Socialism is many things, but at it's core there's shared responsibility in mutual community. A laudable ideal, yet in practice an anathema to many in the western world. As Christians we are extraordinarily sensitive of criticism about our lifestyles. I wrote recently: Forgive us for frittering away time in exceptionally silly ways, for forgetting the people furthest away, and those who like us the least And I received this critical comment "That is what that fragment seems to say to me: How dare you enjoy things in life, shame shame on you. People else where are suffering, so how dare you enjoy things in your life." It seems merely raising forgiveness invokes a hyper-sensitivity of implied criticism. Framed by this (I'll get back to socialism), I've been asking people a number of related questions around two basic issues that are troubling me, and which we fail at miserably. a) How should two (Christian) people engage when each are absolutely convinced about their opposing positions? I come across this not just on theological issues like creationism, but equally or even more frequently on secular issues such as climate change, the middle east, or political policies. b) How should (Christian) advocacy be undertaken? We easily accommodate the promotion of ideals as legitimate from the politician and preacher, in fact we expect it. However, evidence would suggest we are also very good at saying it does not apply to me. By contrast, we do not welcome this from our peers and usually take it as an implied criticism. Yet there are troublesome passages such as Matthew 18, especially vs 15-17, which seems to encourage us to confront each other. So, let me take each of my questions separately, and then consider the synergy. 1. Polarized disagreement. I'll use climate change as a hot-button example (pun intended). I often pose the question "Why are Christians so quiet on the issue of climate change?" For if it is real, then it is of serious multi-generational consequence, especially for the vast majority of this planet who live in poverty. How then can a Christian ignore this? For the record I am strongly convinced and deeply concerned how I, as a Christian, should respond to this issue. On one Christian forum where I posed the question the responses (that disagreed with me) included:
Necessarily, by taking a position in opposition to you I imply you are wrong, and by implication that you are not in alignment with God's compassionate concerns. Well, that's seems arrogant! But is it arrogance to say gravity exists, if I believe it does? How then do I talk to someone who believes the opposite, because only one of us can be right? Either I am wrong, in which case I am chasing fantasies at the expense of doing God's work, or the other person is wrong and guilty of neglecting Jesus' mission. This is not a trivial issue for a Christan (I guess atheism can accommodate this moral tension). One responder implied that the world is headed for end-times tribulation and so we should just be accepting; but really, does end times tribulation negate any responsibility on my part to work for the alleviation of suffering? Of course not. 2. Undertaking correction with each other. This is tough. Really tough. Because the moment we engage in this we presume a mantle of authority and we are making a judgment - yet this is also clearly a biblical principle. Further, quite aside from verses such as Matthew 18:15, the New Testament letters are filled with instruction and correction. What's going on here? Well, firstly lets remember that giving Christian instruction and correction to others presupposes two principles by which all parties should be operating: a willingness to listen (an action), and a willingness to admit we are wrong (an honesty). Neither of these attributes are strong in todays society, which is perhaps partially why we find this so discomforting (the other part of it is that we hate to be wrong ... pride has consequences). In fact if anything, we are raised in todays culture to tolerate everything but intolerance. This extreme individualism - faith in ME - is a hallmark of the western expression of democracy and capitalism, and bears its fruit in relativism; each person to his own. Yet "Subjectivism about [moral] values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law" (C.S Lewis). This is perhaps why pure democracy is seldom found and so weakly expressed in the world today. But Christianity is not a democracy, its a theocracy. The majority preference does not define truth. In Christianity we (claim to) serve one Lord, one holy, perfect and unchanging God, one absolute right and wrong. If that is the case, and if we are Jesus' representatives, then we must be compelled to engage in the correction of others when we see (in hard self-reflective humility) what in others seems to be a contradiction of God's heart (not talking of rules here!). This is not about imposing preferences as absolutes - much extreme evil has been done in that guise, and even in the name of Christ. Rather, I am talking about truths of relationship; each individual is valuable, each individual is made for community, and so we are responsible to God and for each other. Christians are theoretical socialists? Formally, socialism is "a system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government." Socialism is Christianity without God. Sadly, Christians often live only a theoretical socialism. Christianity says we should care for one another because all belongs to the one ultimate authority, God; whereas the secular capitalist world says "I am my own, and let no-one tell me differently." How then should all this work for the Christian? First, Christians (should) live in recognition that "nothing is mine, all is a gift from God". Unfortunately we unconsciously measure each other by power and wealth. Thus we are little moved by the poverty of the world. If we hear of a rich and admired man suffering, we are moved because we disproportionately value them highly (think of the reaction to Steve Jobs' death!). Yet daily we go about unmoved by the billions suffering in poverty. As a Christian, God says "give of your first fruits", that's not a huge ask is it? I am called to give of my gifts, talents, material wealth and my even more precious time to serve the compassionate desires of God's relational heart - to care for the poor, to alleviate suffering, and mitigate causes, whether directly or indirectly, because I profess that God's desires are perfect. Second, I need to "speak" truth, as Francis of Assisi said “Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.” Gravity is a gospel (literally, "good news") truth that defines our lives. Likewise our Christian gospel has many inescapable consequences: this "gravity" of life is because our existence is bound to God, we are made for community, we are called to share with those who do not have, and we are responsible to care for this world. In the beginning God says "It is not good that the man should be alone" - whether we like that language or not, we are made as relational creatures, co-dependent with God, each other, and our world. We are not constructed as individualists. And perhaps because of this, the very first instruction in the Bible is to enjoy creation and care for it. Thus Christianity is necessarily socialist in the pure sense of the word, and I am called to be an advocate for what I understand God to say is right. I cannot live by "every man for himself" because I am made for community. Thus I am compelled to share. A Christian professes love for God, and by our advocacy and service we show what we truly love. So, back to my two questions: how to engage when in opposition, how to advocate for a position? Mandela (a socialist) said "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy, then he becomes your partner." I think there is a biblical truth in this of how to go about Christian advocacy. And last, on issues that are global and which touch every individual, apathy is the one clear core delinquency. Some quick biblical perspectives on engaging in opposition, and advocacy for position:
Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. Matthew 18:1-35 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, James 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 1 John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. James 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
0 Comments
Books make one of the best Christmas presents, because unlike sweets, after you consume them you can consume them again, and again, and again ... and the only fat you might gain is the fat of wisdom. Here's my top four picks that's I'd like to get (I have the 1st one already) from this years Christianity Today book awards (see here for their complete list). So can I encourage you to choose one for a friend, and make them fat! OK, it might be too late to get some of these actually by the 25th Dec, but then hey, give a card that says "it's in the mail", or buy them the e-version. The Mystery of God: Theology for Knowing the Unknowable Steven D. Boyer and Christopher A. Hall (Baker Academic) "Boyer and Hall do an excellent job unpacking the subject of mystery, which is constantly alluded to in theological work but rarely carefully analyzed. The authors achieve clarity without sacrificing depth." --James Beilby, professor of biblical/theological studies, Bethel University Death by Living: Life Is Meant to Be Spent N. D. Wilson (Thomas Nelson) "Death by Living is a reflective yet lively mishmash of theology, philosophy, and memoir. Wilson's mantra that 'life is meant to be spent' seeps from every pore of this book. Both playful and poetic, Wilson's carpe diem challenge is sweaty with urgency, his anecdotes buzzy with vibrancy." --Kristen Scharold, writer and editor, Brooklyn, New York God's Forever Family: The Jesus People Movement in America Larry Eskridge (Oxford University Press) "This rich and surprisingly entertaining book is the definitive work on the Jesus People movement, a significant shaper of contemporary evangelicalism. Eskridge masters an incredible range of stories and sources. For anyone with a background in the Jesus People movement, Calvary Chapels, Vineyard churches, the Willow Creek Association, or the charismatic renewal that began in the 1970s, this is like reading an autobiography." --Thomas Kidd, professor of history, Baylor University The World Is Not Ours to Save: Finding the Freedom to Do Good Tyler Wigg-Stevenson (InterVarsity Press) "Wigg-Stevenson offers insight and advice to a generation badly in need of visionary yet earthy wisdom. This book is freighted with the kind of realism capable of restoring and sustaining high ideals." --Eric Miller, professor of history, Geneva College Do you get the pun? "Gravity" ... get it? No? Sigh! Oh well, if you don't, it'll sink in at some point (another pun). Here's a clue: "For solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy, hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity" Or perhaps this one? "Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly" Both quotes from GK Chesterton, someone who would have been completely at home with the blogsphere. So here's a question: why are Christians so serious? I mean, it's not as if we should all be comedians, but really, the laughter factor in Christian writing and discourse is pretty poor ... and I'm as much a culprit as anyone. There are not many who can inveigle a keen wit within serious writing ... Chesterton was one, Kreeft is another. They both sneak in subtle humour that tickles like a feather just as you're trying to concentrate, turning seriousness into joyfully serious. And isn't that what life should be ... at least, life as we were created to be? Being joyfully serious and seriously joyful? It's the humour of xkcd, Punch, Zapiro, and Chesterton (google them for yourself). Its where we laugh about serious issues because "humor can get in under the door while seriousness is still fumbling at the handle" (G.K. again). This is the joy of security despite the seriousness of circumstances. As when I and my sister laughed through our tears while viewing our mothers body, because the funeral parlour had made up her hair in a way she would never have dreamed to wear! And we could do it because we were in the full assurance that our mother had changed her address from the here to the hereafter. But when we have no assurance, when we feel fragile, as the stress builds, then joy is first to leave the party. At this time of the year I celebrate my reason for assurance. "Blessed assurance ..."
Some links to the set of 4 talks recently done in our church ... part of our iDoubt series. In hindsight they were a bit dark, but that's because they addressed 4 key issues being raised. Find them here:
1. All roads lead to Rome? 2. Where is God when it hurts - part I 3. Where is God when it hurts - part II 4. Death: the start of something new Mandela has died. He was my admired and esteemed president. He was not my father. He led my nation out of conflict. He did not raise me. He is my nation's icon, but he's not my identity. The world is in "mourning" (how many really grieve?), but my loss is not who he was, but what he was. For those close to him ... sincerely close ... the loss is trauma. For those who knew him by what he did, we feel the loss of an anchor in our society, while forgetting we've been adrift for a long time. I lost my father earlier this year, so the experience is familiar yet so completely different. With my father I grieved for the loss of what he was to me and who he was to me. Relationship makes the difference. Because of my relationship my father's death was joyful, as in his own words "it is so reassuring to die knowing where I'm going". He died well, he died into serious joy. His real relationship with the other side of death gave the confidence of knowing death for what it is. My relationship to him makes all the difference for what it means to me. And so it is with the the really big thing: life. The difference is in relationship, not merely knowing about Him. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|