"Does he know the Lord?" my pastor asked about a prayer request. He didn't ask "Is he a Christian?" That's significant, because labels are important. Words are significant, especially names of things. That labeling is kind of loaded, especially for people who do not "know the Lord," (just look at thegreatkatsby's comment here). I didn't really think about it until this weekend and this Sunday School lesson.
I can call myself anything I want. Think about political labels. The original meaning of conservative was that the only check on state power (i.e., the monarchy) should be the church, while liberals felt that power should be distributed among people and decentralized. That is not the way they are used today, of course -- similarities remain, like holding of traditional values in the conservative camp and democratization of access to social institutions in the liberal, but conservatives are talking more about the individual and liberals are talking more about centralization than ever before. So what do either of them mean? If I call myself a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, a moderate, I can fit anywhere I want on the spectrum depending on which standards I use. I like to call myself a moderate, because it makes me sound the least crazy.
Likewise, Christian has a lot rolled into it, depending on what you know about the faith. The initial terminology used to differentiate disciples of Christ from ordinary Jews was to call them followers of "The Way." Nobody knew what to call them to capture the entirety of the change of philosophy. And make no mistake, this was a pretty radical change in philosophy -- our access to God is nodat contingent on our ability to be good.
The discussion of that departure this Sunday morning pivoted on Galatians 2:16-20. This emphasizes that what separated those original followers of "The Way" from followers of The Law is knowing Christ ("I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." Gal 2:20). A particular point of emphasis was that there isn't a checklist of dos and don'ts, it's the realization of the gravity of Gal 2:20
What we see in pop-culture, though, is kind of that sort of checklist mentality, and that it is to our detriment. It's hard not to think of the Ten Commandments in a discussion like this -- a clear symbol of the Judeo-Christian ethic and an actual checklist of dos and don'ts/ But when asked which commandment is the greatest, the answer is not one of those ten: " 'The most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: ,,Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'' The second is this: ,,Love your neighbor as yourself.'' There is no commandment greater than these.' " Mark 12:29-31. (That was a lot of nested quotes...)
You cannot be a Christian if those two commands are not true for you. Whatever other baggage is associated with the word "Christian," that is inescapable. The words "Conservative" or "Evangelical" frequently get attached to "Christian" and that politicizes it to mean something different -- something added beyond its initial intent -- when evangelical just means to telling story to those who haven't heard. (Conservative has already been discussed.)
So we how do we overcome the negative connotations that have been applied to our names? The only way I know how is to tell our story. Why do I want to overcome those negative connotations? Because by "knowing the Lord," I am far better than I would be otherwise. That differential in who I am and who I would be is great enough that I want to share the cause. No, that is understating it; I am compelled to share the cause. Whatever you call it, it stems from the fact that I know Christ.
Showing posts with label christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christ. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Sins are bad, mmkay
One of the prongs of a recent political discussion has been clanging around in my head, and I have not been able to quite put it to rest. It comes from the role of faith in politics and the perception that its presence leads to oppression, if not specifically targeted at disadvantaged groups, then effectively so -- primarily women and homosexuals. Since this discussion was concerning American politics, it was really in regards to Christianity.
It bugged me, because Christianity, if properly understood, has no room for that. When it enters politics, though, that's a different story -- Theodosius's decision to establish Christianity in the 4th Century created a new privileged class within the Roman Empire and Europe hasn't been the same since and, unfortunately, frequently not for the better. This gets to the issue of "religion" vs. "faith" and, while seemingly nuanced, is significant.
This is important to me because this image that became presented, one of an oppressive and restricting Christianity is not the same image that I have of it in my experience. Christianity is primarily about love and forgiveness, because each of us has found love and forgiveness through Christ based on His mercy and nothing to do with our actions. That mercy extends to anyone who seeks it -- regardless of color, gender, sexual preference, or behavioral history. That is, it is entirely inclusive to anyone, so long as a relationship with Christ is pursued. That's at the heart of John 3:16, the verse that nearly everyone has heard at least once. Additionally, when asked what the most important commandment is, Jesus answers with love God -- and the second, love your neighbors (Matthew 22:35-40).
Christianity has no inherent political aims within its scripture, really highlighted by Matthew 22:21, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." We have applied a rather crude litmus test to our politics to require the appearance of Christian faith from our leaders whether they really believe it or not. It is very important to note that there are a number of ways that belief manifests itself, we are all sinners and no one really knows another's heart, so it is difficult to say who falls in which category, but the more vocal certainly get tougher scrutiny.
Rick Perry is an example of such a candidate. One of the issues that he put front and center in his ad entitled, "Strong" is one that really gives credence, unfortunately, to the position I am trying to argue against. He opens with a volley against homosexuals, which is a controversial subject. I think that Christians and homosexuals frequently get hung up on another way out of proportion to the need. While there is ample scriptural evidence that points to homosexual behavior as being sinful, it's also important to note other common things that are sinful: divorce, gossip, not giving freely, greed, and putting God to the test. There aren't really protests of objection against divorce courts, celebrity tabloids, politicians who claim to be faithful but are not with their money when their tax returns are released, television shows that have a character make a deal with God or threaten Him with unbelief unless some desired outcome is reached with nearly the enthusiasm that religious people go after homosexuals.
This sort of public reaction that we do see begs the question that some sins are worse than others. That is a rather nuanced theological question, but ultimately, sin is failing to meet God's expectations, and failure is failure. In order to reach fellowship with God, we need forgiveness from that failure, and Christ is the vehicle God provided to achieve that, out of God the Father's love for humanity. (See Romans 6:23.) Every sin is a source of separation from God -- a lack of Christlike perfection -- so we are all in this boat together. The very powerful story of Jesus and the sinful woman in John 8:2-11 shows us that we are not able to judge and should not. By judging, we are assuming for ourselves the role of God the Son, which is also sinful.
Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't object to sinful behavior. The charge for Christians to share our story (Matthew 28:16-20) is based on a sense that we have something valuable -- a relationship with Christ, a loving God -- that others might want. It is a path to redemption, truth, and freedom. Sinful behavior is an obstacle to achieving that relationship, and not loving people is unmistakably contrary to God's will.
It bugged me, because Christianity, if properly understood, has no room for that. When it enters politics, though, that's a different story -- Theodosius's decision to establish Christianity in the 4th Century created a new privileged class within the Roman Empire and Europe hasn't been the same since and, unfortunately, frequently not for the better. This gets to the issue of "religion" vs. "faith" and, while seemingly nuanced, is significant.
This is important to me because this image that became presented, one of an oppressive and restricting Christianity is not the same image that I have of it in my experience. Christianity is primarily about love and forgiveness, because each of us has found love and forgiveness through Christ based on His mercy and nothing to do with our actions. That mercy extends to anyone who seeks it -- regardless of color, gender, sexual preference, or behavioral history. That is, it is entirely inclusive to anyone, so long as a relationship with Christ is pursued. That's at the heart of John 3:16, the verse that nearly everyone has heard at least once. Additionally, when asked what the most important commandment is, Jesus answers with love God -- and the second, love your neighbors (Matthew 22:35-40).
Christianity has no inherent political aims within its scripture, really highlighted by Matthew 22:21, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." We have applied a rather crude litmus test to our politics to require the appearance of Christian faith from our leaders whether they really believe it or not. It is very important to note that there are a number of ways that belief manifests itself, we are all sinners and no one really knows another's heart, so it is difficult to say who falls in which category, but the more vocal certainly get tougher scrutiny.
Rick Perry is an example of such a candidate. One of the issues that he put front and center in his ad entitled, "Strong" is one that really gives credence, unfortunately, to the position I am trying to argue against. He opens with a volley against homosexuals, which is a controversial subject. I think that Christians and homosexuals frequently get hung up on another way out of proportion to the need. While there is ample scriptural evidence that points to homosexual behavior as being sinful, it's also important to note other common things that are sinful: divorce, gossip, not giving freely, greed, and putting God to the test. There aren't really protests of objection against divorce courts, celebrity tabloids, politicians who claim to be faithful but are not with their money when their tax returns are released, television shows that have a character make a deal with God or threaten Him with unbelief unless some desired outcome is reached with nearly the enthusiasm that religious people go after homosexuals.
This sort of public reaction that we do see begs the question that some sins are worse than others. That is a rather nuanced theological question, but ultimately, sin is failing to meet God's expectations, and failure is failure. In order to reach fellowship with God, we need forgiveness from that failure, and Christ is the vehicle God provided to achieve that, out of God the Father's love for humanity. (See Romans 6:23.) Every sin is a source of separation from God -- a lack of Christlike perfection -- so we are all in this boat together. The very powerful story of Jesus and the sinful woman in John 8:2-11 shows us that we are not able to judge and should not. By judging, we are assuming for ourselves the role of God the Son, which is also sinful.
Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't object to sinful behavior. The charge for Christians to share our story (Matthew 28:16-20) is based on a sense that we have something valuable -- a relationship with Christ, a loving God -- that others might want. It is a path to redemption, truth, and freedom. Sinful behavior is an obstacle to achieving that relationship, and not loving people is unmistakably contrary to God's will.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
That's an important o
I read an interesting article on the New York Times blog the other day. It's a philosophy professor at Amherst, Louise Antony, trying to defend her point of view of moralistic atheism. The basic premise is that she considers there to be a natural right and wrong in nature independent from God, whether He exists or not. She breaks down two concepts of morality that she calls the Divine Command Theory (DCT) -- where things are good because God wills them -- or the Divine Independence Theory (DIT) -- where God wills only things that are good.
She talks about how the second is a more enlightened way to think because, well, it allows people not to need God and people like her to feel better about the fact that they are living in a similar fantasy that she thinks people like me do. She has a long explanation about how different the two theories are, centering around the arbitrariness of DCT versus the steadiness of DIT. If "goodness" were a natural property, like mass or electrical charge, then for us to make any use of it, there must be a way to measure (or at least detect) this property. She posits that we can, and cites some examples involving home invasion, slavery and torture. And I think we can all agree that those are in fact, wrong. However, they weren't always.
Private property is a very old concept and violation of it has been considered socially unacceptable behavior outside of wartime in just about every culture as long as we have written things down. Slavery was practiced by just about every major culture for a very long time, with most Western countries banning it in the 19th Century and some Middle-Eastern countries acting as late as the 1960s. The Geneva Conventions were adopted in the 20th Century, not because we became enlightened and grew out of it like witchcraft, but because the practice was rampant and the countries that did not abandon a Judeo-Christian worldview wanted to stop it.
That's not to mention cultures like the Aztecs who practiced human sacrifice, Indians who had the institution of sati until the British outlawed it, the Arab concept of honor killings, and our very own policies of institutionalized racism that were finally taken off the books in the 1960s. I think we can also agree that they are wrong as well.
So why didn't we know enough then that it was wrong? The simplest answer is that there is no universal and innate natural "goodness" outside of an agreed upon standard. The laundry list of sins that humankind is evidence that we need such a standard, and Western culture (and Middle-Eastern culture as well) has adopted the Abrahamic traditions as that standard. Prof. Antony's concept, absent some sort of evidence that this idea of natural goodness can be identified is no different than pagan pan-theism -- there are petty gods in everything (or a single universal force permeating everything) providing its intrinsic value -- not unlike George Lucas's Jedi religion.
She also makes a point about how it is better to be good absent the threats of punishment or promise of reward. Maybe. But if there are no consequences to our behavior, why is it better? We call electrical charge positive and negative, and I always preferred working with positive charges in class because it's easier to work with, and the word negative carries bad connotations. Think of another example. The NCAA has myriad arbitrary rules about what college students can or cannot do in order to play their sport. Reggie Bush used his talent to provide a house for his family beyond their means. However, that was against the rules. Did he do anything wrong? According the NCAA, yes. Is that rule right or wrong? Does it matter?
The largest point, though, is that her worldview requires faith. Just like mine does. And it is intellectually dishonest of her to argue that she is morally superior because she subscribes to DIT and thinks she can arrive at moral behavior without needing God because she's smart, without regard to the moral infrastructure that was built by a history of religious people. The two concepts ultimately are different only in the academic sense that she presents, not in the real world in which we live, because the objectivity she claims cannot be divorced from the culture that surrounds us.
She also discusses interpersonal relationships, and says that by acquiring value through God you are essentially denying the human value of everyone else. We kind of do that now, as well; society determines value by the law, and for a while in the United States, even, black people were worth less than white people, and we even defined the ratio. Fetuses are worth very little in the eyes of the law. That changes when society decides it would. We, as enlightened smart people, changed our minds.
Tribalism, where we prefer and value people who are like us or related to us more than others, kind of fits the mold as well. Most of history was driven by this or the similar idea of nationalism. In many places, history still is driven by them. We look at the Janjaweed and know that they are doing wrong, but they see themselves as looking out for their own people, because they feel that their people are worth more. The Japanese thought they were worth more than the Chinese in Nanking. I could go on.
I suppose her counter-argument would be, "Those things were wrong even then, we just disobeyed them. We were wrong, too." Maybe, but how would we have known? She cites Plato as positing this argument before the birth of Christ, so it's not like we haven't had the material to work this out until the 20th and 21st Centuries.
If there really is a natural goodness we can identify without God, humans suck at it. Christians already knew that, though. We need a standard. Christians identify that as the unchanging Bible and the life of Christ.
There are good arguments about the ability of atheists to be moral people. However, this one, this particularly condescending one, is not it. (That's why people don't like atheists: they tell you that you're wrong while claiming to be morally superior. It's not a very becoming look.) An example is quite simply to follow the Golden Rule -- but then again, that owes its origin to millenia of religious thinking.
She talks about how the second is a more enlightened way to think because, well, it allows people not to need God and people like her to feel better about the fact that they are living in a similar fantasy that she thinks people like me do. She has a long explanation about how different the two theories are, centering around the arbitrariness of DCT versus the steadiness of DIT. If "goodness" were a natural property, like mass or electrical charge, then for us to make any use of it, there must be a way to measure (or at least detect) this property. She posits that we can, and cites some examples involving home invasion, slavery and torture. And I think we can all agree that those are in fact, wrong. However, they weren't always.
Private property is a very old concept and violation of it has been considered socially unacceptable behavior outside of wartime in just about every culture as long as we have written things down. Slavery was practiced by just about every major culture for a very long time, with most Western countries banning it in the 19th Century and some Middle-Eastern countries acting as late as the 1960s. The Geneva Conventions were adopted in the 20th Century, not because we became enlightened and grew out of it like witchcraft, but because the practice was rampant and the countries that did not abandon a Judeo-Christian worldview wanted to stop it.
That's not to mention cultures like the Aztecs who practiced human sacrifice, Indians who had the institution of sati until the British outlawed it, the Arab concept of honor killings, and our very own policies of institutionalized racism that were finally taken off the books in the 1960s. I think we can also agree that they are wrong as well.
So why didn't we know enough then that it was wrong? The simplest answer is that there is no universal and innate natural "goodness" outside of an agreed upon standard. The laundry list of sins that humankind is evidence that we need such a standard, and Western culture (and Middle-Eastern culture as well) has adopted the Abrahamic traditions as that standard. Prof. Antony's concept, absent some sort of evidence that this idea of natural goodness can be identified is no different than pagan pan-theism -- there are petty gods in everything (or a single universal force permeating everything) providing its intrinsic value -- not unlike George Lucas's Jedi religion.
She also makes a point about how it is better to be good absent the threats of punishment or promise of reward. Maybe. But if there are no consequences to our behavior, why is it better? We call electrical charge positive and negative, and I always preferred working with positive charges in class because it's easier to work with, and the word negative carries bad connotations. Think of another example. The NCAA has myriad arbitrary rules about what college students can or cannot do in order to play their sport. Reggie Bush used his talent to provide a house for his family beyond their means. However, that was against the rules. Did he do anything wrong? According the NCAA, yes. Is that rule right or wrong? Does it matter?
The largest point, though, is that her worldview requires faith. Just like mine does. And it is intellectually dishonest of her to argue that she is morally superior because she subscribes to DIT and thinks she can arrive at moral behavior without needing God because she's smart, without regard to the moral infrastructure that was built by a history of religious people. The two concepts ultimately are different only in the academic sense that she presents, not in the real world in which we live, because the objectivity she claims cannot be divorced from the culture that surrounds us.
She also discusses interpersonal relationships, and says that by acquiring value through God you are essentially denying the human value of everyone else. We kind of do that now, as well; society determines value by the law, and for a while in the United States, even, black people were worth less than white people, and we even defined the ratio. Fetuses are worth very little in the eyes of the law. That changes when society decides it would. We, as enlightened smart people, changed our minds.
Tribalism, where we prefer and value people who are like us or related to us more than others, kind of fits the mold as well. Most of history was driven by this or the similar idea of nationalism. In many places, history still is driven by them. We look at the Janjaweed and know that they are doing wrong, but they see themselves as looking out for their own people, because they feel that their people are worth more. The Japanese thought they were worth more than the Chinese in Nanking. I could go on.
I suppose her counter-argument would be, "Those things were wrong even then, we just disobeyed them. We were wrong, too." Maybe, but how would we have known? She cites Plato as positing this argument before the birth of Christ, so it's not like we haven't had the material to work this out until the 20th and 21st Centuries.
If there really is a natural goodness we can identify without God, humans suck at it. Christians already knew that, though. We need a standard. Christians identify that as the unchanging Bible and the life of Christ.
There are good arguments about the ability of atheists to be moral people. However, this one, this particularly condescending one, is not it. (That's why people don't like atheists: they tell you that you're wrong while claiming to be morally superior. It's not a very becoming look.) An example is quite simply to follow the Golden Rule -- but then again, that owes its origin to millenia of religious thinking.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Moves Like Dabo*
Did you know that there is a phrase in the college football consciousness "pull a Clemson"? (Search for that, or typical Clemson, or something along those lines...) Basically, it means that your goal is yours for the taking as long as you do what you're supposed to do and don't screw up -- but you do anyway. For as long as I can remember, that's been emblematic of the Clemson football team, because I'm not old enough for the big days of the 80s when Clemson was busy being awesome on the gridiron. This year, though, actually looks different.
It's a funny thing how that "always been there" kind of attitude affects you. I cannot believe I am going to reference the Sing Off two posts in a row, but when Vocal Point, a talented group of Mormon boys, sang Ain't Too Proud to Beg on the show, I looked up from my smartphone where I was doing something completely unrelated and manly like reading about football and monster trucks and said, "This sounds really white." (In the interest of full disclosure: I am allowed to say that, because I am really white.) It made me appreciate the Rolling Stones in a way I never really had before, because they had always been the Rolling Stones -- this icon of music in a way that you just don't understand unless you know that they were one of the pioneers that broke barriers by making it ok to listen to music that black people made by trying to sound like them, like Elvis and other white blues musicians. While that may sound vaguely racist, it was a revolution in all the positive ways that art is supposed to be revolutionary by sharing white and black experiences (which ultimately, are the same experiences, which wasn't really universally accepted in 1966, when the Temptations first recorded that song).
This lack of perspective is why people think that politics are the ugliest they've ever been right now or that Justin Bieber is the greatest musician in the history of musicians. (Clearly Rick Astley is ahead of him. [Interesting note: Rick Astley also covered Ain't Too Proud to Beg.]) It also leads to the strange acceptance of the status quo that Christians feel about their faith and what it really means.
Just like I've never known a world where Clemson didn't choke away ACC title opportunities or an undiscovered Rolling Stones, I've always been exposed to the Christian message that by faith and faith alone we are forgiven. There's never been a discovery kind of moment like the first time you see HDTV or taste real vinegar barbecue sauce and think, "This changes everything."
That's how Christianity is supposed to feel: revolutionary and liberating. Christ's arrival changed the way that men and God could relate and broke down barriers that separated men from one another. Those are no small things and because we've been steeped in the culture it's really easy to look at church and see something stodgy and establishment, like seeing Sir Michael Jagger and Keith Richards, cultural icons, rather than two kids from Kent trying to sound like Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley. Most of us probably have never even heard a song by Muddy Waters or Bo Diddley.
Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley are key parts of the Rolling Stones' story, as 1981 and Frank Howard (and the football wilderness of the 1990s and 2000s, for that matter) are to the Clemson story. The inaccessibility to God before Christ (and God's desire to bridge that gap as explained by the prophets) and the Greco-Roman concept of class are parts of the Christian story, too. And it makes the whole thing look bigger.
*Title from this edsbs.com blogpost
**I just had to. Here's the actual link. It's not bad, really.
It's a funny thing how that "always been there" kind of attitude affects you. I cannot believe I am going to reference the Sing Off two posts in a row, but when Vocal Point, a talented group of Mormon boys, sang Ain't Too Proud to Beg on the show, I looked up from my smartphone where I was doing something completely unrelated and manly like reading about football and monster trucks and said, "This sounds really white." (In the interest of full disclosure: I am allowed to say that, because I am really white.) It made me appreciate the Rolling Stones in a way I never really had before, because they had always been the Rolling Stones -- this icon of music in a way that you just don't understand unless you know that they were one of the pioneers that broke barriers by making it ok to listen to music that black people made by trying to sound like them, like Elvis and other white blues musicians. While that may sound vaguely racist, it was a revolution in all the positive ways that art is supposed to be revolutionary by sharing white and black experiences (which ultimately, are the same experiences, which wasn't really universally accepted in 1966, when the Temptations first recorded that song).
This lack of perspective is why people think that politics are the ugliest they've ever been right now or that Justin Bieber is the greatest musician in the history of musicians. (Clearly Rick Astley is ahead of him. [Interesting note: Rick Astley also covered Ain't Too Proud to Beg.]) It also leads to the strange acceptance of the status quo that Christians feel about their faith and what it really means.
Just like I've never known a world where Clemson didn't choke away ACC title opportunities or an undiscovered Rolling Stones, I've always been exposed to the Christian message that by faith and faith alone we are forgiven. There's never been a discovery kind of moment like the first time you see HDTV or taste real vinegar barbecue sauce and think, "This changes everything."
That's how Christianity is supposed to feel: revolutionary and liberating. Christ's arrival changed the way that men and God could relate and broke down barriers that separated men from one another. Those are no small things and because we've been steeped in the culture it's really easy to look at church and see something stodgy and establishment, like seeing Sir Michael Jagger and Keith Richards, cultural icons, rather than two kids from Kent trying to sound like Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley. Most of us probably have never even heard a song by Muddy Waters or Bo Diddley.
Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley are key parts of the Rolling Stones' story, as 1981 and Frank Howard (and the football wilderness of the 1990s and 2000s, for that matter) are to the Clemson story. The inaccessibility to God before Christ (and God's desire to bridge that gap as explained by the prophets) and the Greco-Roman concept of class are parts of the Christian story, too. And it makes the whole thing look bigger.
*Title from this edsbs.com blogpost
**I just had to. Here's the actual link. It's not bad, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)