This morning our pastor made an interesting connection between the lectionary readings. The epistle reading came from 1 Peter 2:19-25, a portion of which reads:
"For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.
If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps."
The Gospel reading came from John 10:1-10, a portion of which reads:
"I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."
So often, Christians want to read the promise that Jesus gives in John 10 as referring to this earthly life. We want this to be a promise that if we follow Jesus than he will abundantly bless this life. Some versions of Christianity have even built their theology around this promise. The Prosperity Gospel, as it was called, preached that God blesses his followers monetarily in this life. The converse implication is that if a person is suffering than he or she must be in sin. There are versions of this perverse gospel being preached today. Sometimes it is subtle, but if you listen for the rhetoric, it is there.
The wise formers of the lectionary must have known the potential danger of misinterpretations of which life Jesus was referring to for they paired it with an epistle reading that makes it impossible to understand Jesus promise of abundant life as referring to monetary blessings. For Peter is crystal clear that followers of Christ are not promised blessings in this life - at least in the way that "blessings" are understood these days. Rather, Peter writes that Christians have been called to suffer unjustly. Bear in mind, he does not say that we may suffer unjustly, he says that this is what we have been called to.
Why would God call us to suffer unjustly, our modern minds may ask. The answer is simple. This is the example that our savior set for us. Jesus suffered unjustly because he was faithful to God in an unfaithful world. The original audience of 1 Peter likewise lived in an unfaithful world and Peter knew that to follow in Jesus' footsteps would likewise result in unjust suffering. Christians today continue to live in an unfaithful world, and if we are faithful to the example of our savior, the result will be the same. There have been more Christian martyrs this year already than in the entire first century.
Abundant life comes in the pure joy of living a Christlike life and the reward that results from such a life. May God give us all the courage and strength to live the life to which we have been called.
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Monday, November 12, 2007
Responsa quaestiones
This past summer, much was made of Pope Benedict XVI's supposedly derogatory statements regarding Protestant churches, namely that they are not properly to be called "the Church," but rather "ecclesial communities." This upset a lot of Protestants, and subsequently caused a general lament for the current leadership of the pontificate. Pope Benedict became the subject of much derision, and I heard it claimed that he is "rolling back all of the positive progress made by Vatican II and John Paul II." Of course I, curiously, never was able to find the actual document where these comments were made. I must admit that I was suspicious of the whole affair because, first, I tend to give Roman Catholicism the benefit of the doubt in many areas where most of my Protestant brethren are ready to throw it to the lions; and, second, because I know Pope Benedict XVI to have been one of the leading theologians at Vatican II. It simply did not make sense to me that he would now "roll back" any progress.
Recently, I finally located the comments. It turns out that they were not made at random by the Pope to stir up divisions or to change the teaching of Vatican II. Rather, they came in the form of a document, Responsa quaestiones, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and endorsed by the Pope. You can read it here. This document was written as an official response to the lingering questions by the Catholic faithful resulting from Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church. As such, it did not change the teaching of Vatican II, but merely clarified it.
The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:
1. The Church is the visible communion of the people of God, signified in the Holy Eucharust, who are called by the Father and redeemed by the Son, who are pilgrims on this earth, having a foretaste of the kingdom of Heaven in the presence of the Spirit yet moving toward the full realization of the kingdom in eternity.
2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
The second statement is where most perceive a change in Catholic teaching. Namely, Vatican II no longer equated the Church with the Roman Catholic Church, an equation that was being made as late as the middle of the twentieth century. It did not equate the two because it recognized, what it called "ecclesial elements" outside of the Catholic Church. Ecclesial elements are those things such as the Scriptures, the sacraments, etc. Therefore, though the fullness of the ecclesial elements exists only in the Catholic Church, they do not deny the presence of some or many of them elsewhere, and consequently, though these latter communities are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are not denied communion with God or salvation.
The recent document in question did not change any of this progress. Rather, it affirmed that, in the belief of the Catholic Church, Protestant churches are not called the Church, because they lack apostolic succession (our ministers do not go back to the apostles through the sacrament of ordination) and the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist, a dogma held firm through history. As such, we have imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
Yet, as Protestants, we must not see this as a slap in the face; rather, it is the Catholic Church faithfully professing what it believes. We are not denied salvation, we just do not have the fullness on earth - as such, we are wounded. "But even in spite of (these doctrinal differences) it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; (separated brethren) therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3).
But the Catholic Church also teaches that she herself is wounded because the full visible communion of God's people is not yet realized. Thus, our mission to the world is jeopardized. This belief is one of the reasons why the Catholics, since Vatican II, have been the most diligent workers in the ecumenical movement, that is the movement toward greater unity of all Christian denominations. This was "one of the principle concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).
Before we Protestants point out the speck in the eye of the Catholic Church, we would do well to pull the plank out of our own eye. I have heard much worse said about Catholics in Protestant and evangelical circles. Its time we put these petty characterizations aside and work for the greater unity of all of our denominations. For we all believe in the same Triune God, we all believe that God has revealed himself foremost in His Scriptures, and we all believe that apart from Christ, there is no life.
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." -Jesus
Recently, I finally located the comments. It turns out that they were not made at random by the Pope to stir up divisions or to change the teaching of Vatican II. Rather, they came in the form of a document, Responsa quaestiones, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and endorsed by the Pope. You can read it here. This document was written as an official response to the lingering questions by the Catholic faithful resulting from Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church. As such, it did not change the teaching of Vatican II, but merely clarified it.
The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:
1. The Church is the visible communion of the people of God, signified in the Holy Eucharust, who are called by the Father and redeemed by the Son, who are pilgrims on this earth, having a foretaste of the kingdom of Heaven in the presence of the Spirit yet moving toward the full realization of the kingdom in eternity.
2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
The second statement is where most perceive a change in Catholic teaching. Namely, Vatican II no longer equated the Church with the Roman Catholic Church, an equation that was being made as late as the middle of the twentieth century. It did not equate the two because it recognized, what it called "ecclesial elements" outside of the Catholic Church. Ecclesial elements are those things such as the Scriptures, the sacraments, etc. Therefore, though the fullness of the ecclesial elements exists only in the Catholic Church, they do not deny the presence of some or many of them elsewhere, and consequently, though these latter communities are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are not denied communion with God or salvation.
The recent document in question did not change any of this progress. Rather, it affirmed that, in the belief of the Catholic Church, Protestant churches are not called the Church, because they lack apostolic succession (our ministers do not go back to the apostles through the sacrament of ordination) and the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist, a dogma held firm through history. As such, we have imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
Yet, as Protestants, we must not see this as a slap in the face; rather, it is the Catholic Church faithfully professing what it believes. We are not denied salvation, we just do not have the fullness on earth - as such, we are wounded. "But even in spite of (these doctrinal differences) it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; (separated brethren) therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3).
But the Catholic Church also teaches that she herself is wounded because the full visible communion of God's people is not yet realized. Thus, our mission to the world is jeopardized. This belief is one of the reasons why the Catholics, since Vatican II, have been the most diligent workers in the ecumenical movement, that is the movement toward greater unity of all Christian denominations. This was "one of the principle concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).
Before we Protestants point out the speck in the eye of the Catholic Church, we would do well to pull the plank out of our own eye. I have heard much worse said about Catholics in Protestant and evangelical circles. Its time we put these petty characterizations aside and work for the greater unity of all of our denominations. For we all believe in the same Triune God, we all believe that God has revealed himself foremost in His Scriptures, and we all believe that apart from Christ, there is no life.
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." -Jesus
Thursday, November 01, 2007
And So This Is Mixmas
So I turn on the radio this morning and I am informed by local radio station 99.1 'The Mix' that the Christmas season is upon us. Or to be more correct, the 'Mixmas' season: all Christmas music, all the time. So for the next two months, I can be guaranteed a steady stream of Brenda Lee's 'Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree', Lennon's 'So This is Christmas', a various assortment of Neil Diamond Santa tunes, and the ubiquitous 'Same Old Lang Syne' by Dan Fogelberg. I'd like to drink a toast to his innocence. Two things bug me about this.
First of all, these radio stations have, for the most part, removed all Christmas songs having anything to do with Christ. Therefore, we are forced to here the same songs over and over again by different artists, and they are all about Frosty or Santa or snow. The profound irony here is that, if this is what Christmas has been reduced to, then what are we celebrating for two long months? How many different versions of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town' one generation can produce? Or how many pitches Bruce Springsteen actually falls short in trying to reach the high notes in his embarrassingly awful version of the same?
Second, and even more concerning to me, is the redefining of the Christmas season itself. In capitalist America, where the veil of Christmas is still encouraged for the sheer revenue that it generates, the celebration begins immediately after Halloween. Stores are turned from orange and black to red and green. Pumpkins are replaced with holly. Candy corn is replaced with candy canes. And scary stuffed men are replaced with Santa Clauses. The pumpkin patches in the middle of malls are replaced by Santa's Workshop. And of course, Christmas music is everywhere. This continues through December 25th, when all of the buying is occurring, but then magically on the 26th it is all gone. The Santas removed, the colors changed, and the Christmas music gone. As American Christians, this seems quite normal and many of us capitulate, removing our lights and trees by New Years Eve. We eliminate all traces of the celebration from our houses almost as quickly as the stores. What we don't realize, however, is that the Christmas season has been redefined for us by the retailers.
According to the Christian calendar, the season begins with the Feast of Advent, the first Sunday of which is the first Sunday of December. What follows is several weeks where we prepare our hearts through meditation on the incarnation, acts of mercy, and fasts to receive our coming king Immanuel. The Feast of the Nativity, or Christ Mass, begins on December 25 and continues until January 6. We are meant to revel in the reality that our savior has come to earth and has been born. We are meant to celebrate and feast this reality for two weeks. But we don't. Instead we tear it all down as soon as it has begun, giving ourselves hardly any time to appreciate the wonder. And we go back to our daily lives, not realizing that the world has changed - God has entered it.
I do not blame the retailers or even the radio stations - they do not know any better. But we as Christians should. We should reclaim the significance of our feast. And we should start by celebrating it according to the time of holy tradition, not according to the time of 'Mixmas.'
First of all, these radio stations have, for the most part, removed all Christmas songs having anything to do with Christ. Therefore, we are forced to here the same songs over and over again by different artists, and they are all about Frosty or Santa or snow. The profound irony here is that, if this is what Christmas has been reduced to, then what are we celebrating for two long months? How many different versions of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town' one generation can produce? Or how many pitches Bruce Springsteen actually falls short in trying to reach the high notes in his embarrassingly awful version of the same?
Second, and even more concerning to me, is the redefining of the Christmas season itself. In capitalist America, where the veil of Christmas is still encouraged for the sheer revenue that it generates, the celebration begins immediately after Halloween. Stores are turned from orange and black to red and green. Pumpkins are replaced with holly. Candy corn is replaced with candy canes. And scary stuffed men are replaced with Santa Clauses. The pumpkin patches in the middle of malls are replaced by Santa's Workshop. And of course, Christmas music is everywhere. This continues through December 25th, when all of the buying is occurring, but then magically on the 26th it is all gone. The Santas removed, the colors changed, and the Christmas music gone. As American Christians, this seems quite normal and many of us capitulate, removing our lights and trees by New Years Eve. We eliminate all traces of the celebration from our houses almost as quickly as the stores. What we don't realize, however, is that the Christmas season has been redefined for us by the retailers.
According to the Christian calendar, the season begins with the Feast of Advent, the first Sunday of which is the first Sunday of December. What follows is several weeks where we prepare our hearts through meditation on the incarnation, acts of mercy, and fasts to receive our coming king Immanuel. The Feast of the Nativity, or Christ Mass, begins on December 25 and continues until January 6. We are meant to revel in the reality that our savior has come to earth and has been born. We are meant to celebrate and feast this reality for two weeks. But we don't. Instead we tear it all down as soon as it has begun, giving ourselves hardly any time to appreciate the wonder. And we go back to our daily lives, not realizing that the world has changed - God has entered it.
I do not blame the retailers or even the radio stations - they do not know any better. But we as Christians should. We should reclaim the significance of our feast. And we should start by celebrating it according to the time of holy tradition, not according to the time of 'Mixmas.'
Sunday, October 14, 2007
A Chastened Critique of Joel Osteen
This evening, megachurch pastor and best selling author Joel Osteen was interviewed on 60 Minutes. I have elsewhere been rather critical of Osteen, in matters relating to both his theology and his motives. But after seeing his interview tonight, I feel that I am developing more of, what one might call, a chastened critique. Where before I questioned his motives, after seeing his interview this evening, I am convinced that he is quite sincere. He feels that he has a calling from God to give people hope, and judging from the personal testimonies of many, it seems that he is doing this. Moreover, I respect his decision to not ask for money on his television broadcasts and agree with him that such requests would likely hinder the message he is trying to send. And where before I might have questioned whether he was even a Christian, after seeing his interview this evening, I am convinced that he is, at least in what seems to be his narrow understanding of one. At one point, he was moved to tears at the prospect of God using him in such powerful ways. He also handled serious critiques with grace, which I think are marks of a Christian.
But while it is chastened, there still remains in my assessment of him a rather strong critique, and that is this: It seems to me that Osteen is profoundly confused on a number of issues pertinent to both the Christian life and to his position as the pastor of a church.
First, his understanding of the Gospel seems extremely shallow. As far as I can tell, he preaches a message that God wants to give you the best life possible on this earth, all you have to do is think positively, be faithful and he will bless you. This is simply not the Gospel in any sense of the word. The Gospel is a message of hope of deliverance of sin and communion with God. It speaks nothing of wealth in this life. In fact, its primary model of a faithful life is a homeless man whose life was violently cut short at 30 years of age. Neither is this the Gospel as experienced by a majority of Christians through history. The early martyrs knew nothing of Osteen's gospel, yet we believe that they are among the ones who most clearly understood Christ's project and
the only ones to live it out completely.
Second, Osteen is confused as to what his calling is. Is he a pastor? Is he a motivational speaker? Is he a writer of self help books? I would imagine that Osteen would say he is all of these things. But I think that the definition of a pastor is somewhat incongruent with the other two. For a pastor is not a motivational speaker. Motivational speakers are all about making people feel good. Pastors are called to preach the Gospel whether that brings hope or conviction. Sometimes people don't need to feel good. They need to feel bad so that they might be driven to God. And a pastor is not a self help author. For a self help author believes that a person only needs to implement a few reasonable habits or principles into their life and they can have the life they want. A pastor knows that there is no formula to this Christian life. Sometimes you can be praying consistently and have all the faith in the world, and your loved one still dies of cancer. A pastor knows that living the Gospel is not about implementing principles. It is rather about communion with the living God.
Therefore, it seems to me that Osteen is much more of a motivational speaker and self help author then he is a pastor. His new book has seven principles for "Becoming a better you" yet none of them mention God or Christ. How can a Christian pastor speak about personal development apart from Christ? Also, Osteen told the 60 Minutes interviewer that (paraphrase) "there are others much more qualified to understand and expound Scripture. I don't feel that's what I'm called to do." He was making the point that he wants to keep the message simple. But this is where he is wrong. It is precisely the job of a pastor to expound the Scripture. And the fact is that Scripture is hard in many places and it is the pastor's job to make that understandable, not just to keep it simple. If this is not what Osteen is called to do, then he is not a pastor. And given his understanding of the Gospel, I question whether the hope he is giving is the Christian hope in any meaningful sense of the word.
But while it is chastened, there still remains in my assessment of him a rather strong critique, and that is this: It seems to me that Osteen is profoundly confused on a number of issues pertinent to both the Christian life and to his position as the pastor of a church.
First, his understanding of the Gospel seems extremely shallow. As far as I can tell, he preaches a message that God wants to give you the best life possible on this earth, all you have to do is think positively, be faithful and he will bless you. This is simply not the Gospel in any sense of the word. The Gospel is a message of hope of deliverance of sin and communion with God. It speaks nothing of wealth in this life. In fact, its primary model of a faithful life is a homeless man whose life was violently cut short at 30 years of age. Neither is this the Gospel as experienced by a majority of Christians through history. The early martyrs knew nothing of Osteen's gospel, yet we believe that they are among the ones who most clearly understood Christ's project and
the only ones to live it out completely.
Second, Osteen is confused as to what his calling is. Is he a pastor? Is he a motivational speaker? Is he a writer of self help books? I would imagine that Osteen would say he is all of these things. But I think that the definition of a pastor is somewhat incongruent with the other two. For a pastor is not a motivational speaker. Motivational speakers are all about making people feel good. Pastors are called to preach the Gospel whether that brings hope or conviction. Sometimes people don't need to feel good. They need to feel bad so that they might be driven to God. And a pastor is not a self help author. For a self help author believes that a person only needs to implement a few reasonable habits or principles into their life and they can have the life they want. A pastor knows that there is no formula to this Christian life. Sometimes you can be praying consistently and have all the faith in the world, and your loved one still dies of cancer. A pastor knows that living the Gospel is not about implementing principles. It is rather about communion with the living God.
Therefore, it seems to me that Osteen is much more of a motivational speaker and self help author then he is a pastor. His new book has seven principles for "Becoming a better you" yet none of them mention God or Christ. How can a Christian pastor speak about personal development apart from Christ? Also, Osteen told the 60 Minutes interviewer that (paraphrase) "there are others much more qualified to understand and expound Scripture. I don't feel that's what I'm called to do." He was making the point that he wants to keep the message simple. But this is where he is wrong. It is precisely the job of a pastor to expound the Scripture. And the fact is that Scripture is hard in many places and it is the pastor's job to make that understandable, not just to keep it simple. If this is not what Osteen is called to do, then he is not a pastor. And given his understanding of the Gospel, I question whether the hope he is giving is the Christian hope in any meaningful sense of the word.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Ut Unum Sint
A word to us from Pope John Paul the Great on the possibility of Christian unity:
"The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. These brothers and sisters of ours, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, are the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel."
"The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. These brothers and sisters of ours, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, are the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Ethics that Work?
The following letter to the editor recently appeared in the New York Times. It was written by a Catholic ethicist at a respected Catholic University.
-----
> "Rudolph W. Giuliani and other
> Catholic politicians who say they op-
> pose abortion but do not wish to im-
> pose that view on the entire polity
> have support in Catholic teaching.
> Sts. Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas both favored legalization of
prostitution even though they thought
> prostitution evil. Their thinking was
> that “greater evils” would result if
> prostitution were banned and this
> outlet for aberrant sexual energy
> were unavailable.
> In so doing, St. Thomas Aquinas
> said, the “wise legislator” is
imitating God who, though all powerful and
> supremely good, tolerates certain
> evils lest greater evils ensue.
> Similarly, today legislators who
> truly think abortion immoral could
> vote to keep it legal since greater
> evils, multiple deaths of women
(especially poor women) from botched
> abortions as seen before Roe v.
> Wade, would follow.
> Catholic bishops, even though they
> are pastors and administrators and
> not professional theologians, should
> know this and cease harassing
Catholic candidates, thus making
Catholic candidates less electable."
----
This type of ethical reasoning is what is called utilitarian or situational ethics. In other words, there is no moral norm dictated by Scripture or tradition or Catholic social teaching etc. Rather, each situation calls for its own consideration and there are certain situations where a perceived evil (in this case abortion) is permissible because it will avoid greater evils. Another form of this argument takes the shape of what is called Christian realism. We are called as Christians to live a certain way in this world but we all know that this way does not work in the world - therefore we need to act realistically and this means engaging in certain behaviors that might seem unchristian.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this type of reasoning. I think it is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus. There is no qualification in the sermon on the mount - Jesus does not say "Turn the other cheek if you deem that it will work to your favor." Or "Give the man your cloak as well in certain situations." No, Jesus teaches a way of living in the world and he commands his disciples to follow it. He does not promise that this way will "work" in the world (whatever that means). In fact, he shows by his own life that the Christian way of living will likely not work. Jesus' way of life put him on a cross. I believe that the narrative of scripture prescribes a way of being in this world and we are to follow it regardless of the consequences, even if that means death.
Additionally, the writer of the above letter distorts the truth when he says that those arguing for abortion are backed by Catholic teaching. There is no other theme so consistently preached throughout the Papal Encyclicals of the 20th century than the respect and dignity of human life, than the belief that the image of God resides in human beings (at conception) and that this must be respected. This includes blanket condemnations on abortion, euthanasia, slavery, and any other institution that devalues life at any stage.
Finally, it irks me that evangelical Christians will jump on this abortion bandwagon and agree with all that I have said here in this instance. However, when it comes to war or the death penalty (both things that are inconsistent with a Christian way of life in my reading of Scripture) or a number of other issues, they slip into a utilitarian argument - "the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima ultimately saved lives" etc. How one can reconcile such an act of war with the demands of the Gospel, to use just one example, is beyond me. At least the writer of the above letter to the editor is consistent in his reasoning, as faulty as that may be.
Jesus preached the loving of ones' enemies, the turning of the other cheek, the walking of the extra mile. These concepts are not popular in today's society and they have been proven again and again not to "work," if by work one means the preservation of one's own life. But they are the words of our Lord. And our call is to take up our cross and follow him, even if we are someday placed on that cross.
-----
> "Rudolph W. Giuliani and other
> Catholic politicians who say they op-
> pose abortion but do not wish to im-
> pose that view on the entire polity
> have support in Catholic teaching.
> Sts. Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas both favored legalization of
prostitution even though they thought
> prostitution evil. Their thinking was
> that “greater evils” would result if
> prostitution were banned and this
> outlet for aberrant sexual energy
> were unavailable.
> In so doing, St. Thomas Aquinas
> said, the “wise legislator” is
imitating God who, though all powerful and
> supremely good, tolerates certain
> evils lest greater evils ensue.
> Similarly, today legislators who
> truly think abortion immoral could
> vote to keep it legal since greater
> evils, multiple deaths of women
(especially poor women) from botched
> abortions as seen before Roe v.
> Wade, would follow.
> Catholic bishops, even though they
> are pastors and administrators and
> not professional theologians, should
> know this and cease harassing
Catholic candidates, thus making
Catholic candidates less electable."
----
This type of ethical reasoning is what is called utilitarian or situational ethics. In other words, there is no moral norm dictated by Scripture or tradition or Catholic social teaching etc. Rather, each situation calls for its own consideration and there are certain situations where a perceived evil (in this case abortion) is permissible because it will avoid greater evils. Another form of this argument takes the shape of what is called Christian realism. We are called as Christians to live a certain way in this world but we all know that this way does not work in the world - therefore we need to act realistically and this means engaging in certain behaviors that might seem unchristian.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this type of reasoning. I think it is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus. There is no qualification in the sermon on the mount - Jesus does not say "Turn the other cheek if you deem that it will work to your favor." Or "Give the man your cloak as well in certain situations." No, Jesus teaches a way of living in the world and he commands his disciples to follow it. He does not promise that this way will "work" in the world (whatever that means). In fact, he shows by his own life that the Christian way of living will likely not work. Jesus' way of life put him on a cross. I believe that the narrative of scripture prescribes a way of being in this world and we are to follow it regardless of the consequences, even if that means death.
Additionally, the writer of the above letter distorts the truth when he says that those arguing for abortion are backed by Catholic teaching. There is no other theme so consistently preached throughout the Papal Encyclicals of the 20th century than the respect and dignity of human life, than the belief that the image of God resides in human beings (at conception) and that this must be respected. This includes blanket condemnations on abortion, euthanasia, slavery, and any other institution that devalues life at any stage.
Finally, it irks me that evangelical Christians will jump on this abortion bandwagon and agree with all that I have said here in this instance. However, when it comes to war or the death penalty (both things that are inconsistent with a Christian way of life in my reading of Scripture) or a number of other issues, they slip into a utilitarian argument - "the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima ultimately saved lives" etc. How one can reconcile such an act of war with the demands of the Gospel, to use just one example, is beyond me. At least the writer of the above letter to the editor is consistent in his reasoning, as faulty as that may be.
Jesus preached the loving of ones' enemies, the turning of the other cheek, the walking of the extra mile. These concepts are not popular in today's society and they have been proven again and again not to "work," if by work one means the preservation of one's own life. But they are the words of our Lord. And our call is to take up our cross and follow him, even if we are someday placed on that cross.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Spring Tragedy
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of the senseless tragedy at Virginia Tech yesterday. These students were preparing for their future, in an institution of higher learning, and it was cruelly and viciously taken from them. When these kinds of things happen, we are left to wonder what minds the world was deprived of yesterday. Was there an Einstein in that classroom? Or a Martin Luther King? Was there a Mother Theresa? Were there Christians who were planning to work for the increase of God's kingdom?
I am particularly aware of tragedies such as this around this time of year because it is around my birthday (April 20th). In 1999, on my 21st birthday, I awoke to the awful news of Columbine, and for me that day is always associated with it. On April 19, 1993 the Waco tragedy occurred and on April 19th, 1995 the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. The irony of these life ending events is that they occurred in springtime, the season of new birth, the Easter season. It is a harsh reminder for us that while Jesus has resurrected, the final enemy of death has yet to be completely abolished.
In times like these, the question one often hears is: "Where is God in all this? Why does God let this kind of thing happen?" The answer, which we often do not want to hear, is that our sin is what causes this. The first humans turned from God's loving offer of a relationship and humanity has been in pain ever since. Incredibly, God continues to pursue us - he did in the incarnation and he continues to with the Spirit. The shooting yesterday is not, in my opinion, God's judgment on our sins so much as it is the natural consequences of life lived apart from God.
Pray for the families of the victims this day. Pray for the family of the shooter this day. And as always, pray for peace.
I am particularly aware of tragedies such as this around this time of year because it is around my birthday (April 20th). In 1999, on my 21st birthday, I awoke to the awful news of Columbine, and for me that day is always associated with it. On April 19, 1993 the Waco tragedy occurred and on April 19th, 1995 the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. The irony of these life ending events is that they occurred in springtime, the season of new birth, the Easter season. It is a harsh reminder for us that while Jesus has resurrected, the final enemy of death has yet to be completely abolished.
In times like these, the question one often hears is: "Where is God in all this? Why does God let this kind of thing happen?" The answer, which we often do not want to hear, is that our sin is what causes this. The first humans turned from God's loving offer of a relationship and humanity has been in pain ever since. Incredibly, God continues to pursue us - he did in the incarnation and he continues to with the Spirit. The shooting yesterday is not, in my opinion, God's judgment on our sins so much as it is the natural consequences of life lived apart from God.
Pray for the families of the victims this day. Pray for the family of the shooter this day. And as always, pray for peace.
Friday, January 26, 2007
"Silent Before Its Shearers"
One of the most damaging, if not the most damaging, bodies to associate themselves with the Church in our time is the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. This church is better known for its, so called, minister Fred Phelps. Phelps has made it his personal agenda to spread the message that God hates homosexuals, though he uses a much more derogatory term. He spreads this message through his website and through organizing pickets against, not only churches who are "pro-homosexual," whatever that means, but against any church who does not preach a message of hate. His website claims, among other things, that "God loves everyone" is the biggest lie ever perpetrated, and he picks and chooses verses from the Bible to support his message. His picketers carry signs with abusive and often graphic hate slangs. Besides the abuse of people who have been created in the image of God, the shame of his work is that, because he speaks the loudest, much of the world sees him as representing, not only the Baptist Church, but the Catholic - meaning universal - Church throughout the ages and throughout the world. Yet as far as I can see, there is no understanding in his message of the truth of the incarnation and the God revealed therein.
But how does one reason or argue with these people? If you quote them a Bible verse, they will come back with three. If you show them the witness of God's love throughout the great tradition of Christian saints, they will tell you the saints got it wrong. Often these pickets are the occasions of turmoil, as the verbal taunts from the picketers insite anger in those attending the churches and have resulted in some nasty scenes.
Last fall, Phelps' people traveled to Des Moines, Iowa to picket Des Moines Valley High School for putting on a play about Matthew Shepherd. While they were there, the picketed several big area churches, among them Lutheran Church of Hope, which happens to be the church of my parents and my brother and sister-in-law. The response of their church, led by their Pastor Mike Housholder, is a witness to a Christlike and Christ filled response.
The church prepared and served breakfast to the picketers!
At about 9:30, a group of twenty people were led out of the church by their Pastor, who was carrying an eight foot cross. Each of the people had a breakfast item in hand, prepared by other members of the church. Then, in the face of merciless taunting and threats, including: "God is your enemy!" and "Your pastor is lying to you!", this group of saints set up tables and laid out a homecooked breakfast for the picketers. The servers were instructed that, despite what they wished, they were not to say anything to the picketers.
You might ask yourself, as I did at first, why the silence? Why not engage these people and try to talk some sense into them? Why not respond to their message of hate with a message of love? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that to serve in silence was the only true Christlike response. If one were to engage the picketers, despite the best of intentions, it would likely result in an argument, which would degenerate into something unproductive. But to serve in silence is shocking. To take the abuse and the insults without rising up is something different, something other worldly.
My brother was one of these twenty people, and he told me that the looks on the faces of the picketers was one of "surprise" and "confusion." Their jeers lessoned when they realized that they were not going to get a response. He describes the occasion as one of his "spiritual mountaintop experiences." Of course, no one except a Christian can describe an experience of endless verbal abuse as "mountaintop." But to a Christian, the experience of enduring abuse is wonderful because it is a means of being conformed to Christ.
"He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth." -Isaiah 53:7
The suffering of Christ was redemptive because it took away the sins, not only of the world, but of the very ones who nailed him to that cross. And I believe that the suffering of those servers was redemptive in the sense that it might lead some of those picketers to see that they have misunderstood God's revelation. At the very least, they witnessed to the true God of Scripture, a God of love, and in that way gave hope to us all.
But how does one reason or argue with these people? If you quote them a Bible verse, they will come back with three. If you show them the witness of God's love throughout the great tradition of Christian saints, they will tell you the saints got it wrong. Often these pickets are the occasions of turmoil, as the verbal taunts from the picketers insite anger in those attending the churches and have resulted in some nasty scenes.
Last fall, Phelps' people traveled to Des Moines, Iowa to picket Des Moines Valley High School for putting on a play about Matthew Shepherd. While they were there, the picketed several big area churches, among them Lutheran Church of Hope, which happens to be the church of my parents and my brother and sister-in-law. The response of their church, led by their Pastor Mike Housholder, is a witness to a Christlike and Christ filled response.
The church prepared and served breakfast to the picketers!
At about 9:30, a group of twenty people were led out of the church by their Pastor, who was carrying an eight foot cross. Each of the people had a breakfast item in hand, prepared by other members of the church. Then, in the face of merciless taunting and threats, including: "God is your enemy!" and "Your pastor is lying to you!", this group of saints set up tables and laid out a homecooked breakfast for the picketers. The servers were instructed that, despite what they wished, they were not to say anything to the picketers.
You might ask yourself, as I did at first, why the silence? Why not engage these people and try to talk some sense into them? Why not respond to their message of hate with a message of love? But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that to serve in silence was the only true Christlike response. If one were to engage the picketers, despite the best of intentions, it would likely result in an argument, which would degenerate into something unproductive. But to serve in silence is shocking. To take the abuse and the insults without rising up is something different, something other worldly.
My brother was one of these twenty people, and he told me that the looks on the faces of the picketers was one of "surprise" and "confusion." Their jeers lessoned when they realized that they were not going to get a response. He describes the occasion as one of his "spiritual mountaintop experiences." Of course, no one except a Christian can describe an experience of endless verbal abuse as "mountaintop." But to a Christian, the experience of enduring abuse is wonderful because it is a means of being conformed to Christ.
"He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth." -Isaiah 53:7
The suffering of Christ was redemptive because it took away the sins, not only of the world, but of the very ones who nailed him to that cross. And I believe that the suffering of those servers was redemptive in the sense that it might lead some of those picketers to see that they have misunderstood God's revelation. At the very least, they witnessed to the true God of Scripture, a God of love, and in that way gave hope to us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
