Tuesday, January 31, 2006

10 Essential People to Visit for Theologians

Faith and Theology has been running lists of essentials for theologians, from essential paintings to essential places to visit (Africa, anyone?). This last inspired me to compile a list of 10 essential visits for theologians:
  1. Your family members (I Timothy 5:8).
  2. Your neighbors (Luke 10:27).
  3. The person you always say Hi to at church, and think someday you should call (Acts 2:42).
  4. The foreigner that works at the corner store (Exodus 23:9)
  5. A nearby soup kitchen or food pantry (Matthew 25:35)
  6. A social outcast that you know (Luke 7:34)
  7. A nearby hospital or shut-in (Matthew 25:36)
  8. The breakdown lane of the highway (Luke 10:33)
  9. The old friend you lost touch with years ago (Proverbs 18:24)
  10. The person you're avoiding who holds a grudge against you (Matthew 5:23-24)
Why are these 10 essentials actually essential?
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. (James 1:22)
The risk is not unique to theologians. But maybe we word-oriented people can use a reminder that the Word became flesh and lived among us.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Is Democracy a good thing? Follow-up on a Monday mind-stretcher

This is the much-delayed follow-up to the previous Monday mind-stretcher asking about democracy in a pluralistic society. Some examples of clashes are taken from the modern political scene, though the same framework is useful for evaluating more than just the current hot-button issues.

Multiculturalism: Pretending all cultures are the same?
The modern brand of multi-culturalism denies that there are significant differences among cultures or significant problems with peaceful coexistence, despite millenia of recorded history to the contrary. The essential condition of a pluralistic society is that all cultures respect each other. But the question has never been seriously confronted: what if all cultures do not value the idea of respecting those who are different? Has any culture succeeded in respecting those who do not share its core values? Is it even possible to embrace people who despise your core values and still hold to those core values?

Closely related to cultural pluralism is religious pluralism. The modern brand of religious pluralism is based on the often-repeated "all religions teach the same", which is more a denial of the realities of pluralism than an honest attempt at it. If we're all the same, then exactly what differences are we respecting? The problem has a number of levels:
  • It is assumed that all differences are superficial. Is that assumption warranted? Was this a conclusion based on a thorough knowledge of the differences, or was it an assumption based on hopes of peace? How much factual basis does this idea actually have?
  • Glossing over the differences is disrespectful of those differences. This is at odds with the stated purpose of pluralism.
  • Since true pluralism requires welcoming differences, true pluralism is impossible without a knowledge and recognition of those differences.
  • Pluralism requires that all religious and cultural differences are immaterial to governing a country and to living together peacefully.
  • It requires that all differences are of the type that the right reaction is to welcome them.
  • It requires the assumption that all cultural and religious approaches are peaceful and constructive approaches, and that there are no dysfunctional cultures or religions.
Without an honest and detailed look at the actual differences, there is no basis for supporting these assumptions. There are some deeper differences beween cultures. We are in need of a better framework for handling these differences than simply hoping they are not substantial. As a nation, we have not squarely asked the question whether there is such a thing as an irreconcilable difference in culture and what we would do about such a difference if we found one.

Democracy and voting for leaders
Democracy means at least voting for a leader. Even that minimal level of democracy assumes that the people ought to have control over their leadership. It's not exactly an intuitive idea, at least in perspective against world history and most world cultures. Would you expect the right to vote for your boss? How about your CEO or equivalent? Do we assume that all cultures must respect the idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Are we assuming, in trying to spread democracy, that nobody is allowed to disagree with us on that? If there were a culture in which most people wanted a monarchy, would we respect that? If the people of Iraq wanted a theocracy, would we still be talking about their right to self-determination? If there were a culture in which people believed they owed it to the ruler to submit, even if the ruler was abusive and corrupt, would we respect that culture? Should we?

Does democracy include voting for laws?
Voting for laws is even more problematic than voting for leaders. Some people would base law on consensus: whatever people can agree on is fine by them. When social consensus and tolerance are the rule, there is theoretically nothing stopping this from becoming the rule of the lowest denominator. Whether enacting the law of the lowest denominator is politically acceptable is one question; whether it makes for good laws or a good society is a separate question with possibly a different answer. If we studied different cultures and found that lowest-denominator laws led to a more dysfunctional society with more personal wreckage, would that affect our theory of law? Should it? Do cultures advance more by aiming higher or by aiming lower? Do we share enough of a sense of direction to agree on which direction is higher and which is lower?

Some cultures hold a theory of law as divine command in which the exact laws and penalties are seen to be eternally fixed and universal. The Muslim concept of law runs along these lines. The U.S. has not given serious thought to this difference in the efforts to spread democracy in Muslim countries. It has also not given serious thought to this difference within our own country. If a culture believes that an immutable divine law says that a woman's testimony should count less than a man's testimony, and a non-Muslim's testimony less than a Muslim's, do we respect that difference? Are we willing to say "that is not a universal, immutable divine law"? If we are unwilling to say it, are we prepared to live with the consequences? If we are willing to say it, are we still divided amongst ourselves as to why we say it?

The Christian concept of divine command theory is somewhat different, since Jesus did not set up a worldly government by means of an army and a law code as Mohammed did. The Christian concept of divine command is less by specific decrees and more by general principles: that laws should have the aim of establishing justice, protecting innocent life, rewarding the good and punishing the bad, securing public decency and order. That the law should show no favoritism is a cornerstone of the Christian concept of justice. In this view the exact laws and penalties may vary based on the specific problems and resources in a culture, but the line between right and wrong is not negotiable. Does the assumption of an objective right and wrong allow for respect of laws based on tolerating the lowest denominator? Does an omnitolerant morality respect the view that some things may not be negotiable to some people?

Some people see law's job as protecting freedoms. Does freedom have limits? In traditional Christian thought, freedom is highly valued but should not be used as a cover for sin. Other traditions do not recognize the concept of sin. Still other cultures do not think that freedom is necessarily a good thing. What we see as simple freedom of speech and intellectual honesty, to follow truth wherever it goes, is valued in our culture but may be banned in another. For example to question whether someone like Mohammed, given his track record, was actually a holy man -- some non-Muslims would see this as a fair question that deserves open evaluation. However, traditional Islam sees the question itself as a capital offense based on the contents of their specific law, viewed as immutable divine command. Islamic culture values submission above freedom, values top-down control and respect for authority. Democratic societies punish offenders but typically refrain from cruelty and avoid the death penalty except in extreme cases. Muslim societies place a high value on severe laws that control through fear, which is seen as a legitimate method of maintaining order.

Conclusion
I know this post is a bit more dizzying than most. Part is the amount of ground covered. Part is my seeking, however inadequately, to map out ground that has not been explored very thoroughly at the popular level. Part is that there is a serious look at other views without denying the deeper nature of the differences or the fact that these views make sense to the people who hold them.

The reason for broaching the subject is that the questions are urgent. The need for answers is pressing. Our complacency and misunderstanding of the problems have fueled the problems. U.S. democracy has historically enjoyed a reasonably wide consensus based on widely shared core values. We have an ideal of unlimited multiculturalism; we have cultivated the habit of tolerating and accepting nearly any view that people are willing to defend. We have assumed that the broad consensus we once enjoyed would continue to carry our country along. The problem is that the consensus has fallen apart. This version of democracy only works with a consensus, which is to say a shared culture to the extent of sharing core values. The U.S. no longer has a consensus on core values.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The Parable of the Parachutist

A man had studied skydiving, read every book, taken every written test. He wrote a dissertation, passed his orals, got a Ph.D. in skydiving. He began teaching Theory of Skydiving at a prestigious university. Eventually, he was awarded the esteemed Chair of Theoretical Skydiving.

One day at a coffee shop he met a soldier who had actually made a dozen jumps after a short period of study. After a few minutes, the professor decided the soldier was nice but a bit low-brow. He changed his mind about inviting him as a guest speaker in his Parachute Theory class. Years later, the professor retired after making ground-breaking contributions in the field of Skydiving Theory, hailed as among the most important theoreticians of skydiving in the modern age, never having actually made a jump himself but understanding the principle well. The soldier had saved lives on missions that involved jumps, and had learned skydiving from a different kind of instructor.



Hearing God's word is one thing, but doing it is the jump. Would you be more likely to jump yourself if your teacher was the soldier's teacher or the professor? Have our seminaries institutionalized a timid Christian life? Given that study is necessary, at what point does further study amount to hiding from the risks of a real jump?

Most Christians have made some small jumps. But the more I talk around, it seems that most of us have our eyes on one particular big jump that God has laid on our hearts. Lots of times, when we look at the big jump, we go back to the books, or pray for wisdom (which, we may secretly hope, means the wisdom to do something other than jump).

Praying for the courage to jump.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Posting will be light

Yesterday my mother was admitted to the hospital. Posting will be light until things are more stable with her. They're still running diagnostic tests, so we don't know the whole situation yet. As for the blog, I have a few pieces that are works in progress that I may be able to finish up and post, but this is lower on my priority list than my mother, obviously. Hope to see you all again soon.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Monday Mind-Stretcher: Is Democracy a good thing?

I am planning an experiment for a few Mondays posting "devil's advocate" types of pieces. I am not necessarily advocating what the post states. It is intended as food for thought, as practice in clarifying, refining, and strengthening our positions.

Mind-stretcher for today: Should democratic nations be spreading democracy in the world? In world history, it is a bit of a new experiment. Have we proved that it works here? Have we figured out how to have democracy without the result being laws geared towards the lowest or most extreme position that has the nerve to stand its ground? Can a democracy without an established religion avoid that pitfall? Is a democracy with an established religion still a democracy? If we can't answer those questions, have we established a working democratic theory?


Any takers on establishing a working democratic theory? My own thoughts as an update after a few days ...

Update: Posted follow-up thoughts here.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Puzzling Verses: You Will Receive 100 Houses

For a long time, these verses puzzled me:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the good news will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields -- and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark 10:29-30)
Lately I've been studying how the early church valued material goods and spiritual goods. The New Testament consistenly insists that spiritual goods are valued much more highly than material goods. That has always made this one passage sound strange, not just on the grounds of "where are the 100 houses?" but also on the grounds of being so out-of-step with the rest of the message. That was before I figured out where the 100 houses were.

Jesus had been replying to Peter's comment, "We have left everything to follow you!" The hundred brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and children are fairly easy to understand, since all believers in Christ are considered as family. But after Jesus' resurrection, did Peter even have a home to call his own? Didn't he go from town to town? Even while Jesus was with him, he often traveled from town to town with no place to lay his head.

Jesus' comments on persecutions were very accurate. The disciples were sometimes chased from town to town, sometimes in hiding, sometimes arrested, sometimes flogged. Some of them were lynched. Many of them, including Peter, were eventually sentenced to death and executed. But as I imagined what it would be like for the apostles, their lives on the line in one town, having no home of their own, pondering where to find a safe place to stay, as I considered all this I finally got it. They did not just have one home of their own, and once that was seized they were out of luck. Wherever they had taken the word of God, they had family after family who would take them in, all over their own land and increasingly all over world. When choosing a safe place to stay, they had a hundred homes, with a hundred fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and children and fields. And with them, persecutions.




Industries which distort the gospel to a get-rich-quick scheme have very much missed what Jesus was saying. Were the 100 new brothers and 100 new sisters that Jesus discussed supposed to be acquired from your parents having 200 more children? No, not at all. Is it possible to get 100 more mothers in this kind of acquisitive sense? No again. When all the other blessings in the list are not possessed by acquisition but enjoyed by fellowship while remaining someone else's, what else but greedy distortion could imagine that the houses or fields would be different?

And, as with many an insight I have, it soon comes to my attention that it's old news to many, discovered many times before. That comes with the territory of studying texts that have been studied for nearly two millenia now. When I was searching the 'net to find if anyone was still misusing this verse, I was glad to find that far more people were speaking up against the abuse than committing it.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Promiscuity as Sexual Homelessness

If our deepest human needs in life include fellowship, then it deserves our notice. It has a rightful place among our goals in life. A family is the most basic group where we belong, and sexual integrity is necessary to building a lasting family. But to many people, mentioning sexual self-control does not raise visions of people building a life where they always have love and a place to belong, but instead raises visions of Puritans or angry fundamentalists. When the topic comes up, people look for the nearest exit (on this screen, it's at the top of the browser). I'd like to restore sexual integrity as a rightful topic of conversation and as a rightful goal, recognized as a basic part of an upright and fulfilled life. "Upright and fulfilled life"? That's right. If it sounds strange, if it does not sound like what happens around us today, that's true. Just one question: what kind of life do you want?

Is Christian Morality Trustworthy?
Many people are skeptical of Christian morality because it does not square with today's morality of doing whatever we please (if that can be called morality). The cornerstone of Christian morality -- we would say all morality -- is this: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength" closely followed by "Love your neighbor as yourself." The suspicion that morality is angry, mean, and joyless is unfounded.

A stable life cannot be built on desire without discipline. Putting desire above wisdom and putting action before thought is a recipe for trouble. Just as a financial planner would talk about self-discipline with money to deliberately plan for finances to last, so a Christian talks about self-discipline with sexuality to deliberately build a home and family that will last, a love and a trust that will last. People are so much more important in our lives than money that it is only common sense that we should put thought and planning into the matter of how we relate to people.

Sexual Integrity
Opponents of Christian morality don't usually oppose love of God and neighbor, but often try to use it for their own purposes. "See! It says 'love'. So I can sleep around if I want to. It doesn't hurt anybody."

But as the old song goes, "What's love got to do with it?" Promiscuity treats someone as a sex object. There's not much concern for the other person; next week or month -- or tomorrow -- it will be someone else. That's not loving them, it's using them. That approach degrades us as human beings. It makes us into an interchangeable and disposable part of someone else's life. Treating other people as interchangeable dehumanizes both people. There's no recognition that the other person is valuable and always will be. There's no recognition that you yourself are valuable and always will be.

Peoples' long-term happiness and health are tied closely to having a place where we belong. Promiscuity means not having a place to belong. It's sexual homelessness. It leaves you alienated and cynical. It makes you doubt you will ever find a place to call home. It leaves you less able to feel at home, to accept where you are, even if you should find someone you love deeply. It builds a habit of breaking off contact with other people when things become awkward or difficult; it stunts the skills you would need to sustain a lifelong love.

Sexuality is too important to treat casually. Human beings are too valuable to treat as interchangeable and disposable.




A Note on Why I Wrote This

While looking for material for teaching my children about sexuality and family-building, the materials I found were not very satisfying. The materials my parents used (left where I could find) were no better, being "value neutral" by talking about physicality and reproduction but managing not to talk about the human and family aspects. They missed the point. My older child is reaching the age where he will soon become interested in sexuality. His school has presented him materials about unmarried parenthood and its hardships, and about sexually-transmitted diseases and their dangers. It's important to cover that material. But they did make it sound as if there's nothing wrong with promiscuity that a condom can't fix, even if they aren't mentioning condoms at his age. They are addresing big issues but leaving out even bigger ones. There is an unspoken assumption that "faith-based morality" is based on rules or traditions that are groundless; I wanted to open up a conversation on how God's commands are based in the value of the human being and the value of the bond of love. This is my first cut at it.