For these thoughts, my “muse” knows who she is, so thanks. For the rest of you, I am not sure how to get to the biblical point I need to make without first muddling through a particular political argument.
I was texted in the last few days with a request for my thoughts on an article written by one Stephen Mattson for Sojourner Magazine. The title fairly represented the author’s premise, “Social Justice Is a Christian Tradition – Not a Liberal Agenda.” He apparently wanted to make people who are wary of specific social justice movements feel more comfortable in participating with them, even to the point of believing that they are walking in the steps of Jesus for doing so. But, he lost me pretty quickly. The following introduces the article.
“Many Christians are wary of participating in social justice because of a deep-rooted fear of being labeled “liberal,” “progressive,” or “secular.” They don’t want to be associated with “secular” movements, and are uncomfortable delving into issues that go beyond their cultural comfort zones.
“But the Bible tells us that Jesus cared deeply about the social causes around him.
“Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said,
‘Samaritan lives matter.’
“Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Children’s lives matter.’
“Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Gentile lives matter.’
“Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Jewish lives matter.’
“Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Women’s lives matter.’
“Instead of saying all lives matter, Jesus said, ‘Lepers’ lives matter.’
“Even though Jesus loves everyone, even to the point of dying for their sins, he went out of his way to intentionally help specific groups of people — the alienated, mistreated, and those facing injustice.
“So saying 'Black Lives Matter' and participating in a movement seeking justice, positive reform, and empowerment is one of the most Christ-like things we can do.”
Apparently, Mr. Mattson has in his sights those who would specifically dismiss the BLM movement with what he finds to be a cliché: “All lives matter.” But, in doing so, he began by erecting what is, in my experience, a straw man. He identified them with his first words as “Many people …”
I belong to a church, a Bible School class, and the rest of my closest relationships are largely Christian. I cannot think of any of them who have ever shared with me that they avoid joining in particular social causes because they are wary that their buddies will call them “leftists.” Without speaking for them, I could never be a part of Black Lives Matter, not because of any potential scorn from my friends, but because of the plethora of problems I have with the movement’s claims, poster-children, and rhetoric. I’ll save that explanation for anyone who asks. (By the way, I do have friends who are deeply involved in social justice causes they trust.)
I could not help but notice that, according to Mattson, Jesus never collectively said, “All lives matter,” but rather, that individually He spoke to the worth of every specific demographic of the ancient world that came to the author’s mind. In fact, we have no record that Jesus uttered any of these things. Of course, I realize that the author was just using a figure of speech, but what he communicated to me was that Jesus conducted Himself as though all lives mattered.
I hinted that my real agenda for writing was to make a biblical point, not a political one. I guess I have a little issue with a practice I call, “Playing the Jesus Card,” of which the aforementioned article is simply a blatant example. If Jesus conducted Himself according to any mantra, it was not that these or those lives mattered. Jesus embodied the ethic of the kingdom of God, and He applied that ethic to everyone He encountered. We have no example of Him ever zeroing-in on some specific social justice cause that in any way might confuse us in our understanding that His all-consuming passion was to advance the kingdom of His Father.
There is such a thing as a religious right AND a religious left, and I do not get the sense that either group is particularly interested in the precise and accurate treatment of the scriptures so as to advance the invisible kingdom of God that Jesus disclosed to His earliest disciples. Rather, the use of the Bible and the example of Jesus is played like a card to steer emotion and/or guilt. I take issue when any party represents the Bible as saying something it simply does not say, whether that misrepresentation comes from the political right or the political left.
Every time I go to work or return home, I pass a church sign that has taken playing the Jesus card to absurd extremes. When folks were up in arms about immigrant children being separated at the southern border from the adults accompanying them, the sign said, “Let the little children come to me.” Really? I never knew that verse was about immigration. Currently the sign says, “Listen to women. Jesus did.” I had to wonder if this literary wizard understood that Jesus was a loyal Jew Who gave a high place to the Law of Moses. I suspect that He would have listened to a woman AND supported the concept of due process and corroborating witnesses, not as the United States constitution emphasizes it, but as YAHWEH, through Moses, commanded it. The stupidest slogan to date was posted several months ago: “God’s bathrooms are for everyone.” I guess the church was arguing that God is okay with the tearing down of gender distinctions.” (Actually, I did not and still do know what to say to that one except, perhaps, “Repent, or at least keep your head low in a lightning storm.”)
The only reason that any of these nonsensical misuses of the Name of God or Jesus can work is rampant biblical illiteracy among the people of God, which exposes them as fodder for emotional demagoguery because they are simply unarmed in the battle for discernment.
The Bible is not simply a book of ancient documents to be used as frivolously and carelessly as needed for some political hack to score points. It is the living, active, God-breathed Book of God that expresses the Incarnate Word of God. When it is abused to manipulate the minds of people rather than to enlighten them to the mind of God, the abusers themselves are one day going to have to answer, regardless of whether they tilt right or left in their politics.
Every Christian’s walk with Jesus should inform their walk in this world. I take no issue with those who feel led toward some work they believe in because they think it honors Jesus. But, if anyone attempts to play the Jesus card so as to coerce another into seeing things his or her way, I can only recommend to that person, “Be very sure that you are being accurate with God’s Word.” Paul spoke of “rightly dividing the word of truth,” because there must be many ways to twist it to one’s own ends.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
On Hasty Judgments
(I assembled these thoughts in the middle of the past week and chose not to post them until after the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process was resolved one way or the other.)
The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him. – Proverbs 18:17
Could the author of the Proverbs be suggesting that we are prone to gullibility? Is it fair of him to imply that we are easily persuaded by information when we only have one-half of the story? This is an indictment against hasty judgments, which are as evil as corruption itself. After all, one tale is compelling until another tale rebuffs it. Without two sides to a story, we are poor arbiters.
If the process currently going on to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court seems to be teaching us anything, it is how knee-jerk many of us can be when it comes to arriving at beliefs without being privy to first-hand facts. “I believe him!” “I believe her!” In the Senate, trust or distrust for the candidate or his accuser almost always follows party lines, even as a final week of investigation is underway. A few votes are up in the air, but those are certainly going to be driven more by political considerations than by any new clarity of information.
I know what I am inclined to believe. Anyone who knows me well probably knows what I am inclined to believe. But, I am not writing today to support my position or to attack the other one. On the contrary, I think it would be of value for each of us to consider how we arrive at such strong, immovable positions, even in the midst of uncertainty.
Recently, a friend posted a comment reflecting a certainty that Russia “had something” on Trump. I asked what the evidence was. The party did not appear to want to defend the premise other than to say, “That’s my opinion!” That got me to thinking about how loosely we use the term “opinion.” Opinions are judgments about qualitative matters. “I like deep, dark hues of green better than I like bright, loud hues!” “I think a good brisket makes for better Bar-B-Q than any piece of chicken or pork!” Those are my opinions, and no one can disprove them empirically any more than I can prove them. But, if I assert that the Russians have “the goods” on the President, that is not really the domain for opinion. They either do or they do not. My opinion might one day earn me a reputation as a psychic, but it might also find me to be a slanderer. Facts, if they come to light, will make that determination.
Regarding matters that require factual and not qualitative judgments, why are our opinions so strong, when, logically, they are not even appropriate? We really do not KNOW anything without facts. Against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh process, a loved-one asked me, “Why do ____________ ALWAYS believe the _______? My reflexive response might have been, “Why do _______________ ALWAYS believe the _________? (Feel free to insert the word-sets “conservatives/man” or “liberals/woman” as you see fit. That is not the point.) I did not answer according to my reflex because I knew that both statements were certainly over-the-top generalizations. Still, the passions run high as people of every ilk bite into a position and lock-down on it like pit-bulls.
The acrimony over this immediate matter distresses me as it does many, but I learned something about myself when I went to pray about it. I learned that I could not quite bring myself to articulate a prayer that my party would be vindicated. Something inside of me knew that to do so was tantamount to asking God to side with my useless opinion. I could pray for a speedy resolution to the matter. I could pray for reliable facts to come out. I could pray for light upon the issue. I could pray for the authentic victim to be vindicated. But, to pray for my preferred outcome, when I cannot know all of the facts, seemed a little reckless. God is omnipotent. God is sovereign. I am neither. Entering His presence reminds me of that.
No one seems to be latching onto a position in this current matter because of empirically established data. We are shaped by our experiences, politics, biases, ideologies, distrusts, fears, judicial values – anything and everything but knowledge, and these others things are only a recipe for hasty and uninformed judgments.
It is in gut-wrenching times like these that we do not look for support and solace in the companionship of those who agree with us, speaking similar words without knowledge. There very well may be something quite sinister being played out before our eyes. Nevertheless, peace comes only from believing and trusting that God is directing the course of nations, utilizing and steering the vices as well as the virtues of those in charge, or so they think.
The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him. – Proverbs 18:17
Could the author of the Proverbs be suggesting that we are prone to gullibility? Is it fair of him to imply that we are easily persuaded by information when we only have one-half of the story? This is an indictment against hasty judgments, which are as evil as corruption itself. After all, one tale is compelling until another tale rebuffs it. Without two sides to a story, we are poor arbiters.
If the process currently going on to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court seems to be teaching us anything, it is how knee-jerk many of us can be when it comes to arriving at beliefs without being privy to first-hand facts. “I believe him!” “I believe her!” In the Senate, trust or distrust for the candidate or his accuser almost always follows party lines, even as a final week of investigation is underway. A few votes are up in the air, but those are certainly going to be driven more by political considerations than by any new clarity of information.
I know what I am inclined to believe. Anyone who knows me well probably knows what I am inclined to believe. But, I am not writing today to support my position or to attack the other one. On the contrary, I think it would be of value for each of us to consider how we arrive at such strong, immovable positions, even in the midst of uncertainty.
Recently, a friend posted a comment reflecting a certainty that Russia “had something” on Trump. I asked what the evidence was. The party did not appear to want to defend the premise other than to say, “That’s my opinion!” That got me to thinking about how loosely we use the term “opinion.” Opinions are judgments about qualitative matters. “I like deep, dark hues of green better than I like bright, loud hues!” “I think a good brisket makes for better Bar-B-Q than any piece of chicken or pork!” Those are my opinions, and no one can disprove them empirically any more than I can prove them. But, if I assert that the Russians have “the goods” on the President, that is not really the domain for opinion. They either do or they do not. My opinion might one day earn me a reputation as a psychic, but it might also find me to be a slanderer. Facts, if they come to light, will make that determination.
Regarding matters that require factual and not qualitative judgments, why are our opinions so strong, when, logically, they are not even appropriate? We really do not KNOW anything without facts. Against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh process, a loved-one asked me, “Why do ____________ ALWAYS believe the _______? My reflexive response might have been, “Why do _______________ ALWAYS believe the _________? (Feel free to insert the word-sets “conservatives/man” or “liberals/woman” as you see fit. That is not the point.) I did not answer according to my reflex because I knew that both statements were certainly over-the-top generalizations. Still, the passions run high as people of every ilk bite into a position and lock-down on it like pit-bulls.
The acrimony over this immediate matter distresses me as it does many, but I learned something about myself when I went to pray about it. I learned that I could not quite bring myself to articulate a prayer that my party would be vindicated. Something inside of me knew that to do so was tantamount to asking God to side with my useless opinion. I could pray for a speedy resolution to the matter. I could pray for reliable facts to come out. I could pray for light upon the issue. I could pray for the authentic victim to be vindicated. But, to pray for my preferred outcome, when I cannot know all of the facts, seemed a little reckless. God is omnipotent. God is sovereign. I am neither. Entering His presence reminds me of that.
No one seems to be latching onto a position in this current matter because of empirically established data. We are shaped by our experiences, politics, biases, ideologies, distrusts, fears, judicial values – anything and everything but knowledge, and these others things are only a recipe for hasty and uninformed judgments.
It is in gut-wrenching times like these that we do not look for support and solace in the companionship of those who agree with us, speaking similar words without knowledge. There very well may be something quite sinister being played out before our eyes. Nevertheless, peace comes only from believing and trusting that God is directing the course of nations, utilizing and steering the vices as well as the virtues of those in charge, or so they think.
Friday, October 5, 2018
Pursuing Messiah's Kingdom without the Messiah
It is too easy nowadays to poke fun at the United Nations, and I hope these thoughts of mine will not come across as merely that. I am no fan of the organization, but, if “once-upon-a-time,” the nations of the world believed that they could get together and work for world peace, that was a noble objective. In the meantime, and in my opinion, politics, alliances and agendas have undermined this presumably worthy cause of the U.N.’s original visionaries. Still, if it remains in the hearts of die-hard supporters and ambassadors to work for global peace, then, I can commend their sentiments without holding out much confidence in their prospects for success.
I am not making a political observation so much as a theological one. Global peace is outside of the wheelhouse of any assembly of nations. When Jesus said, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars …”, it would not be because He is in any way fond of war, but because He knows the hearts of men and the mindsets of nations. Peace is not in our sinful natures. Fallen nations cannot work together to bring about a peace that ensures equivalent dignity for every people group of the world. In fact, it may very well be the height of hubris for any of them to believe that they can.
This hubris is evidenced by the presence of an outside wall at the U.N. inscribed with these words: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks …” The U.N. also displays a bronze statue depicting a man beating his sword into a plowshare. The statue is captioned, “Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares.” The words on the wall are attributed to the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, but they could just as easily have been attributed to another prophet, Micah. Both spokesmen for JEHOVAH uttered this prophecy (Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3). Neither prophet had in mind anything that the nations of the world could bring to pass by their own deliberations.
The prophets are speaking of the reign of Messiah. Some Christians think of a millennial reign of Christ on the earth when they hear these words. Some think of the final state of things at the end of time. Some hear these as language describing a peace that is won as the world is won for Christ. I am not aware of any group that thinks of the work of the U.N. This absurd appropriation of a biblical quotation simply demonstrates the arrogance of the nations of the world. They are united in a belief that they can somehow bring about the peace that describes the reign of Messiah while barring Messiah Himself from the endeavor. They are using the words of the one true God, even though it would run contrary to the beliefs of most of the nations to even acknowledge said God as the ONE God above ALL gods.
There is also, within the U.N. building, a prayer/meditation chapel accessible to the members, if anyone is in the mood to pray or meditate about anything. Upon entering this room, one will encounter a six-and-one-half-ton, rectangular block of iron ore, polished on top and illumined by a spotlight. The designer of the room described it as “a meeting of the light, of the sky, and the earth … it is the altar to the God of all …” I take that as an “all roads lead to this one god” kind of sentiment where one can pray to one’s own choice of deity or simply meditate in the presence of no deity at all. Across from this big black block is a mural of interlocking geometric patterns. This allegedly is a symbol of the essential oneness of god, not the triune unity of the God of the Bible, but again, this idea that “we all worship god in our own way.”
It is true that God is One, but His oneness is in and of Himself, not a unity of anyone’s and everyone’s notions of god. That is as absurd as the notion that the nations of the world can come together to forge some version of utopia by their own efforts, not that the U.N. has ever shown any capacity for doing that in the entirety of its existence. If anyone thinks that men, coupled with a little contribution from this and that worldview, can ever secure tranquil coexistence among the nations and faith practices of the planet, he is hopelessly naïve. Enduring peace can only be secured by Heaven’s Prince of Peace.
Believers in America tend to get worked up when Christian symbols and scriptural language are removed from public settings. If any effort was made to remove the slogan or the statue about which I have written from the grounds of the United Nations, I would probably just shrug my shoulders. After all, it was far-fetched to think that they ever belonged there in the first place.
I am not making a political observation so much as a theological one. Global peace is outside of the wheelhouse of any assembly of nations. When Jesus said, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars …”, it would not be because He is in any way fond of war, but because He knows the hearts of men and the mindsets of nations. Peace is not in our sinful natures. Fallen nations cannot work together to bring about a peace that ensures equivalent dignity for every people group of the world. In fact, it may very well be the height of hubris for any of them to believe that they can.
This hubris is evidenced by the presence of an outside wall at the U.N. inscribed with these words: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks …” The U.N. also displays a bronze statue depicting a man beating his sword into a plowshare. The statue is captioned, “Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares.” The words on the wall are attributed to the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, but they could just as easily have been attributed to another prophet, Micah. Both spokesmen for JEHOVAH uttered this prophecy (Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3). Neither prophet had in mind anything that the nations of the world could bring to pass by their own deliberations.
The prophets are speaking of the reign of Messiah. Some Christians think of a millennial reign of Christ on the earth when they hear these words. Some think of the final state of things at the end of time. Some hear these as language describing a peace that is won as the world is won for Christ. I am not aware of any group that thinks of the work of the U.N. This absurd appropriation of a biblical quotation simply demonstrates the arrogance of the nations of the world. They are united in a belief that they can somehow bring about the peace that describes the reign of Messiah while barring Messiah Himself from the endeavor. They are using the words of the one true God, even though it would run contrary to the beliefs of most of the nations to even acknowledge said God as the ONE God above ALL gods.
There is also, within the U.N. building, a prayer/meditation chapel accessible to the members, if anyone is in the mood to pray or meditate about anything. Upon entering this room, one will encounter a six-and-one-half-ton, rectangular block of iron ore, polished on top and illumined by a spotlight. The designer of the room described it as “a meeting of the light, of the sky, and the earth … it is the altar to the God of all …” I take that as an “all roads lead to this one god” kind of sentiment where one can pray to one’s own choice of deity or simply meditate in the presence of no deity at all. Across from this big black block is a mural of interlocking geometric patterns. This allegedly is a symbol of the essential oneness of god, not the triune unity of the God of the Bible, but again, this idea that “we all worship god in our own way.”
It is true that God is One, but His oneness is in and of Himself, not a unity of anyone’s and everyone’s notions of god. That is as absurd as the notion that the nations of the world can come together to forge some version of utopia by their own efforts, not that the U.N. has ever shown any capacity for doing that in the entirety of its existence. If anyone thinks that men, coupled with a little contribution from this and that worldview, can ever secure tranquil coexistence among the nations and faith practices of the planet, he is hopelessly naïve. Enduring peace can only be secured by Heaven’s Prince of Peace.
Believers in America tend to get worked up when Christian symbols and scriptural language are removed from public settings. If any effort was made to remove the slogan or the statue about which I have written from the grounds of the United Nations, I would probably just shrug my shoulders. After all, it was far-fetched to think that they ever belonged there in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)