Some Moral Order Restored

Today was a very good day in America.  Indeed, some moral order was restored as President Obama did away with torture.  What has been amazing to me over the past 7 years are the number of Christians who have either looked the other way or outrightly endorsed torture.  Thankfully, as of today, some morality is restored.  We take up the great cause of being compassionate in the face of violence once again.  "Do not repay evil for evil... overcome evil with good.  If your enemy is hungry, feed him.  If he is thirsty, give him something to drink." Romans 12:17-19

What is Government?

Two blog posts in the past month from very different voices (Tony Jones and Travis Gilbert) have me thinking a lot about the nature of government the past few days. Over my life, I have given much thought to the idea of government, what is considered a legitimate government, and how Christians are to respond to government(s).

Americans tend to assume that government refers to the nation-state. Thus, the government is the United States of America or Great Britian or Russia or Iran. We remember that other types of governments used to exist such as the city-state of the ancient world, but for the most part government has come to mean nation-state. We understand that local government do exist, but believe in a hierarchy of government where the city is in a county, and a county in a state/province/district, and a state in a nation.

However, I have always seen government in terms of power. Who is in charge? Who is ruling this place? Because of this, I see many types of government in our lives everyday-- sometimes in cooperation with one another; often in conflict and in competition with one another.

Anyone living in the inner-city knows that there are at least two forms of government: 1) is the local gang or mafia; 2) is the supposedly "legitimate" government of the city in the form of police, judges, and jailors.

When I was a child in school, I knew that several authorities or governments existed when I was at school. One was the principal and teachers. Second was the very powerful peer groups. Third was the bullies on the playground and in the locker room.

Today, I watch and feel the power of corporations on my life. I am governed and ruled by Verizon, AT&T, the electric company, etc. Sometimes these various companies cooperate with the United States government and even with one another. Sometimes they are at odds with the US government and with one another. But these companies often have more power, rule, and control over me than any nation-state or local government.

In addition to all of this is the question of what makes a government legitimate. If my government doesn't recognize your government and I'm theoretically supposed to submit to my government and you are to submit to your government, then what are we to do? I dwell on this because my friend Travis brings up the argument that we are to submit to all earthly authorities except when their authority is in opposition to God. This creates for a very complex situation. First, when will any government not be in opposition to God in some way? Every government is always asking its citizens to do something that opposes the ways of God. Second, how are we to respond when we do feel like we should resist or disobey? Is this an active disobedience that results in some sort of action against the government (perhaps violence)? Or is this a peaceful resistance or non-participation? Something in between?

Finally, if you are a Christian who believes violence can be okay and even God's will for a particular moment, then how do you respond to the revolutionary war, or the civil war here in the United States? One could make the case that Christians should not have rebelled against England because it was the legitimate government. However, at what point did the colonialists become a legitimate government that Christians should submit to? Also, if the colonial powers did become legitimate, were Christians supposed to submit and against the English army and the Christians in that army? Were Christians from England then supposed to submit to their government and kill Americans? (Questions adapted from blog reply to Travis.)

The nature of government is very complex. Even more complex is the Christian's relationship to government. The Bible presents very different voices on this relationship. Jesus seemingly cooperates with government while also using rhetoric that questions the legitimacy of these human governments (essentially asking, "Are they real?"), Paul seems to support submission to government in Romans 13, uses his Romans citizenship in Acts, but also makes trouble with various local governments. Peter tells us to submit to earthly authorities and to honor the king. John's Revelation is a stark contrast that places the kingdoms of this world in sharp opposition with the kingdom of God. Even participation in the economy of Babylon makes one a follower of the beast.

Very complex indeed!

Original Sin, Capitalism, and Socialism

Suprisingly to some of you, I hold a decently historical and orthodox view of original sin. Overall, it seems to me that humans are born in a state of sin that is inherited in some way-- I'm not tied in to any particular theory on transmission, in fact they all seem a little off and crazy.

Recently, I've been discussing the ideas of capitalism and socialism with a highschool senior in my former youth ministry. Our discussion have made me take a longer look at the ideas of capitalism and socialism and how each looks at the idea of sin.

From what I can tell from my research, capitalism seems to believe that humans are totally depraved (meaning that every aspect of our existence is affected by selfishness) and sort of sees an original sin idea at the heart of humanity.

Socialism, on the other hand, seems to take the opposite view that individuals are mostly good and want the good but that institutions (such as corporations and the power classes of society) are corrupt.

Many American Christians lean towards a capitalist view, and even make the claim that capitalism has a better theology because it takes into account sin and depravity whereas socialism seems to be naive about human nature.

Here are the two problems that I see: both individuals and institutions are depraved. As well, both are need of redemption. Throughout the Bible God works in two directions: from the bottom up and from the top down. God works through individuals such as prophets to bring repentence to individuals. God also sends these prophets to governors and kings. God sends missionaries to save jailers but also sends these same missionaries to emperors. God seeks to set up governments and laws, transform whole cosmic states such as death, and take on the means and ways of the empire (crucifixion at hands of Rome). God also heals individuals on the road, plays with children, and has three really close friends among the disciples.

The problem with capitalism that I see is that it not only believes in original sin and depravity but also succeeds by thriving on such sin and depravity. It is a philosophy and system built around greed and selfishness and self-interest. It seems to take a non-ethical view of entities (corporations) and believes that the State/government is meant to protect the right of the individual and corporation to amass wealth while promoting self-interested competition. Rather than seeking any means of redemption of the depravity and sin in the world, this system thrives on it. Without such depravity, the system would stop.

The problem with socialism that I see is that it does not accurately view the individual, dismisses any potential for the corporation, and views the state as ultimately good if it redistributes wealth fairly.

Christianity and salvation must have a vision to redeem all of this. Although, we will fall and fail in our attempts to redeem, we must see ourselves as part of the missio dei to redeem all things and see our part as ambassadors of the kingdom of God. This requires a rejection of the socialist system because it leaves no room for redemption of the individual (because it basically sees the individual as good), and leaves no room for the redemption of the the corporation (because it basically sees such entities as inherantly evil). This also requires a rejection of the capitalist system because it does not want the individual, the state, or the corporation to be redeemed. It, instead, thrusts its uninhibted appetites of self-interest on the whole world.

We must believe the entirety of the gospel--that God seeks the redemption of the individual as well as creation. This is done from the bottom-up, as well as from the top-down. It involves the person, the corporation, and the state.

What are your thoughts?

Render Unto Caesar...

In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus is put to the test by the Pharisees and Herodians by these questions: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?" Jesus then takes a denarius (one day's wage-- the sum of money one gets for giving his body to work for a whole day) and asks, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" Jesus then says, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's."

This text often gets quoted in our modern day by Christians wishing to make a case for obedience to the government. However, such an interpretation is to miss the larger point of what Christ was teaching. Jesus uses a particualr type of Aristotlian argument and rhetoric here-- everyone in that day knew that whatever bears the image of someoe belongs to that one. Knowing his audience, Jesus also knew that the people believed themselves to be made in the image of God. What Jesus does with his words is deliver a stinging critique on our lives... although we are made in the image of God, we are giving ourselves daily in the work of Caesar. For that daily work to the empire, Caesar gives us his coin for a day's wage. If we are giving ourselves to Caesar in the first place, then why not give him his money back.

Jesus subversively is telling the crowd, why do you work for Caesar and his empire? Why do you work for his economy? Why are you participating in the world of Caesar?

In other passages, Jesus helps the people imagine a different world wehre everyone has their own vineyards and where everyone is invited to the banquet table and where everyone is given the same day's wage for their service to God. The parables are these new imaginations and dreams for the future. Jesus imagines an alternative world with an alternative vision for economy, commondity, and community.

If we work for the empire and recieve its wages, then we must pay its taxes. But Jesus is asking, "Why are you working for Caesar in the first place? You bear the image of God, not Caesar's!"

Prayer, Imagination, and Voting

Prayer is a political thing. As we approach the throne of grace, we literally invoke the heavens to come down onto the earth. And when the heavens invade our world, the Earth is literally reborn, reimagined, recreated, redeemed, and renewed. The heavenly reality is so much more than a fuzzy after-life. Rather it is another kingdom and dominion-- an utterly different reality than the one we know. Jesus said that this kingdom was literally crashing into our current living situation.

In Jesus' day, and in many places still, disease and sickness bring great stigma with them. One can easily think of some of the more dangerous contagious diseases that exist and how individuals are isolated from the community in order to protect the village from infection-- such as leprosy in the NT. Jesus, of course, interacted with many diseased people-- healing many but not all. Although we today are often blown away by the miracle (and we should be!), what often goes unnoticed is that he interacted with these people in general. The act of speaking, dining, and touching these people was the more important healing-- to be recognized as a human being who has worth and value rather than being stigmatized and rejected.

When we pray, we must imagine a new way, a brand new reality. Often we ask God to heal the sick among us; however, are we truly imagining a new interaction and treatment of these individuals? Are we dreaming of new ways for the community to minister to these souls as well as ways for them to contribute in wonderful ways to the community? Jesus prays to the Father while touching and eating. The prayer is not detached from the individual's place in life.

As we approach election day, I am receiving plenty of emails and blog posts about how I should vote as a Christian, passionate pleas to vote in particular ways or for particular candidates-- all written as end of the world, life and death decisions. How can I vote about issues surrounding poverty without touching the shoulders of someone who is impoverished? How can I vote about health care without eating with someone who has none? How can I vote about relationships and ethics until I've cried with someone caught in the midst of true trial? If one truly cares about poverty, then she will eat with the poor. If one truly cares about abortion, then he will befriend a woman who felt like she had no other choice. If one truly cares about the sanctity of marriage, then she will listen to the gay man who pours out his heart. Without this tangible interaction, we will not know how to pray. If we do not know how to pray, then we will certainly not know how to vote.

Small Government, Military, and Colonialism

By and large, many conservative "believe" in having a smaller federal governement. This, of course, is stretching the use of the word "believe."

When you look at spending, the Republican party since 1980 has added more money to federal deficit. The federal government expanded under Reagan and G.W. Bush than at any other time in the past 60 years. Still, just about any conservative you meet will talk about how they value a smaller federal government, spending limit, etc.



Of course, the military, which is where a lot of this deficit came from, is not considered as a part of this "big government." Although the military ultimately answers to the Big Chief and the Pentagon commanders and the Department of Defense are the biggest expenditures of the executive branch of the government, most conservatives do not consider the military as part of an expanded federal government.

However, in the eyes of the globe, this is precisely how the American federal government is expanding, and how "big brother" finds his way into everyone's lives. In fact, our reach is so far and has so much influence over trade policies, interational disputes, etc. that many call our government imperialistic. Although we are not technically colonized other nations in the classical sense, it seems that we have in many ways colonized many, many places on the globe.



Many citizens here in the United States will speak about how great of a country we have, sing the virtues of the USA, and talk about patriotism and spreading democracy. They will speak about a grand history of liberation, wealth, and freedom. However, when put under the microscope, such ideas seem to be distorted. In its history, this land never belonged to "us." In fact, the whole land from Atlantic to Pacific was inhabited by Native Americans tribes. We took the land and kept taking the land even up through the 20th century.


Then there is the problem of slavery and racism. Up until the early 1970s, blatant disrimination was rampant. Even now, passive forms of discrimination still function towards African-Americans. Then there is the issue of immigrants-- legal and illegal. At some point, "we" began thinking that this land belonged to "us." Although a majority of Americans claim to be Christian, this idea of the land belonging to "us" seems to be very anti-biblical-- especially since "we" took the land from the Native Americans.



Put these things together with dozens of botched military activities, economic programs, and international policies, and what you get is not a benevolent nation with great actions of compassion and justice. Instead, you have a nation that was founded on killing and stealing, who has oppressed an entire skin color of people, and who still govern out of fear from the "other." Indeed, perhaps we should be afraid of the other. Eye for an eye seems to be the ideology of the day. We took, stole, manipulated, oppressed, and killed. Perhaps, we will reap what we sowed. Perhaps, we sowed in unrighteousness and will reap more unrighteousness.



To be sure, there is another side of the story shared here. There are plenty of good deeds, good policies, and good people trying to do good in the world-- in the past and now in the present. However, the story that I have shared is rarely shared (in my opinion of course). Perhaps some will feel that "we need to focus on the positive." This is just a stunt of words to prevent us from taking a sobering look at the oppressive policies and manipulative actions being done today.



I am always amazed at how we are willing to be 100s of billions of dollars in debt for a war on the other side of the world, but we would be unwilling to spend $500 billion in deficit on education. I can hear someone saying right now, "Well, we should not be in deficit for any reason-- military or education." That same person will scream, shout, and send a letter to his congressman when a "liberal" suggests spending that much on education, but will call it patriotic when we shoot a smart bomb that destroys an entire neighborhood halfway around the world.



I'm tired... very tired of the rhetoric and contradictions. I'm tired of people who call themselves Christians who sanction or at least turn a blind eye to "collateral damage" (a nice phrase for murdering innocent people!!!). I'm tired of Christians who believe in a large military apparatus that literally is in every region of the globe-- this is far beyond national security. I'm tired of Christians who say they believe in stewardship who continue to elect officials who wasted money in deficit spending. I'm tired of Christians who say they are pro-life and yet advocate for larger military budgets. The United States has committed the very worst atrocity in the history of the planet-- two nuclear bombs dropped on two cities full of innocent people-- including many, many children!!!



And yet, I will be the one who is questioned for writing this post. American Christians from the evangelical tradition question my faith-- in fact many don't even question... they believe that I am really not one. The first Christians sacrificed their lives without weapons in hand-- that is the true sacrifice. Just as Jesus told Peter, "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." It's time for us to listen to Jesus. We must be Christians who live in America rather than American Christians. And in the end, this will actually make for a better America. The best way to be patriotic is to be Christian because it will make our communities better places which will in turn make a better nation which will in turn create a better world.

The Denial of Jesus Christ

I have wondered at times throughout my life why martyred Christians refused to sacrifice to Caesar or deny that they followed Christ. Indeed, as I've been reading from the ancient church fathers and mothers this semester in my church history class, this same question has come to mind several times. Why not just deny? Your life is spared for another day and then you get to go back home and be Christian, share the good news of Jesus with others, and continue building the church community. God will forgive, the church will forgive, and everyone's good.

The Romans wondered this as well. Local rulers would even plead with these Christians to deny Christ so that they (the rulers) would not have to execute them. Many of the local rulers felt that the Christians were not a real threat to the empire, were good people, and contributed in many great ways to the empire. Many of them did not want to kill the Christians, but in the end they did because the Christians were breaking the law. They even would use the reasoning I used above... just deny Jesus right now here in this court and go back to your community and be Christian and stop getting caught!

It occurred to me today what the real harm in denial is about, why the Romans would plead for a denial, and why I have wondered this as well. Empire!

Yes... EMPIRE. As a product of the American empire and the Romans a product of their empire, I have been schooled in a particular way of living in the world. A part of that way of living is "say whatever you need to say, do whatever you need to do, to advance our cause in the world (we would of course believe it to be a noble cause, even go as far as calling it a Godly cause: peace, freedom, liberty, democracy). We justify our actions in this way. If war and violence is needed to advance the cause, then we go to war in order to create peace down the road. If we have suspect in custody at a jail and need to tell him a few lies to get him to talk, then fantastic. We caught the guy. Justice is served. We feel safe again. And if we think we are doing something that is wrong, we figure that we can ask for forgiveness later. This is in fact the way empires have always acted. Some are more compassionate than others. Some are more moral than others. Some have better systems than others. But ultimately, the empire is the great deception.

The Christian martyrs of history and contemporary continue to refuse to deny Jesus Christ. They do so knowing that such a refusal is a direct confrontation of the very core values that make up the empire.

Proud Of My Mennonite Links

As some of you know, I have a Masters degree from a Mennonite affiliated school. Of course being there at the school, they had a profound effect on some of my theology. Although I have chosen to remain in the reformed circles, there are many things that I envy about the Mennonites. Here is a link to just one article that makes me proud of my Mennonite sisters and brothers.

The Necessity for Change

After my long hiatus from blogging, I'm ready to write some thoughts. It's been about 3-4 months since I last blogged. My last post was entitled the Fall of Change where I lamented Obama's reaction to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is now the end of August and Obama is on the cusp of naming his running mate. After a whole summer of listening to both candidates, I am still let down. Neither candidate seems to have fresh policies. In fact, when you put their thoughts side by side on the primary issues they address in front of audiences, they seem almost identical. Yes, they do hold to some different views-- particularly the Christian-Right hot button issues. However, neither really cares about those issues and neither will do anything substantial in those matters anyways. I do think Obama brings a very needed image change for the United States. He seems to be open, progressive, and a good thinker. He is young and charismatic. McCain brings a natural bi-partisanship to the table. Historically, he has been a maverick, although he hasn't shown that side of him for many months. I would love to see a maverick in the White House. I would love to see Obama return to the message in the books he has written. I want to see change. We need change. Sadly, as the situation between Georgia and Russia is proving, neither candidate brings real change. They react the same way. Where are the Mavericks? I would love to have a true choice on election day. As such, I am stuck between the faux choice of good image and charismatic vs. mature-looking and good story teller.

The Fall of Change

Many people have been outraged at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments. On this blog, I have discussed Wright and recent lashing he has received. Senator Obama has sought to create a message that he is different than other politicians and that he will bring change. I have never gotten on the Obama train, but I did somewhat believe he would be somehow different. However, today any trace of that hope was erased. Senator Obama ridiculed and denounced his pastor's recent comments made over the past few ways. Rev. Wright had four very public interviews to defend himself, and Senator Obama further distanced himself from his pastor during this time. Senator Obama said the following regarding Rev. Wright: "What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright has shared many beliefs over the past few days that I find quite invigorating. He rightly sees parallels between the Roman Empire and the United States (in the book of Revelations, John describes this empire as Babylon, the great harlot). Rev. Wright rightly contrasts the difference between the way of Christ and the ways of the empire that crucified him. Rev. Wright rightly wonders what evils our government is capable of doing.

My pastor and I were reflecting on the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament this morning. What astounded us was the similarities between the message of Jeremiah Wright and the message of Jeremiah the prophet. The language, tone, and feeling were very similar.

Senator Obama declares that his worldview is something different than Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This I believe is true. They share very, very different worldviews-- Rev. Wright's is one schooled in scripture. Senator Obama's is one schooled in American imperialism. Thank-you Senator Obama for confirming my belief that you are just like every other politician.

Why Charity Isn't The Answer

Charity is popular in America. American Christians have been giving millions of dollars to noble causes both at home and around the globe for the past century. Increasingly, America's evangelical circles are beginning to pay attention to various world crises and giving a lot of money to help. As well, Hollywood and the media are ramping up their efforts. Shows like Oprah's Big Give and Extreme Makeover Home Edition touch our heart strings week after week.

Before I move on I do want to make something clear. These are very, very good efforts! It is good for us to give. I am glad that the troubles of the world are beginning to find voices in America's pulpits and tv screens.

Nevertheless, I must say that charity is not the answer. This morning I was reading on CNN that Sam's Club is limiting the amount of bulk rice that people can buy. Why? Because rice prices have increased by as much as 75% in many places in the world. 75%!!! For the 1 billion people on the planet who were already struggling to buy rice at yesterday's prices, 75% is beyond imagination.

Add to this that the dollars Americans are giving have drastically fallen in value since 2003. What we need to realize as Christians living in America is that our social spending habits, our economic and political decisions, and our ideas about how the world works has a huge impact on the world (obviously not only our policies and idea but other countries as well).

The church was intended to be its own oikos, its own polis, its own ekklesia-- a place for an alternative politic and economic! Disputes were to be handled in new ways. Money and property were to be handled in new ways. Relationships (including the common divisions between male/female, slave/free, and chosen race/other races) were to be different. There was supposed to be a common meal made uncommon (Yahweh's Table) where people would eat together. There are supposed to be deacons distributing bread to the city. There are supposed to be apostles who teach us this stuff. Charity changes when it is linked to an intangible symbol (a piece of paper we call a dollar that is increasingly a relative number on a computer screen). When charity is no longer a tangible, real item (such as bread or property), it ceases to function to its fullest abilities.

Rev. Wright, Politics, and the Pulpit

I feel compelled to post about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Recently, I was in Chicago and heard him give two lectures in a seminary chapel. Both of these lectures were about racism and reconciliation. They were fantastic lectures and Rev. Wright was thoroughly generous and gracious. He even referenced the clips going around the news and YouTube-- this was before it became such huge media frenzy by the way. He was very clear that he regretted some of his comments in those sermons. However, he was very clear that we obviously have a gospel-sized problem here in this country and especially in the church. We are divided. Some of us are more privileged than others due to decades of unfair social and political policies. And the majority of Christians, especially those with the power, have often sat idly by and ignored these problems. Does not the gospel compel us to change our world? Does not the gospel compel us to affect the social and political landscape around us? Wright focused much of his first lecture on what is wrong in the church and the need for the prophetic function of the pastor to challenge this reality (using prophet the way it is most often used in scripture as one who calls out the people and exposes their sin-- not in the future-teller sense). and the second lecture was about the pastor as priest who must help bind up the wounds of those in pain and hurt (on all sides) in this political reality.

My friend Travis has posted his own ideas about Rev. Wright and politics in the pulpit. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. I hate it when pastors get on some political rant in the pulpit. Nevertheless, I find the gospel deeply political-- we declare Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar as Lord. Our citizenship is in heaven not in this earth. We are called to be transformed and to transform-- ourselves and our world. I definitely see my friend's point and agree in a lot of ways. But I also fear that many Christians think faith is a private matter that does not or should not have political and public ramifications.

What are your thoughts? Do politics and gospel go hand-in-hand? Or should politics be banned from the pulpit?