Month: July 2018

Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square

Not long after the Supreme Court decision on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, I wrote an article examining the issues involved from the perspective of New Testament interpretation.  I quickly sent it off to a popular Christian publication hoping to enter into the public debate.

Well, I am now 0 for 3 at article submissions being accepted by this brand of magazine.  Or maybe I should say that I am 3 and 0 at being rejected.  Alas, such are the trials of a would-be popular author.

So, rather than submit myself to another 4 – 6 week waiting period, I have decided to make the article available here on my blog.  I hope you will find it informative and stimulating as we all continue to think about the best ways to display our kingdom citizenship to the watching world.

Wedding Cakes, the New Testament and Ethics in the Public Square

by David Crump © July 2018

 

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case has pumped equal amounts of fervor into both sides of the latest battle in America’s culture wars. The court admitted that it was making a narrow, not a landmark, ruling which offers little in the way of precedent for future civil rights vs. religious liberty cases.  Consequently, cheerleaders on both sides – evangelical Christians applauding for Masterpiece Cake Shop and civil liberties activists lamenting the ruling’s implications for gay rights – are getting ahead of themselves as to what this decision means for similar battles in the future.

As Eugene Volokh, law professor at UCLA, wrote on the day of the decision, it “leaves almost all the big questions unresolved” (Reason. 6/4/18).

Mr. Phillips claimed that decorating a cake intended for a gay wedding would violate his Christian conscience.  His opponents recall the systematic, racial discrimination of Jim Crow laws that only started to be overturned during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.  That post-Civil War era of legalized racism was commonly justified on religious grounds.  White southerners opened their Bibles, too, and cited proof-texts demonstrating that desegregation would violate their Christian faith.

Only two days after the Supreme Court decision was announced, South Dakota state representative Michael Clark (R.) was already waving the banner of a segregationist revival – though he later recanted.  “He [Mr. Phillips] should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then that’s his choice,” said Rep. Clark (Dakota Free Press).

Jeff Amyx of Grainger County, Tennessee has posted a “NO GAYS ALLOWED” sign in the window of his hardware store for the past 3 years.  He argues that discriminating against homosexuals is integral to his Christian faith and witness.  In response to the Supreme Court decision, Mr. Amyx told local reporters, “Christianity is under attack. This is a great win…”

Even though the Supreme Court’s ruling explicitly disavows any attempt to make it a justifying precedent for future discrimination cases, the logical possibilities are clear.  At least, they seem clear to people like Michael Clark and Jeff Amyx.  We will have to wait and see how the courts eventually sort out these questions.

In the meantime, the evangelical church should stop and take some time to examine whether or not there is a solid scriptural foundation beneath Mr. Phillips’ appeal to religious conviction.  Is there, in fact, a sound Biblical argument under-girding the claim that decorating the cake for a gay wedding violates Christian morality?  To put it more broadly, do Christian business people compromise or deny some part of their faith in Jesus Christ when they provide personal services to others outside the church who are entrenched in lifestyles that the church considers sinful?

I believe the answer to that question is a resounding no.  Mr. Phillip’s scruples in this case are not a model for others to follow.  Just the opposite.

Let’s examine the issues one step at a time.

The apostle Paul put a premium on maintaining a clear conscience.  Mr. Phillips appears to understand that.  Paul’s discussion of whether or not Christians can eat meat originally sacrificed to idols (pagan temples were the most common butcher shops at the time) reveals that believers are sometimes free to disagree.  At times, personal consciences may vary (1 Cor. 8:7-15).  What is right for one person may not be right for another.  But everyone is expected to maintain an unsullied conscience free of guilt. So, Paul says in Romans 14, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind…If anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean…and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (verses 5, 14, 23).  In other words, don’t do things that you believe are wrong, things that will leave you nursing a guilty conscience.

Mr. Phillips says that he was resolving this very debate within himself when he declined to decorate a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig.  Doing otherwise, he said, would have violated his Christian values.   So, he chose to safeguard his conscience, and the Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Phillips’ freedom to make that decision – particularly in light of the open hostility expressed towards his faith by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

However, the apostle’s acknowledgement that church members in Corinth and Rome were able to eat meat sacrificed to idols without violating their consciences, if they chose to do so, suggests that Mr. Phillips’ decision need not apply to anyone besides himself.  The pressing question is:  does offering services to a gay wedding fall into the same category of moral ambivalence as eating meat sacrificed to idols?  Was Mr. Phillips’ conscientious objection a paradigmatic stance required of all Christians or was it an idiosyncratic opinion binding only on Mr. Phillips?

 

We should recall that, when it comes to matters of ethical debate, Paul describes the narrower conscience, the more easily offended conscience, as “the weaker” one revealing a more feeble faith (Rom. 14:1-2; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:7, 9-12).  Paul gives no indication that he valued the maintenance of a weak conscience.  In fact, his description indicates that a weaker faith ought to mature.  I suspect that this is why Paul previews his pastoral advice with an explanation as to why those exhibiting a stronger conscience are theologically correct (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

The implication is clear.

Those exhibiting a weaker conscience by refusing to eat meat sacrificed to idols would do well to absorb Paul’s theological explanation, for it reveals how their position derives from a misunderstanding. Disciples showing signs of a weaker conscience would therefore benefit from the advice of a mature mentor, someone who could offer patient instruction and sound Biblical instruction to clarify where, how and why outgrowing a weak conscience is preferable to remaining offended over debatable matters.

If decorating a cake for a gay wedding is comparable to eating meat sacrificed to idols, then Mr. Phillips has earned a few lines in the annals of religious liberty litigation, but he is not a model of how mature disciples should navigate the cross-currents of Christianity’s relationship with society.

Which leads us back to our original question.  Do Christian business people – or any Christian, for that matter – compromise or deny some part of their faith in Jesus Christ by providing personal services to people outside the church who are entrenched in lifestyles that the church calls sinful?

Remember, this is not a question about the morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  On this, I believe that we all ought to agree with Mr. Phillips.  I am convinced that the New Testament defines a gay lifestyle as immoral, including monogamous gay marriage.  Followers of Jesus Christ are forbidden to live that way, along with many other prohibited lifestyles (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).  Homosexual activity is condemned alongside greed, drunkenness, slander, theft, murder, adultery and lying, among other evils.  But having said this, there is no indication that homosexuality is considered the supreme sin, worse than all others.  It is simply listed as one among many unacceptable ways for Christians to live.

Which makes me wonder if Mr. Phillips has ever decorated wedding cakes for people whose lives were shackled by greed, dishonesty, selfishness, theft or fornication, to mention only a few of the other lifestyles condemned by Paul.  Of course, those issues are much harder to detect during a brief conversation in a cake shop, but that does not make them any less problematic for someone fearful that providing his professional services would tacitly endorse sin in another person’s life.

Romans 1:26-27 does describe homosexuality as paradigmatic of the way sin has disordered God’s orderly creation.  But this section of Paul’s argument comes after his description of idolatry as the quintessential example of human sinfulness (verses 18-25).  In light of Romans 1, then, it hardly seems likely that sharing a meal with your neighbors where the main dish came straight out the back door of Zeus’ temple after it was butchered by pagan priests as the offering in an idolatrous ceremony, would be any less problematic for Paul than decorating the cake for a gay wedding.  In the words of Jesus, reaching that conclusion would be a bit like straining at gnats while swallowing camels (Matt. 23:24).  I suspect that Paul would agree.

If a healthy, mature Christian conscience has no trouble eating meat butchered in idolatrous sacrifices with the neighbors next-door, then decorating a gay wedding cake for people outside the church should be an easy afternoon stroll through the green grass of Christian morality, by comparison.

We know that Paul supported himself by making tents (Acts 18:3), a skilled craft every bit as personalized as cake decorating.  The apostle would set out his tent-maker’s stall in the public marketplace and take orders for the assorted types of tents his customers wanted.  Paul’s business relations with the milling crowds of unredeemed humanity looking to buy and sell in the 1st century, Greco-Roman agora would have seen him pressing the flesh with the full spectrum of unwashed, pagan masses.  Idolaters, magicians, pederasts, adulterers, and every stripe of common criminal were all potential customers.  Homosexuality was extremely common in this Greco-Roman world, including long-term relationships comparable to gay marriage.

We cannot say for certain how Paul handled these interactions while conducting his business. But I very much doubt that he interviewed each potential customer before taking their order so as to ensure that he only made tents for people who agreed with his Christian, moral sensibilities and promised beforehand that they would never use his tents for activities he did not approve of.  That would make a great recipe for watching the competition take away all of your business.  Paul could not have supported himself for very long.  Although I admit to making an argument from silence here, I am confident that it is a sound argument, especially in light of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.  He says:

 

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.”

 

Apparently, some members of the Corinthian church had misunderstood Paul’s previous advice on maintaining church discipline.  His warning about not associating with “sinners,” which would include refusing to do business with them, was strictly an internal affair concerning personal relationships within the Christian community.  Paul could not have stated his ethical position more clearly: “Judging those outside of Christ’s church is none of my business.  It’s God’s business, not mine.  So, I won’t do it.”

Applying the community standards of Christian church discipline to the believer’s social or business relationships outside of the church is an obvious example of something called a category mistake.  For instance, I am guilty of a category mistake when I offer a detailed description of elephants to the blind person who asked me to describe a goldfish.  It doesn’t make sense.

To the misfortune of both the church and American society, moralistic category confusions have become a distinguishing feature of the Religious Right.  TV and radio preachers popularize these confusions day in and day out as they rally their followers over the airwaves to defend Christian America from the deadly advances of secular humanism.

I suspect that it was within this hothouse of popular confusion that Mr. Phillips’ solidified his views about Christian ethics.  No one’s moral compass is calibrated in a vacuum.  I very much doubt that Mr. Phillips settled on preserving his weakened conscience all by himself.  He represents – as the Christian media frenzy applauding his victory shows – the largest part of American evangelicalism today, churchgoers with nothing more than a superficial grasp of scripture who view themselves as culture-warriors holding the line against a godless society.

Here we reach the animating force behind Mr. Phillips’ stance insofar as he represents evangelicalism’s current captivity to the unending melodrama of its so-called “culture wars.”  Worries over Christianity’s fight-to-the-death with secularism undoubtedly motivate hardware-store owner Jeff Amyx’s fretful lament that “Christianity is under attack.”  To his mind, and others like him, fighting against godlessness transforms a hideously ungodly “NO GAYS ALLOWED” sign into a battle standard for religious liberty.

Yet, how exactly does recognizing that unredeemed sinners will continue to sin ever threaten the church?  (After all, don’t even redeemed sinners within the church continue to sin?)

How does doing business in the public square with other sinners for whom Jesus died ever threaten my freedom to follow Jesus?  How does doing business with folks who do not (yet) want to conform their lives to Jesus’ example threaten my decision to be like Jesus, the same Jesus who partied with tax-collectors, prostitutes and other sinners?

It doesn’t.

The problem today – as I discuss at length in my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans 2018) – is that large portions of the American church have turned their backs on Jesus’ model of suffering servanthood in order to fight for control over the secular levers of social, political power and control. Evangelicalism has exchanged the gospel of grace for an idolatrous nostalgia over something that never was – an American Christendom.

Christendom seeks to erase the border between church and state. Christendom confuses the body of Christ with society at large, with damaging results for all parties. Its propagandists demand that Christianity “reclaim” its place as America’s de facto state religion.  Among Christendom’s many mistakes, perhaps the most egregious is this wish to impose the norms of church discipline upon everyone else in society, regardless of their own religious affiliation.

In this way, the rhetoric of Christendom sounds much like the preacher who insisted on telling a herd of elephants that they must all live like goldfish.

Mr. Phillips’ case is only the beginning in this latest round of religious freedom/civil rights litigation.  Sadly, having forgotten that God’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), American evangelicals have decided to exchange their suffering Savior and his New Testament teaching for front row seats on the White House lawn and amicus briefs utterly irrelevant to the Kingdom of God.

Different Bodies Mean Different Experiences, Especially in Church

Recently, I have written about the ways antidepressants have affected my spiritual life.  Check it out here, here and here.

My eyes were flung wide open with amazement when I first experienced the obvious, powerful connection between brain chemistry and the feelings of being “connected” with God.

The laboratory was my own body, and I couldn’t deny the results.

I was happy but not surprised when my first prescription of Prozac started to take effect (after about 6 weeks), and I actually felt better!  The oppressive fog of futility and hopelessness was burned away and slowly replaced by what I imagined most people would call a level-headed feeling about my place in the world.

No, Prozac wasn’t an “upper” or an opiate.  Antidepressants don’t work like Ecstasy, amphetamines or heroine. At least, not for me.  Prozac (which eventually stopped working after several years; changing from one drug to another is a frightening experience I may talk about some other time) did not induce euphoria.

Rather, Prozac helped me to feel something other than unmitigated hopelessness.  My depression was never so much about being sad, though I certainly did feel that often.  It was more about laboring beneath an unbearable weight of futility and despair with no relief in sight.  Depression was a long, dark tunnel with no glimmer of light ahead.

Prozac allowed me to glimpse the light.  Eventually, it opened up that tunnel into a 360-degree horizon of color, complete with day, night, sunshine, moonlight, rain, wind and, yes, even the occasional fog.

This was all new and wonderful, but it was exactly what the doctor told me I could expect after six weeks of properly measured medication.

What I did NOT expect was the amazing transformation that Prozac brought to my relationship with Jesus Christ.  I began – I think, perhaps, for the first time in my life…? – to experience salvation by grace through faith.  (Yes, I had always believed it.  I taught it and preached it.  But to FEEL it in an ongoing fashion! Well, oh my goodness…)

 I finally began to grasp the “joy of the Lord,” not merely as an ephemeral, distant specter vaguely perceived during those periods when life’s shadows were not constraining me like a pressure cooker, but as a regular feature of my day-to-day life.  I can remember thinking to myself, “This must be what knowing God is like for normal people.”  It was like feeling the stream of cold air from a brand-new air-conditioner blow across my face in the middle of a scorching Arizona desert afternoon.

These new experiences of spiritual well-being also set me on a new course of research into recent discoveries about the role of neurochemistry in both human emotions and religious experience. So expansive has this area of research now become that it has generated its own subject-heading of Neurotheology.  I have not tried to keep up with this research or its publications.  Too much of it is well beyond my understanding and my personal interest, if truth be told.  But I do continue to ponder the many, crucial questions raised for me by my own experience.  With these questions come many theological and pastoral implications, most of which I suspect we cannot sort out this side of eternity.

For instance:

  • How exactly does neurobiology affect spirituality viz religious experience? What is the connection between materiality, e.g. brain matter, body chemistry and the experience or the perception of knowing God?  Is it best described in terms of perception? receptivity? natural inclination?  Or something else, like imagination (as the skeptics insist)?
  • If neurochemistry is genetically determined, are people genetically predisposed (predestined!?) to be religious or irreligious?
  • If neurochemistry can inhibit and/or enhance a person’s feelings of intimacy with God, can it also completely shut down any and all sense of God’s presence? In other words, are atheists created (predestined) by their genes?
  • The Bible talks about spiritual experience in relation to things like faith, commitment and decisions of the will. What role does neurochemistry play in these matters? (For example, I never stopped having faith in Christ even as I lived with depression.  Faith and experience are not the same thing.)
  • So, can we one day imagine the creation of a “faith inducing” pill? If scientists can create a god helmet, what about a god pill?

I don’t know the answers to these kinds of questions.  But I have come to a few conclusions about their implications for Christian worship.

First, different bodies mean different spiritual lives and different types of spiritual experiences for different people.

Church folks, especially leaders, should neither expect nor enforce uniformity throughout the Body in this regard.  One might think that we would not have to point this out, especially in light of Paul’s teaching about corporate worship in 1 Corinthians 12:1 – 14:40, but it’s always worth a reminder.  I will never forget the student who described a scene in her childhood Sunday school class where all the children were lined up against the wall and told that they could not leave until everyone spoke in tongues to the teacher’s satisfaction.  Folks, I call that spiritual abuse.

People who love Jesus all experience, and therefore will all express, their devotion to Christ differently.  A certain measure of this variability is beyond a  person’s control.  Introverts cannot be turned into extroverts.  Neither is it kind to require extroverts to continually stifle themselves in forced mimicry of dour Puritan piety.

The church must allow for diversity in personal expressions of devotion.  What matters is God’s conversation with the heart, not external emotional outbursts.  (The Spirit’s presence is easily faked, if you haven’t noticed.)

Second, I hope and pray that everything going on in every corporate worship service is always a genuine expression of real encounter with the resurrected Jesus.  And I always assume this is the case until presented with clear evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, the internal affairs of another person’s worship-life are none of my business, unless I am a leader and the other person’s behavior becomes damaging to the Body for some reason.  Yet, as thinking people, it is always worthwhile to be “wise as serpents while remaining as gentle as doves.”

Not everything happening in every church service is entirely of God.  We can know that to be true because human beings are involved!  And human beings – even Spirit-filled human begins – have a prodigious talent for messing things up.  Especially in church, where zeal, fervor and expectations of sincerity provide fertile ground, sometimes even shit-filled compost heaps, for ego to work its deceptive schemes for pulling the wool over our eyes.

How much of our corporate worship is due to the Spirit? How much is of the flesh?  How much is generated by genetics? How much is bubbling brain chemistry?  How much is evidence of group psychology?

I have no idea.  But it is naïve to imagine that any of these factors are ever missing from our get-togethers. After all, we are only fallen, fleshly, damaged people seeking to adore a Holy God forever beyond our comprehension who saves us by grace while momentarily leaving us to face off daily against the ugly ghosts of our unredeemed selves.  What could go wrong?

Praise God, then.  For Jesus is always faithful to us no matter how we feel about it or (fail to) express it.

What is Civility, Anyway? #maxinewaters #civility

The Christian Century has a good online article today by Greg Carey entitled “In Revelation, faithful testimony is peaceable — not necessarily civil“.  Though I do not agree with every one of his points, by focusing on Revelation 5 the author provides a good discussion of the peaceable, yet

Bamberger Apokalypse, Germany, c. 1000

thoroughly counter-cultural, witness offered by the faithful Church-militant living in this violent world.

I have made similar, though differently nuanced, points in my recent book, I Pledge Allegiance.  Look especially at chapters 4 “Living with Dual Citizenship,”  7 “When Disobedience in a Virtue” and 11 “Blessed are Those who Suffer Because of Me.”

Sorry, but I just gotta say this: I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America could be the most important Christian book you read this season in securing a solid Biblical foundation for faithful Christian witness in the era of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Here is an an excerpt from Carey’s article:

“…having promised a lion, Revelation delivers no lion. A lamb appears instead—a lamb who has suffered a mortal wound, no less. Nowhere in Revelation does a lion appear. Instead, Revelation’s primary symbol is the Lamb. The Lamb does carry a sword. But that sword protrudes from the Lamb’s mouth. The Lamb, Revelation’s faithful witness (1:5), fights through the power of its testimony. When Rome is displaced with the New Jerusalem, we behold the Tree of Life. Its leaves provide not domination but the healing of the nations (22:2).

“I find the demand for civility troubling in our present moment. In a time of great unrest and violence, we ask marginalized people to show good manners while others are kicking them in the teeth. Too easily we dismiss the disruptive examples of the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the civil rights demonstrators, and those who overcame Apartheid. I suggest instead that Christians turn to the image of the Lamb: so disruptive as to provoke violence, yet persisting in faithful testimony. Faithful witness can be peaceable without necessarily qualifying as civil.”

I couldn’t agree more.

In light of Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ recent call for folks to offer public challenges to Trump’s Cabinet members, the question of public civility is a hot topic — at least for this news cycle.  If you didn’t hear Rep. Water’s remarks, please find them and listen to her before voicing an opinion.

Many, perhaps most, pundits have seriously misrepresented what she said.  And the numerous threats she has received subsequently are unconscionable by any standard…oh yeah, except for the racist, white supremacist standard.  I forgot…

Personally, I am not a big fan of civility debates.  I’ve not seen one that was very productive.  In my experience, many folks use their particular notion of “civility” as a club to beat down and silence anyone on the opposite side of an issue; or worse yet, to silence debate altogether.

That seems to be the main achievement of these so-called debates — to stifle debate.

Fretting about “civility” then becomes a socially acceptable way of saying, “Sit down and shut up!  You are not being civil!”  Alas.  The sinful cycle of human arrogance continues on and on.

The plea for civility becomes coded language for enforcing conformity: “You are not discussing the issue in the way I wish to discuss the issue; or you are not using the terms, or the tone, or the volume, or the methods, or the deportment, or the tactics, or the whatever that I think you should use.  Therefore, your contribution is uncivil, not to be taken seriously, simply because it’s not the same as my contribution.”

Of course, scripture has a lot to say about Christian behavior, private and public speech, personal relationships (both within and outside of the church), as well as our attitudes toward public officials. (Again…you really must read my book!)

Every person is the image of God, someone who ought never be demeaned or mistreated.  Followers of Jesus can never endorse or engage in violence.  Everyone is worthy of being loved.

All who follow Jesus must be in the process of conforming their attitudes and actions to the Father’s expectations. (So, be a faithful student of scripture, if you aren’t already).

But we can’t forget that the wild variations of individual personalities we encounter are all a part of God’s design.  Neither should we overlook the multiplicity of diverse cultural backgrounds and upbringings individuals enjoy, all of which have a role to play in where, how and why different people draw different lines in the sand as to what is and what is not acceptable behavior.

One person’s civility is another’s mumbly-bubkiss.  One person’s prophetic witness is another’s spiritual migraine.

Perhaps the Christian’s most important act of civility appears when we  accept others for who they are, as they are, while listening to and seriously considering what they have to say, no matter how they say it or act upon it.

The value of an idea stands independently of its verbal vehicle.

Don’t forget. Most of God’s Old Testament prophets were run out of town on a rail because the masses considered them to be the most horrendously, some would say the most fabulously, uncivil of all uncivil people.

 

Trump REALLY Wants to Invade Venezuela

Numerous outlets have picked up on the AP story this past week telling us that Trump was serious about wanting to invade Venezuela last year (here, here, here, here).  Below I have posted an excerpt from a decent article at The Greanville Post discussing the geopolitics of the US relationship with Venezuela.  You can read the entire Greanville article here.

The military threat from the White House had previously provoked a regional outcry, particularly from Venezuela’s Maduro, who called on his military to be “prepared.” (AP)

“Even as Washington attempts to tighten the noose around the Venezuelan economy, China has provided somewhat of a lifeline to the Maduro government. Venezuela’s Finance Minister Simon Zerpa issued a statement after meetings in Beijing this week that the China Development Bank and China National Petroleum Corporation have agreed to invest $250 million in Venezuela’s beleaguered state-run oil corporation, PDVSA, which has seen production levels drop to an all-time low this year. In addition, he reported that China was prepared to extend a “special loan” of $5 billion “for direct investment in production.”

“While Venezuela has in the past exported 40 percent of its oil to the US market, it has increasingly shifted toward China, paying off loans with crude oil. The Venezuelan oil sector, however, still remains dependent upon the US for the import of technology, light crude and other products needed to blend with Venezuelan heavy oil for export.

“With Venezuela boasting the world’s largest proven oil reserves, China’s role in propping up the Maduro government provides an additional motivation, beyond the profit interests of the US energy conglomerates, for Washington to intervene.

“These motives have been spelled out in the recent national strategy and defense documents issued by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, defining both Russia and China as “revisionist powers” seeking to challenge US global hegemony and charting a course of preparation for “great power” conflicts.

“Venezuela and Latin America as a whole will be an arena for these conflicts. Trump’s demands to know why the US cannot simply invade Venezuela are not merely the ravings of the right-wing demagogue in the White House, but a warning of what is to come.”

I have written a number of posts about US interference (yes, coercive interference, not aid, assistance or diplomacy) in South America, particularly in Venezuela (here, here, here).  It is naive to assume that the president will not happily revisit his original, military instincts should future developments in Venezuela unfold (as they are) in ways that US corporate interests don’t appreciate.

God’s people need to keep their ears and eyes open.

We especially need to keep our hearts open to the Holy Spirit and the Prince of Peace, while pursuing the mind of Christ our suffering Savior.

We must continue to speak out against any and all moves to expand the daily, global bloodletting performed by our drones and other military forces.

Don’t forget.  We already have some 800 military bases in 170 countries across the globe.  Though we have had secret operations, such as the CIA and special forces personnel, in Venezuela for some time, the church cannot stand by and remain silent in the face of another US “dirty war.”

Pay attention. Be informed. Pray for peace.  Pray for our leaders to resist the temptations of power, violence and corporate profit over human lives.  Use the tools of your citizenship to pressure your elected representatives towards righteousness rather than wickedness, justice rather than exploitation, and mercy rather than America-first-callousness.

Yes, Virginia, You Can Make Sense of the Bible

 

The recent brouhaha stirred up by Jeff Session’s reference to Romans 13, in defense of Trump’s policy of separating immigrant children from their

St. Jerome studying scripture

parents, has irritated another of my pet peeves. (Check out my explanation of Romans 13, lifted from my book I Pledge Allegiance, here and here).

So, I have decided to chime in on the latest Bible reading controversy.

First, let me say that I have been upset with Jeff Sessions for a long time, beginning with his record of refusing to enforce Alabama’s civil rights laws.  Concerning his comments on illegal immigrants, I found his earlier public statement on Trump’s policy most mind-numbingly dystopian when he referred to parents illegally bringing their children across the border as “smugglers.”

What?  Yes, loving parents who risk everything they have trying to get their children someplace where they can try for a better, longer and safer life, suddenly become child smugglers in Sessions’ view.  Oh boy.  George Orwell would have a field day with Mr. Sessions’ use of the English language.

Most recently, Christian and secular media alike are up in arms about Sessions’ reference to Romans 13:1-7, a New Testament text that mentions “submission” to government authority.  Both he and Sarah Sanders have cited the Bible’s apparent emphasis on law-keeping as somehow a universally applicable word from God on following orders.

Apparently, no one in the Trump administration has heard of the Nuremburg defense, which is, in fact, no defense at all.  And we all should beware of politicians citing Bible verses!

Inevitably, as the ruckus brews the media chimes in on the dubious citation of Christian scripture in arbitrating American public policy.  Next, we have the unavoidable influx of historians dispassionately describing the various ways that the Bible has been interpreted and (mis)applied in the past.

This historical overview typically provides a very unsavory retelling of humanity’s worst impulses justified by assorted Bible verses wrenched from their contexts.  Or are they?  How can we know?  Helpful guidance on answering these questions is rarely a part of the historians’ contribution.

Prepare yourself for the onslaught of historical references to slavery, South African apartheid, western colonialism, southern opposition to desegregation, and any number of atrocious actions, all of which were once defended by “good Christians” standing on the supposedly solid rock of Romans 13.

By the time this public furor has run its course, the only thing most people are sure of – including the Christian historians with their scurrilous illustrations and the run-of-the-mill believer with a now dented faith in scripture – is that the Bible makes a handy club for battering the less fortunate.  It is subject to so many different, competing, even contradictory readings that it is impossible for anyone – except, perhaps, for a few ivory pillar, egg-head scholars, who can’t even agree among themselves – to know what the Bible may actually mean.

Eventually, the controversy dies down.  Everyone returns to their own corner, while the general public is confirmed in its long-held suspicion that the Bible is, in fact, just as inscrutable as they had always suspected.  No one can say for sure what any part of it actually means.  There are as many possible interpretations as there are readers.  All interpretations are equally plausible, it seems.  There is no way to sort out the preposterous from the compelling.

Thus, most folks continue along the road of least resistance.  The majority continue to ignore the Bible altogether.  Why not?  Those who bother to read it at all are confirmed in reading the Bible as they wish.  We interpret it as we wish. We apply it as we wish.  And we castigate our opponents for being wrong as we wish.

This is the point where I begin to scream, jump up and down, and pull out my hair.  (Luckily, I have a lot of it. I need every last strand.)

I watched a good many of these “the futility of turning to scripture” cycles when I taught at Calvin College.  I heard students and faculty alike conclude, with a greater or lesser – often a much lesser, even diffident – sense of disappointment, that the Bible offered no help at all in adjudicating our ethical debates. So, let’s forget about Bible reading and move on to the more substantive matters of general morality with the infusion of “Christian values” into public policy.

I sometimes quizzed people at this point in the conversation.

I asked a few simple questions. I initially asked because I was genuinely curious about the answers. But eventually I asked because it was a good way to make an important point. Here are my questions:

  • What parts of the relevant Biblical passage(s) do you find most difficult to understand? Why?
  • Which commentaries have you consulted as you have tried to resolve your questions?
  • Which commentaries were most helpful to you? Why?
  • Among the different possible interpretations that you have discovered, which one(s) do you find most convincing? Why?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different interpretive options?
  • What are the different, possible social applications arising from these various interpretations? How has your preferred application influenced your choice of preferred interpretation?

Actually, believe it or not, I never got further than the second question.  The reason is simple:  I never encountered anyone who invested that much energy into finding answers to their questions.  I am not surprised when the general public knows so little about reading scripture, but I was asking my questions of faculty and staff members at a Christian college with a sizeable theological library available to anyone.  Oi vey…

Yep, sometimes understanding the Bible takes a bit of work.  But discussions that leave us believing that scripture is hopelessly inscrutable are irksomely lazy, misleading and just plain wrong.

First, I believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God.  If a person doesn’t believe that statement, then they are off the hook when it comes to the work of interpretation, but they should also stop pontificating about the Bible’s usefulness/uselessness in today’s world.

Second, if a person does share my belief in Biblical inspiration, then it should follow that expending a bit of effort in the task of rightly understanding a Word from God is no big deal.  So, get to work.

Third, every Christian ought to read and study scripture regularly, even daily, with the help of (at least) a good single-volume Bible commentary and a Bible dictionary.

Fourth, yes, there are many multi-volume Bible commentary sets available.  But I will let you in on a little secret: a good many of the modern series are not saying anything particularly new about the Bible.  Most of them exist because today’s publishing houses all want to market their own set of books.  Yes, you will find some variations in interpretation.  There are some choices to be made, but not nearly as many as there are commentaries to buy.  Don’t be fooled by the abundance of books available.

Fifth, a good commentary will survey the interpretive options available whenever a text has been read in different ways throughout church history.  It will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each interpretation, concluding with the commentator’s own preference and the reasons for that selection.  Don’t rely on commentaries where the author only pushes his own views without explanation or looking at the alternatives.  (Note: there are far fewer alternatives than the pundits want you to believe).

Sixth, notice how much of the Bible is actually rather straight-forward.  Yes, historical background is a big help here and there, but most of scripture’s pages will speak to you very simply and straightforwardly.  And remember, the Spirit is always calling us to respond.

So ask yourself: How does this reading want to change me?

“Grieving American on the Fourth of July”

Apparently, the flu bug was waiting for my friends to leave before attacking me.  Alas, I have been massively assaulted by an ugly flu for the past week, hence my piddling blog production of late. My apologies.  I hope to pick up the pace soon.  In the mean time…

Jean Neely has a good article on the Sojourners website entitled “Grieving America on the Fourth of July.”  I have posted an excerpt below.  The entire article is worth reading.

“We in the church have clung too tightly to our country’s myths of exceptionalism. We’ve been too slow to name the real “terror within” and unwilling to listen to those telling us of terror all around. We’ve been reluctant to own up to our history and speak out against unjust policies. We don’t like to think or talk about it, but most of us know that our quality of life here comes directly at the expense of everyone else on the planet (not to mention the planet itself), millions of ordinary folks whose countries have been ravaged by centuries of colonialism and persistent neocolonial structures, who make our clothes and gadgets, grow our food and coffee, and pay in countless other ways for all our out-of-control consumption and addictions. Their problems are our problems. So we can’t set them aside.

“In particular, those of us who claim to follow the poor, Middle Eastern God-man who taught us to give away our possessions, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, and love one another can’t ignore Jesus in the stranger, Jesus on the street, or in the “detention center.” We can’t ignore that Christ embraces and abides with “the least of these,” or the fact that we habitually mistreat, lock up, and deport Christ and those dear to him. We’re called to a different way.

Who is the American Jesus? What is he saying? He reaches out to everyone, but does he carry a gun?

“We might begin with the work of facing the truth of who we are, of being present to the full reality of ourselves and our country. We need to look squarely at reality, at our own churches and our own souls, and deal with the discomfort or pain of what we find there. We need to awaken to both the beauty and the ugliness within, the shadow as well as the light. Sadly, as Thomas Merton put it, ‘We are not very good at recognizing illusions, least of all the ones we cherish about ourselves.’

“It can be terrifying to examine what we cherish about ourselves. But this is the work we’re called to first. We make others pay every day that we refuse to do this work.”

The author well captures my own feelings on this July 4th.  In fact, I find myself enthralled by this personal turmoil on a regular basis, especially on Sundays.  I attend corporate worship, first and foremost, to contribute my own adoration to the collective praise of our Lord and Savior, God Almighty, and to the Son, Jesus Christ.

Yemeni children killed by US-made weapons.

But I must confess that this has become increasingly difficult for me.  Not that I am wavering in my devotion or am any less committed to glorifying my God.  Rather, I find that I must invest more and more of my energy into concentrating on the purpose at hand while fighting off the distractions presented by those around me.

I know. I know.  I am fully aware of how self-righteous I will sound.  The Spirit and I wrestle every day with this issue in my heart.  Yet, the selfish centrality of “me-ism” in our services, combined with the absence of any collective confession of sin or guilt, mixed with the standard American ignorance and indifference to the horrendous levels of pain, suffering and bloodshed casually accomplished by American military ingenuity all around the world every single day often brings me to tears as I stand before my God.

Onlookers probably think that I am having a “deep” moment with Jesus.  And I think I am.  But not the kind they imagine.

I have yet to sort out how to handle these moments, spiritually, psychologically or emotionally.  I only pray that the Lord Jesus will help my nation, my leaders, my community and my church as well as I expect Him to help me.

That’s my hope for this 4th of July.

The Blatant Hypocrisy of “Liberal Zionism” #zionism #christianzionism

Liz Rose, a public school teacher and writer living in Chicago, has an excellent article in Mondoweiss (6/27/18) explaining the hypocrisy of liberal Zionism.  It is entitled “It’s time for Tom Friedman to face the contradictions of liberal Zionism, and move on.”

Because Friedman frequently waves his Zionist banner in the pages of the New York Times, he has become the paradigmatic liberal Zionist in America whose blind loyalty to Israel forces him to speak out of both sides of his mouth.

Trump with al-Sisi

On the one hand, Friedman and his Zionist compatriots complain about an American president embracing fascist dictators, such as Egypt’s al-Sisi, but they remain deafeningly silent about America’s blind support for Israel’s far-right leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump with Netanyahu

Friedman happily quotes and defends Human Right’s Watch when it condemns the abuse of human rights in Egyptian, but he will ignore or condemn the same organization when it highlights identical abuses suffered by Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

Here is an excerpt.  You can find the full article here.  It is well worth reading.

“It’s becoming more and more difficult for liberal Zionists to balance their support for human rights and global justice in Trump’s America with their support for Israel. But liberal Zionists in the U.S. still believe they can.

“This tension is evident in Thomas Friedman’s June 19, 2018, opinion piece in the New York Times, “Trump to Dictators: Have a Nice Day.” Friedman compares Trump to dictators and defends human rights, but Israel is left out of the column, and it feels like a glaring evasion. “What’s terrifying about Trump is that he seems to prefer dictators to our democratic allies everywhere,” Friedman rightly suggests, and uses North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as his examples. These dictators don’t just “crush their revolutionaries or terrorists but even their most mild dissenters,” Friedman writes.  There’s no “space for even loyal opposition.” Friedman is correct, of course, that dissent is criminalized in these countries, and that Trump’s administration puts no limit on these dictators.

“When looking at Friedman’s column with a non-Zionist lens, however, the alliance between Trump and Netanyahu seems simply too obvious to leave out.  Netanyahu’s dictator-like behavior is clear. The recent murder of 135 Palestinians at the Gaza border (and the wounding of more than 14,000), the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem that Netanyahu pushed, Israel’s decision to ban 20 groups who support BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) from entering Israel, and the ongoing occupation and colonization of the Palestinian people that Israel has never taken responsibility for, are just a few indicators of Netanyahu’s desire for total control.

“That Netanyahu is left out of this column speaks to this growing tension between a universal liberalism and liberal Zionism; to reconcile the two, Friedman is forced to avoid the topic altogether.

“Similarly, Friedman can only sound as though he supports human rights if Israel is not mentioned.  He cites Human Rights Watch to show the changes occurring in Egypt:

“Take Egypt. On May 31, Human Rights Watch reported that the Egyptian police had ‘carried out a wave of arrests of critics of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in dawn raids since early May 2018.’ Those arrested included Hazem Abd al-Azim, a political activist; and Wael Abbas, a well-known journalist and rights defender; as well as Shady al-Ghazaly Harb, a surgeon; Haitham Mohamadeen, a lawyer; Amal Fathy, an activist; and Shady Abu Zaid, a satirist.

“Again, Friedman accurately warns of increased censorship among Egypt’s citizens.  But a site like Human Rights Watch becomes a convenient and valid source for liberal Zionists as long as it is not used to criticize Israel.  When it does, it is accused of perpetuating an anti-Israel bias, rather than being a source that has authority and shows human rights violations by Israel. But Friedman’s liberal Zionism prevents him from acknowledging that Israel might violate the very rights he insists all people should have. For liberal Zionists, however, the only way Zionism and human rights can coexist is to erase Palestinian history and give Israel a pass.”