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)