Every seminarian has encountered the ideas of Walter Rauschenbusch and has some idea of his impact and role in American religion. I certainly did. My view was shaped by seminary professors who had positive views of liberation theology and saw him as a predecessor. It was also shaped by the Niebuhrs and their views on the failure of Social Gospel Christianity. What I had never done, until I found this free download after I got my Kindle for Christmas, was actually read any of Rauschenbusch's books. "The Social Principals of Jesus" offered lots of surprises, all of them refreshing and good.
My sense of the Social Gospel was that it equated the coming of the Kingdom of God with the redemption of the social order. I have often thought that Rauschenbusch was as impractical as ivory tower academics, and that he, like many of them, limited the Gospel to a good hearted Jesus-inspired pseudo-socialism. I was wrong on lots of counts.
At least in this book, Rauschenbush grounds everythings he says in the words of Jesus. He affirms the individual implications of the Gospel in every way. But he demonstrates that Jesus clearly understood his teachings to have an effect on the way the world worked. Rauschenbusch does not, for example, draw a distinction between individual salvation and corporate salvation, as both left and right tend to. He affirms conversion in the strongest terms. But he beliefs that those who are redeemed are called to make a more just, loving, and compassionate world, and that such a world must be based not on charity but organized so that everyone has a fair shot. He doesn't make a differentiation between personal and social morality, either. For example, he advocates abstinence from alcohol and strict sexual morality. He says that people who work for a more just world must exhibit a higher standard of morality because those with money and power will attempt to discredit them for their lifestyles otherwise.
The book is loaded with powerful quotes. Here are a few:
"Jesus did not talk about eliminating the unfit. He talked about saving them, which requires greater constructive energy if it is really to be done."
"...we must never treat a man as a means only, but always as an end in himself."
"Every generation clings to its profitable wrongs and tries to silence those who stand for higher righteousness."
"Prayer is Christian only if it makes us realize our fellows more keenly and affectionately."
"Jesus had little to say about religious ceremonial, and a great deal about righteousness and love. Under his hands the Jewish imperialistic dream changed into a call for universal human fraternity."
"It takes faith of the intellect to comprehend a stage of evolution before it is reached. It takes faith of character to launch yourself toward a great moral goal before its tangible and profitable elements are within reach."
An important caveat is due concerning format: The book was written as a study for college students. It contains chapters, short daily devotionals, and discussion questions. On the one hand, this makes for an uneven read. On the other hand, it provides helpful resources for those who would use its ideas in settings with students of any age. This possibility would be more helpful if it were published as a workbook.
Amazon sells it for nothing as a Kindle download, which makes it much more than worthwhile for those basing their understanding of Walter Rauschenbusch on what they read in "The Kingdom of God in America." Many people of my age (37) and younger, especially seem to be looking for options besides Jesus-as-capitalist-Wall-Street-tycoon and Jesus-as-Che-Guevara-compassion-equals-socialism. I think it may be time to give Walter Rauschenbusch a fresh look.
This review appears on Amazon.com. Feedback on Amazon is appreciated!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Principles-Jesus-ebook/product-reviews/B004TQHDEM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Review of Howard Thurman's Jesus and the Disinherited
Howard Thurman is well known as one of the 20th century's great mystics, thinkers, and spiritual leaders. "Jesus and the Disinherited" may be his best known book, and it's certainly his most influential. Martin Luther King, Jr. carried a copy with him in his travels and it grounded him as much as any book. It's certainly worth the accolades.
It's a small book, and its organization is basic. Thurman begins by describing people under oppression as the people "With their backs to the wall." Most of what Christians have written about the role of the teachings of Christ in conversations about oppressed people comes from the perspective of those with power who have an obligation to help those who do not have power. Thurman affirms this approach, and compares it to the perspective of Paul, who, though a Jew and regularly persecuted for the Gospel, always had the power to assert his Roman citizenship. His was a chosen powerlessness, and he occasionally chose to use his societal power.
Jesus, God Incarnate, chose to take his place among those "with their backs to the wall." Thurman believes that Jesus' life and teachings can only be understood from this vantage point. He argues that those who have never been powerless cannot fully understand what it means to have society's structures and systems turned not to their benefit and protection but to their subjugation and humiliation.
Thurman describes how the life and teachings of Jesus relate to the great enemies of the soul--fear, deception, and hate. He is a master not only of the faith but also of psychology and society. The final chapter is about love, and how love between those in power and those with their backs against the wall can only be the result of relationships built on mutuality. He thinks the church is the best place for such relationships to form, and laments that congregations are so segregated and do not allow such relationships to form.
Love is a miracle, and all of society makes the enemies of the soul and the possibility of the love Jesus describes incredibly difficult. One of the great wonders of the Jesus story is that he is a person with his back against the wall who was able to demonstrate the possibility of living in an oppressive situation without giving in to fear, deception, or hate. Jesus was able to love, even his enemies. This fact alone gives tremendous hope that those with their backs against the wall may actually live in such a way. Thurman certainly did.
Howard Thurman wrote in the midst of the Civil Rights struggle, and he talks about his conversations with a grandmother who had spent her childhood in slavery. People like me, who take our freedom and privilege for granted, should read the book, if for no other reason, to get a sense of the interior struggles others face.
Our world is full of fear, deception, and hate. The kind of love Jesus demonstrates and Thurman describes is rare, indeed. This book is a training manual for those who would live in this world with souls untouched by its cruelty.
It's a small book, and its organization is basic. Thurman begins by describing people under oppression as the people "With their backs to the wall." Most of what Christians have written about the role of the teachings of Christ in conversations about oppressed people comes from the perspective of those with power who have an obligation to help those who do not have power. Thurman affirms this approach, and compares it to the perspective of Paul, who, though a Jew and regularly persecuted for the Gospel, always had the power to assert his Roman citizenship. His was a chosen powerlessness, and he occasionally chose to use his societal power.
Jesus, God Incarnate, chose to take his place among those "with their backs to the wall." Thurman believes that Jesus' life and teachings can only be understood from this vantage point. He argues that those who have never been powerless cannot fully understand what it means to have society's structures and systems turned not to their benefit and protection but to their subjugation and humiliation.
Thurman describes how the life and teachings of Jesus relate to the great enemies of the soul--fear, deception, and hate. He is a master not only of the faith but also of psychology and society. The final chapter is about love, and how love between those in power and those with their backs against the wall can only be the result of relationships built on mutuality. He thinks the church is the best place for such relationships to form, and laments that congregations are so segregated and do not allow such relationships to form.
Love is a miracle, and all of society makes the enemies of the soul and the possibility of the love Jesus describes incredibly difficult. One of the great wonders of the Jesus story is that he is a person with his back against the wall who was able to demonstrate the possibility of living in an oppressive situation without giving in to fear, deception, or hate. Jesus was able to love, even his enemies. This fact alone gives tremendous hope that those with their backs against the wall may actually live in such a way. Thurman certainly did.
Howard Thurman wrote in the midst of the Civil Rights struggle, and he talks about his conversations with a grandmother who had spent her childhood in slavery. People like me, who take our freedom and privilege for granted, should read the book, if for no other reason, to get a sense of the interior struggles others face.
Our world is full of fear, deception, and hate. The kind of love Jesus demonstrates and Thurman describes is rare, indeed. This book is a training manual for those who would live in this world with souls untouched by its cruelty.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"
Rob Bell has been attacked and castigated because of this book. After reading it, I wonder why. Certainly, messing with hell is a great way to be seen as a complete heretic in certain circles (just ask Carlton Pearson). There is only a passing mention of hell in the creed and, as Bell points out, very little in the Bible about it. So some questioning is certainly in order in a biblical and even evangelical view of things.
He's been accused of universalism, which is unfair. Bell's questioning comes from a doctrine about which we have an enormous amount of biblical and theological agreement, namely, the goodness of God that leads God to seek the salvation of all people. The central question of the book is, How can we believe in a completely loving God who seeks reconciliation with all humanity and yet hold that this God condemns those who do not readily accept his love through his Son (by name!) to eternal torture?
Hopefully, every thinking and feeling Christian has also wrestled with this question. Rather than settle on one answer, Bell explores a number of biblically supported possibilities. He describes the view that salvation is through Christ alone, but that Christ's sacrifice and love is effective enough to eventually save everyone (this is Barth's view and is not exactly the same thing as saying that God is just nice enough to accept everyone into heaven). He explores the view that people who follow the voice of conscience are responding to the eternal Word of God that was expressed in Christ through the Incarnation whether they recognize the name of Jesus or not. He also explores the view that heaven and hell are existential responses to the unmitigated presence of God--this view holds that heaven and hell are not places, but are ways that the presence of God are experienced in the next life based on our response to God's presence. Augustine and CS Lewis suggest something similar.
Bell's great contribution is to expand the concept of redemption and God's plan for saving the whole cosmos. He is drawing on the work of NT Wright here (he cites "Surprised by Hope"). This view of the resurrection makes best sense of Paul's writings and is more true to scripture than the popular understanding of heaven as a physical place of bliss inhabited by disembodied spirits.
The book is short, dense, and written for a popular readership. It seems to be a great tool to start conversation. I would hope that it would not be attacked and condemned, but rather seen as a sourcebook of possibilities for the many people who are wrestling with very important questions. Bell never seems to affirm any of the possibilities dogmatically, but the entire work is written with an air of wonder and awe for God's glory and great compassion. This spirit is strangely and tragically absent in many conversations about God's ultimate intention for humanity.
This review appears on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1STH1DKM0BT2H/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R1U6R8IGXMHWW8
He's been accused of universalism, which is unfair. Bell's questioning comes from a doctrine about which we have an enormous amount of biblical and theological agreement, namely, the goodness of God that leads God to seek the salvation of all people. The central question of the book is, How can we believe in a completely loving God who seeks reconciliation with all humanity and yet hold that this God condemns those who do not readily accept his love through his Son (by name!) to eternal torture?
Hopefully, every thinking and feeling Christian has also wrestled with this question. Rather than settle on one answer, Bell explores a number of biblically supported possibilities. He describes the view that salvation is through Christ alone, but that Christ's sacrifice and love is effective enough to eventually save everyone (this is Barth's view and is not exactly the same thing as saying that God is just nice enough to accept everyone into heaven). He explores the view that people who follow the voice of conscience are responding to the eternal Word of God that was expressed in Christ through the Incarnation whether they recognize the name of Jesus or not. He also explores the view that heaven and hell are existential responses to the unmitigated presence of God--this view holds that heaven and hell are not places, but are ways that the presence of God are experienced in the next life based on our response to God's presence. Augustine and CS Lewis suggest something similar.
Bell's great contribution is to expand the concept of redemption and God's plan for saving the whole cosmos. He is drawing on the work of NT Wright here (he cites "Surprised by Hope"). This view of the resurrection makes best sense of Paul's writings and is more true to scripture than the popular understanding of heaven as a physical place of bliss inhabited by disembodied spirits.
The book is short, dense, and written for a popular readership. It seems to be a great tool to start conversation. I would hope that it would not be attacked and condemned, but rather seen as a sourcebook of possibilities for the many people who are wrestling with very important questions. Bell never seems to affirm any of the possibilities dogmatically, but the entire work is written with an air of wonder and awe for God's glory and great compassion. This spirit is strangely and tragically absent in many conversations about God's ultimate intention for humanity.
This review appears on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1STH1DKM0BT2H/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R1U6R8IGXMHWW8
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Thanking God for Bishop Duffey
Today is a difficult day for those who loved Bishop Duffey, which is to say that today is a difficult day for a great multitude. All day I've been weepy as remembrances of his kindness have come to me.
He first took an interest in me in 2004 when I was a pastor at St. Mark UMC. I was at Montgomery First for some reason and he stopped me to tell me that he had been reading the church newsletter and he appreciated things I'd written. I was blown away that such a great man would take the time to pay attention to me and my ministry. He was clearly sincere in his compliments. Later, I invited him to preach at the church and he was clearly honored to be asked. Bishop Duffey was such a towering figure in my mind, and I was taken aback that he was so humble about things--I thought of myself as a nobody, and he clearly saw me differently.
There have been many treasures I've experienced in serving alongside Bishop Duffey since I've been at Montgomery First. I will never forget the honor of serving communion with him. I'm especially glad today that I told him so. I was with him the morning Louise passed away. He grieved so hard that he was physically ill. And yet, his dignity and sense of peace never faltered. He always talked about how accomplished and gifted a person she was, and he sincerely believed that she accomplished much of everything for which he had been given credit.
Bishop Duffey loved campus ministry, and often asked about the state of Wesley Foundations while I served as BHECM chair. He had discerned his call to ministry while working at the Wesley Foundation at the University of Alabama. He continued to read widely and deeply until the end, and would occasionally bring me things to read concerning recent trends in campus ministry.
Bishop Duffey was so affirming to so many in so many ways. He touched so many lives, and he touched the lives of everyone in my house in direct ways. My older daughter told me tonight about the last time he spoke to her. He called her over to him and told her how proud of her he was, how he was blessed to have watched her grow up, how he looked forward to seeing what God would do in and through her. My faith in the communion of saints makes me believe he will continue to watch over her from the Church Triumphant, and for that I am grateful. I will always treasure Bishop Duffey's gracious acceptance of our request that he participate in our baby's baptism. I believe Maggie Grace was the last person he baptized. I will be sure that one day she will understand what an inestimable grace that is for her.
Bishop Duffey gave me his set of Interpreter's Bible commentaries. Occasionally I thumb through them--they are extensively annotated and serve witness to his deep and lifelong engagement with the scriptures.
The last extended conversation I had with Bishop Duffey was about his experience in the Civil Rights struggle. He did not focus on the things you might expect. He focused on his great gratitude that those who were on the other side of those issues, those who had made an opponent of him, eventually became dear friends and were completely reconciled. He personified "Love your enemies."
I recently finished Howard Thurman's "Jesus and the Disenherited." The final chapter is about love. Thurman describes how impossible the kind of love Jesus describes is to live out, and concludes by giving praise to God that Jesus demonstrated in his living that such love is possible in a human life.
So, I give thanks for Bishop Duffey for many reasons. But most of all, I give thanks because he gives me hope that the teachings of Jesus are not a pie-in-the-sky impossibility. They can be lived, and they can be lived by people like us who are made of clay. They were lived in at least one person who I have known.
He first took an interest in me in 2004 when I was a pastor at St. Mark UMC. I was at Montgomery First for some reason and he stopped me to tell me that he had been reading the church newsletter and he appreciated things I'd written. I was blown away that such a great man would take the time to pay attention to me and my ministry. He was clearly sincere in his compliments. Later, I invited him to preach at the church and he was clearly honored to be asked. Bishop Duffey was such a towering figure in my mind, and I was taken aback that he was so humble about things--I thought of myself as a nobody, and he clearly saw me differently.
There have been many treasures I've experienced in serving alongside Bishop Duffey since I've been at Montgomery First. I will never forget the honor of serving communion with him. I'm especially glad today that I told him so. I was with him the morning Louise passed away. He grieved so hard that he was physically ill. And yet, his dignity and sense of peace never faltered. He always talked about how accomplished and gifted a person she was, and he sincerely believed that she accomplished much of everything for which he had been given credit.
Bishop Duffey loved campus ministry, and often asked about the state of Wesley Foundations while I served as BHECM chair. He had discerned his call to ministry while working at the Wesley Foundation at the University of Alabama. He continued to read widely and deeply until the end, and would occasionally bring me things to read concerning recent trends in campus ministry.
Bishop Duffey was so affirming to so many in so many ways. He touched so many lives, and he touched the lives of everyone in my house in direct ways. My older daughter told me tonight about the last time he spoke to her. He called her over to him and told her how proud of her he was, how he was blessed to have watched her grow up, how he looked forward to seeing what God would do in and through her. My faith in the communion of saints makes me believe he will continue to watch over her from the Church Triumphant, and for that I am grateful. I will always treasure Bishop Duffey's gracious acceptance of our request that he participate in our baby's baptism. I believe Maggie Grace was the last person he baptized. I will be sure that one day she will understand what an inestimable grace that is for her.
Bishop Duffey gave me his set of Interpreter's Bible commentaries. Occasionally I thumb through them--they are extensively annotated and serve witness to his deep and lifelong engagement with the scriptures.
The last extended conversation I had with Bishop Duffey was about his experience in the Civil Rights struggle. He did not focus on the things you might expect. He focused on his great gratitude that those who were on the other side of those issues, those who had made an opponent of him, eventually became dear friends and were completely reconciled. He personified "Love your enemies."
I recently finished Howard Thurman's "Jesus and the Disenherited." The final chapter is about love. Thurman describes how impossible the kind of love Jesus describes is to live out, and concludes by giving praise to God that Jesus demonstrated in his living that such love is possible in a human life.
So, I give thanks for Bishop Duffey for many reasons. But most of all, I give thanks because he gives me hope that the teachings of Jesus are not a pie-in-the-sky impossibility. They can be lived, and they can be lived by people like us who are made of clay. They were lived in at least one person who I have known.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The UMC and the Sears Catalog
Here's an interesting article about Willimon talking about mainline decline:
http://www.salisburypost.com/Opinion/031112-edit-cook-willimon-qcd
Want my opinion? Well, here it is: I recently watched a documentary on Sears, how it became America's leading retailer, peaked around 1970, didn't realize it was in decline until Kmart and Walmart had a model that checkmated them, and how they radically restructured a couple of times to stop the bleeding and maintain market share. Now they're fourth behind Target and they're owned by Kmart.
First thought: No one is so dumb as to think Sears will ever be #1 again. We Methodists better get used to the idea that we will never be the UMC of 1968. Can we stop the bleeding and maintain our religious "market share"? I don't think so, because we can't hire a CEO to give us marching orders and fire everyone who doesn't go along (it looks to me like the "Call to Action" won't even be ratified). People in UM congregations, pastors and lay alike, better get used to the idea that this isn't getting any better. The UMC gives us a decent system for accountability, the best theological basis of any denomination, resources for training great leaders, and networks for shared ministry. That won't change for a long time. But unless the Spirit moves and the wind shifts for the whole denomination, we are not going to stop losing "market share" in our culture.
I just read the Wisconsin Annual Conference's critique of Call to Action, which basically says, "We know we need to do something, but we need to study it and pray about it a whole bunch more instead of doing this." The Confessing Movement people are against it because it gives too much power to bishops--Who else has the capacity to give some focus and identity to our work and keep us from inaction and infighting? Bishops may not be a good bet, but they're the only bet we have! Of course, the whole liberal side of our denomination is against it because it seems "corporate" (meaning, it attempts to actually get something done instead of complaining about what someone else is doing) and because it undercuts the boards, which are the last bastion of liberal influence in the denomination. Anyway, my point isn't about the Call to Action. My point is that we have no mechanism to compel corporate unified change. So things will stay the same.
That's OK, as far as I'm concerned. Once upon a time I thought I'd be part of renewing the denomination and seeing it serve as a catalyst for revival. I still hope so. But I'd be surprised. Sears is still there and it's still the place to go to get a toolbox or a washing machine, but the days when I thumbed through the catalog as a kid are long gone. But Sears will never be number one again. I was driving down the road the other day and it just occurred to me, "There is no one who can fix this and the UMC is never turning around. And that's OK."
The UMC gives me a wonderful community to do really important ministry. For people who want to invest their lives in serving God's people and giving their lives away for the Gospel, the UMC is still a pretty good option. YWAM might be a better option if you don't have a decade or two of your life to spare, but it's still a pretty good option. It's much better to put your energy into making a difference where you are instead of worrying about whether we can all beat Target someday.
I hope I'm wrong. But let's get together again in 15 years and see.
http://www.salisburypost.com/Opinion/031112-edit-cook-willimon-qcd
Want my opinion? Well, here it is: I recently watched a documentary on Sears, how it became America's leading retailer, peaked around 1970, didn't realize it was in decline until Kmart and Walmart had a model that checkmated them, and how they radically restructured a couple of times to stop the bleeding and maintain market share. Now they're fourth behind Target and they're owned by Kmart.
First thought: No one is so dumb as to think Sears will ever be #1 again. We Methodists better get used to the idea that we will never be the UMC of 1968. Can we stop the bleeding and maintain our religious "market share"? I don't think so, because we can't hire a CEO to give us marching orders and fire everyone who doesn't go along (it looks to me like the "Call to Action" won't even be ratified). People in UM congregations, pastors and lay alike, better get used to the idea that this isn't getting any better. The UMC gives us a decent system for accountability, the best theological basis of any denomination, resources for training great leaders, and networks for shared ministry. That won't change for a long time. But unless the Spirit moves and the wind shifts for the whole denomination, we are not going to stop losing "market share" in our culture.
I just read the Wisconsin Annual Conference's critique of Call to Action, which basically says, "We know we need to do something, but we need to study it and pray about it a whole bunch more instead of doing this." The Confessing Movement people are against it because it gives too much power to bishops--Who else has the capacity to give some focus and identity to our work and keep us from inaction and infighting? Bishops may not be a good bet, but they're the only bet we have! Of course, the whole liberal side of our denomination is against it because it seems "corporate" (meaning, it attempts to actually get something done instead of complaining about what someone else is doing) and because it undercuts the boards, which are the last bastion of liberal influence in the denomination. Anyway, my point isn't about the Call to Action. My point is that we have no mechanism to compel corporate unified change. So things will stay the same.
That's OK, as far as I'm concerned. Once upon a time I thought I'd be part of renewing the denomination and seeing it serve as a catalyst for revival. I still hope so. But I'd be surprised. Sears is still there and it's still the place to go to get a toolbox or a washing machine, but the days when I thumbed through the catalog as a kid are long gone. But Sears will never be number one again. I was driving down the road the other day and it just occurred to me, "There is no one who can fix this and the UMC is never turning around. And that's OK."
The UMC gives me a wonderful community to do really important ministry. For people who want to invest their lives in serving God's people and giving their lives away for the Gospel, the UMC is still a pretty good option. YWAM might be a better option if you don't have a decade or two of your life to spare, but it's still a pretty good option. It's much better to put your energy into making a difference where you are instead of worrying about whether we can all beat Target someday.
I hope I'm wrong. But let's get together again in 15 years and see.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
I'm Pro-life, but I'm Against this Bill
I foolishly and quickly posted my signature to a petition against Alabama's new bill requiring trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. It created, as my sister put it, a "Facebook firestorm" of confused pro-life friends. I pulled the post, but promised an explanation. Here it is.
I have a consistent ethic of life. I'm pro-life where abortion is concerned. I'm also pro-life on lots of other issues related to people who have already been born. I'd like to see a world in which life is seen as a gift from God which we all protect from womb to death.
I believe, however, that there is a wrong way to approach a good thing. Jesus showed this when he saved the world by taking up the cross and telling Peter to put away his sword. For Christians, the way we build the kingdom is not only an important thing. It's the only thing. We cannot build a beloved community in unloving ways.
I've worked with people who have had abortions. My wife has worked with lots of people who have had abortions. The trauma they experience, both because of the abortion and because of the causes of the abortion, have occupied many evening conversations about "How was your day?".
An abortion is a traumatic event. Even when it is for the wrong reasons. There is never, in my opinion, a good reason to use abortion as a form of birth control. This is the stance of the Social Principals of our church.
For many women, especially in Alabama, the often excluded cases--rape, incest, extreme birth defects, and pregnancies that put the mother's life at risk--are not rarities. Lots of women are raped and become pregnant. Lots of women, often very, very young women, become pregnant from their fathers, brothers, uncles, and other family members. Though my wife and I would never terminate a pregnancy due to extreme birth defects, this is an extremely painful and heartrending decision that couples occasionally make and I would not judge them for this choice. My heart is overcome with gratitude and awe for the courage of women who bear children conceived through rape. But I could never judge a woman who was unable to carry a child because the trauma of rape was compounded by bearing a child of rape.
In all these cases, a forced trans-vaginal ultrasound would compound one trauma with another. This is the aim of the legislation. The whole point is that the trauma of seeing the child as well as the trauma of the trans-vaginal ultrasound itself, would seem so horrible that the woman would forgo the abortion rather than go through the ultrasound.
These efforts are led by people who have religious reasons to oppose abortion. That's fine. So do I. But when the culture sees that Christians force their beliefs on the culture at large to this extent, then the name of Christ is damaged and the compassion of Christ is obscured.
We should labor everyday to see abortion become a thing of the past. But we should do it by celebrating life, healing the brokenness in people's lives that creates unwanted pregnancies, and blessing our world through self-sacrificial service.
The first Church created a culture of life in the Roman Empire in this way. They had no power to change laws. But the Roman custom for dealing with unwanted children was to expose them--to leave them in the street to be eaten by animals. So Christians took these children into their homes and raised them as their own. Christian population grew. And Roman culture was shamed and the custom abandoned.
What would a cruciform approach to ending abortion look like?
I have a consistent ethic of life. I'm pro-life where abortion is concerned. I'm also pro-life on lots of other issues related to people who have already been born. I'd like to see a world in which life is seen as a gift from God which we all protect from womb to death.
I believe, however, that there is a wrong way to approach a good thing. Jesus showed this when he saved the world by taking up the cross and telling Peter to put away his sword. For Christians, the way we build the kingdom is not only an important thing. It's the only thing. We cannot build a beloved community in unloving ways.
I've worked with people who have had abortions. My wife has worked with lots of people who have had abortions. The trauma they experience, both because of the abortion and because of the causes of the abortion, have occupied many evening conversations about "How was your day?".
An abortion is a traumatic event. Even when it is for the wrong reasons. There is never, in my opinion, a good reason to use abortion as a form of birth control. This is the stance of the Social Principals of our church.
For many women, especially in Alabama, the often excluded cases--rape, incest, extreme birth defects, and pregnancies that put the mother's life at risk--are not rarities. Lots of women are raped and become pregnant. Lots of women, often very, very young women, become pregnant from their fathers, brothers, uncles, and other family members. Though my wife and I would never terminate a pregnancy due to extreme birth defects, this is an extremely painful and heartrending decision that couples occasionally make and I would not judge them for this choice. My heart is overcome with gratitude and awe for the courage of women who bear children conceived through rape. But I could never judge a woman who was unable to carry a child because the trauma of rape was compounded by bearing a child of rape.
In all these cases, a forced trans-vaginal ultrasound would compound one trauma with another. This is the aim of the legislation. The whole point is that the trauma of seeing the child as well as the trauma of the trans-vaginal ultrasound itself, would seem so horrible that the woman would forgo the abortion rather than go through the ultrasound.
These efforts are led by people who have religious reasons to oppose abortion. That's fine. So do I. But when the culture sees that Christians force their beliefs on the culture at large to this extent, then the name of Christ is damaged and the compassion of Christ is obscured.
We should labor everyday to see abortion become a thing of the past. But we should do it by celebrating life, healing the brokenness in people's lives that creates unwanted pregnancies, and blessing our world through self-sacrificial service.
The first Church created a culture of life in the Roman Empire in this way. They had no power to change laws. But the Roman custom for dealing with unwanted children was to expose them--to leave them in the street to be eaten by animals. So Christians took these children into their homes and raised them as their own. Christian population grew. And Roman culture was shamed and the custom abandoned.
What would a cruciform approach to ending abortion look like?
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Book Review of Quiet by Susan Cain
Susan Cain's research on introversion is incredibly expansive. She worked on this book for more than five years and gathered to fruits of scores of scientific studies on personality. Many of them demonstrate that introversion is a matter of the way brains process stimuli, that introverts become overwhelmed and tired because they are more sensitive to stimuli, especially in social situations. Introverts therefore find a nice balance of stimulation in focused settings such as reading, working alone, or connecting to one or few others at a time. The science is worthy of psychologists but written in a way that a layperson like myself could get a basic idea of the material.
The gift of the book, however, is its nuanced understanding of culture and the dynamics of introversion. Cain doesn't believe that introversion is superior or inferior to extroversion. She argues that both personality types are necessary for a balanced and rich world. Her concern is that American culture is so oriented toward extroversion that the gifts of introverts are often suppressed, and many introverts live their lives exhausted because they have to pretend to be extroverted.
Cain demonstrates how introverts and extroverts may embrace each others' gifts in relational dynamics, the workplace, and many other settings. She argues that the financial meltdown of 2008 was partly due to a culture of extroversion that always rewarded risk and silenced the voices of those who tended to be more cautious or quiet. She demonstrates how academia and business have a lot to learn from cultures that value introversion, such as Japan and Korea.
I am naturally introverted but have an extroverted profession (clergy at a large church). I'm also married to a very strong extrovert. Cain's book helped me to overcome being frustrated by so much that feels to me to be a limitation. I don't work a room well, but I do connect closely with a few people at a time. I don't do well with an open door and I'm exhausted by constant meetings. There's nothing wrong with closing my door to get some things done. I like taking a day off to read, write, and have no noise around. I'm not crazy or misanthropic. I have to live in an extroverted world. But that world needs much that I have to offer. And I can only offer it by being who I am. So, I found this book to be affirming, practical, and a great grace.
The gift of the book, however, is its nuanced understanding of culture and the dynamics of introversion. Cain doesn't believe that introversion is superior or inferior to extroversion. She argues that both personality types are necessary for a balanced and rich world. Her concern is that American culture is so oriented toward extroversion that the gifts of introverts are often suppressed, and many introverts live their lives exhausted because they have to pretend to be extroverted.
Cain demonstrates how introverts and extroverts may embrace each others' gifts in relational dynamics, the workplace, and many other settings. She argues that the financial meltdown of 2008 was partly due to a culture of extroversion that always rewarded risk and silenced the voices of those who tended to be more cautious or quiet. She demonstrates how academia and business have a lot to learn from cultures that value introversion, such as Japan and Korea.
I am naturally introverted but have an extroverted profession (clergy at a large church). I'm also married to a very strong extrovert. Cain's book helped me to overcome being frustrated by so much that feels to me to be a limitation. I don't work a room well, but I do connect closely with a few people at a time. I don't do well with an open door and I'm exhausted by constant meetings. There's nothing wrong with closing my door to get some things done. I like taking a day off to read, write, and have no noise around. I'm not crazy or misanthropic. I have to live in an extroverted world. But that world needs much that I have to offer. And I can only offer it by being who I am. So, I found this book to be affirming, practical, and a great grace.
The Gospel According to Dr. Seuss
Everyone knows Green Eggs and Ham and The Cat and the Hat. My favorite Dr. Seuss stories are a little less known. On the birthday of Dr. Seuss, lots of folks are celebrating his work, and I was blessed to read my very favorite Dr. Seuss story to several classes of elementary schoolkids. I've had the chance to re-read several stories and think about how profound and beautiful their messages are. Here are a few that might help our country if everyone sat down together to hear them like schoolkids.
My favorite of all time is the Sneetches. Some of the Sneetches have stars on their bellies and others don't. The Star-Bellied Sneetches feel superior to the non-Star Bellied Sneetches. They exclude them from frankfurter roasts on the beach and won't let their children play together. A man named Sylvester McMonkey McBean shows up with a machine that puts stars on the excluded Sneetches. The Star-Bellied Sneetches are aghast that they no longer have a mark of superiority. Sylvester McMonkey McBean has another machine that takes the stars off. Each time Sneetches run through the machines, the price goes up, and everyone gets more confused and broke. When all the money is gone, McBean leaves town laughing at the foolishness of the Sneetches and how impossible it is for them to learn.
The Sneetches are us, of course. We have all kinds of ways that we label each other and group ourselves against each other. Tremendous energy is wasted and tremendous harm is caused, and the Sylvester McMonkey McBeans of the world figure out how to take advantage of the stupidity. The book was published in 1953 and surely was about the struggle for racial equality. In my own denomination, and often think that the very minute differences between the approach of "liberal" (there are no real liberals in Methodism in our area) and "conservatives" (there aren't many of the kind that I grew up with, either), grouping up according to what school we went to, and the new and very stupid distinction between "institutional" and "missional" as so much Star and not Star-Bellied Sneetching. I certainly think much of this grouping is driven by the Sylvester McMonkey McBeans of the world who use division as a means to get elected (to Congress, or General Conference, or whatever), to get Twitter followers, to get ratings, to get into fights about nothing. McBean says we Sneetches never learn. After Annual Conference, I always think he's right. Maybe not. There's always the Gospel, which Paul says gives us a new identity in Christ, who loves every person on the face of the earth enough to die for each one.
My other favorite is the Zax. The north-going Zax only goes north, the south-going Zax only goes south, and when come face-to-face neither can step out of the way to let the other one pass. They are stuck. When a highway is built through the area, it has to be built over them. when a city grows, it grows around them. The world moves on, but there they are, toe-to-toe and eyeball to eyeball. Consistent Conservative to Progressive, as stuck as Congress, like a conversation between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly. Thank God the world goes on without them. How often does the Bible teach us how to prefer each other, hear each other, and give way to another?
Of course, there's Yertle the Turtle, king of all he sees, who climbs over more and more turtles to see more and more because he is "king of all that he sees." Eventually the stack falls and Yertle is king of the mud. Anyone who understand the difference between the kind of King we serve and the kings of this world will see the Gospel clearly the message of Yertle.
Dr. Seuss never had explicitly religious themes. He was a Lutheran, though many thought he was Jewish and he experienced mis-directed anti-Semitism. When I was a child, his messages were seen as well-told moral and character building tales. Now, lots of people see them as liberal, which, to me, shows how much good conservativism has been co-opted by an ugly and unprincipled heartlessness and mindlessness.
Happy birthday, Dr. Seuss. Your words are good medicine for our time and for our souls. It's time to read your wonderful lines with new and knowing eyes.
My favorite of all time is the Sneetches. Some of the Sneetches have stars on their bellies and others don't. The Star-Bellied Sneetches feel superior to the non-Star Bellied Sneetches. They exclude them from frankfurter roasts on the beach and won't let their children play together. A man named Sylvester McMonkey McBean shows up with a machine that puts stars on the excluded Sneetches. The Star-Bellied Sneetches are aghast that they no longer have a mark of superiority. Sylvester McMonkey McBean has another machine that takes the stars off. Each time Sneetches run through the machines, the price goes up, and everyone gets more confused and broke. When all the money is gone, McBean leaves town laughing at the foolishness of the Sneetches and how impossible it is for them to learn.
The Sneetches are us, of course. We have all kinds of ways that we label each other and group ourselves against each other. Tremendous energy is wasted and tremendous harm is caused, and the Sylvester McMonkey McBeans of the world figure out how to take advantage of the stupidity. The book was published in 1953 and surely was about the struggle for racial equality. In my own denomination, and often think that the very minute differences between the approach of "liberal" (there are no real liberals in Methodism in our area) and "conservatives" (there aren't many of the kind that I grew up with, either), grouping up according to what school we went to, and the new and very stupid distinction between "institutional" and "missional" as so much Star and not Star-Bellied Sneetching. I certainly think much of this grouping is driven by the Sylvester McMonkey McBeans of the world who use division as a means to get elected (to Congress, or General Conference, or whatever), to get Twitter followers, to get ratings, to get into fights about nothing. McBean says we Sneetches never learn. After Annual Conference, I always think he's right. Maybe not. There's always the Gospel, which Paul says gives us a new identity in Christ, who loves every person on the face of the earth enough to die for each one.
My other favorite is the Zax. The north-going Zax only goes north, the south-going Zax only goes south, and when come face-to-face neither can step out of the way to let the other one pass. They are stuck. When a highway is built through the area, it has to be built over them. when a city grows, it grows around them. The world moves on, but there they are, toe-to-toe and eyeball to eyeball. Consistent Conservative to Progressive, as stuck as Congress, like a conversation between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly. Thank God the world goes on without them. How often does the Bible teach us how to prefer each other, hear each other, and give way to another?
Of course, there's Yertle the Turtle, king of all he sees, who climbs over more and more turtles to see more and more because he is "king of all that he sees." Eventually the stack falls and Yertle is king of the mud. Anyone who understand the difference between the kind of King we serve and the kings of this world will see the Gospel clearly the message of Yertle.
Dr. Seuss never had explicitly religious themes. He was a Lutheran, though many thought he was Jewish and he experienced mis-directed anti-Semitism. When I was a child, his messages were seen as well-told moral and character building tales. Now, lots of people see them as liberal, which, to me, shows how much good conservativism has been co-opted by an ugly and unprincipled heartlessness and mindlessness.
Happy birthday, Dr. Seuss. Your words are good medicine for our time and for our souls. It's time to read your wonderful lines with new and knowing eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)