Category: Church

Human Rights and Christian Comfort

Posted on

For this month’s Synchroblog we are joining in with the Amnesty International sponsored Bloggers Unite for Human Rights. I guess the idea is to give the Christian take on the issue. My first reaction to that idea though was to recall how uncomfortable most Christian circles I have been a part of are with the concept of human rights (not to mention Amnesty International). There are those who don’t like the topic because it focuses on human needs in the here and now, not spiritual paths to heaven. It is not about whether or not people should be tortured or starved, but that dealing with such issues distracts from evangelism. Others though who may intellectually agree with the concept of human rights don’t see them as necessarily Christian concerns. They say caring about whether or not people are treated humanely and fairly isn’t a Biblical issue it is modern cultural construct. So while we should care about such things as decent human beings, we shouldn’t bring our faith into it.

Obviously I have issues with both approaches. I don’t like extremes that dichotomize the body and soul or the sacred and the secular. I don’t like faith systems that prioritize one part of faith over another (evangelism over service, doctrine over practice… or the reverse). If my faith informs how I am to live my life and I am called to love others those things don’t matter. If feeding the hungry by making sure they have access to food is part of loving them, does it matter if it can be labeled as modern humanism or not? And no matter how fantastic evangelism is, can people really say that it’s okay to let people starve?

I think too often the ideology wars stand in the way of seeing what is actually happening to real people. Fighting for human rights isn’t about politics or philosophies ultimately. We can use such things as shields to protect us from reality. Could anyone honestly stand before someone starving because of oppression and injustice and tell them “screw you, you are too worthless for me to change my _______ (politics, theology, opinion, routine) to bother to help. I’m not responsible for you, and in fact you don’t deserve help anyway, so just deal with it.”

But of course we say such things every day.

So I think Christians coming together to say they support human rights is a significant step in the right direction. To leave behind our excuses and our theology shields and not be afraid to visibly care is a needed step in our world today.

Contributers to this Synchroblog (so far) include –

Read more

Sex Thoughts

Posted on

Disclaimer – Really long post ahead that is sure to piss at least a few people off.  Enjoy.

 

I’m usually very wary about Christian books that deal with sex for two basic reasons.  Generally they so super-spiritualize sex that it becomes nearly indistinguishable from say a prayer meeting or worship service.  Secondly I find that I usually completely disagree with the typical Christian conceptions about sex.   And this is where I get in trouble.  Where I cross the lines of taboo topics for decent Christian conversation and confirm people’s worst fears about me/young people/the emerging church.  Where I either make people uncomfortable or just piss them off.  So I usually play by the rules, avoid the topic, and let everyone assume I think like a “typical evangelical woman” (whatever that is) on the subject.

 

Well it’s kinda hard to keep my mouth shut when I’m sent a book to review that I have serious issues with on this topic.  So at the risk of stirring up another hornet’s nest here, I have to say that I have issues with Michael Leahy’s new book Porn Nation (and honestly I continue to find it amusing that these anti-porn sites/books have porn related titles.  I know it’s meant to bring porn users to them, but it also brings up all sorts of real porn when one searches for them on Google or Amazon.) The book is Leahy’s story about how his sex addiction destroyed his life.  Of course it also has sections on how our culture is oversexed and some really generic ideas for spiritual healing.  In all it was a very short book that I found didn’t end up saying much at all and what it did say was based on false assumptions and dichotomies.

 

I don’t deny that a sex addiction is harmful or that it has destroyed families.  As with any addiction the potential exists to cause harm to those one loves the most.  I appreciate the author’s vulnerability in telling his story and admitting how his addiction hurt others.  I also don’t deny that porn can exploit and often has connections to sex trafficking, forced prostitution, rape, and slavery.  Or that there are illegal and deviant forms of it.  Sex can be used to hurt, control, and demean.  Such injustices are always wrong wherever they occur.  But as I read the book I had the distinct feeling the author was throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.  His personal pain caused him to swing to the opposite extreme of viewing all sexuality as bad and to blame the sexuality in our culture for his struggles with selfishness and addiction.   While I question his naïve historical view of sex (assuming that we are the first generation to ever be sexual), as well as tendency to lump all cultural expressions of sexuality under the porn label, it is his negative view of sexuality that I had the most problem with.

 

Early in the book as he describes his first experience with sexuality (an accidental orgasm and the thrill of seeing a topless picture of a women), the author assumes a tone of disgust and regret.  From the awkward and incomprehensible “sex ed” class taught by a priest to his own sexual experimentation, the assumption is that being a sexual being is a bad thing.  This is his message after working through his sexual addictions, but it is also the message I have heard my whole life from the church.  Even before the recent trends within evangelical Christianity to describe the sole purpose of sex as being procreation (basically for anti-homosexual reasons), sex wasn’t something to be celebrated.  In typical modern dualistic fashion, our bodies are disparaged and sexuality is seen as the basest expression of that despised flesh.  Sure some books like Intended for Pleasure hinted at that aspect of sex, but only as long as there wasn’t too much pleasure involved and sex was described as really being about spirituality.  Basically the vicissitudes of Platonism haunted the bedrooms and made an easy scapegoat of sexuality.

 

This view of sex defined the way children were raised and youth were taught.  Children were taught in the most Skinneristic of fashions to be utterly ashamed of and disgusted by their bodies through the quick reproves of parents whenever they attempted to touch their genitalia.  Youth pastors held the sacred honor of scaring teens away from sex by whatever means necessary.  A mixed bag of fear tactics, heavy guilt, and extreme suppression usually made up their arsenal.  It generally worked too (at least for appearances sake, those who “sinned” through dressing too sexily or by getting pregnant were not so subtly asked to leave).   Anyone one who expresses curiosity about sex openly was silenced and generally ridiculed.  But of course everyone knew that most of the guys and a good handful of the girls were exploring their sexuality on their own trying to ignore the conditioned guilt they felt at being a sexual being.

 

Sexual memoirs like Leahy’s just portray the continuation of this rejection of the body.   At one point in the book he describes the sad situation of girls who feel like they have to “put out” for guys or dress really sexy in order to be affirmed as a person.  I agree, that is bad and is part of the continued evils girls face as we emerge from patriarchy.  Girls should be taught to respect their bodies and themselves.  This respect includes understanding who they are as sexual beings and the best way to discover healthy sexuality.  Leahy though decides to merely lament the fact that girls these days are not innocent (once again historical naivety – were they ever!?), and proceeds to blame Brittney Spears, MySpace, and rap music for the downfall of the young.  Apparently denying and ignoring sex (along with figuring out how to shelter “children” from it) is preferred over teaching healthy ways to interact with it.

 

Of course in Christianity where sex is to be saved for marriage whole other issues arise because of a lack of healthy ways to understand sex.  Girls, taught to be ashamed of sex from birth, are generally told that although they will most likely not enjoy sex they had better give it to their husbands or else it is their fault if he strays.  Years of suppression and guilt are to be overcome in a night.  They need to please men enough to keep them from sin (affairs, porn, fantasy…), but of course stay within healthy spiritual boundaries.  Anything that indulges in the sheer physicality of sex or that encourages sexual exploration and fulfillment is taboo.  Only tasteful lacy lingerie on occasion is permitted, the lights should always be off, no games or stories or toys, no sex vacations, no experimenting with positions, no movies or fantasy play, no masturbation, and, most assuredly, no talking about any of this stuff ever.  Couple who do cross those lines face lingering guilt and wonder if they are doing something wrong by enjoying sex with their spouse.  Women become angry and ashamed if the husband tries to be intimate in those ways.  They blame his deviant sex addiction and shut their sexuality down even further.

 

And the resources given to help are books like Porn Nation that continue to spread the “sex is evil” lie and tack on a few pages at the end about how after years of struggle they found healing and are happily married.  Sorry, but I find that lacking.  I firmly believe that God created sex and that we are meant to enjoy it.  Yes, I think that should happen with a committed relationship – that relational connection and intimacy being part of what it takes to be fully enjoyed imho.  So I won’t deny that I am a sexual person.  Nor will I play the game of attempting to hide that away by being made to feel guilty for dressing a certain way (that “way” varying depending on who is doing the judging) or just because I am a woman.  I will not run from expressions of sexuality in culture or think they hold the power to destroy people (addictions and selfishness are problems, sexuality is not).  I will not see the physical body as something only to be shamed by, or see developing my relationship with my husband sexually as anything I should ever feel guilty about.  Yes, sex can be used to harm and destroy, but there are ways to develop a healthy sexuality that strengthens and respects people that doesn’t require the extremes of disparaging the body or suppressing sexuality.

Read more

Pentecost

Posted on

Change comes on the wind.  Or at least that’s how it happens in movies.

 

The scene is set.  A quiet little town or neighborhood existing as it always has.  The habits and rituals of daily life are center stage.  No major crises are looming and yet something appears to be missing.  People appear to be content, but one can see they are not fully alive.  They lack a certain spark, the joie de vivre so to speak that gives a passion and purpose to ordinary existence.  This is when the wind changes.  A select few may pause to notice the change marked by the creaking turning of the weather vanes, but then they go their way forgetting they noticed anything at all.  They are unaware how drastically their lives are about to be transformed or that the wind currently whipping through their hair heralds the awakening of their souls.  For with the wind comes a new voice, one that will speak into their lives and set them on an utterly new path.

 

This is where in the movies we are introduced to say Mary Poppins or Vianne in Chocolat.  Unassuming at first glance, these women blow into town and quietly get to work at changing lives.  Their ways are a bit unorthodox to be sure.  Having a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down or opening up a chocolaterie during Lent just aren’t the way things are done.  Yet one soon discovers that the outward quirks of these women are part of the awakening and healing process they bring to those around them.  From Mary Poppins helping a family become a true family, to Vianne helping a town restore broken relationships, it took the stirrings of something new and different to affect change.  Of course their ways were questioned and ridiculed by those who preferred the status quo, but eventually the winds of change prevailed and a happier much more alive group of people emerged.  The wind then once again changes and pushes onward to new situations in need of this special form of healing and growth.

 

The image of a mighty rushing wind is of course the Biblical imagery for the Holy Spirit.  On Pentecost change came with the wind as the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and other followers of Jesus who had been meeting in prayer.  Yet it isn’t just the Holy spirit rushing in on the wind that I find so extraordinary (although it certainly is that), it is how it was sent to dwell in and empower Christ’s followers to do the work he left them.  Change didn’t just come with the wind (or as the wind), it took the form of people sent out to transform the world.

 

Like the Hollywood stories of Mary Poppins and Vianne, change occurred often through unexpected and unorthodox methods as those who had received the Holy Spirit sought to bring hope and healing to those they encountered.  The Holy Spirit wasn’t blowing haphazardly, stirring hearts to change here and there.  Real people found themselves moved to be the harbingers of these changes.  One finds the church praying in Acts 4 that they might have boldness in spreading the message of Christ.  The scriptures tell us that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and not only were they able to testify powerfully, but that they were unified as a group and took care of each others needs.  Radical change came upon the group in ways that brought them closer and healed the hurts of those in needs among them.  Change brought about by the work of people empowered by the Spirit.

 

It is this sort of change that is needed in our world today.  Too often I hear prayers asking for God to send the Spirit to change the hearts of a community or to bring healing to a situation.  These prayers while rightfully trusting in the power of the Spirit fail to recall that the Spirit works through people to affect these changes.  We should be praying instead that we would be emboldened to change hearts and help heal.  Being filled with the spirit isn’t something that is done merely for our own good, but to empower us to serve.  Seeking to transform the world is of course something none of us can do on our own strength, but it is a vital part of the very nature of what it means to be filled with the Spirit.

 

So are we even bothering with the winds of change?  Are we the ones sitting around seemingly content yet utterly unalive when we should be the Mary Poppinses and Viannes of the world?  We have been given the Spirit, we should be empowered by the greatest wind of change ever to blow on this earth  –  why are we expecting not to have to do anything?  We should be the one’s loving boldly, sharing the good news, and taking care of the needs of the hurting.  We should be the one’s out there bringing families back together, healing broken marriages, and restoring broken friendships.   We should be the one’s overcoming oppression, setting captives free, and seeking justice.  We should truly be acting as witnesses to God’s power.

 

Our scene is set.  The wind is blowing.  May we be emboldened to act.

Read more

Should Christians Apologize?

Posted on

Over at the Justice and Compassion blog Pam Hogeweide posted her thoughts on the Seeds of Compassion event. While I continue to be amazed at the resistance in the Christian community to even talking about compassion with others, I was intrigued by a sub-conversation that arose in the comments to that post. One commenter in particular expressed her opposition to the idea that Christians should be apologizing for evil done in our collective past. The reasons for her opposition are summed up as follows –

1. People of other religions are jerks too. Why should Christians apologize if others are not expected to as well. She wondered why “Christians [are] the only ones groveling around and begging forgiveness for the disrespectful behavior of only some of the members of their religion?”
2. Christians really haven’t done all that much that is bad. Or at least all the good we have done outweighs the bad.
3. People shouldn’t have to apologize for stuff they were not personally involved in. She wrote, “if YOU have not partaken in toxic Christianity, then I am not sure you need to apologize for something you didn’t do. It is not YOUR fault that others calling themselves Christians have acted like jerks.” For her, “an apology implies some personal culpability.” As an example she wrote, “As a white person, it is not my fault that black people were treated unfairly a century ago. I would take that further even and say that as a white person growing up in the SOUTH, it is not my personal fault. I do not owe black people an apology. (actually, the government is still trying to weasel it out of me via affirmative action: I said I am sorry with the fact that my law school admission doesn’t count as much as if I was certain minorities, whether I wanted to or not).”

Of course others on the thread attempted to engage with her often to no avail, but her perspective haunted me. While she didn’t cross into MD territory and say that we need to be jerks for Jesus, the utter lack of ability to expression compassion for the other surprised me. Her first objection, revealed more of a sense of entitlement than love. Sure I can admit that other religions have done evil as well, but I will not refuse responsibility for my own religion until I feel like other people have taken responsibility for theirs. If I always waited for others to seek forgiveness before I forgave, would I really be extending forgiveness or just gloating in their groveling? I though similarly about her second objection. I don’t think evil is graded on a sliding scale. No amount of good negates the need to take responsibility and apologize for wrong actions. The call for an apology (or the act thereof) is not intended to silence or ignore good done. I’m not a fan of “yes, but” apologies (from my toddler or from adults). Trying to evade responsibility and escape needed amends by attempting to paint oneself in a better light cheapens the apology. There is a time and place for lauding accomplishments, just not as a means of avoiding an apology.

But it is the third excuse that really bothered me. Even if it is true that someone is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, the group they have chosen to associate with is not – and that is how those who have been hurt by that group (or just outsiders in general) will view that individual. Either that individual can act arrogantly and deny responsibility or they can accept what full membership in that group entails – both the good and the bad. Christianity’s main themes are those of mercy and forgiveness. We are willing to accept the “unfairness” or original sin, but are too prideful to accept the unfair baggage our religion carries. It just doesn’t make sense, especially not to the outside world curious about who we are.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any individual Christian can ever truthfully claim to not have partaken in wrongdoing or toxic Christianity. (just like no white person can ever truthfully claim to not have participated in racial injustice in some form or another). Beyond the fact that just the act of denying responsibility for Christianity’s evils appears as self-centered toxic Christianity to many, most Christians today are living the benefits of Christendom – benefits that came at the expense of others. American Christians are living with the wealth and resources of “Christian” operations like Manifest Destiny and attempts to “Christianize and civilize” other nations (mostly as an excuse to rape their land of it’s resources). The denominations and doctrines we bicker about exist because they were the ones willing to slaughter and torture dissenting viewpoints. Ministries and churches are built (and get rich) on messages of hatred – give money to help Israel kill those Palestinians, or to make sure our students don’t know gay people exist, or to support the IRA, or even fund corrupt dictators and conflict diamond schemes in Africa. It’s hard to be an American Christian and not be connected to some group involved in such things. So even if you have never Bible-bashed, manipulated someone to say a prayer, or burned someone at the stake most Christians are receiving the benefits of toxic Christianity. There is no out of sight out of mind excuse than can work. The connection to wrongdoing is there and if we have compassion at all for those we have hurt, we will take responsibility to apologize if not make amends.

In a way this is about getting over “me-centered” Christianity. One’s faith isn’t just an individual thing, disconnected from history or the rest of the world. We are part of a community of believers and (like it or not) we need to be willing to fully be a part of that community. Recognizing the faults present there is a necessary first step to helping make things better and to understanding why others view us the way they do. Sure it can be uncomfortable when someone lays the blame of say the Crusades or hurtful statements by Dobson, Robertson, or Driscoll fully on you. But it seems more in line with the way of Christ to admit such things are wrong and apologize for them instead of getting angry and attempting to defend yourself or them. Of course, I haven’t always done a good job at this, but it is a habit I am attempting to develop. I’ve discovered that choosing to identify with a community can be a struggle, but it also is vital to growing a deeper and more holistic faith that focuses on loving God and others and not just myself.

Read more

Religion Fit for Public Consumption

Posted on

I was reading about the history of Christianity in America the other day and I came across an interesting phrase. The author was addressing the ongoing need in our nation for there to exist “a religion fit for public consumption.” Such a religion of course serves not only to unify people but to create decent and compliant citizens. In essence it exists as both the opiate of the masses and the backbone of the country. It is something the Founding Fathers saw as a necessary element in creating a society even if they imagined themselves above participating.

I was struck at how tied to such a religion we Americans tend to be. This is a religion that dovetails with our lives as they already are. It shores up our economic systems, promotes civic duty and pride, and never attempts to challenge the status quo. It meets basic spiritual needs, helps create healthy social networks, and helps promote moral systems. Such a religion is safe, fit for public consumption, FDA Approved so to speak.

So it is no wonder that religious movements that challenge the civic system are derided or labeled heretical. Instead of appropriately keeping the system running, these religious movements counter-culturally offer revolutionary challenges. They don’t support life as it already is, but offer alternatives that question the basic assumptions and values of such ways. Their leaders ask hard questions and make uncomfortable statements. These religions are less about something the public consumes and more about leading lives of transformative justice, love, and mercy. You know the sort of stuff the Bible refers to as “true religion.”

These aren’t religions that form the backbone of a nation. Anything that retains the right to question the nations will never get it’s stamp of approval. A religion that actually affects the lives of its followers in radical ways is not “a religion fit for public consumption.” It never will be. So why do I still see more churches caring about being fit for public consumption than about following true religion? How have we been so deceived into idolatry?

Read more

Making Room for Women’s Voices

Posted on

I wanted to point out an intriguing post Rose Madrid-Swetman put up recently. As part of a reception Off the Map hosted related to the Seeds of Compassion event, she interviewed Rob Bell on the subject of women in ministry. She summarized the interview on her blog – here. But there were a couple of parts that really stood out to me.

First I liked the response from Rob (as summarized by Rose) about how he has come to view the whole women in ministry issue – He said that he used to hear the old argument that there are two sides to this theological position but now he says there are not two sides, if you hold to the position that oppresses (probably my word) women you are just wrong. I think this gets at the heart of the issue for many women. This isn’t about theology or esoteric debates, this is about oppression. And oppression is wrong. End of story. But most people really don’t get that.

The other part of the interview that stood out to me was Rob’s reaction to the question of how he uses his influence to help give voice to women. He apparently didn’t understand the question or why such a thing would be necessary. A small handful of “celebrity christian” speakers (like Brian McLaren) have made a point of not speaking at events that don’t give women a voice. They use the little power they have to help equalize the playing field and provide opportunities for those that are often overlooked. This isn’t about getting second rate speakers up there (as is often assumed), but making people aware of an issue that usually doesn’t cross the radar of conference planners. But Rob’s response was the more typical one – why is that needed?

I was interested in the comments around the web to Rose’s posing of this question. Some really didn’t get why having the voice of women present mattered at all (and of course others directly opposed such a thing altogether). Others wondered why important men like Rob should be forced to waste their time on the women’s issue. Others proposed that there are far greater issues in the world to pay attention to than than equality for women. Generally the same of excuses the church have given for years to avoid the issue. Sure they might think women should be in ministry and treated fairly, but why bother actually doing anything about it?

So I’m am grateful to women like Rose who are asking the hard questions (to prominent leaders at that) and who aren’t afraid to keep pushing for so-called beliefs to be actualized as reality.

Read more

Guilt and Unity

Posted on

Something I often find myself struggling with is the call to be unified with other believers and my ability to put up with crap (to put it bluntly). I know I should get a better attitude and try to be more open and understanding and all that, but it honestly is a struggle. It’s not that I don’t intellectually acknowledge that we are all part of the church universal or that I don’t see other believers as brothers and sisters in Christ. But there are times when spiritually I just can’t handle week after week of soul-crushing interaction, theology, or worship. And I’m really sick of being made to feel guilty because of it.

Recently I have encountered numerous accusations against the emerging church that we are an elitist denomination who doesn’t know how to play well with others. Because we express dissenting opinions or rethink the mechanics of church, we are the outsiders who are destroying the church. If we would just shut up and deal then all unity will be restored or something. To an extent I understand that. There is so much division in the church that even unintentionally causing more is difficult for me. But the conditions of such unity are often too hard to accept. If I have to stop thinking and asking questions is it worth it? If I have to accept that shallow prayer requests, trendy music, and listening to lectures is all I need for spiritual growth? If I have to pretend that fill-in-the-blank “bible” studies (followed by craft time) are the only theology women need? Or that my highest calling is to be a good mom? I can understand that such things might work for some people, but I can’t do it. So why am I constantly told that I am wrong and divisive because of that?

I’ve heard from so many others who have completely left the church because of these issues. If they didn’t fit into one particular packaging of the church they were made to feel guilty. And of course leaving the church for the demonized denomination down the street was out of the question, so they just stopped going to church. The homogeneous one size fits all church appears to be all about unity of faith, but in reality how many people have had their faith destroyed because of it? I have way more questions than answers here. And I am sure that I’ve offended traditionalists of a variety of stripes. But as I become more comfortable with who I am and with choosing to seek God, I get more and more disturbed by the accusations leveled against me by those who boxes I don’t fit into.

Read more

Children’s Museums and Spiritual Formation

Posted on

Yesterday we took Emma to a local children’s museum. She calls the place the “museum house” and begs to go there. Basically it’s a place where the kids get to “play” with all sorts of educational installations that supposedly teach them about gravity, light, sound, wind… Mike had never been, so we braved a museum on a Saturday in winter (if it feels like winter, it’s still winter – the picture’s from last summer btw). To clarify, Mike braved the masses and interacted with Emma and I sorta waddled around and claimed whatever chair/bench I could find.

We’re museum members, so I generally take Emma there on weekdays after lunch (when it’s not crowded). There’s generally mostly moms and grandparents there with kids, and a respectable number of dads letting the kids play. I had never been on a Saturday before and from my aloof pregnancy observation post I was intrigued by the new variety of visitor present. At the risk of gender stereotyping, I will call him the “Engineer/CEO Dad.”* The take charge and achieve perfection sort of dad. This is the dad who works a traditional schedule and so would never show up mid-week with the work-at-home, stay-at-home, flexible schedule dads. From what I typically see, most other parents at the museum might explain a certain exhibit to a kid, but they then let the kid play. The Engineer/CEO Dad jumped right in. Not to play with their kid per se, but to figure out how everything worked and to show their kid the right way to do things. If the kid was building a track for a ball to cascade down, the dad would jump in to improve on the design so it worked better. If the kid was building a tower of blocks, the dad would insist on strengthening the foundation so it wouldn’t fall. The drums had to be played in rhythm and the manipulable shapes had to be made into a recognizable design. If their kid couldn’t handle it, the dad did it for them.

I was fascinated. At first I was a bit annoyed – the point is about letting the kids discover things for themselves! Then I was convicted about how much I step-in to prevent Emma from having to struggle as she learns. Then I started to wonder about how much we as the church step in to prevent fellow Christians from struggling to figure things out for themselves. We want people to have all the right answers and especially the right theology. So instead of encouraging questions and self-discovery, we spoon feed answers. Not that I’m against education, but like these dads we assume we need to take charge of other people’s spiritual journey. But will that actually help them learn or develop a deep faith? Or does it just lead them to parrot answers they don’t really believe because they know those are the “right answers”? If we think allowing kids to discover things for themselves is good pedagogy, then why don’t we allow the for the same when it comes to spiritual formation?

*(I am sure that dads who are Engineers (hi dad) and CEOs are great dads and that there are a lot of moms who act this way too… just observing what I saw)

Read more

Happy Easter

Posted on

Happy Easter All.

The quote of the day. After the war-protesters were arrested at Holy Name Cathedral this morning, Cardinal Francis George responded “We should all work for peace,” George said, “but not by interrupting the worship of God.”

Because this is America. Peace has nothing to do with worship, or Easter, or Jesus…

Edited to clarify my thoughts –

I honestly have really mixed reactions to the whole thing.  I don’t think the protest was the best approach to getting the message out there.  As the paper mentioned this morning, doing something like that in Chicago in the wake of the NIU shootings is a bit too much.  Luckily this was a Catholic church and not an evangelical megachurch or the protesters could have been shot on site.

But I understand the need to do something for peace and that yes shocking people out of complacency is needed.  They might have had a somewhat sympathetic audience at the cathedral, but how many people there are actively working to bring an end to violence?  If their words don’t translate into action what are they worth? (and yes I am speaking to myself here as well).  Perhaps the homily would have encouraged some to action, perhaps not.  This is an issue that goes much deeper than politics and should not be ignored by the church because it can be labeled “political.”  If we care about peace, if we care about the Iraqis who deal with real horror everyday, we wont shut such things out of our worship services.  We wont be more pissed off that our “Easter finery” got fake blood on it and that we had to think about uncomfortable things than the fact that those horrific things are happening to real people.

This was an Easter service.  A celebration that God has overcome death – that enemy has been destroyed.  It comes just a week after we remember when Jesus challenged political powers in a triumphal entry into Jerusalem and then marched into the Temple to speak out (in physical action) against the injustices being perpetrated there against foreigners and the poor.  Was what he just did a silly stunt to gain a bit of media attention?  Shouldn’t he just have let the people worship the way they expected to worship over the Passover holiday?

Honestly I’m conflicted.  I don’t know if the protest was useful, but I think something is needed.  What would have been better and effective?  How can the message of Jesus and the hope of Easter be translated into action and not just warm fuzzies?  How can we get over just our comfort and care about the needs of others (in Iraq and elsewhere)?  There are deeper questions here than just the “disturbance of peace” and I think they need to be addressed instead of just brushed aside because something challenges our assumptions regarding what is appropriate behavior for church.

Read more

America, Race, and the Church

Posted on

This past week in America we have witnessed a rather disturbing portrayal of the the church. The reactions across the blogosphere and in newspaper editorials to the Rev. Wright’s comments and Obama’s response have helped demonstrate the underlying attitudes of priorities of the American church. First I should say, although I don’t agree with some of what Rev. Wright said, I do think he spoke prophetic truth and pointed out some real issues in America. I thought Obama’s speech on racism was accurate and something our country needs to hear. I am shocked at the extreme denial of “race issues” in America that has resulted from the speech. I’m sad that Obama’s first real public act “as a black man” has caused so many to turn on him. Obviously there are still deep race issues in America, regardless of the number of white editorials that say “I don’t look at a person’s skin color.”

But it’s the church issue that really gets me. Two thoughts keep surfacing in the things I read – first that Obama should have caused dissension and left his church community years ago. This assumption reveals the opinion of many Americans that this is how church should operate. If you don’t like something at church, you need to initiate a coup and/or leave the church for a better option. Community doesn’t matter as much as getting what you want from church. Apparently challenging words and honesty about issues in America are cause enough to destroy or abandon community. Church splits, gossip, backstabbing, and church-hopping are all apparently what America expects and wants from church. I know this is a complicated issue for many churches, but why has the first priority become leaving or kicking people out instead of building community and engaging in dialogue?

The second assumption I’m encountering is that pastors shouldn’t be controversial or prophetic, especially if that involves questioning America. This elevation of civil religion and America worship is scary. To place pointing out the sins of the country or just areas where growth is needed as out of bounds for the church prevents real change from ever occurring. I’ve heard plenty of sermons pointing out the issues with other countries, minority groups in America, or the poor, but they never cross the line into questioning establishment America. I could get soundbites of vitriolic hatred (lacking any constructive outlook) from any number of churches regarding “minority” issues (against homosexuals, women, Muslims, the poor…) and for some reason those statements are generally tolerated or at least ignored (if not taken up as a battle cry). Question the greatness of our empire or suggest lifestyle changes for the average American and you are ostracized (and told you are unbiblical for causing division).

What a freaking load of crap. What has happened to the church? When did questioning America become a greater sin than permitting injustice? For me, this is no longer about a political race, this is about having lost the idea of what church is.

Church doesn’t exist to rubber-stamp the status-quo of the empire’s powerful. Church isn’t about a nice experience that helps you feel content with your life as it is. Church isn’t about getting to sing happy songs. Church isn’t about what makes you feel most comfortable. Church isn’t about ignoring the problems of the world until you actually believe they have disappeared. Church is not about complacency in the American Dream.

The church is about being salt and light. About being a city on a hill. About loving God and loving others. About overturning the tables in the temple. About loosing the chains of injustice and setting captives free.

America – it is about getting over ourselves, laying down our lives and giving ourselves fully to following Christ. Somewhere we have seriously lost our way.

Read more