological and philosophical types call "sin" and "evil". Which is why God sent Jesus, to help us rise above sin and evil and complications, and why Jesus said he'd come back and why many Believers talk about something called the Millennium, a futuristic time when he would show us what God intended all along, a time of living uncomplicatedly in the unlimited dimensions of God here on earth as human beings.
Most Christians agree to some degree with this notion of God's Kingdom on earth. Where we really disagree is how and how much God's multidimensional intentions and expectations impact our here and now. It is what theological types have called the "Already but not yet" of God's reign on earth, something people like Rush and other Righties and Lefties don't quite get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)