Amen!!
No, I haven't heard on any grad school fellowships yet. But some sermons do make you want to jump up and shout more than others...
February 19, 2008
November 1, 2007
Common good conservatism
Ran across this interesting op-ed from the Washington Post today courtesy of the God's Politics Blog. Michael Gerson is a former White House speechwriter, and in this piece he posits a fork in the road for conservatives. On one side (I'll resist right and left for obvious reasons) is the no-nonsense market driven view of things. The only good thing government can do is get out of the way (or at least keep everything else besides market transactions out of the way). The other is the Catholic styled view of limited government, but a concern for the pursuit of the common good, particularly protection for the poor and marginalized. He favors the latter, to his credit, but fears that few Republicans these days share his view.
I have my doubts about this--particularly whether a "free" market can ever create the kind of justice Gerson describes. I'm not sure exactly what he's calling for, perhaps a marketized version of current welfare programs? But even then, one might question whether the market will solve welfare or just find more efficient ways to keep people poor and concentrate capital with the rich.
Still, it's a noteworthy call. The lack of such a community based vision is the primary reason I'm not giving the GOP the time of day at the moment. What's good for the market isn't good for my community, and that's been the case for awhile. Let's hope more conservatives like Gerson have a voice in shaping the direction of their party.
October 31, 2007
Change at Willow
I grew up going to Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, one of the first "megachurches." While my perspective on Willow has changed over the years, I was interested to see this piece today on a rather large change in direction by the church leadership. In essence, they've found that the programs they set up (trainings, retreats, evangelism events, etc.) don't correspond with "spiritual growth" (loving God and people more). That is, just doing church stuff doesn't help you be more like Jesus. Instead, it's relatively low budget items such as Bible study, strong relationships, and prayer that lead to those things--things people need to be trained in, but are primarily not programmatic in nature. It will be interesting to see where Willow goes from here. Personally, I often feel agnostic about the institutionalization of church, since God himself seems to be wary of it in the Bible (resisting monarchy or the temple or even Jesus' ministry outside of religious structures). I'd wonder some about how we describe "spiritual maturity," since that will vary based on the tradition of the church defining it (where's acting for social justice, for example?). But it still seems like a good word.
August 22, 2007
The cosmic crusader
Andrew Sullivan had a link to this video on his blog. While I admire the production value (and its obvious reference to military recruiting commercials), as a Christian myself it's quite disturbing. The verse at the beginning poses Jesus as some kind of cosmic crusader, when the context might accurately be describing the church as on the defense than the offense. The church in the first century saw the sword, but it wasn't in their hands. Yes--the Bible uses warfare as an image of God's work in the world. I've even found quite a bit of solace recently in Greg Boyd's take on the spiritual conflict that is present in the world. But the same Jesus also said that those who live by the sword will die by it, and his model of warfare was not taking up a weapon, but sacrificing himself for those he loved. Noticeably absent from this video also is any enemy--who is it that these people are all prepared to fight? With a literal sword? If this video featured Arabic speaking Muslims, how would Americans feel?
August 15, 2007
Charity or transformation?
One tension I sometimes feel as a socially conscious person of faith is where the solution for social problems comes from. As an evangelical kid, I know the right answer is "Jesus." But it's not always that easy. Do people in my neighborhood of north Minneapolis need the transforming power of the Holy Spirit? Sure. But that's not just an abstract spiritual experience. Faith needs hands and feet, too, as James says. The work of community transformation and healing can be immensely practical.
But then the question becomes the relative roles of church and state in that process. Conservatives would say church--see W.'s insistence on faith-based solutions to hunger and poverty. Liberals see government as a more helpful solution. I'm not sure Scripture comes down on either side of that debate. The Old Testament has several programs that scream welfare state--forgiving all debts every 50 years? Having all tithes go to the poor? Allowing for gleaning the fields? Yet the early church practiced the work of justice without the help of government. People sold fields and gave out of the proceeds for the sake of others they'd never even met. In theory, the New Testament model has it's attractions--particularly because I'm kind of an Anabaptist at heart.
It's with this tension in mind that I read a story in the latest Christianity Today about World Vision's "big box" store to be used for community development. For the conservative answer to work, in my estimation, there need to be more, many more stories such as this. It can be convincing that justice needs to be the work of church and private individuals--that only faith and personal investment can cure what ails us. Yet such language, to me, is often used to simply justify larger inaction. We give our $20 to the non-profit of our choice and all go out to Appleby's. Using the tools of commerce and the market not just to get financial security, but to enrich society as a whole--I'd love to see a Republican running on that platform. Democrats don't talk about it as much as they used to, but at least some (such as Edwards or Obama) have that call to community responsibility that I think is the core ethic here. In any case, when you have a minute, look at the piece above. It's an interesting project.
July 5, 2007
A Biblical season
It's been a crazy month or so in the Shannon household. One part of that has been the rather tricky financial move we're trying to make--going from homeowners to renters at student housing. In this market/in our neighborhood, selling a house is a difficult task. We spent $7,000 on improvements (new steps and updated kitchen) only to have a sale fall through in part because of a bad roof (est. cost $6,000). Then a huge wasp's nest crops up by one of our windows and a gutter on our garage starts falling off. I have my theological doubts about reading tea leaves, but in this case, they don't tell a good story.
It's in times like these that my evangelical upbringing serves me well--the vast store of Bible verses in my head start surfacing. One in particular is from Genesis 22:
"Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
In Fear and Tembling (based on Gen. 22), Kierkegaard talks about how faith requires infinite despair--the paradoxical belief that something cannot happen, but that it will. That's a little melodramatic for our situation, but seems apt nonetheless. Hebrews 11:1 says something similar:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
In general, I've been seeing this next stage of our lives in light of Abraham's journey. I'm leaving a career that I've more or less settled in, and a home that we own, for a different land that I'm not entirely sure I'll like better. I don't want to confuse vocational fulfillment or self-actualization with the Kingdom of God, but I do feel that this move reflects where God has worked in my (and Sarah's) life. God will provide the lamb--the provision to do this. Yet it's not clear how, especially given what's happened thus far. We just have to continue to trust that God will do it.
Here's other passage from James 1 that has come to mind often:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
Now we're not facing what James's readers were: possible excruciating death. But he does say "trials of many kinds." And the hardest part of this current one is patience and perseverance. But that's what faith is, and it has a purpose and reward. As Isaiah 40 states it:
Those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.
Boy, that sounds good. But it ain't easy.
Passages from The Bible Gateway
May 3, 2007
Nice Andrew Sullivan piece
Andrew Sullivan concludes his conversation with athiest Sam Harris today with what I thought was a very nice piece. His ending point, that it's impossible for us to think our way to peace, is the core problem I have with rationalist arguments against religion. In the end, I just don't believe it's ultimately a matter of science; it puts too much faith in our own rational natures. Here's a quote:
This earth we inhabit is in peril, and our generation's task is to protect it. I don't mean merely the environment, although its sickness is clearly a function of our spiritual decay, our preference for material gain over spiritual calm. I mean the real and terrible danger of terroristic warfare, the kind that is now ravaging Iraq and raped New York City nearly six years ago. Instinctively, I am a realist. I know the odds of surviving this with our civilization intact are low. But I also think I know the only fundamental long-term answer. It is non-violence as Jesus practiced it, love as Jesus taught it, hope as Jesus promised. This requires work - and paradoxical work - to accept our gangsterish nature, to acknowledge abuse of faith in fundamentalist certainty, to stay realist about how to keep the peace and defeat real enemies - and yet also to practice the faith that alone can save our world.
April 30, 2007
Al Gore as Noah?
A man in Demark has built a half sized replica of Noah's Ark. He was inspired to do so partly by a dream, but also because Al Gore has said much of his country will be underwater due to the effects of global warming. Now, I've gone past my days of complete Biblical literalism--stories can be true without being historically accurate. But as a former church nerd, this would be kind of cool to see.
March 14, 2007
Quote of the day
"You ain't worshipped God 'till you've praised him for Spaghettios and Spam. See, if you know how to worship God for Spam, you can worship him with steak."
-Our pastor, Efrem Smith, on his humble origins.
March 8, 2007
White-washed tombs
It's an often quoted sermon line that Jesus saved his harshest criticism for religious leaders, those whose hypocrisy and legalism suffocated the people they led. I'm not sure Newt qualifies, but his long alliance with the Religious Right certainly puts him in the ballpark. Now, with a recent admittance of infidelity, he's simply another in a sad line of self-righteous two-faced liars. That's the problem with legalism--it's the log in your own eye that gets you in the end. It's called grace, people. Grace.
Speaking of Newt, I'll always remember Terry Gross's interview with him on Fresh Air back in the late 90s. At one point, she quizzed him on his position against homosexuality and gay marriage. Though he claimed his was a "Christian" position, he couldn't name one part of the Bible that actually spoke against it. Not quite as bad as Howard Dean naming Job as his favorite New Testament book, but not good. He lost any claim to authentic conviction for me at that point.
March 7, 2007
Coulter Christianity
The title of this post from the God's Politics blog (Jim Wallis, et al.) got me thinking again. For at least four years, Ann Coulter has been one of my least favorite talking heads. It's not just that I disagree with her politically--my rhetorical disagreements are what most irk me. Using terms like "raghead" and "faggot" (the latter used most recently in reference to pres. candidate John Edwards) in blatant, provocative ways does nothing except drum up headlines and make people mad. There's absolutely no intellectual integrity there--she's not looking to engage in an honest debate, and she's using hyperbole in deceptive, damaging ways.
Perhaps most astonishing, Coulter claims to be speaking from a Christian perspective. While Jesus did save some choice words for the Pharisees, I just can't understand how this kind of speech models God's kingdom in any real way. Um, blessed are the peacemakers? Bless those who curse you? To me, it's the worst manifestation of the right wing takeover of my faith.
February 14, 2007
Sullivan on the contigency of faith
Sarah knows that Andrew Sullivan is one of my regular blog reads. He's recently been engaging in a conversation on faith with Sam Harris, an athiest and proponent of rationalism. Their (rather lengthy) conversation in full can be found here. Sullivan's most recent letter (not posted as of my writing) is quite poetic, more or less attacking the "contingency" of faith--the fact that we may belive based on our histories and context. Harris believes that science escapes such contigency by asking for proof of every claim--seeing everything through a "clean glass." However, Sullivan more or less deconstructs this idea, rightly in my view. One of the most interesting parts of the Geography class I took last semester was the discussion of postmodern critiques of science's claims to objectivity. The problem is that the very categories scientists choose to use in their work are themselves are creation of their culture and background. This problem is perhaps most acute with social sciences--we can never step outside of our own cultural background when studying society. In any case, I'd recommend Sullivan's piece for a good read. It's on his blog.
February 12, 2007
Letter to the Strib
I sent the following letter to the Star-Tribune today in response to several articles (including this one) they have published recently about a Brooklyn Park church. Update: It was published on Tuesday, 2/13.
---
Let’s see here. Jesus did his ministry as a homeless man. He warned about the dangers of wealth, stating that the pursuit of money and God were incompatible. His harshest criticism was for religious leaders who got wealthy at their people’s expense. He sometimes told his rich followers to give away all their possessions and emphasized the value of service and self-sacrifice.
Mac Hammond, on the other hand, has multiple homes and extensive use of his own jet. He wears fine clothes because, “If I look decent, I preach better.� He owns a Porsche, which he calls a “ministry tool.� His preaching emphasizes the promise of material wealth. Forgive me if I miss the connection between these two.
Do churches need to be smart about their use of money? Of course. But the conspicuous consumption modeled by Hammond and his church are treated with ambivalence at best in scripture. The wealthy in the early church sold their goods and shared them. They did not buy pricey sports cars. To me, Hammond’s message sounds more like the gospel of American prosperity than God’s kingdom. We need look no further for the reason so many people view the church as a site of hypocrisy and greed.
August 10, 2006
Three things I learned from watching...
With the wife away in Montreal, I finally rented and watched The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe last night. I read all seven of the Narnia books several times as a child, so I was mildly surprised that I didn't feel more interested in seeing it. To me, all the hype, especially within Christian circles, surrounding its initial release drowned some of my interest. It felt like a movie designed to appease that audience. And after watching all three Lord of the Rings, I feel like I've had my fill of CGI battle sequences for a VERY long time.
Overall, I basically liked it. I actually think Aslan seemed a little too tame for my liking, but I'm 31 and not 11, so that may have something to do with it. It will be interesting to see how filmmakers handle Lewis's cariactures of Arabs in later books if further movies are made--there were only a few passing shots here of human-like creatures who weren't white. Here's three things that stood out to me from the movie--mostly questions that it raised for me.
1. War is a necessary part of life, both physical and spiritual. I actually liked how this movie framed the story with the bombing of London. It gave a slightly more melancholy note to the film. Yet in the movie, war and violence are unqualifiably endorsed. The Narnian side is fighting a just war--purely defensive and with acceptable means. They're clearly the good guys. Yet on Earth, war is hardly so attractive. The Nazis were a bad bunch, but the firebombing of Dresden (from the little I know if it) was no picnic either. And the long term psychological and physical effects of war are more than we see here. Yes--wars are necessary, and can be a helpful way to think of spirituality. I live in a neighborhood where there's clearly a battle, with real guns. But in Lewis's book, and in the gospels overall I would contend, Aslan's sacrifice is the better picture of this.
2. Men are meant to rule. Yes, all four of the kids in this film are crowned at the end. Yet it's clear that Peter is THE king. He's in charge. And one could have a hayday with the victory over a heavily maned lion (does it get more masculine?) over a cruel, emotionless (read: non-feminine) queen. And the prominance of physical strength in this film as a ruling force also favors the masculine.
3. Evil creatures are basically loveless, ugly sociopaths. This I find interesting from the Christian standpoint. Part of the point of the Gospels (and even Scripture as a whole) is that powerful, attractive people usually don't get the gospel. It's those on the margins who do. Yet, in movies like this, good creatures are noble, fine-looking things. The evil creatures have all kinds of physical distortions. Edmunds character was really the most interesting in this film, I think--partly because he's the most torn between the sides. The book makes more of his desire for Turkish Delight (and power) than the movie does. That's a very Lewis theme--that evil is "bent" desire--that I would have liked to seen highlighted. Evil isn't usually this obvious or easy to detect.