I'm tired of the disrespect

While back I wrote about our culture's lack of respect. Tonight I just went on a tirade about disrespect with my youth. One student was laughing about about Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters calling President Obama a "pussy." How have we gotten to this point?

About a year ago I was talking to one of our deacons. He was lamenting about all of this country's problems and in the process called the president a "dick head." Why are even Christian leaders being so disrespectful?

I don't even want to address the public sentiment expressed towards muslims or how the broader culture is reacting to racist tendencies in our country. Seriously? A Christian leader calling for, I guess Christians, to "end those muslims."

Not too long ago, a student at the school I teach at decided that it was time to go before the class was dismissed. The religion teacher, who happens to be clergy, politely kicked her out of class. Rather than it being a learning moment for the girl, the girl's mother came down and yelled at the teacher because her daughter was being disruptive. If this were the only case, I probably wouldn't mention it, but I see it time and time again. Children disrespect the teachers and then parents come down to the school and further disrespect the teachers, usually in front of their children. This is a a Christian school. It's not like I teach in the Bronx.

Can you tell that I'm more than annoyed?

Our culture is so saturated with disrespect, it's ridiculous. I'm not that old (I'm an older millennial), I remember my family and church not being terribly impressed with President Clinton. I do not remember them mocking him like I hear so many do Obama. To my knowledge, no one ever painted a Hitler mustache on Clinton. I don't recall people calling into talk radio and saying Clinton "isn't my president." (And these people live where again?)
Now I'm not saying we can't speak up about injustice. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have political satire. I'm not even saying we all have to agree or even like each other (or like and agree with the president). I am saying that the principle reason our country has the problems that is has is in large part a lack of respect.

There are some incredible abuses of power and that in turn is repaid with a lack of respect, and in turn is repaid with abuse of power. Someone has to stop. The reason why the Civil Rights movement was so successful was because the powerless boldly submitted to the abuse publicly. Real social change never happens with force. Well, it does, only it gets worse.

It's worse now. When we have a major political candidate calling to ban all muslims, regardless if they are American citizens, it's worse. When we equate all muslims with ISIS, it's worse. When we confuse someone we dislike with a fascist and applaud a fascist leaning candidate, it's worse. When Christians are the loudest in their disrespect, IT. IS. WORSE.

I say this as a Christian, not because I want to feel guilty, but we need to shine a light on our sin and repent. There are things that are unacceptable for people to say, especially Christians. Christians are supposed to a light to the world, a city on a hill (a metaphor coopted by a president, mind you).

Hear the words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Romans 12 is particularly powerful, and I highly recommend reading the chapter. Perhaps most compelling is:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. On the contrary:

         “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
           if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
           In doing this, you will heap burning coals
           on his head.”

 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Scripture speaks for itself. Christians in America need to lead by example. Let us respect our leaders, even if they weren't our choice. (Early Christians didn't have choice. They were stuck with Caesar. We've got it good.) Let us truly be a city on a hill. No one wants to be around disrespectful people. Let us be civil in our disagreements, and courteous to those whom we dislike.

Separate, but Equal Cultures?

Is the end result of Postmodernity separate but equal or integration? I understand Postmodernism as a rejection of a single meta-narrative and a celebration of the many big-stories. Rather than a single monolithic culture, the local and particular cultures are held in esteem. If we reject a single, integrating culture, are we not proposing of separate, but equal cultures?

I am quickly seeing that I am ministering to two different cultures. The first is the churched kids. Their parents are either church members or are involved at church in some way. There are a couple of exceptions. These students are sheltered intentionally, some more extreme than others. This makes them awkward around their unsheltered peers.

The other group is made up of unsheltered and unchurched kids. Some of them are  from nominally religious homes or have parents who occasionally attend. They are more likely to do "bad things," whether that is swearing, drinking, doing drugs, or having sex. Many have no boundaries set, and the ones who do, are more comfortable with those who don't. This group is no less spiritual and in many ways are more open to the gospel than "the good kids." Clearly, these two groups are at odds.

The "bad kids" are uncomfortable around the "good kids," and vise versa. Each group is culturally different, at least on a micro scale. There is at least enough of a cultural divide that keeps both groups from normally interacting. (I realize there are other factors.)

Missiologically, I believe that each culture should genuinely express Christianity. Navajos should worship in a way that makes sense to them, Ghanians should worship as they see fit, and so should Germans. There will be some overlap, but I expect a Navajo worship to look different from a service in Ghana or in Germany. Language, songs, instruments, liturgy, and mannerisms are (or should be) different. Diversity is a good thing.

So how far should we take this? There are few people who think that a worship service should be multilingual. There are Korean, Spanish, and English speaking people in many communities. I have never heard a trilingual church. Occasionally bilingual is acceptable. The ideal seems to be a separate Spanish meeting and a separate English meeting. How is this not separate but equal? The alternative is to pick a language… say Latin, to unify our worship. So is there middle ground? Are these the only two choices?

When it comes to micro-cultures, do the same rules apply?

I’m tired of being afraid

I remember being in high school, talking to an Army recruiter and telling him I didn’t want to make a decision about enlisting until after the 2000 election. He thought I was worried about pay or job security but what I was afraid of was a coming war should a Democrat be elected. Yes, that’s right. I was afraid Al Gore was going to start a war and George W. Bush was going to keep the peace. It’s funny how things turned out.

I hate to admit this, but I am a Rush Baby. For those who don’t know, that means I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh. I was predisposed to conservative ideals transmitted through conservative talk shows and news outlets. If you listen closely, the message is, “liberals are trying to _____, and mess up this country (and maybe even the world). We have to band together and stop them. BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IF WE DON’T!!!”

About halfway through grad school, I began paying attention to the other side. You know, the ones trying to screw up everything. It’s fascinating; they say the same thing about conservatives. “We have to stop them or things will be bad.”

I talk to a lot of people because I am a youth pastor. Most parishioners tend to be conservative and the most vocal are political junkies (some more than others). Even when I was working for a university, the staff tended to be liberal. What both sides have in common is mutual fear of each other. The right claims it’s because the left has abandoned the nation's Christian values and the left claims that the right wants a theocracy and only cares about the rich. They are both afraid.

The kingdoms of the world peddle fear. Fear of certain people, fear of change, fear that things are going to get bad or worse, even the fear of death. Every kingdom of this world that has ever existed has actively tried to keep people fearful. Think about the aftermath of 9-11. Americans are afraid of terrorists and/or Muslims so much so that there is popular support for invasions of privacy that the right-wing kooks were so terrified of in the 1990’s.

I’m not trying to endorse a political party or a candidate. The reality is, both sides want to keep us in fear. If we are afraid, we can be controlled. But we don’t have to be afraid. We don’t have to live in fear. It’s no small wonder that Obama ran a fairly successful presidential campaign giving people hope. Obama (or Romney) can only give so much hope. They both still wield fear like a club. Be afraid; be very afraid of the other party.

Jesus offers real hope. Jesus offers real peace. Jesus was the third party that people ridiculed for throwing their vote away. In fact, Jesus was falsely accused of being an insurgent, and unjustly executed. He was secretly flown the Libya “for questioning” and held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. That is the King of the Universe, the ruler over this entire world. Not only unlikely, but ludicrous to suggest.

I’m tired of being afraid. I’m tired of the world telling me to be afraid of certain people, of what the future will hold (especially if I don’t vote a certain way), of how things are bad or getting worse. I’m tired of being manipulated with fear. This election cycle, I’m casting my vote for Jesus, whose Kingdom I pray comes on Earth just like it is in Heaven. I’m voting for the one who no one thinks will win, even though he already has.

In Christ alone my hope is found,

He is my light, my strength, my song;

this Cornerstone, this solid Ground,

firm through the fiercest drought and storm.

What heights of love, what depths of peace,

when fears are stilled, when strivings cease!

My Comforter, my All in All,

here in the love of Christ I stand.

Perhaps the most powerful part:

No guilt in life, no fear in death,

This is the power of Christ in me;

From life's first cry to final breath.

Jesus commands my destiny.

No power of hell, no scheme of man,

Can ever pluck me from His hand;

Till He returns or calls me home,

Here in the power of Christ I'll stand.

(In Christ Alone by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend, 2001)

I have no other ruler or president but Jesus. He is my only hope, my joy, and my peace. I am not afraid of death, or “those” people, or the future. I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

"Kids these days just don't have any respect…" I hear this all to often, and now that I am getting older, find myself uttering these words. My response (which I cut short by biting my tongue) is, don't blame the kids, blame the parents. They raised them this way.

The reality is, we live in a culture of disrespect. We see it all the time in pop-culture and the media. Men are users and women are objects. Or, Women have to deal with male incompetence, i.e. women are intellectually and emotionally superior to men. We could talk about ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or anything else that we could use to classify human beings. If you take a good hard look, no one really respects anyone else. Ok, maybe not entirely, but as a society, we 21st Century Americans have trouble respecting people, especially those we dislike.

I remember just starting college and getting to hang out with the professors. (My work-study soon turned into a 3/4 time position and I got to canoodle with the faculty at lunch and social events.) Coming from a "conservative" home, it really bothered me how little respect the faculty would give then President Bush. I can handle satire and jokes, but they were down right mean.

Fast-forward eight years when Obama wins the presidential election and "conservatives" are more venomous of Obama than the liberals were of Bush. I heard time and again, "he's not MY president."

My father-in-law told me a story of one of his friends in the FBI. This guy was assigned to security during the Democrat National Convention. He purportedly said, "if Obama is attacked, do I actually have to do anything?"

I hear rumblings of assassination being a "patriotic duty."

The crazy thing is, I hear the VERY PEOPLE saying, "kids these days," being extremely disrespectful towards dully elected officials and leaders of every kind. We can disagree without being disrespectful.

I know it's possible. My parents loved Reagan and the first Bush and I remember them being critical of Clinton, but never disrespectful.

So think about what you say and how you say it. Just because they said bad stuff about your guy doesn't mean you have to say bad stuff about theirs. Next time you say "kids these days…" think about what kind of example you are setting. If you are one of these kids, think about what you say. Regardless of your age, be respectful. God knows we don't show enough respect in any area of our lives.

Oh, and for the Secret Service who just read this, peace and blessings to you as well as our nations leaders.

The New Legalism Doesn't Exist

I recently came across this article entitled, "The New Legalism," by Anthony Bradley. My initial reaction to most religious and cultural commentary was to ignore it, however the views expressed here hit close to home for a few people close to me, so I would like to respond.

Just a few things up front: first, I am a millennial, for better or worse. Second, I agree with Bradley on a couple of things, but I think he missed the bigger issue.

Bradley begins his article with a quote of himself on Facebook,

“Being a ‘radical,’ ‘missional’ Christian is slowly becoming the ‘new legalism.’ We need more ordinary God and people lovers (Matt 22:36-40).”

I actually agree with part of this. We need more Christians who love God and love people rather than loving loving themselves, their culture (what it was or what it is), their religion, their nationality, their whatever. Where I disagree with Bradley is this sense of "new legalism" when it comes to being radical or missional.

Bradley argues that one cannot be a radical, missional Christian and be an ordinary person. Or rather, people who use the title or descriptor radical, missional Christian, do not believe they can live an "ordinary" life, and they have some sort of "disdain" for ordinary people in the suburbs.

According to Bradley, and I do not have reason to doubt him, after Word War II the builder generation moved to the suburbs to raise their families "in safety, comfort, and material ease." He then says that baby boomers and their children, millennials, despised "the contexts that provided them advantages [and] have a disdain for America's suburbs." This is where i start to disagree with Bradley. 

There were a number of reasons why baby boomers rebelled against their culture. The 1950s and 1960s were only the golden years for some people, namely those who were privileged. Of course, after the war, Americans in general became more prosperous and were able to live more financially stable. In essence, more people became privileged, the problem that boomers saw was many people who were left behind and the cultural institutions and structures that wanted to keep the disadvantaged at a disadvantage.

Bradley seems to be saying that baby boomers had no reason to rebel against their culture. Perhaps things could have been different, but there were some serious social evils that even the majority of religious leaders of the day sided with. Jim Crow laws were evil, segregation was evil, the Viet Nam War was evil. The "disdain" that the baby boomers had, was not so much for the suburbs, but what the suburbs came to represent. It represented a passive agreement with all of these major social sins. It represented compliance with a culture that condoned racism and murder. While not all builders participated or even agreed with these social ills, the majority seemed to.

Mr. Bradley also seems to ignore the growing trend in America that has little to do with religion. More and more people are moving from rural America into the cities. There are a number of reasons why they are doing this and few of them have anything to do with being missional. USA Today posted an article entitled, "As more move to the city, does rural America still matter?" This article blames Congress for not passing a farm bill in 2012 for last years mass urbanization. The reality is, the current cultural trend for people to move to the city is motivated by a number of factors and only a few are religious in nature.

I do agree with Bradley that millennials are narcissistic and the "missional movement" has coincided with our narcissism. I think more accurately, the missional movement is a valid response to our narcissistic culture. Where Bradley completely misses reality is when he says "living out one's faith became narrowly celebratory only when done in a unique and special way, a 'missional' way." He goes on to bemoan, "Getting married and having children early, getting a job, saving and investing, being a good citizen, loving one’s neighbor, and the like, no longer qualify as virtuous. One has to be involved in arts and social justice activities—even if justice is pursued without sound economics or social teaching. I actually know of a couple who were being so “missional” they decided to not procreate for the sake of taking care of orphans."

Where is the evidence that shows churches and religious leaders are teaching that being "missional" means not getting married, not having children, not getting a job, not saving and investing, not being a good citizen, and not loving one's neighbor? Most of these things have little to no root in religious life. Americans across the board, regardless of religious affiliation, fall into these categories. I certainly agree that Bradley's list is virtuous, but it is also virtuous to be celibate and not have children. To claim otherwise is to go against scripture and Christian tradition established for two thousand years. Paul even said that it is good not to marry. For Bradley to criticize a couple who chose not to have children to fulfill their calling is unscriptural at best, and unChristian at worst. Bradley's statement indicates a cultural bias that is neither informed by scripture nor Christian tradition.

Further, since when is doing the right thing always "sound" economically? Abolishing slavery in 19th century was not economically sound. Civil Rights legislation was not economically sound, nor was it in line with the current "social teachings." Being just is not always easy and you don't always reap a reward for it. Otherwise Martin Luther King Jr would still be alive today.

Bradley then goes on to criticize so called "radical Christianity." He finds this statement by David Platt disturbing: "we were created for far more than a nice, comfortable Christian spin on the American dream. An idea that we were created to follow One who demands radical risk and promises radical reward.” Bradley sees this statement as reactionary to "lukewarm" Christians and "does not provide a positive construction for the good life from God’s perspective." He goes on to imply that Jesus was only "radical" when it came to his teachings about "love."

I agree that Jesus' teachings about love were radical, but so were his views on the religious leaders, taxes, and society. Jesus came from the part of Palestine that was known for problem people. (John 1:46) He took on the titles "Son of God" and "messiah." While many claimed to be THE messiah, most of them and their followers died and got Jerusalem and the temple destroyed. Both titles are designated for the king. Son of God was a title that most kings took throughout history, especially Caesar Augustus. Roman citizens worshiped Caesar as a god as part of their civil responsibilities. They implicitly said, "there is no king but Caesar." (John 19:12,15) Anyone who believed otherwise suffered the wrath of the empire.

 Messiah was a Jewish title for the king appointed by God. Jesus took on these titles and was indeed a "radical." However, this radical did not go around and kill his enemies. Well, his enemies were demons, sickness, and death. Jesus brought life, true life, at the expense of his own. Jesus went to people who were supposedly cursed by God. The key word here is went. So I agree that we could simply call this love, but love motivated Jesus to do radical things. After all, he didn't just go to people with severe physical disabilities and say, "I love you. Have a blessed day." He said, "rise and walk."

At this point, Bradley and I are disagreeing on the definition of radical. However, I find his resulting cultural analysis disturbing. He claims that "anti-suburbanism is fueled, at least in part, by being "missional" and "radical." The problem is, I still see no evidence for anyone shaming people for "simply being ordinary Christians who desire to love God and love their neighbors." Further, calling this legalism is far fetched.

I do find this statement interesting. "A few decades ago, an entire generation of baby boomers walked away from traditional churches to escape the legalistic moralism of “being good,” but what their millennial children received in exchange, in an individualistic American Christian culture, was shamed-driven pressure to be awesome and extraordinary young adults expected to tangibly make a difference in the world immediately."

I actually agree with most of this. Millennials received their hyper-individualistic culture from their boomer parents. The shame, however, seems to be coming from the likes Bradley because millennials are rebelling against their parents' culture and change the world immediately into something that resembles (presumably) pre-baby boomer culture. 

Bradley misses the mark in criticizing millennial culture. He wants to disagree with the missional movement and those teaching "radical" Christianity. He asks, "Why is Christ’s command to love God and neighbor not enough for these leaders?" Again, he is presupposing that loving God and especially others requires nothing of us. If that were the case, I can get that without the religion, thank you.

Bradley does highlight some excellent points towards the end. God does care about the whole person, not just the spiritual. I agree that ultimately, as Christians, we invite the world around us to "live well." We live well by following Jesus' teachings. Sometimes that is simply enjoying creation and enjoying others, and sometimes that is going and doing something that needs to be done like taking care of orphans. I do agree that we need to teach people to be "men and women of virtue." That is lacking in our culture.

The reason why the church is losing teens and young adults is not because of the shame from the missional movement and being radical, it's because the gospel we preach doesn't affect their daily lives. There are rules, and they are often times cultural constructs from a bygone era that make little sense to young adults trying to navigate the world around them. Bradley does a good job of highlighting the essence of what we, as a society need, but he blames the wrong people. He blames millennials for the way their parents raised them. He shames them for not being awesome enough to change their culture, when it was their parents who taught them to need to be awesome. He blames religious leaders he disagrees with as the source of the problems in society. The reality is, these leaders, cough, Shane Claiborne, are reacting against the very things Bradley is reacting against.

So let's blame the right people. Let's blame parents who would rather do whatever they want (and sometimes need, as in a job) instead raising their children. Let's blame the culture and mentality that says, if it feels good, do it. Let's blame the older generation for not teaching respect, and let's hold the younger generation accountable for the lack thereof. Let's blame lazy people for being lazy. Society is broken. Let us admire the people who want to live with "the least of these."

Bradley believes the antidote to weariness from legalism is a rediscovery of the true meaning of vocation. I don't disagree with that. In fact, as a pastor, I teach and encourage people to get a job and live life with dignity. Some of my students want to be teachers and hair dressers. Some will end up driving a garbage truck. There is dignity in work. We also need to remember that religious vocation is valid. Not everyone is called to be a pastor. Not everyone is called to live in the inner city. Not everyone is called to work with orphans. Some people will glorify God by cleaning toilets, and others will glorify God by working in an office, and some will glorify God by being Christian leaders. Millennials need to discover that true happiness is found in the new way of life following Jesus, not in pursuing the American Dream. (1 John 1:1-4)

Theological Crisis

When I was in High School, one of my science teachers told me a story: There once was a man whose house was about to be flooded. When he heard about the evacuation order, he said to himself, "God will provide." Later, when he was the last person in his neighborhood, an emergency worker drove up and asked him to leave. The emergency worker offered him a ride and the man replied, "God will provide." Later, the flood waters started to rise and the man had to climb on top of his house. A boat of emergency workers saw the man and offered assistance. The man declined again saying, "God will provide." The flood continued to rise until water was splashing on the roof. An emergency helicopter noticed him and offered to pick him up and he declined again, saying "God will provide." Eventually the man drowned. When he had the opportunity, he asked God, "why didn't you provide? You let me die!" God responded, "I provided you with a warning, with a ride, with a boat, and with a helicopter."

If you haven't guessed yet, my crisis has to do with the dichotomy of faith and wisdom.

This May, I graduated from seminary. It was a great experience both spiritually and educationally. It was a trying time, but I feel like I am much wiser and more prepared for ministry than when I started. One of the things that became a deep conviction over the last few years is God's special heart for the poor and the oppressed. Throughout the Bible, God chose to work through the least powerful to demonstrate the supreme power of the universe. Abraham was a nobody, David was a shepherd (very low class job), and Jesus was a carpenter. Paul recalls the resurrected Lord's words like this, "My power is perfected in weakness." (2 Co 12:9) This isn't just a spiritual weakness that God demonstrates Godself, but actual literal and physical weakness. Luke recalls Jesus saying "Blessed are the poor..." (Luke 6:20) It is our identification with Christ and Christ's weakness that allows the power of God to work in our lives, in my life.

Now that I have graduated, I am faced with bills that I honestly don't know how I'm going to pay. According to one online calculator, I should make in the neighborhood of $120,000 a year. (I can't find the link just now, but I've found it on more than one occasion) I have created a minimal budget that I could pay back the loans in ten years with a salary of $35,000. I probably would have to do without a lot of extras, but I think we could get by.

Now, I'm looking at a church that has a tremendous need. They are offering a salary at a great sacrifice, but the salary is a meager $12,000. My theological sensibilities says, "follow in the footsteps of Christ, God will provide." The other part of me that I hope is wisdom speaking says, "the reality is, you have bills. You are no good to anyone if you can't pay your bills. If you didn't have debt, you could afford to be poor, but that isn't going to happen for a while."

There are a few other considerations, such as experience in my field vs. not working in my field, but the crux of the matter is, am I lacking faith that God will provide or has God provided me with a brain? Do I really believe all that stuff about God's special heart for the poor or am I being sentimental? By seeking out wealth, am I seeking out my reward in full?

Lacking an appendage does not disqualify a woman from ministry

I have always believed that women can be ministers. My dad would say, "women were the first ones who brought the gospel message." I was rather disturbed by comments made at church a while back. When discussing the qualifications for being an elder, someone said, "it wouldn't be right to have a woman be an elder because our elders patrol the parking lot. What is she going to do if someone is breaking into a car? Scream?"

My initial response was shock. A woman can't patrol the parking lot? What about women police officers? If that is the basis of an argument for women to not be in ministry, then it is rather weak.

What about the Bible? Aside from one verse that says "women should be silent," there are a host of verses that indicate women are equal to men, but even women were called bishop, elder, deacon, and even apostle and prophet. (I will not rehash this, you can use google just as well as I can. Perhaps a book list will come later) It is true that many of the Church Fathers seemed to be misogynist at times, but women were treated better in the church than they were in broader culture. Perhaps the modern church should do the same for women today, especially when the broader culture today is moving toward gender equality. The church can take care of women better than the culture by supporting working women at home, in the work place, and in ministry. The church can take a stand against unfair hiring practices, unequal pay, the mistreatment of women in general (domestic abuse, pornography, and prostituted women). Feminism does not equal abortion rights; it valuing women just as much as men.

As a father of a girl who may one day grow up to be minister... No, as a father who is raising his daughter to become a minister (her dedication verse was the calling of Samuel), I hope the church will abandon misogynistic practices and remember that in Christ "there is neither male nor female."