Faith in Context

John Stott is Dead

John Stott was a gifted preacher and writer; a Church of England pastor with a conservative, evangelical orientation. For most of his life he served as a pastor at All Soul's Church in London where his preaching and teaching attracted record crowds. I can still remember hearing him each morning at the Urbana student missions conference in 1967.

Stott had a clear view of the way in which social concern is fully integrated with evangelism in the mission of Christ. He had a real gift for explaining complex theological issues and proclaiming the gospel with compassion and power. He wrote more than 50 books, including Basic Christianity, which has become a classic. He was rooted in the Scriptures and his writings and recorded sermons remain a rich, reliable source of biblical interpretation and commentary. He was the primary drafter of the 1974 Lausanne Covenant, perhaps the most widely accepted contemporary creedal statement among conservative Protestants.

He was 90. He never married. The royalties from his books went to scholarships for young Christian leaders from developing countries. He was counted as a mentor by such Evangelical leaders as Billy Graham and Rick Warren. He was the father of the Evangelical revival in England in the post-WWII era. I cannot but believe we will see him in the Resurrection.

What is the Connection Between Fundamentalist Faith and Right-wing Politics?

It turns out that the man who killed at least 92 people and wounded 97 more in Norway last week is a self-identified Fundamentalist Christian involved in right-wing politics. He says that he wants to start a war between Christians and Muslims. Why? The Muslim population in Europe and the Christian population is in decline.

What I don't get is why right-wing politics are so often connected with Fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalists say that they take the Bible literally, and there just isn't anything in the literal teachings of Jesus that support right-wing politics. The literal teachings of Jesus are clearly against any kind of war or even immigration restrictions against Muslims.

Are these just people who are mentally confused or cannot read? Can anyone explain this connection to me? Is this just a matter of people who take the traditional view of things?

What happened in Norway is a real tragedy. Perhaps the one good thing resulting from it is that a lot of people were in church this weekend who don't usually go. Maybe this senseless violence will help some find the hope that is in Jesus.

Is Your Church Ready for August 3?

It is difficult to predict the complicated politics that surround the current situation in the United States. It is my prayer that our elected leaders will come to their senses and work out a compromise that avoids an economic disaster. But what if they do not? Are there immediate implications for your congregation and ministry? Are you making preparations and coasting along in faith that things will work out?

According to politically neutral sources if there is no compromise that raises the debt ceiling then on August 3 the Social Security checks that are scheduled to go out cannot be more than two-thirds what those senior citizens have usually received each month. Due to other needs that must be covered, such as essential security services and wages for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is more likely those checks will be half the normal monthly amount.

Most congregations have a number of senior citizens who will not be able to pay their rent in August. All Christian churches will have neighbors who will not be able to pay their rent. "Who is your neighbor?" What will Jesus expect of His followers? What plans are you making to be faithful followers if such an emergency comes about?

Income will drop in almost all congregations. If your congregation has members who are employees of the Federal government, there is a high chance (about one in five) that they will be without paychecks. For those who are faithful tithers, 10 percent of nothing is nothing.

There is a tendency for pastors and local church leaders to look at this has unlikely and a political problem which the church should stay out of. It is my prayer they are right, but is it good stewardship to sail into this with no preparation; no alternative plans just in case?

What is the Morality of the Budget Compromise?

I confess, I am deeply disappointed in our president and our congress. It seems to me that the politicians have arrived at a compromise that is morally flawed to a degree that I would have rather seen the government shut down.

The compromise means that we are making much larger cuts in the essential services for the poorest and most marginalized in America than we are in the military and at the same time we are doing nothing to increase income from taxes, even among those who could easily pay a little more without any negative impact on their families, their corporations or the economy.

One example: One budget cut is $600 million from the Community Health Centers program. This is a large percentage of the total budget for this program which provides the only primary health care services to over 5 million of our poorest and most vulnerable neighbors.

A budget is a moral document. So, why cut here? This is not about abortion (an issue about which I am conflicted), nor is it about welfare (there are no benefits involved). It will cost all of us more by increasing our private health insurance costs because untreated illness will end up in emergency rooms instead of being cared for in the more appropriate context of a community health center. No one has ever said that the community health centers were a location of significant fraud or waste. These are small, local organizations run on a shoe-string.

The display of selfishness and greed in this package is so obvious that I cannot in good conscience vote again for any of the politicians who enginereed it! We are being overwhelmed by the fears of the wealthy that somehow in the current situation they are going to lose something. There is no evidence of any actual losses of consequence to date. Yes, my retirement accounts are worth less than they were. I may have to postpone my retirement. But that is not the same thing as being forced out on the street with no access to health care.

Many of these politicians are fans of the ideas expressed in the novels of Ayn Rand. (In fact, it appears that one key Senator may be named after her.) I do not think that any authentic follower of Jesus can accept these concepts. They are clearly contrary to His demand that we care for the neighbor. Remember, that her concepts deal not just with what should be done by the government and what should be done by private charity, but with the whole concept of helping others in any form. Jesus says that her approach is cruel, unjust and immoral. The fact that we have leading politicians who openly profess agreement with her immoral lifestyle and philosophy is a measure of how low American morality has declined.

As more details emerge from this compromise budget, the more I am sickened. I would challenge all Christians to increase your personal giving to local, faith-based charities that serve the poor. It is going to require triple the giving you did last year to make up for the cuts in this budget.

I would be happy to cut the budget further than the compromise. I would be happy to forgo all highway funds and drive on even more pot holes and dangerous bridges than I do now. I would be happy to cut it until it balances. But not on the backs of the poor. That is simply wrong. This is a demonstration of the moral weakness of our political leaders. And if we keep re-electing them it reflects clearly on our own morality.

Does Congress Have the Right to Investigate a Religion?

Last week an investigating committee of the U.S. Congress began hearings on the Muslim faith in America, questioning the loyalty of Americans who belong to that religion. There have been a handful of Americans over the last decade who were Muslim adherents and got involved in terrorism. This became the pretext for probing an entire religious community. Strangely enough the chairman of the committee who instigated the investigation (Rep. Peter King) has been a supporter of a terrorist organization in the past, the Irish Republican Army. Perhaps this his only claim to any expertise, although it seems that he may have been a political opportunist then and now.

Does not the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Bill of Rights prohibit such an escapade in political intimidation and prejudice? My guess is that it does, but unless the Congress actually produces a law on the topic, the Supreme Court has no way to get at the situation and enforce the Bill of Rights. This is another example of how politicians play games with the system. These hearings will not actually accomplish anything other than posturing and the distribution of propaganda.

Why has it become so popular for some Americans to express anger and prejudice against their Muslim neighbors? These are almost all people who came to the United States because they wanted to live in a country with the kind of freedoms that exist here. Despite the handful of extremists who promote such issues as Sharia Law, clearly more than nine out of ten Muslim Americans do not care to live in a country where church and state are allies in enforcing religious beliefs and practices. Are those non-Muslim Americans who popularize this anti-Muslim propaganda equally loyal to the basic values of America? Or, is this another way for them to espouse the cause of a "Christian America" that would do away with the Bill of Rights guarantee of religious liberty?

To me, Congressman King and his allies are suspect. This whole exercise smells of a hidden agenda. The people most likely to destroy the Bill of Rights in America are not the small minority of Muslims. They are those in power with such extreme notions of nationalism and twisted ideas about the Christian faith. They remind me of the "German Christians" movement in Europe in the 1930s. It is possible for a movement that starts out Christian to become so involved in nationalistic political goals that they are no longer real followers of Jesus. He taught is followers to "turn the other cheek," to be humble and caring, to "love your enemies." Jesus never approved of the Crusades. They were sin in His eyes. I am sure that God's heart has been broken by the long, bloody history of conflict between those who claim these faiths. He does not approve of investigating Muslims in America today, so far as I can see. Nor, as a practical matter, will these hearings actually accomplish any prevention of future terrorism.

Tragedy in Arizona

The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords; the deaths of a friend who was the ranking Federal judge in the state, staff associates, three local women in their 70s and a girl in Third Grade. Will we continue to consider these public shootings in schools, shopping centers, fast-food restaurants, etc., as simply the result of a mental health problem, or are we ready to look seriously at a fundamental moral flaw in contemporary ideas about society?

When people are encouraged to craft their own political reality, to see these issues as life-and-death epic questions, and to hype frustration into full-blow anger (as well as have easier access to firearms) there are predictable results among those of weak mind. Too many politicians have been using this brew to win elections, manipulating people into thinking that policies or programs they don't like are "unconstitutional" and"taking away our freedoms" and Americans have a right to "apply a Second Amendment solution." In many ways this is parallel to the left-wing peace movement activists (such as the Weathermen) who thought it was OK to stand up for peace by blowing up weapons labs and campus science buildings in the 1960s and 1970s, but today it is the right wing that is most often indulging in this kind of language.

It is one thing for adults who would never actually do anything criminal to blow off steam with language of this kind. But, the children are listening. Young people with mental health problems overhear our angry outbursts and our political strategies designed to manipulate the anger of voters. Why do we refuse to learn from Columbine High School or Virginia Tech? How many tragedies does it take? How high up do assassinations have to go before we are willing to exercise personal responsibility for the sacredness of life and quit using inflammatory political speech?

What does this have to do with religion?

Has any pastor stated clearly to the politicians in his congregation or community that political speech designed to stoke anger is unbiblical, immoral? The number of killings during the most recent election campaign in Jamaica was down in part because Christian pastors from the pulpit told party leaders, "You are morally responsible for what your supporters do!" Does God not expect the same from American clergy?

 

Public Morality

"In a pluralistic society a fundamental assumption of public policy is the recognition that everything immoral need not be declared illegal. The public morality that is expressed in law reflects a consensus derived from public debate. ... Social realities as well as religious principles must be taken into account in judging the wisdom of any legislation. Citizens who come to different conclusions are not necessarily immoral or unchristian. The tendency to so brand one's political opponents suggests a kind of moral facism." (Originally published in an editorial in America on September 13, 1980; recently republished in Liberty, Sept-Oct 2009.)

This came to mind as I have observed recent political debate.

Are Christian Organizations Who Oppose Gay Marriage Hate Groups?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been a resource center for civil rights workers in the southern U.S. for decades. Among other things, it has become the best source of information about racist groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. It recently made a decision to identify some right-wing Christian groups who oppose gay marriage as "hate groups" who are working to oppress the civil rights of people who identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender al (LBGT). This will undoubtedly create a lot of poorly-informed, emotional debate and conversation that is rooted in the faith or non-faith of the participants.

Whether this is fair to organizations such as the Family Research Council is not something I am going to comment on. I do want to point out that when a Christian organization attempts to use the state, the law to enforce its beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs, then they open themselves to this kind of analysis and labeling. There are equally-conservative (theologically, Biblically) positions that do and can avoid such public conflict and name-calling.

No one, not even the most radical gay-marriage activists, has argued that denominations and local churches do not have the right to say, "Marriage as we see it in Scripture and understand it to be in God's will is between a man and a woman, and we will not sanction other marriages." Some who defend this viewpoint have tried to imply that if gay marriage becomes the law, conservative churches will be forced to conduct such marriages, but that is nonsense and everyone knows it. The Bill of Rights has long protected different views of marriage by various religions, for example as it relates to remarriage by divorced individuals.

The trouble begins when a religion (especially a dominant religion) wants to legally enforce its definition of marriage. Even if one agrees with that religion on how the Bible defines marriage, it is not necessary to go so far as to work for laws enforcing that view. The cultural consensus may today support traditional marriage formed with the strong influence of a traditional reading of Scripture. As sure as conservative Christians embed that view in law the day will come when the consensus will change and they will find themselves forced to live with a different definition of marriage. They have let the genie out of the bottle. Now they have to start living with it. Hopefully most Christians of all kinds will learn a lesson for the future when the issues may be even more consequential.            

What really happened yesterday?

In two years the American citizenry swings from an historic percentage voting for a Democratic president and a strong Democratic majority in each house of Congress to voting just as strongly the other way. Are the American people really that fickle? Please help me understand this; an notice I am seeking understanding, not a rehash.

There are several explanations that I have heard:

1. We actually have a three-party system now; no longer just two parties. Independents who do not believe in any ideology swing rapidly from one side to the other for relatively shallow reasons and a lot of misunderstanding of how government really works.
2. Only half of American adults actually vote in any given election, so if a significant number of the new voters that Obama brought into the election two years ago did not vote this time and a significant number of right-wing voters were not enamored of the Republican candidate two years ago and did not vote then, but were energized to vote this time ... that might explain the outcome.
3. American politics has for two or three decades been trending conservative and the election of Obama two years ago was a blip because of the historic opportunity to elect the first Black president.

I do not find any reality in the explanation that "its the debt ... its lack of jobs ... its health reform." Only 40 percent of Americans consistently express concern about the debt and these are almost all made up of people with higher incomes who have been untouched by loss of a job, foreclosure, etc. If you are unemployed or your home is being taken from you (or both) why would you get emotional about the debt? Why do people who want "government to stay within its means" vote for a party that is responsible for at least three-quarters of the debt that has been racked up so far? Why would senior citizens concerned about cuts in their Medicare benefits vote for members of congress who have pledge to "cut entitlements" ... Don't they know that Medicare is the single largest entitlement? Why would people who are upset with Wall Street and the big banks vote for candidates who want even less regulation on Wall Street and the banks? When reputable, independent researchers ask Americans about the new Health Insurance Reform law, 57 percent are in favor of it.

Is this just the triumph of one set of propaganda over another? Or is something else going on here? I noticed that Marco Rubio, the new senator from Florida (a "Tea Party" candidate), stated last night that "this is not an embrace of the Republican Party, but a second chance." Is that not a strange thing to say on the night of a massive win?

Is this really about a lack of maturity on the part of a large number of Americans who want instant gratification in massive economic realities? Are there actually large numbers of people out there who believe that any president and any Congressional majority of any viewpoint can engineer a recovery from the worst economic fall in 90 years in just two years? Please help me out here: Do you actually believe there are millions of voters who are that detached from the reality of large systems?

Maybe one clue is the poll that the Rasmussen company (a Republican survey operation) has released today which shows that the majority of Americans believe that most Americans will be just as disappointed in the Republicans two years from now. Is this a search for the man (or woman) with the silver bullet? If that is true, what are the odds we will end up with a "double dip" Recession? It is very dangerous for the American people to say, in effect, Let's pass this around to whomever for two years at a time and see if lightening strikes and the economy is magically turned around.

I am honestly struggling to understand what's going on. Please don't preach at me no matter how strongly you believe your political ideology. What is happening here? Is this just a mirror image of the confusion, lack of knowledge, frustration and pluralism that reigns in religion in America today? Believe anything if it works for you. Find a faith that meets your personal needs regardless of how well it fits reality or history or the needs of others. What is going on here?

 

Will Gordon Gecko go to heaven?

It is short hand and not theologically correct. Of course you know that Gordon Gecko is a character in a movie (two movies, now), not a real person. He is a character meant to personify the self-centered, avaricish Wall Street type who loves only money and has no moral boundaries. He is famous for proclaiming that "greed is good." In the latest movie he imagines that money is a "she" who sleeps with him "with one eye open." So, frankly the character is so over-drawn as to have a real mental health problem when it comes to economics.

Are there real people like Gordon Gecko? My own experience with people who work in the finance industry is that many (maybe most) are normal people with strong moral limits and no mental health problem when it comes to money. Some are people who have centered their life in Christ and work to bring Jesus and His values to Wall Street. It may be, as in many professions, that it takes someone who lacks balance to get to the top and that leadership includes an undue percentage of Gordon Geckos.

Unfortunately, it seems that a significant percentage of business (in all industries) seems to think that money cannot be made if one is completely open and fair with people. There is too much deception and manipulation of the very people upon whom the business depends for its life; the customers. It seems difficult to find what has been called "Shaker values." By that I mean businesses that enjoy the creation of their products or services more than stacking up wealth. That is one reason why I favor small, local businesses. I look for people for who are happy to make enough to feed their family, put a roof over their heads, send the kids to college and survive as a business, just so long as they can keep making what they make or doing what they do.

I have strayed from my story: Does economic behavior make a difference in God's eyes? The Bible is replete with prophets condemning the greedy, the dishonest and the manipulative. In Isaiah 58 God says He will not listen to the prayers of otherwise pious people who cheat their workers and play unfair games in the marketplace. It does not matter if they fast and lay prostrate before Him adorned in their religious humility, God will not listen to their prayers because they do not practice economic and social justice. Unless he repents of his sins and allows God to transform his character, there is no room for Gordon Gecko in the New Earth.