Removing the Mask

The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. -Romans 14:17-19

We all know just how rich and developed Paul's theology is in his letter to the Romans, but when one reads through then entire epistle one can't help but feel that Paul's most immediate concern for that diverse group of believers in the ancient world's most cosmopolitan city is for church unity. Chapter 12's line-of-thinking commences with a short Greek word which most English Bibles translate as "therefore," and seems to be Paul's way of saying, "Now that I've established this rich theological stuff, here's why all that stuff is important." We in the church cannot discard the latter chapters of Romans, though we are often guilty of it.

Now the above quote is from Romans 14, and it caps off Paul's rather striking argument that views on food practices should not divide the Body of Christ. Imagine the shock that it must've been to the Jewish contingency of the church to hear Paul - that self-proclaimed member of the tribe of Benjamin - basically telling them, "I know what Leviticus says, but kosher-smosher! Let's spend more time building one another up rather than tearing each other down."

If I were a Jewish believer in Rome, I would've had to find a way to send a letter back to Paul (who, by the way, hadn't even visited the Roman church to that point) demanding a more satisfactory explanation than chapters 14-15 give. I would've needed more than "make every effort to be a peacemaker in the Body of Christ." That's far too idealistic - naive, really - for me. But such is the call which not only went out to the Jews and Gentiles which worshiped in opposition at Rome, but to the church today as well. Forget denominational fractions, our local churches can't even get past petulant quarrels when all who are involved agree on the consequences of not having a singular focus.

This past Sunday I again witnessed the powerful devastation which occurs when members of the body abandon peace and mutual edification for the sake of individual pride, ego, and comfort. There were no winners - everyone was a loser in this one. Although shock was the initial emotion felt by most people, it is only a matter of time before anger bubbles over and chokes out any momentum which this particular church has been given by the Spirit to save souls and disciple children of God.

Still, there are signs even in this tragic situation that something good and powerful can come about through this experience. But as long as we use our secondary and tertiary differences to mask our dislike of one another (which is the true foundation of the situation mentioned above), the church will never realize her full potential, and the cause of Christ will be weakened by the very people who claim the Name.

What a Difference Sixty-Six Years Make

Just when you thought that the envelope can't possibly get pushed any further...

For all the low, crude, and downright ugly moments in the still-banal history of basic cable, June 6, 2010, stands out as something special...at least until the next awards show on MTV. Although relatively few Americans actually watched the program last night, once again this year's MTV Movie Awards has the internet abuzz with discussions about where - if anywhere - the line should be drawn between common decency and the freedom to do or say whatever one pleases on a channel which unashamedly caters to pre-teens, teenagers, and the odd young adult. While MTV (that network which stopped living up to its acronym about fifteen years ago) will never be confused with family values, the remarkable amount of obscenity on last evening's program shows an absolute contempt for anything remotely pure or valued. And they will find new - check that; there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to sin - ways to push the envelope even further in the future.

As hard as it is for some of my generation to believe, our nation - our world - hasn't always had to deal with this kind of thing. It occurred to me yesterday morning that this very same day was the 66th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of the Normandy region of France. I can't think of two more dramatically opposed pictures than when comparing the biggest event of June 6, 1944, to the most talked-about event of June 6, 2010. What a difference 66 years make.

Feminism, The Pill, and Elijah

At no point since its meteoric rise in the latter 1960s has radical feminism been so overlooked by so many in our nation. The prominence of the ideology of the "new" American woman has been on a downward spiral for well over a decade, and moderate pollsters and even liberal political pundits have charted the descent of the movement for some time now. The signs of the Fall of Feminism are everywhere: abortion rates continue to fall in the U.S. and around the world; pro-life Americans now outnumber pro-choicers; and the education and revenue gap between women and men is teetering on doing a complete U-turn as young women continue to build onto their dominance of the university classroom. There is most certainly a direct correlation between life being good for young women and fetuses on the one hand, and increasingly marginalized feminists on the other. Or maybe feminism was such a success in America that a peaceful retirement is simply owed to all those bra burners? You be the judge.

All that to say that it initially shocked me when I saw Gloria Steinem on television the other day. Thoughts that initially went through my head included: "Seriously? Was Walter Mondale not available?" and "Didn't she die a while ago?" But she was actually talking about the lasting social effects of The Pill. Of course, all of us are familiar with The Pill. On Sunday feminists everywhere will unite in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the FDA's acceptance of the landmark prophylactic. Now, perhaps there is some irony that this will occur on Mother's Day, but maybe I'm reading too much into the whole thing. Anywho, this is a serious milestone with less-than-serious fanfare, and it shows us just how far removed we are from the moral questions which dominated the national conscience in the latter half of the 20th century.

Radical feminism, Gloria Steinem, and family planning medical innovations are just so old hat. Young adults today have moved to more timely topics: things like Justin Bieber's geographical ineptitude and whether or not Greece will lead the world for the first time in millennia (this time for all the wrong reasons). While young women today might certainly--though momentarily--appreciate the milestone, the actual ethical questions which should still dominate the national conscience when discussing this thing is about as relevant to my generation as the Bay of Pigs.

One thing is peculiarly certain: those who should be celebrating this milestone the most make for some strange bedfellows (I beg your pardon!). This group includes most Americans, but specifically responsible young adults who aren't financially ready for children, upwardly-mobile women who also happen to enjoy the club scene, and, we can't forget this group, dead-beat men who probably couldn't care for a child even if they gave every ounce of their physical and intellectual strength to the job. Come to think of it, perhaps this last group has the most to celebrate on Sunday.

Against this group of celebrants, of course, stands the Roman Catholic Church. Like Elijah on Mt. Carmel, the Catholics are outnumbered and ridiculed. But the church's moral voices provide us with a distant, lonely cry in the wilderness which should force us as a nation to at least occasionally consider our ethical boundaries. While I am personally inclined to distinguish between all that is potentially right about preventative contraceptives and all that is definitely wrong about post-conception drugs and procedures, the honest ethical questions posed by these fellow believers has challenged my thinking and pushed me quite a bit. While we my disagree, I'm sympathetic towards Elijah on this one; I'm at least going to hear him out. Too bad most of my generation won't.

Speech seasoned with salt

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Colossians 4:5-6)

Towards the end of his letter to the Colossians, the imprisoned Paul asks the faithful congregation to pray that God would “open a door” for Paul to herald his message of salvation (called the “mystery of Christ”) to the world in a clear, understandable manner. Notice: Paul doesn’t just ask that the door might be supernaturally opened for the message to be preached, but that the preacher of the message might be supernaturally allowed to make the message clear and plain. I think we churchgoers today would be much more likely to pray that our dear Brother Paul might be delivered from the unjust chains of oppression than for his vocabulary when presenting the gospel, but Paul sees the two as equal in their necessity to be brought before the throne of God.

But it doesn’t end at prayer. It never ends at prayer. There has to be a response, an action. Here the action is for the Colossians to be ever-mindful of how their conversations with everyone – regardless of standing in the church – must be continuously “full of grace.” This is more than advice that Paul is giving; this is a command from the Spirit-inspired pages of Scripture.

So what does this have to do with us? I wonder sometimes how we Christians can spend hours and hours cooking up evangelism strategies and outreaches on the one hand and then have anything but gracious conversations in our churches, in our homes, and around our company’s water coolers on the other.

With all due respect to the mid and late 1990s, our nation is right now more divided than it has been in any period since the Civil War. On one extreme we have those who are showing an almost militant devotion to their avarice. On the other extreme we have those who refuse to talk about any groups or individuals of a different ideology without resorting to cheap shots about intellect and childish name-calling. Our nation is mired in an inability to discuss important matters of politics and religion - don't get someone from our ESPN-saturated culture started on sports! - without neck veins being protruded and insults being hurled.

Paul says it shouldn’t be this way with the church. Our mission is just way too important to have our people caught in the mire. These people not only make up the mission field, but they make up the church: liberals and conservatives, Tea Partiers and Big Blue Dots, Alabama and Auburn fan. As counter-cultural as it is, we simply cannot afford to be biting and divisive within our fellowship if we intend to be about the mission of saving souls and brining glory to our God.

Flatline

In my reading of current events this morning I stumbled upon the news that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) will not seek another term in the U.S. Congress. Rep. Stupak is a nine term Democrat from the Upper Peninsula area of Michigan. While he has dealt with relative anonymity in the House for almost his entire career, he appears to have always been a somewhat popular Congressman in his district. (As American voters, we tend to hate Congress while typically voting for our incumbent Congressmen and Congresswomen...it has something to do with bringing bacon home or something like that.)

Of course, Stupak's life and career changed dramatically within the past few months. He was really the single politician who could best de-rail President Obama's entire domestic agenda (and, therefore, presidency) by influencing a handful of fellow pro-life Democrats to vote against the mammoth healthcare reform package because it did not contain language banning tax dollars from being used for on-demand abortions in the U.S. Out of our entire 535-member, star-studded, bicameral Congress, it was this unknown anomaly from northern Michigan who suddenly held an incredible amount of power.

Stupak became an immediate sensation. The GOP threw their arms around him as he teamed up with Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) to attach a pro-life amendment to the original healthcare bill. Conservative talk show hosts clamoured to get the old Democrat on the air. The more I read and heard about the guy, the more I really liked him. Like him or not, Stupak was suddenly the picture of principled ethics within the larger sausage-making documentary known as the healthcare legislative process, and our nation loves it when our politicians seem committed to their ethical moorings. Up until the 11th hour, it honestly appeared that Stupak & Co. were willing to put principle above party, loyalty to life above loyalty to president.

Then March 21 came. The calendar said it was the first full day of spring, that season which reminds everyone of new life. As Stupak's group of pro-life Democrats gave a new breath of life to the administration of Barack Obama, it came at a terrible cost: the death of any lingering pro-life movement within the Democratic Party. I fully believe that one day the American pro-choice movement will be derided and placed on the ash heap of our history--right there next to racial segregation and slavery--and the Democratic Party is doing itself few favors by excluding any anti-abortion mentality from its ranks. In the meantime, on March 21, Bart Stupak did himself absolutely no favors by going against his own amendment and voting for the pro-abortion Senate bill.

I suppose we could continue to pile on this man, but I think he's had enough. Stupak is "retiring" (that is, quitting with some trace of dignity) in the same way that LBJ did in the spring of 1968, as a beaten, lame duck politician whose ethical principles vanished we he began to doubt them. Peer pressure is an incredible thing, and is only increased when those in real positions of power begin to lean in on you. We will likely never know what those in power (such as President Obama and Speaker Pelosi) said to Rep. Stupak in the days leading up to the passage of the healthcare package. We will probably never know if hard-line threats to dissolve his political career were made or if bended-knee pleas to save the party and the president were given.

I think that we can be confident of the following: by March of this year Bart Stupak was either going to sacrifice his political career for the principle of the right to life for all or he was going to sacrifice his political career for the life of Barack Obama's fading popularity. He exercised his right to choose and went with the latter. And now his overall quiet, principled political career is a flatline.

Of Nukes and Men

One of the biggest political news items of the day has to do with President Obama's push to limit the accessibility of our nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons for future use. More indirectly, this new course will have our nation's defense eliminate much of the stockpile, unquestionably cutting into US dominance in the arena of nuclear proliferation. And so we approach this issue with the same question that should pervade our examination of any political or cultural question: how should a Christian think about this issue? (Note: the question is not "WWJD?")

This is a tough one. On the one hand, world citizens - let alone Christians - should despise the very notion of nuclear weapons. By mastering the elemental forces of the universe - those elements upon which God chose to found everything in the cosmos! - scientists in the 1940s developed a weapon which could wipe away entire cities in literally half a second. The extensive presence of such weapons has long brought fear into the hearts of well-meaning humans, those who understood that a misunderstanding could eradicate huge chunks of world civilization in mere moments. Those of us living on the other side of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Dr. Strangelove, the international reaction to the Reagan build-up, and so on, are familiar with the dangers. Furthermore, those believers who realize that Nagasaki was actually brought to life by the great Catholic missionary Francis Xavier (and, therefore, had the largest population of Christians in all of Japan in 1945) know the long-term implications that the use of nuclear weapons has on the propagation of the gospel.

But I am still left hesitant after reading the story above. President Obama, who received his much-discussed Nobel Peace Prize primarily because of his talk about nuclear limitation in the 2008 campaign, clearly wants our nation to set an example to the world. The question is, does our example matter? When North Korea is spotlighted as a rogue state willing to exchange nuclear material for much-needed supplies? When a schizophrenic and bellicose Iranian government is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapon? President Obama is correct in his assertion that we no longer need Cold War-style nuclear arsenals, but does his administration honestly believe that our "example" will deter the enemies of our generation: terrorists? People who blow themselves up in an attempt to kill a dozen or two civilians don't value or follow examples.

And so what are we left with? If responsible nations can't keep their leverage with the bomb, then what would prevent rogue nations from investing their technology in radical terrorist groups? (An important note: Iran and North Korea are both exempt from Obama's pledge due to their non-compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation agreement...both are still potential targets of US nuclear weapons.) And what about the Christian witness and example? As a believer, the very presence of nuclear weapons is abhorrent, let alone the use of such weapons; yet, in a nuclear age, if our federal government has been good at anything, it has been in showing reservation and prudence when given opportunities after August of 1945 to use an atomic bomb.

Ultimately, this is a sphere where two worldviews must collide and, I think, remain unsolved. I believe that there is honestly no way to think "Christianly" about the proliferation/use of atomic weapons (or any weapon for that matter!), yet if the government cannot protect its citizens, what is the point of government in the first place? And, perhaps ironically, for millions of American Christians, there is a place where nuclear proliferation means protection from global nuclear war, even in this post Cold War era.

Bro. Paul on the Resurrection

If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1 Cor. 15:12-19

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God!