I watched the news this morning with a mix of emotions. The Democrats and the Republicans are angling for the Christian vote. Senator Obama is going to be wooing evangelicals and Senator McCain was portrayed as the candidate without the religious ‘credentials’ in this campaign. This is one reason the theoretical pursuit of a ‘public theology’ has not progressed very far in the last month. The public debate is being run from the political leadership of the nation, not from the church leadership of the nation. And that is how it should be. If a pastor or the leader of a church wants to get into the political arena, more power to them. But I have found myself rethinking the ‘rank and file’ Christian response to public leadership.
There needs to a ‘public theology’ for certain. But that theology should be the church working out its salvation message in fear and trembling against the backdrop of the public arena.
I found it fascinating because this was the lead story on “Good Morning America” today. We are framed in the news reporting as a constituency. I suppose we are, but a constituency full of dynamic Spirit, and a constituency as divided as the number of churches you will find in any neighborhood.
I come out of the mainline, the evangelical wing to be sure, but the mainline. This news reporting was about the evangelical community, not us. They have voices raised in the public debate. I know, “us and them”, a polarizing definition, but it carries perceptive weight in our country.
My ‘public theology’ brings Biblical truth, brings Spirit-filled interpretation, brings the salvific work of Jesus Christ to the public sphere. It cautions against the excesses of power, it stands as a voice to speak grace in a sin filled world where men and women of good character make the best sin-filled choice to tackle a more sin-filled world. The idea of the chaplain, the bringer of religious truth and comfort to a difficult world, speaks strongly to me.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Passing of a Humanist Prophet
George Carlin was just called home to wherever comics who profess no religious affiliation and have their work kicked to the Supreme Court on an obscenities charge go. For him, at best it seemed that God didn't care.
It was especially powerful when, in his standup, he questioned why politicians are forever ending their speeches with "God bless America" or "God bless the USA". He concludes that God doesn't care about America or any of the other two hundred or so countries around the world that blessing us would apparently preclude from divine intervention.
He also said something very interesting in an interview they replayed with him on NPR. I don't have the quote exactly right and I have not gone back to the podcast, but it goes along the lines of God has created an order here on the earth and religions stomp all over that order with their rules for living and threats of damnation for not living it right.
This from the man who gave us seven words you can't say on TV.
I think the man has a prophetic voice. We live in a nation where there are Christians-some of whom prefer to call themselves 'followers of Jesus' rather than Christians-are trying to steer government to a 'Christian' agenda. That runs the gambit from promoting Israel to bring Armageddon through a thick set of 'prayer cells' across Washington DC's power elite that have confused American expansionist ambition with the order of Jesus to a conservative wing of the church as a whole that would legislate their own social agenda, barring abortion, barring homosexual marriage, barring frank discussion of sexual practice among our young people-and weaving such language into our foreign policy.
George Carlin saw the absurdity of it all and that became the basis for his social commentary-that also made us laugh. He also had a potty mouth which I am ashamed to admit made me laugh all the more.
And he played a Cardinal in the movie "Dogma", which is a review for another day.
It was especially powerful when, in his standup, he questioned why politicians are forever ending their speeches with "God bless America" or "God bless the USA". He concludes that God doesn't care about America or any of the other two hundred or so countries around the world that blessing us would apparently preclude from divine intervention.
He also said something very interesting in an interview they replayed with him on NPR. I don't have the quote exactly right and I have not gone back to the podcast, but it goes along the lines of God has created an order here on the earth and religions stomp all over that order with their rules for living and threats of damnation for not living it right.
This from the man who gave us seven words you can't say on TV.
I think the man has a prophetic voice. We live in a nation where there are Christians-some of whom prefer to call themselves 'followers of Jesus' rather than Christians-are trying to steer government to a 'Christian' agenda. That runs the gambit from promoting Israel to bring Armageddon through a thick set of 'prayer cells' across Washington DC's power elite that have confused American expansionist ambition with the order of Jesus to a conservative wing of the church as a whole that would legislate their own social agenda, barring abortion, barring homosexual marriage, barring frank discussion of sexual practice among our young people-and weaving such language into our foreign policy.
George Carlin saw the absurdity of it all and that became the basis for his social commentary-that also made us laugh. He also had a potty mouth which I am ashamed to admit made me laugh all the more.
And he played a Cardinal in the movie "Dogma", which is a review for another day.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Where Scripture and Confession Define Our Work
In ten years as a member of this Presbytery, I have had come into my possession a document as part of our Presbytery meeting packets a piece that has the single greatest concentration of Biblical and Confessional sourcing of anything in my experience.
I am thrilled to have it, but the circumstances are a little depressing.
The references come out of a lengthy transcript of work done by the Permanent Judicial Commission of our Presbytery. In other words, it comes out of the courts of the church. The details of the case are not important. It struck me that the most rigorously biblical and confessional examination of our work as a church comes from its legal branch.
Judicial process is very highly developed in the PCUSA. I would direct you to Appendix A of the 2007-2009 Book of Order where there are more than 50 forms on more than 33 pages to make sure due process is carried forward.
I can't help but wonder if we carried on with that same rigor in all our activities, if life might not be very different in our church. There was a news item from the PCUSA newswire about a consideration before our GA to get a better translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. Amen! Amen! Amen! I grew up on that one in my Reformed heritage.
One commentary I have seen from the Reformed Right is that modern biblical criticism, by its very nature of applying general literary standards to the bible, have de-emphasized its unique and divine placement in our churches. That de-emphasis has lent itself to a decline in knowledge of the bible, much less the Confessions that we draw our primary biblical interpretation from.
What really frustrates me is a nagging thought, in my more ironic moments, that our judicial process has to be so rigorous because if it is not, it opens itself up to countersuit, perhaps even lawsuit in the secular courts. So we are thorough to cover our behinds, what does that say about our priorities?
I am thrilled to have it, but the circumstances are a little depressing.
The references come out of a lengthy transcript of work done by the Permanent Judicial Commission of our Presbytery. In other words, it comes out of the courts of the church. The details of the case are not important. It struck me that the most rigorously biblical and confessional examination of our work as a church comes from its legal branch.
Judicial process is very highly developed in the PCUSA. I would direct you to Appendix A of the 2007-2009 Book of Order where there are more than 50 forms on more than 33 pages to make sure due process is carried forward.
I can't help but wonder if we carried on with that same rigor in all our activities, if life might not be very different in our church. There was a news item from the PCUSA newswire about a consideration before our GA to get a better translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. Amen! Amen! Amen! I grew up on that one in my Reformed heritage.
One commentary I have seen from the Reformed Right is that modern biblical criticism, by its very nature of applying general literary standards to the bible, have de-emphasized its unique and divine placement in our churches. That de-emphasis has lent itself to a decline in knowledge of the bible, much less the Confessions that we draw our primary biblical interpretation from.
What really frustrates me is a nagging thought, in my more ironic moments, that our judicial process has to be so rigorous because if it is not, it opens itself up to countersuit, perhaps even lawsuit in the secular courts. So we are thorough to cover our behinds, what does that say about our priorities?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Chaplaining in Public Debate
A chaplain can be from a Christian faith but has adopted the role of 'internationalist' in terms of religion. We accept personally the truth of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and in that vein we act when with fellow Christians. But we also have to operate within the diverse experience of Christianity, from High Mass Catholic, to simple fellowship with non-clerical Quakers. And we also have to be respectful of other religions, not practicing them as 'clergy' for their practitioners, but providing access to local clergy of that religion, and, in their absence, providing some basic level of resource.
In other words, I may not agree with the teachings of the Buddha or Mohammed, though I personally respect them. In the role of Chaplain, I may have to know more to serve as a resource to those who do believe those teachings.
I think that gives us a window into the Christian faith and the public arena. We will come in to a realm with many people of many different beliefs, perhaps not other formal religions, but various shades of atheism or agnosticism or just general ignorance of faith. As a public leader, I think our public theology should be shaped like the chaplain. We don't subscribe to other belief systems, but we have made a choice to respect those belief systems, to understand them to some degree, and perhaps even to allow ourselves to be in the other person's shoes not just to understand them, but to support them.
What?
Pick your political battle. There was an era of one-issue voting, say, pro or anti abortion. That still informs the political choices of many Christians. It is a line in the sand that public officials are challenged not to cross if they want the votes. A Christian of good conscience in the public arena, demonstrating a public theology, can still love the person, and talk to the person, and agree with the person, maybe even select that person to be their government representative on more than just their position on abortion.
Maybe we dare to go so far as to articulate with due love and truth (though not defend) the position we disagree with when it comes under insulting and divisive attack.
Know what they believe, allow them the respect to believe it, and try by prayer and private conversation to shift them if they believe too far from your own Christian morals. Don't let the public forum be a place where you seek to wield the power of politics like a cudgel to knock down a fellow human being. No matter how tempting.
In other words, I may not agree with the teachings of the Buddha or Mohammed, though I personally respect them. In the role of Chaplain, I may have to know more to serve as a resource to those who do believe those teachings.
I think that gives us a window into the Christian faith and the public arena. We will come in to a realm with many people of many different beliefs, perhaps not other formal religions, but various shades of atheism or agnosticism or just general ignorance of faith. As a public leader, I think our public theology should be shaped like the chaplain. We don't subscribe to other belief systems, but we have made a choice to respect those belief systems, to understand them to some degree, and perhaps even to allow ourselves to be in the other person's shoes not just to understand them, but to support them.
What?
Pick your political battle. There was an era of one-issue voting, say, pro or anti abortion. That still informs the political choices of many Christians. It is a line in the sand that public officials are challenged not to cross if they want the votes. A Christian of good conscience in the public arena, demonstrating a public theology, can still love the person, and talk to the person, and agree with the person, maybe even select that person to be their government representative on more than just their position on abortion.
Maybe we dare to go so far as to articulate with due love and truth (though not defend) the position we disagree with when it comes under insulting and divisive attack.
Know what they believe, allow them the respect to believe it, and try by prayer and private conversation to shift them if they believe too far from your own Christian morals. Don't let the public forum be a place where you seek to wield the power of politics like a cudgel to knock down a fellow human being. No matter how tempting.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Quotable Quote
All fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. I can cite it when I bring the book to the computer.
The Impertinance of Scripture
Any public theology that includes Kingdom work must include the blueprint for that work, the Bible. Whether Authoritative, Inspired, Inerrent, or somewhere in between, the Bible is the basic set of documents of the faith.
For the sake of argument, I am going to pronounce that the Christian Canon turned 1641 this Easter. I base that entirely arbitrary date on the notation in Wikipedia that St. Athanasius included the books of our New Testament canon exclusively in his Easter address in 367 A.D., C.E., as you wish. The Old Testament was still out there, mostly nailed down, but with a couple more debates to be settled.
A Public Theology must be informed (defined) by the Bible. The amazing thing about Jesus is that he was exclusionary "I am the way and the truth and the life" and accomodating, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". It is a real pain in the pocket because it almost feeds the idea of the public and private spheres. Part two of the rendering statement is to render unto God what is God's.
Don't you wish for clarity? And don't even start on the complimentary and confusing movement of revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament. (As a public figure, I tend to use the term "Hebrew Bible" to define the O.T., but as a pastor, I tell you it is every bit a part of my bible as the N.T.
So move over Constitution, move over Bill of Rights, let me, the Christian, place my holy book on the shelf with you. That is how I do things.
And in the quiet of my own faith, I will try to convince you this is the way to do things. But in the public sphere, how do I evangelize?
And how do I evangelize without using the means and powers inherent in the political system? Because my first point of departure with my Christian Right brothers and sisters is that we cannot use those powers to evangelize.
For the sake of argument, I am going to pronounce that the Christian Canon turned 1641 this Easter. I base that entirely arbitrary date on the notation in Wikipedia that St. Athanasius included the books of our New Testament canon exclusively in his Easter address in 367 A.D., C.E., as you wish. The Old Testament was still out there, mostly nailed down, but with a couple more debates to be settled.
A Public Theology must be informed (defined) by the Bible. The amazing thing about Jesus is that he was exclusionary "I am the way and the truth and the life" and accomodating, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". It is a real pain in the pocket because it almost feeds the idea of the public and private spheres. Part two of the rendering statement is to render unto God what is God's.
Don't you wish for clarity? And don't even start on the complimentary and confusing movement of revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament. (As a public figure, I tend to use the term "Hebrew Bible" to define the O.T., but as a pastor, I tell you it is every bit a part of my bible as the N.T.
So move over Constitution, move over Bill of Rights, let me, the Christian, place my holy book on the shelf with you. That is how I do things.
And in the quiet of my own faith, I will try to convince you this is the way to do things. But in the public sphere, how do I evangelize?
And how do I evangelize without using the means and powers inherent in the political system? Because my first point of departure with my Christian Right brothers and sisters is that we cannot use those powers to evangelize.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
A "Public" Theology
As a church, I believe we need to think about appropriate involvement for the church and its members in the "public" sphere. For example, take Jesus' words on tax policy, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."
I use the term "public" sphere as I learned about it in Political Science, that there is a distinction in American politics of the public and the private spheres. I do not wish to debate the merits of this dichotomy, but simply to use it as a starting point for a theological consideration of church involvement in public matters.
I think this theology must contain very strong language that the church is not to be involved in fomenting war in the name of Jesus. This kind of war theology existed during the times of the Crusades. Our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters continue to have a long historical memory of the West and religious involvement in politics. Even when Jesus said, "I come with a sword", it was not a warrior call. It was a recognition that the faith he preached was going to cause division in the world around him. Sin was going to react with violence.
On Sunday, I can preach against the evils of war. On Monday, I can support our government's decision to commit American troops to a battle somewhere in the world. That can be confusing to consider.
I think the first step in our "public" theology is to define "Kingdom of God" work, work designed to reproduce the Kingdom of God here on earth over and against "World" work, a world where we recognize that we are in it with people of many different religions and ethnicities and that we must go with some level of respect for them, even as we consider in our Kingdom work that the Spirit may bring their hearts to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I use the term "public" sphere as I learned about it in Political Science, that there is a distinction in American politics of the public and the private spheres. I do not wish to debate the merits of this dichotomy, but simply to use it as a starting point for a theological consideration of church involvement in public matters.
I think this theology must contain very strong language that the church is not to be involved in fomenting war in the name of Jesus. This kind of war theology existed during the times of the Crusades. Our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters continue to have a long historical memory of the West and religious involvement in politics. Even when Jesus said, "I come with a sword", it was not a warrior call. It was a recognition that the faith he preached was going to cause division in the world around him. Sin was going to react with violence.
On Sunday, I can preach against the evils of war. On Monday, I can support our government's decision to commit American troops to a battle somewhere in the world. That can be confusing to consider.
I think the first step in our "public" theology is to define "Kingdom of God" work, work designed to reproduce the Kingdom of God here on earth over and against "World" work, a world where we recognize that we are in it with people of many different religions and ethnicities and that we must go with some level of respect for them, even as we consider in our Kingdom work that the Spirit may bring their hearts to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)