response to Mark Noll's "Where We Are and How We Got Here"

I finally got around to reading Mark Noll's article "Where We Are and How We Got Here." Responding point by point would take far too long but I want to critique two evangelical distinctives in the last fifty years.

1. The propagation of the gospel as a repository of Truth. Evangelicals have made Jesus accessible and relevant but in effect they've also made him an American concept. (Please somebody, prove that statement wrong! Assure me that evangelicals haven't and aren't doing it.)
Jesus is not a concept, he is a person. In his Christology lectures Bonhoeffer explains the difference framed as the "who" vs. the "how".

"In our daily language the question, "Who are you?" is very common. Nevertheless it is easily changed into the how question. Tell me how you are. Tell me how you are thinking. Then I can determine who you are. The question about the who is the most basic religious question. It is a question about another person, another being, another authority. It is a question about the love of one's neighbor. The question about transcendence and the question about existence is a question about the neighbor. It is a question about a person. That we are always asking how demonstrates our captivity to our own authority. If we were to ask, "Who are you?" we would be speaking the language of the obedient Adam. Instead we think according to the fallen Adam, asking how." (DBW 12:282-284)

2. The willingness and then eagerness to spread the gospel through every available new medium of communication. Noll uses the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Kenneth Taylor (author of the paraphrased Living Bible translation) as prime examples of this. My question is an old one. Just because we can use every new medium should we? Now before you roll your eyes I'd like you to consider the points raised by Marshall McLuhan, Jacques Ellul, and Father Walter J. Ong in this regard. These men were hardly hateful of technology, but they were deeply aware of its' effects. In other words they cared about the tools. Alongside Billy Graham and Kenneth Taylor should be names of folks who studied the mediums themselves with an eye toward what might be compromised in the gospel presentation. I don't know that such evangelicals even exist. They must be somewhere. But who are they? Right along with that point comes a question about the Communicator and the medium. Why are big names the emphasis in Evangelicalism? Yes, you may remark that more people identify with personalities--that that's just the way of things. But when do the Big names become an ill intended effect themselves?

A case in point would be the big deal made over Bono's cussing some years ago. He made a point of saying "I'm no role model." The issue addressed the fact that Bono's actions communicated something other than his message. When Billy Graham got caught on tape in Nixon's office openly worrying about Jews there again the Communicator was critiqued. My point is that just like the medium communicates on its' own so the Communicator issues other messages than Jesus as well.

So here we're stuck with some realities about life and faith. We communicate as people through mediums. When people get popular their image becomes iconic and confused within the medium. Other unintended messages are sent than the gospel. The desire to follow Jesus and speak rightly of him are compromised. I'm not going to offer a simple solution here because there isn't one. Technique should be questioned. That's it.

Tags: Mark Noll, Evangelicalism, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christianity Today, Media, Mediums, Technique

What a Country!

So Christianity Today's David P. Gushee has an article titled "What's Right About Patriotism" on the CT Weblog. He mentions that as Christians we cannot lose a proper love for our country in the face of the seeming lack of patriotism in America right now. He says that the Christian Right are part of the small number who are too nationalistic. He writes:

"It is deeply uncomfortable from a theological perspective that in many parts of our nation, the only place in which one can experience any substantive evocation of patriotism is the local Christian congregation. Other kinds of public celebrations of national loyalty have generally collapsed."

I have a question for Mr. Gushee: "Have you been to a baseball game recently? Do you watch sports at all?" The sight of 40,000 fans with their hands over their hearts singing "God Bless America" and (at White Sox Cellular Field) fighter jets screaming in time over head are only a small but very moving semblance of mass patriotism. Do you watch TV or listen to the radio? I don't know how you think "national loyalty has generally collapsed." Whether we wave flags or not the fact is we cannot help but be loyal to our nation. We participate in a physical and mental infrastructure that are loyal to the State. It does not need my flag waving to remain itself. I think it thrives on mass inaction and is postmodern enough to accept a mass defection from overt patriotism. Today I got an envelope from the American Bible Society asking for support. On the envelope were the words "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible; With Liberty and Justice For All. Free Gift Enclosed." When I opened the envelop, the first words of the letter read, "My dear Friend in Christ, What would you most likely want in your backpack if you were fighting in Iraq?" The free gift enclosed was an American flag.

Two Christian organizations on the same day are enough to arouse my attention. Let's talk patriotism. First let me say that I was born an American citizen and do not hold dual citizenship anywhere else. I have been able to visit India, Haiti, Canada, Mexico, China, Israel, and Palestine for short periods. Upon returning home to America, to one degree or another I always felt right at home. I was a missions major for a time in college and seriously pursued the idea of living great lengths of time in another country in service of the Kingdom. The most significant hurdle that finally forced me to drop my major in that college was the distinct feeling that we were being trained to infiltrate the foreign population with a culture love for Jesus that secretly also loved America. I felt that my academic adviser never really escaped his racist upbringing and really had no love for particular people so much as for their souls. I remember him walking in the morning the US got word of the genocide in Rwanda and exclaiming, "Don't be bothered by this little skirmish. These particular African tribes have been fighting for years. There's nothing anyone can do." This type of supposedly apolitical sympathy enables the kind of apathy and intransigence that lead to war globally. At the time that I heard these words I had no idea what was going on. His comments were so flippant and brief that I thought nothing of it. In the weeks to follow I got mad. I wish I could say I confronted him, but I didn't.

Whether it's David P. Gushee of Christianity Today, the American Bible Society, or my old mission's adviser reminding me of my Americanness, the constant theme seems to be that I need guidance to be political. The other idea is that politics never stands in the way of being Christian. We have nothing to fear from the State especially when it is Democratic. Finally, being in the world but not of it involves political allegiance. I'll take all of these points on at the same time. The real problem with CT, the ABS, and my adviser is that they are not political enough! They don't read the Bible politically. They assume that their audience passively subsists on just enough rhetoric to take the edge off their conscience. And so we need guidance. As though the audience we're asking, "Please remind me to be patriotic. Remind me to vote. Remind me that there is really nothing I can do to stop genocide except to feel badly and rush in to minister to the population later." [As an aside note: Isn't it interesting that church membership booms during atrocities? Does Evangelicalism serve best only as a balm after the damage is done?]

I hear the argument a lot lately that I should feel privileged to hold opinions like these. That I am protected by America's bombs, her Reserve troops, her big companies, her foreign interests. Some kid born in 1988 from a small town in middle America is getting blown up by an IED so that I don't have to worry about patriotism. But I do care. I did not ask that kid to go fight for me. I make so little money every year that since the war began I haven't had to pay the federal government for one shell spent on this mistaken war. I care about the half million children who died of sanctions in Iraq before this war. I care about the thousands who've died since. I care that as a nation we have lost all conscience or concern for what Eisenhower called "the military industrial complex." And I believe all this because I am an American. If I were truly unpatriotic I would care nothing about the way things are going. I love this country enough to say our current path is dead wrong and that it predates this Presidential administration. We would do right to surrender our permanent seat in the UN on the grounds that our true motives are not for the world's interests but our own selfish interests. Only a foreign policy of repentance can save us now. We are intent on setting a precedent for war the world over and letting all our allies do the same. Israel's actions in Lebanon are the case in point.

Yes Mr. Gushee I care about America. But I am not proud of my nation's interests. I hold my citizenship like Paul held his Roman citizenship. He used it wisely but then spoke constantly of the Kyrios Christ as opposed to the Kyrios Caesar. His readers knew what he was talking about. NT Wright does an excellent exposition of Phillipians 3 by way of explanation in his article "Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire". The Judaizers were wanting to offer haven and safety from the Roman cult in circumcision. Paul admonished against any safety from the State in circumcision. Our citizenship is in heaven but until then we have no safe haven here. Neither in Judaism nor in Rome. Yes we can expect persecution for worshiping Kyrios Christ. For wearing our citizenship as a loose garment. But we envision a Kingdom with different ways of being human. Kyrios Christ is out for a new humanity. In worship, in the eucharist, in fasting and prayer, we the called out Body of Christ remember our true allegiance. I do not rely on America's version of freedom or peace. Peace for America is an illusive security based on fear. For all of our wars we feel more insecure not less. I don't need my government to tell me I am safe.

Even so I cannot be independent of my country. I drink her water. I breathe her air. I use her electricity. I speak her language. I listen to her music. I even speak the language of dissent that she fosters. For all practical purposes I could be mistaken for a Democratic American. In the same way I could be mistaken for a Nice Guy and not a Christian. What does a Christian dress like? What sort of music does he listen to? As a teenager you could know by my t-shirts and my music that I was a Christian. Today you can't. But spend a week with me, watch my every move, and you'll find that I have pricked conscience. I do this faith-thing in that I care a lot about naming Sin. I care about Formation. I care about aligning my every move with God's. Someone recently reminded me of the Amish response to the question "Are you a Christian." It is "Ask my family."

I am a social animal. I care a lot about human interaction. That makes me political. God made me that way. If getting angry makes me a good American and if America wants men of conscience than I'm a proud American. But I know too that sometimes America threatens my faith. She is now threatening the Body of Christ worldwide with her warfare and her foreign selfishness. Christians in Lebanon are dying because my President and his choice of Ambassador to the UN refuse to call Israel's actions excessive. Kyrios Christ calls me to speak and act against those actions. As He guides me I do. Does that sound other-worldly and strange? So be it.

More David P. Gushee to Read:

The Middle East's Death Wish—and Ours
We say "everyone wants peace," but we also want to see our enemies destroyed.

Dialogue:
Another Point of View: Evangelical Blindness on Lebanon
The academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary is angry at evangelical Christians, Israel, Hezbollah, the U.S., and the international community. by Martin Accad

We Risk Not Just Suffering, But Annihilation
An open letter to Dr. Martin Accad. by David P. Gushee

Tags: Christianity Today, Patriotism, USA, Kyrios Christ, Kyrios Caesar, NT Wright, nationalism

response to a CT editorial

Christianity Today has an editorial posted on their website titled “Before the Next Sex Scandal: How your church and your pastor may prevent the predictable.” After citing examples of recent sexual scandals, the article very passively discusses the issue of temptation with examples of resistance and then curtly the way churches should generally handle disciplinary measures to restore or when necessary isolate the offender. While it is admirable to speak frankly about the ongoing issue of clergy sexual immorality, to me there is something apparently missing from this little information piece, namely a personal interest in the subjects themselves!

While reading this it occurred to me that we might just as easily be discussing preventive measure for a hurricane or a small pox epidemic. Sexual scandal is framed in terms of “the act” and its repercussions. What is not discussed are the act-ors or the root issues that led to the scandalous action itself. I know that only so much can be said in a piece like this. I also know that it is intended for a general audience or readers who themselves have (it is assumed) very little to nothing to do with sexual immorality. The real root sin involved in every sexually immoral action is lust. When it becomes a full blown sexual scandal, the roots of lust have most often had time to spread and furrow deep into every area of a person’s life. In order to grow and deepen a life of dishonesty must be nursed and rarely admitted. Along with that lust most often bitterness and resentment help to blind, deepen and deaden the spirit.

All of these sins are very easily hidden within a pastorate or respectable position within the church. The scandal began long before it came to light. It began with the repeated decision to foster dishonesty and ambiguity. How can the church fend off scandal? By becoming a community that fosters truth tellers. Truth telling doesn’t begin after we have sinned. It begins at the point of our need. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote his book Life Together as a model for being Christian in counteraction to German society’s way of isolating belief. It contains a way of confession and repentance that at first seemed impractical to its users. In time as they saw him practice it they realized it was exactly what they needed.

Instead of starting with the broken marriages and churches in the aftermath of sex scandal, let’s begin with the fragile sexuality these marriages and churches already contain. Invite real professional help for sexual and relational addictions. Don’t buy into the idea that Jesus instantly takes away any sexual brokenness at conversion or at the altar. He often uses the serious accountability and rigorous repentance of twelve step groups and counseling. Sexual sin reveals in the most intimate and vulnerable places of our psyches the utter frailty of our humanity. Christians can and are speaking honestly about sexual brokenness. We just need much more of it.

Tags: Christianity Today, editorial, sex, marriage, Dietrich Bonhoeffer