The Sad Case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

 

The defense has rested its case in the ongoing trial of George Zimmerman, a man on trial for the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, whom he claims he killed in self-defense. The next few days will have closing arguments, and then Zimmerman’s fate will be in the hands of the jury. He could face up to life in prison if convicted.

It is always deeply saddening to see anyone lose their life. What makes it even sadder is that race played at least a partial role in Zimmerman’s choice to initially follow Martin.

This is an important point I want to touch on. Trayvon Martin was unarmed, and had only Skittles and green tea. He was on his way to his father’s house. He also appears to have been genuinely frightened when he saw Zimmerman following him, not knowing why. It is almost a certainty that what triggered Zimmerman’s suspicion was his being black, and wearing a hoodie. There is a reason that it is so believable that he was being profiled. And that reason is that it happens to blacks in the United States. Constant stories exist, both in the news, and personal accounts from black acquaintances, about security guards and police officers stopping them for no good reason, accusing them of preposterous things, sometimes even handing down extremely unjust punishments.

I’m about to relate an example from my own life. Although it has nowhere near the severity that the above scenarios do, it nonetheless left me with a feeling conviction I will never forget. On a spring evening when I was 17, my dad was off at a meeting, and my mom was out back working on the flowers. I was on the computer, when the doorbell rang. I looked through the blinds and saw that it was a black male. He had on basketball shorts, a sleeveless shirt with the name of a basketball team, and his hair was in corn rows. I remember shuddering. I was about to go back to the computer, when a feeling of guilt came over me. Perhaps it was what they call “white guilt”. My guilt caused me to open the door. I don’t remember much about him, but I remember his name was Marcus, he was very polite and kind, and his reason for being there was to get donation pledges for an environmental advocacy group. There’s a “suspicious activity” if there ever was one, eh? After he left, I remember my mom commenting what a hard job he had, and that a lot of the neighborhood probably didn’t even open their doors to him, due to fear. We were very glad we had a chance to talk to him. But my fear was reflective of reality in the dominant white culture of America: fear of the “other”, particularly of black skin. We have allowed the media to saturate us with images of black men as mindless brutes with physical prowess. The result has been that we fear them, and a few of us have taken our reactions to extremes, as in the case of Zimmerman’s hyper-vigilance.

Which brings me to my second point: Zimmerman almost certainly had a hyper-vigilance problem. An affidavit indicates that “Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated ‘these [expletive], they always get away’ and also said ‘these f—— punks’.” This appears to be a sign of, dare I say, paranoia. It also appears that he followed Martin even when the dispatcher told him not to. This is a man with a vendetta, and an unacceptable level of fear. And while some question the role of race, given that Zimmerman is a Hispanic and thus a minority himself, I found this to be a brilliant assessment of race relations in Florida (it’s a rarity for me to applaud the Huffington Post).

However, there appear to be issues with Trayvon Martin as well. His character has been called into question, as he appears to have been a drug user, with small traces even found in his autopsy, although it appears the amounts were negligible. He seems to have had a belligerent streak, and also was a sporadic truant. Although the judge has ruled many of these things inadmissible by the defense, they are things to consider. Legitimate questions have also been raised regarding whether the arrest was due to an honest reexamination of the facts, or whether it was to appease an increasingly irate public.

Here is, in a nutshell, what I think happened: Zimmerman, out of his hyper-vigilance, decided to follow Martin, wanting very badly to “put that punk in his place,” so to speak. Martin caught on, and began verbally confronting him, with Zimmerman verbally firing back. It’s at that point that it becomes fuzzy for me. It’s not clear whether Zimmerman then backed off, only to be then pursued and physically confronted by Martin (Zimmerman did have a broken nose and numerous lacerations), resulting in him shooting Martin, or whether Zimmerman escalated the confrontation and tried to restrain and/or incapacitate Martin.

Having looked at these facts, I am now going to go on the record and say that I believe Zimmerman will be acquitted. I believe that the defense has managed to sow a reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury for two primary reasons:

1. They’ve managed to make the initial picture of Martin as a “fine young man” seem highly questionable, and made him increasingly seem like the type to initiate aggression.

2. Witness accounts differ strongly on which of them appeared to be the aggressor. They cannot even agree which one was on top in the scuffle, or which one’s voice is screaming for help. All they have to do is establish the prosecution’s lack of conclusive proof that Zimmerman was the primary aggressor.

Regardless of outcome, it is time for white America to wake up to the reality of racism, alive and well in 2013. Regardless of Zimmerman’s precise motivations, it is far too often that blacks are viewed suspiciously, and often downright mistreated, for what ultimately boils down to their skin color. Going back to my story about Marcus, many white people often say, “Well, they shouldn’t dress like that if they don’t want to be viewed suspiciously!” (the same can be said about Martin’s hoodie). However, we forget how easy it is for us to say that, since it is OUR clothing that has the status of normativity, and ultimately up to US, as the majority, to decide who looks suspicious. The Hispanic perspective also, in my opinion, has not been heard at all throughout this controversy. The time has come that we must listen to one another’s story’s, and do our best to work together to overcome these prejudices. As the old spiritual goes, we must continue “climbing Jacob’s ladder, to the sky.”

When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. -Proverbs 21:15

Sanford and Sanctity Spin Doctors

 

It’s official. Mark Sanford, formerly disgraced governor of South Carolina who cheated on his wife while claiming to be “hiking the Appalachian Trail”, has been elected to the House of Representatives. Granted, he was not up against a particularly strong challenger in Elizabeth Colbert Busch, but it’s nonetheless impressive given the backlash he had faced.

For many conservatives, it serves as a redemption story in which a leader formerly caught in immorality wipes off the dust and returns to leadership, with a freshly new moral outlook. Liberals, on the other hand, have launched a seemingly endless barrage of criticism, alleging that it demonstrates conservative hypocrisy on “family values.”

Of course, it should be noted that Sanford has never been a vocal social conservative. His big thing was always fiscal conservatism, and his reputation as a “budget hawk.” Thought it’s humorously noteworthy that he traveled to Argentina on taxpayer funds, though I believe he later reimbursed the state.

However, I have heard people claim that he was still the lesser of two evils because of, among the other things, protecting the sanctity of marriage (aka stopping gay marriage). Republicans have been hammering the point nonstop, that gay people getting married turns the institution on its head. And in many cases, Christian beliefs are a primary motivating factor. But divorce and adultery are often not spoken of. But what did Jesus say about it? Here’s what he says in Mark 10:

 

And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.² And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.³ And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?⁴ And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.⁵ And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.⁶ But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.⁷ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;⁸ And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.⁹ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.¹⁰ And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.¹¹ And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.¹² And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

 

Gay marriage opponents like to note that God intended marriage for one man and one woman, which Jesus alludes to in verses 7-8. However, when people say this, they are often implicitly opposing two men or two women, and not so much one man and multiple women. In that day, it was common for Pharisees to leave their wives to marry younger, more attractive women, and get off on the technicality that they weren’t committing adultery because they didn’t sleep with her while married to the previous wife. But Jesus had higher standards in mind. Just the other day, a non-Christian friend said, “Man, if Sanford was going to do that, he should have at least done it the right way, and not gotten with her until after his divorce was final.” The same thing people think now was thought then, and there is nothing new under the sun.

What anyone who supports the biblical view of marriage should be even more infuriated about is that it is not even like, say, Newt Gingrich, where he has an adulterous past and is now at least claiming to regret it. Mark Sanford’s adultery is IN PROGRESS, as he is engaged to Chapur, claiming she is his soul mate, with no apparent regard for his former wife or his sons. My grandfather left my grandmother for another woman, and I can tell you my father and uncle were not affected well by it.

Let me be clear, if you think the Republicans, as far as family issues go, should be voted for because they are the lesser of two evils, fine. But stop preaching the Republicans as the way forward for those who want strong families. Just be honest, and say that you think they are not as overt in their contempt for God’s teaching. They have just as much sexual sin as anyone within their ranks, and are doing nothing about it. Jesus had strong words for such hypocrisy in Matthew 23:

 

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,² Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:³ All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.⁴ For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.⁵ But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,⁶ And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,⁷ And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.⁸ But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.⁹ And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.¹⁰ Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.¹¹ But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.¹² And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Further, in verses 24-30, he says:

²⁴ Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.²⁵ Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.²⁶ Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.²⁷ Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.²⁸ Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.²⁹ Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,³⁰ And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

 

Am I saying God cannot forgive Sanford? Certainly not. Am I condemning him from a place of perfection? No way. I have more sins than I can count. I have committed adultery in my heart more times than I can count.

But sin must be confessed to be forgiven, and there is no sign of repentance on Sanford’s part, nor on the part of the Republican party, with the “sanctity of marriage” in its platform. They have decided that some sexual sins are fine, while others are not, and apparently the ones they are more often faced with are the lesser sins.

It is time for Christians to see that the Religious Right has essentially evolved into the modern Pharisees. They are hypocritical and morally bankrupt. They judge the speck in the eye of others, including some of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and ignore the log in their own. And they have spent years defrauding God’s people. Turn from them, and follow the Lord your God.

 

 

Abducted Syrian Bishops

Abducted Syrian Bishops

Please be in prayer for these leaders in the Syrian church, who have been abducted in the middle of the civil war. God have mercy on us all. 

Easter Reflections

My first Lenten season as an Anglican is now completed (actually for a whole week). I currently remember and probably will continue to remember it as a very powerful time for me. It allowed me, for the first time, to experience Easter, rather than just a time for me to remember the Resurrection as an individual, instead a time that I could experience a tradition of Resurrection celebrations, handed down from generation to generation.

Many evangelicals are wary of following church traditions, particularly based on Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 15/Mark 7, in which he chastises them for following “the traditions of men.” For some, this means that most if not all ritual is dangerous, because it allegedly causes people to mindlessly engage in practices and lose focus on the saving power of Christ.

However, I can attest that, speaking for myself at least, the liturgy and church traditions have served to enhance the powerful Gospel of Christ. It is often as though the biblical narrative is being re-enacted during a service. The inadequacy of the human and the grace of God are illuminated, through the collect for purity, the Scripture readings, the prayer of confession, the hymns that are sung, the collective prayers of the people, the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed, and in the Eucharist, during which Anglican theology teaches that Chris is spiritually (NOT physically) present and gives grace to His people.

The practice of Lent is another church tradition that powerfully illustrates the Christian narrative. The purpose of Lent is primarily twofold: to reduce indulgent distractions so that the energy is focused on God, and to allow the believer to experience a very microscopic version of the suffering that Christ went through at the time of his death.

At the start of Lent I chose to give up sugar, all TV besides sports (Pittsburgh teams are rarely televised here, so I thought it was a reasonable stipulation), watching mindlessly funny YouTube videos, and several other things. I have to confess, for the first few weeks, I didn’t budge. I felt extremely righteous; I was really demonstrating my devotion to God.

However, within about three weeks, I had caved to all of my “sacrifices”. The impulse reaction was to feel as though my Lent was ruined. For while I never believed those sacrifices would play any role in salvation, it was all too easy to feel like a “better” Christian for adhering to them.  But this is not what Paul tells us in Romans 7:

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.  For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.  But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

This is Paul’s assurance that the law was created to reveal the darkness of our hearts, and to show how impossible it is for us to measure up to God’s holiness. However, God’s grace has given us newness in the Spirit. Because of this newness in Christ, I can have assurance of my salvation, and rather than something I have to do, Lent is something I get to do.

The other main idea I found espoused in the season of Lent was how the Bible demonstrates God’s work of salvation to be a holistic endeavor, for as both the spiritual and physical realms were tainted by the Fall, so the promised Messiah provides hope of redemption of these things.

I saw this reflected several times during Holy Week. On Wednesday night, I attended a Catholic Tenebrae service, complete with Gregorian chants and monks. During one portion of the service, the chapel is darkened and a host of chilling and repulsive noises are made, to illustrate the convulsion of all creation when Christ was crucified. On Maundy Thursday, I attended a service centered around foot washing, in which the act was done, and reminded of the humility Christ showed. The Good Friday service likewise reminded one of the agony and shame suffered by Christ on that day.

However, the most powerful experience of the season was the Easter Vigil, an extremely somber service that lasts three hours, and is done in the very late evening on Holy Saturday. Essentially, it goes through the biblical narrative through Scripture readings, songs, collective prayers, and a homily. More than anything else, this service highlighted to me the holistic nature of the Gospel. The portion on the Fall highlighted the tainting of the entirety of creation, such that both their souls were in trouble, but also death was introduced to the world, physically, noted by the killing of the animals for clothes. As we get through the time following the Flood, we see God’s promises to the Patriarchs, incredibly morally inept men, who God nonetheless chooses for the Savior’s lineage, who demonstrably trust God to provide for their eventual salvation, and for their physical needs, as God cared for the sad and barren Sarah. God also is noted for using society’s “lessers” to accomplish this, as Christ’s lineage is not through the firstborn in several generations (Isaac instead of Ishmael, Jacob instead of Esau, Judah instead of Reuben). The Exodus shows that God was on the side of the oppressed Israelites, and delivers them from the Egyptians. From the wanderings in the wilderness, to the time of the judges, up through the days of the kings and prophets, there is a constant dual preaching against both the morality of the population, sexual and otherwise, and against the oppression of the poor, both by the Israelites and by outside oppressors. In these cases, the coming Messiah is illustrated as hope for the future.

The Advent of Christ likewise illustrates his concern for helping society’s forgotten. It was the ultimate act of condescension for God to take on the form of humans, a sinful race. He was born to a virgin young woman from poor background, from a town with a sizable Roman garrison that would likely be accused of being the reason for her pregnancy, and then was born in a little cave with animals and probably shady people all around him. Adding to this, his first visitors were shepherds, one of the least honorable professions of their day.

Throughout his ministry years, Jesus preached the need to BELIEVE, and also a need to ACT. He preached high personal moral standards, but with himself as the one to be looked to, and also showed how to put it into action, by spending time with prostitutes, tax collectors, Samaritans, and lepers, people the society loathed.

He gained the hatred of the powerful, which led to his crucifixion, in which he suffered the greatest aspect of the fall: both physical death, and the feeling of complete separation from God, which epitomizes hell.

Back to the vigil, it was very somber, up to the Crucifixion portion, and his being laid in the tomb. Silent reflection ensued, in complete blackness. However, after several minutes, the lights come on, and the priest yells, “Christ is Risen!” The Eucharist is served in a festive atmosphere, and songs of joy are sung.

The Resurrection illustrates, again, the holistic nature of God’s victory over the fall. Spiritually, it made God’s accessibility to fallen humans complete, as Christ was now our Advocate, whose perfection overrides each of our failings. But physically, it demonstrated that the ultimate earthly effect of sin, death, was conquered. It serves as hope of the eventual victory over all our world’s problems. Liberals must be careful not to overlook our need for Christ’s salvation in our insufficiency, and conservatives likewise must not dismiss as “social gospel” the idea that Christ serves as hope and inspiration for the ending of systems of evil on this earth. Christ is our hope, for our victory over each of our own sins and eternal life, and for here, as someone who would fight against depraved systems of poverty, human trafficking, unjust wars, exploitation of God’s creation, cruelty towards His human and animal creatures, and racism.

Chris is risen. Let us go and preach the Gospel, and LIVE the Gospel.

 

Saeed Abedini

I’m thinking most of my readers have probably heard about this by now, but in case not, read this. It’s about an Iranian-American pastor who is a convert from Islam, who is imprisoned in Tehran for spreading the gospel, as it supposedly is a threat to national security.

Wife of American pastor imprisoned in Iran says family ‘struggles everyday’

Why I Do Not Occupy Jesus

In the past two years or so, since the Occupy Wall Street became well-known, it has become very common to Occupy _____, that is, to call attention to the inadequacies of an entity, and to try to correct it. One such movement has been a group that calls themselves We Occupy Jesus. I was asked the other day by a friend what I thought about them, so I thought I’d write something about it. Below is how the group summarily describes itself:

“A movement for all individuals, regardless of their own personal beliefs or disbeliefs in any god, who identify with the positive message of the Jesus narrative, who can unite under common principles and practical goals to make the world a better place through tolerance, activism, non-violence, and love for all humanity. This organization serves as a meeting place between those from both sides of the God debate. ‘We Occupy Jesus’ is for anyone who is compelled by the life, message, metaphor, or model of Jesus.”

I’ll start by highlighting some things about their goals that I do genuinely sympathize with.  Based on the above quote, this organization wants to use the life and teachings of Jesus as a basis for social justice (poverty alleviation, environmental stewardship, ending of slavery and trafficking, etc.) From the Beatitudes to the Rich Young Ruler, to the sheep and goats, to the Magnificat, to the parable of Lazarus, it is very clear one who follows Jesus must be deeply concerned for the most vulnerable in society. This group has rightly pointed to the glaring silence of much of the American evangelical church when it comes to helping the poor, and has instead often clung to right-winged rigidity, even when that rigidity seemed to be in defiance of what Christ taught.

The other quote of theirs I really liked:

“We fear that Capitalism is where the name of Jesus has gone to die. We are not speaking out against Capitalism per say (at least, not today) but what Capitalism does is take, package, market, and sell Jesus (and everything else). The close relationship of Capitalism to Politics only makes matters worse. If you hear the words “Jesus” or “evangelical” or “religion” or “family values” and think “Republican Party” then you know you’ve been conditioned by the American corporate machine. If you hear “Jesus” and immediately think of a political party, a scientific stance, or a particular style of music, you know what we are talking about. We are done letting this status quo continue.”

It’s really hard to argue against this. American evangelicalism (whom I presume this group is primarily reacting against) has in many ways created an apparatus in which things pertaining to Jesus are sold, the church is centered on being hip and relevant, voting Republican (a now thoroughly disliked group in America) and speaking against abortion and gay marriage while ignoring many other moral issues. WOJ has rightly noted the bankrupt nonsense that much of this really is.  And I genuinely do hope that in my lifetime, a gospel-centered American church will emerge that cares deeply for the poor and vulnerable, and devotes significant resources to this.

Unfortunately, much of the rest of the movement’s tenets I simply cannot endorse. One example:

“Those of us who began this movement felt that the rift between theism and atheism was growing unnecessarily vast. This rift has also been perpetuated by ignorance, apathy, and special interests. There have been countless movements to reform the Church and organized religion in general, including the intellectual, theological, doctrinal, scholastic, ecclesial, and missional aspects. It is the opinion of “We Occupy Jesus” that such endeavors are noble and those who wish to fight for these goals should feel free to do so. However, the world cannot sit around and wait for such reforms to take place. To be frank, the Church is beyond “fixing” at this point, nor should anyone feel obligated to change the minds of all Christians who disagree with them. Those who identify with the teachings and/or example of Jesus should waste no more time debating metaphysics.”

It is very fashionable in this day and age to want to avoid religious conflict at all costs. Doctrine and theology (“dogma”) are viewed as creating unnecessary divisions in society, and that the only things that REALLY matter are helping poor people and such. I probably somewhat oversimplified right there, but I do believe that is the thrust of many people’s thought processes.  I feel that they further miss some of the point here:

“Just as the Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to expose the greed and corruption of the financial institutions of the United States, while also serving as a new platform for creative solutions to change the status quo, “We Occupy Jesus” seeks to take back the narrative of Jesus which has been hijacked by special interests, political parties, religious extremism, and all forces of corruption, bigotry, and false piety. To occupy Jesus means to stand in the middle of the conversation and say you are done being demonized because of the bigotry of the past and the social apathy of the present. The message of Jesus is one of love, service, and self-sacrifice and now is the time to take it back from circles who would pervert that message. Our hope is that one day, the name of Jesus will only be synonymous with love.”

There’s no arguing with the contention that Jesus’ message has been hijacked by some very self-righteous, hypocritical people. However, for too many people, this has come to mean that it is unChristlike to tell anyone else that their views are wrong.

The entire point of Christ’s time on earth, in a nutshell, was to point to humanity’s utter inability to save itself from its sins, i.e. our sins are damning, and Christ’s sacrifice was/is required. And Jesus did not strive to “avoid conflict.” Countless times he called out the Pharisees’ humanistic works-centered salvation with a “woe to you” bit. Or, note another statement: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He called himself God! Even in one instance that those of more liberal inklings love to cite, where he stopped the adulteress from being stoned, he still said to her, “Go and sin no more.” He did not forsake the notion of individual piety as some seem to think.

Overall, We Occupy Jesus appears to try to turn the “Jesus narrative” into a make-people-feel-good thing devoid of any sense of truth, or of humanity’s inadequacies.  They speak often of being inspired by Jesus. However, the Bible, whether you believe it is God’s word or not, is the primary source on the life of Jesus that we have, and if you do not accept his claims of who he is, then his “overall message” should not inspire you. You should view him as either really looney, or a complete charlatan. The other option is that you don’t believe he actually said a lot of the things the gospels record him as saying. But in that case, it remains a daunting task to fish out a few things about the poor and create a coherent message.

While I don’t like everything about John MacArthur’s style, I think he is largely right about this: that movements like We Occupy Jesus, and the consumeristic evangelicalism that they dislike, are really two sides of the same coin. Consider this:

“So you have the postmodern and then you have the market-conscious church – the church that thinks the Gospel is a product; Jesus is a product we have to sell. And in order to sell him effectively we have to overcome consumer resistance and the way to overcome consumer resistance is to simply figure out a message that the consumer won’t resist. So you invent the Jesus that people will like and you invent the Gospel that people will like.

And then you have another component and that is an age in which tolerance seems to dominate, you know sort of the Rodney King theology “can’t we all just get along.” You have to be tolerant of this, tolerant of that. Intolerance is basically the only virtue left in much of our culture.

All of those things mingle together with one other very important thing. Confronting people like Jesus did, confronting people in false religion, confronting people in error, confronting people’s sins, warning them about hell, calling them to repentance, calling them to escape false religion is a very difficult thing to do. And there’s a natural tendency on the part of people to be reluctant to do that because it has negative consequences. If you feed the poor, nobody’s going to make you a martyr. If you proclaim the social gospel, you’ll be a hero on every front.

Preach the truth, call false religion a lie, tell sinners they need to repent of their sin and escape hell by putting their faith in Jesus Christ, there’s no other way, and you’re going to generate hostility. People get martyred all the time, even today in Afghanistan and Sudan and Iran and Iraq and a lot of other places for proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think it’s tough to do that. So I think all these things kind of blend together to sort of suck the life and boldness out of the church … we’re just content to be nice people; hey maybe God’s going to let them into heaven if they do the best they can; I guess you can call it legalism lite. It’s not the heavy legalism of Pharisaism but it’s legalism lite – if you’re a good person you’ll kind of make your way in.

It all comes back to the fact that we’re letting the culture determine the message for us. We’re letting expectation, fear of man rather than Scripture determine our message. And rather than following Jesus in the way he presented the message – on the one hand compassionate with those who are willing to repent, tender toward those in need; on the other hand very antagonistic, literally infuriating the purveyors of false religion until they killed him.”

Disagreeing about things does not automatically lead to violence. In fact, I believe that open debate leads to greater respect. In a rare occurrence, I agree with atheist comedian Penn Jillette about tolerance and religious debate. I think he is dead on in this video.

In conclusion, then, while I like some of the issues that WOJ calls attention to, I think they are miles off the mark about the message of Christ and what it means for us. I therefore cannot in good conscience endorse this movement.

Pro-Choice Horrors and Pro-Life Hypocrisy

This past week marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the (in)famous Supreme Court decision that decreed that women, with certain caveats, have the right to abort their pregnancies. It’s been a divisive issue in politics ever since, with the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps constantly battling it out through legislation, media confrontations, and protests.

I should start with a critique of the pro-life movement, since it was the view I was raised with, as well as the view I pretty much identify with now.

On the positive side, activism against abortion, was, in many ways, the tipping point that energized Christians to be active in civic life, a wake up call that there were many who desired to legislate ideas contrary to the Christian worldview. While Catholics had always been active against abortion, Roe v. Wade helped create an evangelical-Catholic alliance.

On the darker side, many overzealous activists in the pro-life camp have caused the movement to be appear to outsiders as out of touch with reality. The angry rhetoric of many in the camp often comes across as having no realization how agonizing the decision is for many women who make it. Many women make the decision genuinely not realizing that there are other options available. Many pro-lifers, particularly in the upper and middle classes, also do not have any idea of the impoverished lives of lower class women faced with unplanned pregnancies. Furthermore, one common criticism I have often heard levied by my pro-choice friends is how hypocritical it is that some the most fervent “pro-lifers” often have an apparently dogmatic opposition to any and all government aid programs, many of which might help women in this situation, making abortion less likely. I unfortunately do not have enough data to truly examine the merits of this, but it certainly caused me to think. Finally, many have noted that truly being pro-life must extend far beyond abortion. It must include a desire to fight poverty, hunger, economically-motivated wars, bigotry, and abuses of the environment that cause health problems. This resonates very powerfully with me. Finally, I feel that the pro-life movement has allowed itself to be perceived as anti-woman because so many of its leading spokespeople to be men. The issue primarily affects women, and thus I feel that Christian women are the ones who ought to lead the charge against, and my primary responsibility is to be supportive of my sisters in Christ in these efforts.

Turning to the pro-choice movement, there are a couple of pointers within their viewpoint that I can strangely sympathize. In their minds, it appears that restricting abortions goes hand-in-hand with other aspects of an era in which women were denied equal pay, equal access to employment, where rape and domestic abuse had a blind eye turned to them, and many viewed women as primarily society’s breeding machines.

I have no desire to enable these things. I desire a society in which women are given basic equality with men. But is with these caveats out of the way that I will say that I believe the “right to choose” is a truly horrifying concept. It horrifies me that terminating a human life is viewed as an important human right by people. Again, I unfortunately do not have data or knowledge to truly get into the specifics of when life begins, but I know there are some biologists who contend pain can be felt by the unborn as early as 20 weeks. Regardless of when pain begins, there is a lot of gravity, to me, involved in the fact the fetus is on the fast track to developing into a full-fledged human person. And it disturbs me that the most zealous members of the pro-choice movement nonetheless seem to consider the ‘right to choose” to be more important than this fact.

In conclusion, what must we do? I will admit that this overview has probably been quite unsatisfying to many, as I have demonstrated my own lack of knowledge on the subject. I definitely think abortion should be legal if the woman’s life is in danger, or she has been raped, or there has been an incestuous relationship. We in the pro-life camp must correct people such as Rep. Todd Akin when they make statements denying the situations many female victims find themselves in. Perhaps even allowing it in the first trimester in exchange for making it illegal after that would be a reasonable compromise.

However, while advocating for the legal rights of the unborn is important, the most important thing we can do as the church is to be there for all those that society has turned its back on. This can include both the unborn and the women who find themselves in this unfortunate place. Calling women in this situation “whores” does no good, nor, really, does calling them murderers when they do have abortions. We must offer them the comforting love of Christ, and advocate for them to be provided food, healthcare, decent living, and a loving environment for their child. Whether this involves government, church, charity, a little of each, I’m not sure. I admit my lack of expertise on these issues. What I DO know is that from its inception, the church has provided a helping hand to those whom the establishment had forgotten, particularly babies left by the side of the road. While I’m still trying to work through the precise specifics of what needs to be done, we must emulate the person of Jesus when approaching abortion and the surrounding issues. And both sides of that debate, at this time, have some glaring spots on their record as far as this goes.

Advent Reflections

I’m back, after a long hiatus, driven partly by being extremely busy, and partly by sheer laziness. Things have been busy at work, as well as an assortment of Christmas activities. This is my first Christmas as an Anglican, and this past Sunday we had a service known as the Lessons and Carols, in which passages of Scripture were read, with numerous songs in between, both traditional Christmas carols and novel choral numbers.

While listening to the lyrics of the songs and the content of the Scriptures read, I found myself reminded of the significance of the Advent season.

And I mean more than a simple “Jesus is the reason for the season.” While certainly true, it does not, in my opinion, begin to truly touch on just how significant the whole concept is to so many things.

Now, I’m not going to get on one of those “people forget the true meaning of Christmas” soapboxes. I’m from a family where Christmas happens full-tilt. There is an ever-growing assortment of decorations, wreaths, scented candles, a fully decorated tree, and tons of candy and cookies from kind souls at church. We love Christmas. And yes, I know that the particular manner in which Christmas is celebrated comes from the Roman Saturnalia festival and ancient Germanic pagan traditions. I don’t care. Early Christians decided to make the celebration of Christ’s birth coincide with Saturnalia, and the tradition has been handed down to us.

With this caveat out of the way, let me begin:

(1) The Advent story illustrates that we must have faith in the fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation and of our care.

At the human Fall, God promised to send a figure who would liberate us from our bondage to sin. And throughout the Old Testament, the promise is reiterated again and again to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, the prophets, etc. Again and again, the people of Israel would fall into disbelief, and need reminders of their coming redemption. Yet this event, the birth of Christ, was the culmination of these promises, yet in a very low-key way. As the first verse of O Little Town of Bethlehem says,

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight

How easily we forget that our hopes continue to be met in our Savior. All often I forget the promise of his Second Coming, wherein I will be redeemed from sin once and for all. The time of Advent is a great time to reflect on this.

(2) The story demonstrates that God often does His most glorious deeds through those that society has forgotten, or, in some cases, despises.

Think about that. In the first place, the fact that God would become a human at all demonstrates this point. In Islamic doctrine, the suggestion that God would take on human characteristics is considered blasphemous, because they believe that this would take away his moral perfection. That God would become a man at all speaks volumes at his willingness to become one of us in order to save us.

Consider the narrative of the story itself. God chose to be brought into the world by a young lower class girl from Nazareth (with a nearby garrison of horny Roman soldiers, which would arouse suspicions towards her) with so many other more glamorous options available, such as the ruling house of the Jewish priests, or even the household of Caesar himself. Then, the woman carrying the Christ-child had to ride hundreds of miles on a donkey to Bethlehem to give birth. I’ve been to Bethlehem, it’s a hilly town outside Jerusalem. It’s very hilly and rocky, which meant her ride would have been uncomfortable. It’s also not the most highbrow town either. Adding insult to injury, the “inn” was full. What this actually means was that the little cave-type place with beds carved into the rock, had all of its beds full, and thus Joseph and pregnant Mary had to make do on the floor, where the travelers’ livestock would rest. Their was undoubtedly plenty of animal business on the ground, and it certainly would have smelled horrible. Then he was placed in a trough that animals were intended to eat out of. Not exactly a pleasant birthplace for, well, God Incarnate. Finally, the first people to be told of this, other than Mary and Joseph’s relatives, was a group of shepherds outside the town. Being a shepherd in those days made you among the lowest of the low, looked down upon by much of society. But God didn’t care, He first revealed this miracle to these people.

May this inspire us to remember the least of these in our society, both at Christmas and year-round, as Jesus was “a friend to sinners and tax collectors”. Yet even more profoundly, we fallen humans are all the least of these before our holy God.

(3) Advent is reminder of humanity’s need for physical, social, and spiritual redemption.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

This verse of Joy to the World illustrates a very important truth: both the physical and spiritual worlds yearn for redemption, to be fundamentally changed to exist in accordance with God’s truth.

After the Fall, when God spoke to Adam and Eve, He did hint at the need for spiritual redemption (“He will crush your head”). However, part of the curse was physical: their food supply would be plagued by thistles and thorns, and bringing new humans into the world would be painful for the woman. The family structure was negatively altered, as men began exhibiting domineering, dictatorial tendencies, and women began showing manipulative traits (though the reverse also exists).

Throughout the biblical narrative, the need for both earthly and spiritual redemption is spoken to.

The patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are often faced with frustrating outside forces (Abraham threatened by the army from Sodom, Isaac by Ishmael’s tormenting, Jacob by Esau and Laban, etc), yet each of them also has deep flaws that God constantly addresses (Abraham lies several times and also sleeps with Hagar to try to make God’s promises occur, Isaac favors Esau, Jacob lies to his father and also tries to swindle his unlce). The story of the Exodus speaks both to the oppression felt by the Jewish people at the hands of the Egyptians, yet also the the moral bankruptcy of much of the Jewish nation, including, at times, of Moses himself. The stories of the judges are likewise full of oppression at the hands of various groups of people, yet the people are being judged by God for their idolatrous, adulterous ways. The prophets, who spoke in the later days of the kings, very much addressed both the horrible treatment at the hands of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Medo-Persians, but also the extremely immoral, indifferent ways of the Israelites. Hence the prophets, particularly Isaiah, spoke passionately of the coming redemption.

Jesus was likewise born into this type of reality. The pain and humilitation experienced at the hands of the powerful Romans was terrible, and a daily reality. Yet an internal look at Jewish society at the time was also quite sobering. The Pharisees exemplified an unparallel self-righteousness, and saw salvation as avoiding violation of literally thousands of technicalities, but had little true faith. The Sadducees and priests run essentially what amounted to a collaborationist extortion operation. Some Jews openly were willing to enter Roman service and openly swindle their fellow Jews through wrongful taxation. The zealots wanted to violently overthrow the Romans, and in some cases killed innocent people.

What a similar world we live in.

Thus, Christmas ought to inspire us to, through our lives and words, bring the good news of redemption to the world. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, and the world’s hope for salvation, and a system that oppresses none.

The light of Christmas came into the world:
No longer do we walk in darkness.
The light of Christ will never go out:
Noonger need we be afraid
The light of Christ is the life of the world:
No longer need we stumble and fall.
Lord Jesus, bring light to our hearts, our homes and our nation
this Christmas and always. Amen.
-an Anglican Christmas prayer

I would like to wish my readers a very Merry Christas and a safe and happy New Year.

Faith Without Extroversion is Not Dead

Let me start by relating a story unrelated to the book I’m about to review. There was an article in the Washington Post some years back that mentioned Louis Perry, a 61 year-old in South Carolina, who, a lifelong Southern Baptist, read Sam Harris’ book The End of Faith, a book promoting atheism. According to the article:

Thanks to Sam Harris, he had a religious epiphany in reverse. He was raised a Southern Baptist but never really connected to any of the doctrine. Everyone around felt a deep spiritual nourishment from church services, and Perry always left feeling as though he’d missed the point.

“For years, I thought there was something wrong with me,” he says. “I was always asking ‘Why don’t I get this? Why don’t I get this?’ And then last year I read ‘The End of Faith,’ and Sam basically explained it to me — there is nothing to get.”

 

I did a fairly exhaustive follow-up search on the internet, and could not find any additional information on Louis Perry. Thus, I can’t speak for him. I don’t know the guy. However, with this disclaimer out of the way, I’m going to make a bold suggestion: I wonder if Louis Perry was an introvert, trying desperately to fit into a world of Evangelical Christianity dominated by extroverts, and the accompanying styles.

Such is what is discussed in the book Introverts in the Church. This book is a look at the church, and the vocation of Christian ministry from the perspective of Adam McHugh, a self-professed introvert.

I was particularly impressed with the manner in which McHugh establishes his premise: that perceptions of what makes a good Christian, particularly in evangelicalism, are primarily pictures of extroverts. He cites a 2004 psychological study in which 97% of participants rated Jesus as an extrovert on the Myers-Briggs personality test. It goes without saying that Jesus is whom Christians look to as their ultimate example. McHugh further notes how most institutions in American culture, such as schools, businesses, government, etc., extroverts tend to be very successful. He provides numerous examples of introverted individuals who felt as though something was wrong with them because they did not fit into this norm where expressiveness and heavy participation in social events were the expectation.

He provides a convincing three-point explanation via the emphases of evangelicalism of why extroverts are at an advantage: emphasis on a personal relationship with God (manifest as emphasis on interpersonal relationships), biblical authority (people like to talk extensively about what the Bible means to them), and the emphasis on evangelism (current understandings of it are very extrovert-bent).

McHugh wisely notes that there are, however, limitations to using one’s personality as an excuse. God will use people for whatever purpose, and Scripture is full of people being used by God in ways completely outside their strengths, including in the realm of social interaction (Moses).

The one chapter I found a bit sketchy was where McHugh discusses introvert spirituality. He puts a good deal of emphasis on mystical experience, via the argument that introverts are more likely to feel the presence of God through contemplation. I was not personally a big fan of this, though perhaps that is my own preference talking.

The chapter that resonated with me the most was the one that detailed experiences of introverts in the church. It was with some amount of built-up anger that I recall some of my own experiences as an introvert. I can recall all too well the times in bible studies where, at the end, it was customary to go around the room and everyone would be expected to discuss “what God was doing in their life.” As an introvert, I chafed against this. It was never easy, and no matter how much I did manage to pull off, the more extroverted personalities would always have more apparently “spiritual” things to say, and I would feel an implicit comparison between them and myself being made. Similarly, I remember, which the book mentions, being drilled with questions about very personal feelings, almost feeling as though I was being examined by a prosecutor. Being compared to others, being scolded for not being “open” enough, and feeling stared at when not having sufficient answer can be very draining. Such was my experience being an introvert in evangelicalism.  And that ended up being part of my draw towards Anglicanism, as it allows for more personal reflection, and places less emphasis on visible experience.

Ultimately, I love the basic conclusion of the book: that while evangelicalism is indeed biased towards extroverts, and needs to address this issue, the main focus for all people should be how God is using them. God is all-powerful, and you can serve Him doing things you never believed possible. However, the church must still determine how to make it more conducive to more people. As stated, I have found solace in Anglicanism, as the “high church” is very conducive to an introvert. I suggest all introverts read this book, as it will probably speak to you about your own struggles, and offer creative solutions. I also suggest extroverts read it, as it is very important to get a view from another point of view, and understand what some might be going through.

This was a great book. Also check out Adam McHugh’s blog.

The Election-Afterthoughts

 

 

On Tuesday, Barack Obama was re-elected as president of the United States. Congratulations to him. However, he has a huge challenge before him, with the budget, the “fiscal cliff” and what to do about the war in Afghanistan.

Mitt Romney’s loss has likely caused the Republicans to re-evaluate their strategies, and standpoints. His loss reflected shifting demographics, and the increased role of ethnic minorities in our democratic process, as well as, in all likelihood, the gay community. With several states approving same-sex marriage, our culture is probably headed towards a post-Christian era, and I doubt there’s all that much we can do about it.

I decided not to vote for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. In the case of Barack Obama, I feel that he is pursuing policies detrimental to religious freedom (i.e. the contraception mandate), that he very well may be causing us to go the route of state-provided abortions, and does not seem to truly understand that deficit spending is a dangerous thing (though neither does Romney, arguably).

Romney, on the other hand, was the ultimate political chameleon, with his actual opinions being extremely difficult to determine. I came to the point where I completely and utterly could not stand his tendency to take a good idea that Obama had, and claim it as his own, then turn around and oppose it. And many of his ideas were truly preposterous, such as balancing the budget, but with an increase in defense spending and an enormous decrease in taxes, some putting it at $6 trillion. He was antagonistic, particularly towards Iran, Russia, and China, even though he had benefitted from China through his previous business.

With these complaints made clear, I reveal here that I voted for neither of these men. I wrote in Jon Huntsman, one of the Republicans who dropped out of the primaries fairly early. While I fully realize that our ideal candidates will almost never be available, and that we must often be realistic, I felt that the ways in which both candidates ran contrary to my ideals as a Christian could not be overlooked. As stated, the Obama administration’s views on limiting religious freedom, while FAR from being persecution, are nonetheless cause for concern, as is his apparent belief that taking the life of an unborn infant is a fundamental right.  But conversely, I have a hard time seeing how a Christian can support someone who has no apparent regard for the needs of society’s needy (note the 47% comments), and seems to prioritize economic success over care for God’s creation, and human welfare in general.

I wrote in Huntsman because he combined a moderately conservative approach with a willingness to work with the other side. His foreign service in the Obama administration was impressive, and also proved he was knowledgeable about foreign policy. And this right here shows he is willing to compromise and work out differences, a skill almost lost from the Republican party. In short, a conservative pragmatist.

What do I ultimately want in a candidate? That requires a fairly long answer. The best way to say it is that as a Christian, I want a president who supports the protection of human life in all ways. I certainly tend to agree with the Republican position that abortion is the taking of an unborn life, and that it is justifiable to impose reasonable legal restrictions on it. I find it horrifying that this is viewed as part of the fundamental rights of women. However, I also want a candidate to think realistically about how contraception would in some ways solve the problem.

I’m tired of opposition to legal abortion going hand-in-hand with opposition to making life easier for women, on issues such as equal pay, maternal leave, domestic abuse, etc. I feel that Republicans have a history of opposing initiatives that bring about these things. Women have a history of suffering discrimination in this country, and when we don’t advocate for help for them with such things, it’s hard for people to believe that being pro-life isn’t really just a cover for the desire to oppress women.

But “pro=life” doesn’t stop with abortion. What about the wars our nation has involved itself in, in the name of “freedom”? The war in Iraq has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, as well as thousands of our own soldiers. At some point, “freedom isn’t free” becomes an empty platitude that gives license to the worst kinds of barbarism that somehow becomes OK because “we’re America, and this is the price of freedom.”

I’m not a full-scale pacifist, so I want this understanding coupled with a comprehensive understanding about how other countries in the world function. I would want him to show wisdom about the use of the world’s strongest military. I would want him to use force against other countries only when it is TRULY the only remaining option, and he has exhausted diplomacy (how Augustine intended his just war doctrine to be used). Drone strikes that continue to kill civilians are unacceptable, and weapons must be made more and more precise to be sure innocent bystanders’ deaths are virtually non-existent. We must use non-violent means to fight terrorism whenever possible, while reserving the worst for heinous circumstances.

On the domestic front, I believe that fiscal responsibility is a biblical value, and that we must avoid the habit of spending money we don’t have (largely impossible now).  I generally favor lower taxes, but this must be viewed realistically in terms of fiscal realities. I don’t like high government spending, but I also feel that caring for society’s downtrodden means that there ought to be some safety nets. The church is always the one that does such things best, but there are sometimes limited resources in the church. The Scriptures are very clear that society must care for the elderly, the poor, the homeless, etc. For this reason I believe it is important to invest in good education, and try to reform the healthcare system so that it does not discriminate against poor people. How about programs for cancer, AIDS, and other terrible illnesses? Again, private compassion is the best route, but sometimes this has limited resources.

The environment must also be protected, as God provided it for us to be its stewards. I feel it is extremely naive to assume that the private, profit-driven market will self-monitor its own ecological footprint. Reasonable environmental protection must be balanced with economic innovation.

I recognize that these are vague, generalized ideas. But I also believe that our first priority as Christians involved in the civic process, should be a commitment to a pro-life attitude, but a multidimensional pro-life, not the one-dimensional type so prevalent in conservative politics. Achieving this in politics would be very difficult. But the life Jesus calls us to is difficult, and I am, at least at this time, completely and utterly dissatisfied with the use of Realpolitik, or conservative or liberal dogma to justify some of our country’s domestic and foreign policies. Yet, I simultaneously, perhaps paradoxically, value compromise, particularly on economic and fiscal issues, and the means by which to achieve them. However, once it becomes clear that certain policies contribute to human suffering and/or death, that is where I draw the line in the sand, and contend that Christians must stand firm.

Thus, in summation, I felt that there were certain issues important to Christians that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney took positions on that made me uncomfortable voting for them. I felt that Barack Obama adheres to ideas on the definition of religious liberty, though themselves rather insignificant, that could have significant implications for the future of the concept, as well as some of his social views, and his being a terrible tactician. Mitt Romney, in contrast, had absolutely NO apparent sense of what life is like for the poor, the low-wage workers, minorities, the elderly, and other groups. I don’t find that very Christlike. He also pandered to popular Republican ideas on the budget and the economy that are completely out of touch with 2012 realities. Yet, I did not feel these problems were comprehensively answered by Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode, or Gary Johnson.

Call me naive. Lecture me about “throwing away my vote.” But on Tuesday, my conscience felt too bothered to be complicit in a choice of two candidates that I felt was completely at odds with certain aspects of my Christian faith. I felt Jon Huntsman was the best candidate I could think of who espoused the things I was talking about. Is he perfect? Far from it. But I hope that dissatisfaction will continue, and gradually persuade more people that they don’t have only two choices, which is often framed that way thanks to corporate donations, media manipulation, and the propagation of a false realism.

I hope to have better choices in 2016.