Most American Christians tend to think of the gospel in soterian terms. That is, we think of it as a description of the means by which God saves (usually) individual people. When the gospel is reduced to soterian terms, the emphasis rests on Jesus’ atoning work for our sin – a work which ends our alienation from God.

The problem with this perspective is not so much that it is wrong about how atonement/salvation works, so much as it is wrong about what the New Testament writers meant when they talked about the gospel. For the New Testament writers, the gospel was the enunciation that God has placed Jesus in authority over our world, and that God’s grand project of setting the world to rights has now begun. Atonement and salvation are (and should be) a part of the backdrop behind the message, but they are not the central message.

In his most recent book, which I have not yet had a chance to read, Scot McKnight has given this gospel a name: The King Jesus Gospel.  I really like this name, because – in four words – it manages to re-frame the concept of the gospel in terms that are more in tune with the Biblical text.

As we have been getting closer to Christmas, I have been thinking about the way the sacred music that we hear this time of year emphasizes the theme of King Jesus in ways that we don’t usually encounter in our soterian-obsessed world. It is almost as if, for eleven months out of the year, we get exposed to a lot of hymns and preaching about personal salvation, and then – all of a sudden – for one month, we get the “big picture” gospel.

For example:

Joy to the World!
The Lord has come!
Let Earth receive her king!

Or…

Christ, by highest heaven adored
Christ, the everlasting Lord;
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a virgin’s womb.

Or…

Joyful, all ye nations, rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’ angelic host proclaim,
"Christ is born in Bethlehem."
Hark! the herald angels sing,
"Glory to the newborn King!

Or…

Mary, did you know
that your Baby Boy is Lord of all creation?
Mary, did you know
that your Baby Boy would one day rule the nations

The libretto of Handel’s Messiah, lifted entirely from scripture, returns to the King Jesus theme time and again:

Lift up your heads, o ye gates, and the King of Glory shall come in.

For unto us a child is born. Unto us, a son is given.
And the government shall be upon his shoulders.

Even those parts of the libretto that are not explicitly about King Jesus still seem to emphasize the theme of God’s renewed sovereignty over the world:

O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, and be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.

And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together…

The climactic Hallelujah is perhaps the best example of the meaning and tone of the King Jesus Gospel. Handel’s triumphant chorus, which gives the feel that it could keep building and going on and on forever, as the lyrics themselves suggest, conveys a sort-of spiritual “high” that accompanies the enunciation of God’s reign in the world.

This flash mob performance by the Opera Company of Philadelphia (which I linked to last year) perfectly captures the sheer sense of joy behind the thought of God’s renewed authority, and its implications for our future. Just watch the way people – everyone, really – reacts to the song:

 

So, as you listen to sacred music on your iPhone or CD player this week, I hope you’ll spend some time reflecting on the King Jesus Gospel. The thought of God’s movement to bring healing and relief to the all-too-real crises of our own world is far bigger, far more hope-filled, and far more joyful than one which reduces it all to personal sin management.

Share
 

Apparently, the last post on the Proverbs 31 meme went semi-viral for a couple of days. My son Levi flagged it in reddit/r/religion and it hit #1 for a brief period, and I am told that some Facebook reposts made it as far as Baylor University, the place where the meme (which I still think is well-meaning, and good in many respects) originated. For the most part the reactions, and comments, have come from young women, and most of them have been very positive, which I appreciate. And since there seems to be some interest in this subject, I thought I’d put up one more post on the notion of healthy sexual expression before moving on to some seasonally-themed materials.

I’m privileged to get to work with a group of young adults on Sunday mornings at St. Paul UMC here in Abilene. It’s a great group of people, as I’ve said before – very interested in digging deep into scripture, but also becoming deeply involved in the mission of God in the world.

A few months ago, I asked the class to give me some feedback on things they’d like to talk about in class, and a consensus developed fairly quickly that they wanted to look at obscure things from the Bible – things we don’t tend to talk about all the time. So we did it. We talked about mythical-sounding giants from Genesis, a character in Judges who killed his daughter to fulfill a vow to God, a psalm that asks God to kill babies, and even a clear mathematical error that appears in the Pentateuch … all kinds of interesting, albeit sometimes uncomfortable texts.

We also talked about the Song of Songs, which I referenced briefly in the last post. Song of Songs is an interesting study. We all know its there. We all know it has something to do about sex. But few people ever sit down to appreciate the level of eroticism that can be found in the text (see this text, for an example that doesn’t require a lot of cultural “translation” to confer a subtle-ish metaphor).

What interests me about Song of Songs – and about Esther, another book in the “wisdom literature” section of scripture is that it seems to be a product of an ancient Jewish community that is willing to openly discuss and appreciate eroticism. Indeed, the people who eventually selected the Biblical canon seem likewise to have felt like acknowledgement and appreciation of eroticism had a place within the Christian community. Yet within most church cultures today, the subject of eroticism itself is tacitly, if not explicitly a hush-hush subject.

What has happened here? We used our discussion of Song of Songs to talk about how – at some point – the subject of sexuality became balkanized – that is, it is a subject about which we experience two distinct and diametrically opposed cultures. The so-called “culture wars” – if they exist – are surely about sexuality as much as anything else. As a result of this cultural polarization, people end up feeling like they must either participate in an over-sexualized, porn-saturated culture where hooking up is the norm, or in a repressive culture where we never, ever acknowledge that we are sexual beings, and never even talk about the subject except, perhaps to pronounce judgment on various subjects of sexual ethics.

Because there are many vocal people with strong opinions on both sides of the “war” it is quite difficult to find a middle ground where we can be acknowledge and express our sexuality, but not be so overly sexualized that it is unhealthy.

We can visualize it on a continuum that looks like this:

Repression Expression Overexpression
Sexuality is seldom expressed or appreciated publicly, except for ethical discussion/judgment, resulting in unhealthy psychological and spiritual side effects (pedophilia, repressed anxiety or rage, etc.)   Sexuality is openly acknowledged and appreciated, although ethical and practical limits are also acknowledged and observed (what seems to be the Hebrew culture that generates Song of Songs, Esther, etc.)   Over-investment in sexuality as a means of self-fulfillment, with few or no ethical boundaries (empty “hook ups,” porn addiction, unhealthy female self-concepts relating to appearance, etc.)

 

In a balkanized sexual culture, we feel like ping-pong balls being tossed around between two sub-cultures: the “church” culture where, outside of the occasional pronunciation of ethical judgment, we may never, never talk or think about how great and compelling sex is, and the alluring over-the-top culture of hyper-sexuality, where unrealistic levels of fulfillment are promised at every turn, but never delivered.

Living out a healthy expression of sexuality (the middle column) is very difficult. It is like walking a balance beam. It is challenging, and – given the pressures that are involved – people are bound to fall off on one side or the other from time to time, so a lot of grace and understanding is needed.

The key to me, is for sexuality to find an appropriate place in life, without becoming a be-all-and-end-all. Going back to Kinneman’s book You Lost Me again, one young, newly married woman that was interviewed for the book put it this way:

Sometimes [sex is] incredible but sometimes it’s hard work, just like the rest of the relationship. In fact I’m learning it’s all related…good sex doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s entiwned with every part of my life. But I feel like my church…compartmentalized everything, and so I did too. Here’s your faith in this pigeonhole. Here’s your education. Here’s your work cubicle, and there’s your family. Over there is sex, all by itself behind the curtain. I feel like becoming an adult is this painful process of decategorizing my life. There are no categories. There is just life.

(italics mine). So what does a healthy culture of sexual expression look like? I am not a psychological expert, and I don’[t pretend to have the final answer, but I think, for starters, it is one where art and literature and conversation openly explore eroticism and sensuality in age-appropriate contexts. Adults in the community can experience and enjoy a bawdy, lurid tale (such as Esther) or a work of erotic literature (such as Song of Songs) without feeling ashamed of it. There are also conversations about sexual ethics, of course. But they usually don’t occur at the same time, and the stories and poems are never peppered with so many footnotes and commentary that the focus of the work or conversation becomes ethical rather than artistic. They simply stand on their own.

That, to me, seems to be the way the wisdom of the Old Testament would be best reflected in our culture. But that culture doesn’t seem to exist. When it comes to sexuality, there are a lot of Christian ethicists, theologians, and therapists, but there are no poets, filmmakers, or musicians, that I know of. There is no modern-day equivalent to the Song of Songs within the Christian community. I can’t even imagine how such a person could emerge in the current environment.

So what do you think? Is it possible to create a culture that avoids the pitfalls of spiritually and psychologically damaging repression and the empty, unfulfilling tendency toward over-expression at the same time? What does it look like?

Share
 

Last night, my wife told me about a new meme that is starting to take off on the internet. It all started with a male student at Baylor University posted a Facebook message that said “I’d rather have a Proverbs 31 woman than a Victoria’s Secret model.” Apparently, the statement somehow went viral, and it is rapidly becoming the subject of unending controversy in and outside of evangelical circles. Some have even created graphics of the meme (like the one on the right) that resemble a Victoria’s Secret advertisement.

I have a brief comment to add to the controversy, but in a discussion like this I think it is first important to recognize the temptation to create two-dimensional caricatures of other people’s thoughts in situations like this. I am raising some red flags about what I think is being said by the meme’s creator. However, at the same time, I acknowledge that he and the meme’s other supporters likely have a more sophisticated understanding of femininity and sensuality than this post might infer, so I invite any supporters reading this to comment and color in the nuances of their perspectives in more detail.

Now, on to my comments:

I think it is admirable that a hormone-driven college-age male is recognizing that a culturally idealized appearance is not the only desirable trait in a potential mate, and that he is willing to communicate that to his female friends, who are probably somewhat insecure in the thought they will ever look like supermodels. That impulse, I think, is a good one, and I hope he and the meme’s supporters will stick with this theme.

Having said that, I also think that the meme implies something that is problematic: it suggests a false dilemma between sensuality and “biblical” femininity, and then, as a result, it trades one form of shallow sexism for another.

To paraphrase social researcher David Kinneman in his landmark book You Lost Me, we should not think of women as walking vaginas (as our sex-obsessed culture sometimes implies) or as walking wombs (as the reactive, conservative Christian culture often suggests). Healthy expressions of femininity ought to transcend both of these things.

Or, to put it another way, suggesting that a woman must be a “Proverbs 31 wife” is just as bad as suggesting that she is only worthwhile if she looks like a supermodel. They are both attempts to reduce and control her femininity.

The wifely ideal of Proverbs 31 is hardly a workable model for the twenty-first century. Guys, are you seriously looking for someone who will gather the raw materials for your clothes and sew them for you? Manage your servants when you are away? Take care of your business affairs for you? Make sure you have clothes so that you can be warm in your (non-gas-heated) home when it is cold? Someone to provide you with “faithful instruction”? And to give you a good reputation when you hang out at the city gates?

Of course not. While these may have been desirable traits at a time when women were treated more like property than people, they are hardly fair, desirable, or even applicable in post-modern America. It is unfair to suggest to women that they must somehow uniformly comply with this ideal.

Furthermore, Proverbs 31 is not the only place in the Bible where we find expressions of the feminine. Among other things, we also find:

  • Deborah, who sat over men as a prophet, mother and judge.
  • The female “voice” in the Song of Songs, whose sensuality and body are celebrated in poetry by a lover who longs for her on every page.
  • Vashti, who bravely refused to allow herself to be sexually objectified, even though it meant defying the supreme authority in her culture.
  • Esther, who, by contrast, seduced a king and then used her influence over him to save her people.
  • Phoebe, who was a leader in the Corinthian church, a trusted supporter of Paul, and likely the first person to ever teach from Paul’s letter to the Romans.
  • Priscilla, another leader in the church during Paul’s day, who was apparently more prominent than her husband Aquilla (he is generally mentioned second when the two are discussed).
  • Rahab, a prostitute, who bravely conspires with several Jewish spies to help them escape from a city.
  • Mary Magdaline, a trusted follower of Jesus, and apparently unmarried.
  • The woman of John 4, who bounces from one bad relationship to the next, but who is still willing to engage in dialog about the nature of God, even with strangers.

On and on we could go, but the point is simple: when you look at the entirety of scripture, the depiction of the feminine that emerges is hardly a consistent picture of the Proverbs 31 wife. Not all of these women have a husband. Not all of the married ones seem subservient to their husbands. Some are wealthy. Some have made mistakes in their past. Some are still making them. Some are sexually attractive in appearance and behavior. Some probably aren’t. Some, we have no idea.

All of them are rich, deep, complex human beings.

The variety of characters and personalities that we encounter in the pages of the Bible defies the very notion that there is one and only one form of “correct” femininity, which can be boiled down to a few verses. In truth, an authentic expression of the feminine is beautiful (and, for guys, genuinely desirable) not because it fits a single ideal (whether it be the Victoria’s Secret or the Proverbs 31 variety) but because it is unique, complex and valuable in and of itself.

Healthy, authentic femininity, to me, is also dynamic – it changes from moment to moment, and day to day. It can’t be predicted or bottled. It lives, breathes, grows, reacts. In healthy relationships, things like conversation, play, power, sex, and work are always shifting, mutating, and evolving. This requires both partners to be somehow different today than they were yesterday. Photoshopped stills don’t change. Neither do bible verses. Real women do.

So I am a little leery of the Proverbs 31 meme. It has a good impulse, I think, but in the end it creates a new form of sexism that is made all the worse by implying that it is “biblical.”

There is nothing wrong with an expression of the feminine that includes the thrift and pragmatism of Proverbs 31. There is also nothing wrong with one that indulges in the coy playfulness of Victoria’s Secret. Both can comfortably exist in a single, authentic expression of the feminine.

Share
 

“Teacher,” the rich man declared to Jesus, “I have kept all these commandments of God since I was a boy!”

Then, there is one thing you lack,” Jesus said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad.

Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

The disciples were amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

- Adapted from Mark 10 (NIV)

When you live in the wealthiest and most powerful society in the history of humanity, texts like this don’t sit well. Invariably, discussions about the text focus on whether Jesus’ command to sell everything, give it to the poor, and follow him is universal in nature: Did Jesus issue this command to this one person, in this one instance, or does it apply to everyone?

Such a question leaves those of us who are a part of comfortable, suburbanite-type families in a dilemma. To say that the passage applies only to this man seems to cheapen Jesus’ words. But if the command applies to us, then we must face the fact – like this man did – that we are spiritual failures.

No wonder that, for 40+ years, almost every discussion I’ve heard on this subject ends with a lot of head scratching and puzzlement. There seems to be no easy way out of this one. You walk away from it feeling either overly dismissive or hopelessly guilty.

But as I’ve thought about this passage recently, I have started to wonder if the discomfort we feel when encountering this passage is not the problem, but the point.

To illustrate, I need to begin by pointing to a part of this text that tends to get ignored in discussions about this text: the disciples’ astonishment at Jesus’ statement that it is “hard” for rich people to be saved.

Why would they think this way? I doubt they thought every rich person would make their way into God’s kingdom. However, some, like this person – who seemingly kept all God’s commandments from his youth – apparently struck them as being super-righteous. If they can’t make it, they later to say, who will?

I want to suggest that this perception – that there are certain wealthier people among us who are super-righteous – is perfectly understandable, even in our own cultural context. In fact, I think that both the comfortable suburbanites such as myself and the marginalized of our society, both struggle with this narrative of “wealthy righteousness,” and that it explains a lot of why churches struggle to keep people who are poor, addicted, or divorced within their walls.

More specifically, I want to suggest that one of the many advantages of wealth is that it allows people to buy their way out of sin.

I know that statement may sound a little strange. “What do you mean? Money can’t help you avoid sin, can it?” you may ask. In some cases, I think so – particularly when it comes to the kind-of sin that is blatant and obvious.

Just stay with me for a minute, and consider this: When you have plenty of money and food, it is unlikely that you will be tempted to engage in prostitution, or to be dishonest with someone, or to steal. In our culture, at least one member of your family probably doesn’t work long, hard hours – or cover the night shift to make ends meet – so its possible to spend a lot of time with your kids, training them to be good and “proper.” Stable, white collar labor and financial security help you to avoid a hand-to-mouth lifestyle that is prevalent among the poor, and it means much less stress on family relationships. As such, families are much more likely to stay together, and they are much more likely to give the appearance of something that is healthy. Also, less stress with respect to the basic necessities of life means its less likely you’ll try to escape your troubles through alcohol or substance addiction.

And, yes, I know it isn’t quite that simple. Wealthy people do have their own set of temptations and sins. But, for the most part, the more obvious “vices” are much milder, and much less impactful on their lives. The ability to own their own homes, work in their own offices, and move about independently also makes it much easier to conceal what problems they do have.

Now, think about how the “wealthy righteous” lifestyle looks to the lower-middle income, white male who moves from job-to-job doing blue collar labor, and who goes through long periods of unemployment. He has probably never had enough income security to take a wife, and if he did have one, there is a good chance the family broke up during a period of unemployment. He has probably taken up smoking or drinking, as they provide one of the few forms of escape that he can afford. When he looks at the large, extravagantly decorated churches in his town, and at the families that pile out of minivans in their parking lots, cleanly dressed and well groomed, the first thought that is going to enter his mind is this: “they are too good for me.”

He may think this defiantly, or resentfully, suspecting on some level that it isn’t really true. He still has some pride, after all. But in truth, he cannot afford the lifestyle that is necessary to put on a proper façade of righteousness. His “sin” is obvious for all to see.

It’s the same story for the single mom who gets off her shift at 6:00 am on Sunday. Because of her lifestyle, she doesn’t have the luxury of a good night’s sleep before Sunday morning church, and since she hasn’t done a load of wash in a week, she can’t even send her kids in clean clothes. She won’t be there. Neither will the kid who spends most of his life on the streets and at the local tattoo place because the company he finds there is a lot better than what he experiences in his abusive home. Or the stripper who doesn’t know any other way to make enough money to pay the rent.

When you have a little spare cash and a little free time and space, its easy to make yourself look good. In fact, in some more obvious ways, its easier to be good.

Which brings me to my point about the rich man in this text: What if Jesus’ command in this instance was not made because there is some inherent merit in selling everything you have, but to make it abundantly clear to the peasants and fisherman who were looking on that he, too, is a sinner? What if Jesus’ objective is to expose the disturbing reality of wealth-addiction that rests behind his righteous façade?

Only seconds earlier, he was bragging about all the commandments that he had kept throughout his life. He was, in effect, like the well-dressed family getting out of the minivan at church: he looks awfully righteous from a distance. Yet now, as he walked away sadly, it was obvious that he could not bring himself to being fully obedient. He was just like the rest of them.

No. Not just like the rest of them. Worse than the rest of them. His problem is so great, Jesus goes on to say, that it is akin to getting a large, stubborn beast through an impossibly small hole.

Even Jesus realized that he had just asked this man to do the impossible.

That is why I say that our discomfort in reading this passage is not a problem of interpretation, but the entire point of the passage: we know full well that we, like him, would never do what Jesus asked of him. It strips strips our suburbanite sheen and exposes us for who we really are.

And if we are willing to acknowledge that, it suddenly becomes possible for us to come alongside the alcoholics and strippers and single moms who never take their kids to church, and the young adults with tattoos who smell of marijuana smoke and pray:

Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

That is why this story ends with good news. The poor and hungry are indeed blessed by God as Jesus often taught, but guess what? The journey through the needle’s eye is not impossible where God is concerned. It may be difficult, it may be painful (the Camel must go “strand by bloody strand” C.S. Lewis once wrote). But it can happen.

Yes, as strange as it may sound, God can even save those wealthy people who go to church on Sunday mornings.

Share
 

In the 1970s – while my parents were on a vacation in Europe, my great aunt took me and one of my cousins on a road trip to her home in California. My wife, Sheila, has probably known this since we were in High School. It was was a pretty significant event in my life. But for years, in all of my accounts of the story, I had left out one important detail: the journey was made in a Volkswagen van.

As most of you already know, VW vans are now fairly iconic. Many have come to think of them as vehicles that were painted with rainbow designs and flowers, and driven by hippies. The hippies, in turn, are often stereotypically associated with California. When people talk of VW vans, no one thinks of my great aunt (definitely not a hippy) and her then practical need for a reliable, fuel-efficient vehicle with lots of space.

One day, much more recently, I spotted an old VW van on the road while on a trip with our family, and – looking at the van – I said something like this: You know, one time I went to California in a VW van.

Sheila was certain that this was not true. She thought I was mocking her hippy sensibilities. At the time, this seemed much more plausible than the thought of me, dressed as a hippy, and smoking something that is probably not tobacco, while cruising down the Interstate toward California.

But that is the way relationships work. We think we know our spouse, child, or friend, but we don’t. Not fully. We only know what they choose to reveal.

Often, in fact, there are reasons we don’t want people to know everything about us. Disclosure of our true selves can be a very risky proposition. Do I really want you to know what I think about that political issue at this point in our relationship? That I have this strange personal quirk? That I find something about your appearance to be unattractive?

This process is give-and-take. If you react positively to one thing I say, I may go out on a limb and say something that puts me even more at risk, but if you seem hesitant or scared, I may have to “shelve” a particular piece of history for a while. By the same token, I want to get to know you, but not too quickly. Give me too much information at once, and I may get overwhelmed with trying to process it all.

The process is most acutely experienced in intimate relationships. When a couple first starts dating, they are very guarded in what they reveal about themselves, trying to put on the most positive appearance possible. However, over time, their goal is to come to know one another in a more authentic way. It is a slow, tedious and unpredictable process – a dance, of sorts.

Now, finally, to the point.

Since the only “tools” that we have for getting to know God are the skills we develop and use in forming human relations, it seems to me our ability to know God would be limited in the same ways that we are limited in getting to know each other. In fact, I would say that it is a much, much more difficult process. God, whose personality is so infinitely complex that we need to think of him as taking the form of at least three people in order to even begin to grasp his nature, is necessarily going to be much more difficult to “know” than a friend or co-worker, who can (usually!) be conceptualized as having no more than one personality.

As is the case with all of our human relationships, and even more because of his unique nature, God will always be both known and unknown at the same time. Now we see as through a mirror darkly, the Apostle Paul once wrote. And he was exactly right. We can, perhaps, make out dim shapes of the divine at times, but we are making a grave mistake if we think our perception is one of complete clarity. This respect, I think, is a large part of what it means when we say that God is holy.

God’s game of “hide and seek” is almost certainly related to this dance of disclosure. Remember that, in scripture, God is never fully “seen.” Moses must be “hidden” in the cleft of the rock before God appears. The prophets with visions of the Holy throne room never really get a full look. God is there, but not fully seen.

This ought not to be surprising. Surely God faces the same dilemmas of disclosure that are shared by college students on their first date: how much of God’s true nature can we handle? I am convinced that this ever-evolving dilemma is part of the reason for our experiences of divine hide-and-seek.

Share
 

Phantoms stir.
And the streets fill with fearful spectacle,
Of human bones and rusty, stained blades.
Blood drips from bared fangs.

But at my doorstep, I see
Cherubic faces behind pale makeup,
And within grotesque latex I hear
Familiar, playful voices.

I am reminded once more,
There is nothing to fear.

For tomorrow, spirits will dance again,
With us,
As we recall the difficult, winding
Path that has brought us here,
Quick and dead alike.

And before parting,
We will pause to long,
For form and substance again
To be one.

"May the souls of the departed, by the mercy of God, rest in peace and rise in glory."

Share
 

God plays hide and seek.

My guess is that almost all of us have experienced this, much like Steve Jobs did. One day, we have a fantastic experience in which there is a palpable sense of God’s presence. The next day – poof! – its gone, and we are left wondering whether God exists at all. Even atheists, if they are honest about it, will admit that they have experienced brief, odd moments where it seems insane not to believe in God.

If our religious worldview is overly reliant on the pattern of orthodoxy and orthopraxy – the desire to get things right, the hide-and-seek experience is deeply disturbing. We need to be certain that everything is ordered as we believe it to be. When that static “order” is not present, we worry that we might have everything “wrong.”

But when a religious worldview doesn’t make such demands, the ebb and flow of God’s presence is not only expected, it is even welcome. It is as natural as breathing out and breathing in. God’s seeming absence inspires not worrisome anxiety, but a playful desire to begin anew our own pursuit of the divine.

Share
 

In Western culture, we are trained to think that our relationship with God grows out of two practices. The first practice, thinking the right things,  is called “orthodoxy.” The second, doing the right things, is called “orthopraxy.” Getting things right is the central concern of our faith.

This fixation with orthodoxy and orthopraxy is not shared by our brothers and sisters in the East. For them, relationship with God grows out of theoria, a deep knowledge of God, and theosis, or participation in the love of God. These two moves are preceded by a period of cleansing or purification called catharsis.

On the surface, the Western and Eastern concepts may share some similarites. However, they represent dramatically different ways of thinking. The Western emphasis on getting things right leads to a faith walk that mirrors the modern world, where academic study, “correctness” of belief, and practicality of actions are valued. By contrast, the Eastern pattern of catharsistheoria and theosis leads to contemplation, mystery and beauty. This approach has often been compared to a sacred dance, in which we are captivated by the beauty of the divine, and therefore seek to join in God’s dance.

In this series, I am going to re-work some ideas that I explored on my personal blog a few years ago. Most of us sense that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are woefully insufficient for the life of faith. Yet they are so deeply ingrained in our consciousness that it is difficult for us to think in any other terms. If we are ever to get out of this rut, we need to rediscover the practice of sacred dance.

Share
 

I suppose that, on one level or another, it has always been difficult to talk about religion and/or politics. However, I can’t imagine that it has ever been as difficult as it is right now.

In an ideal world, we should be able to identify problems, propose solutions, respond to, reconsider, and compromise those solutions, then and ultimately agree on something that everyone can live with. That form of dialog is the life-blood of democracy.

Yet, as a nation, we seem to be less and less capable of engaging in such dialog. Rather, we are doing little more than yelling at each other – across picket lines, on Facebook, in re-tweets, etc. We have lost the capacity to actually talk about our differences.

Why is that?

I think it is happening because, as citizens, we have become enamored with philosophies, and we are losing our capacity to talk about policies.

When people start talking politics these days, they generally do little more than espouse a particular philosophy. Some of them aren’t bad. Some are very good. Some are awful. But, in the end, they are no more than philosophies: general guiding principals about how our nation ought to function.

What we seldom talk about, however, are policies. These are the specific programs and laws that we propose to change or implement within government.

“Government needs to get out of people’s lives.” That is a popular philosophy. But how does it translate into policy? Do we really want government to stop building roads? Or making sure everyone has sewer service? Or policing gang activity? Or making sure skyscrapers are built so that they don’t collapse? Or ensuring that you don’t get salmonella at your favorite restaurant?

Of course, the people who espouse this philosophy are normally thinking about unnecessary and pointless government regulations that burden the economy – a valid concern. However, the philosophy, as stated, is very difficult to translate into policy.

Why are philosophies so much more alluring than policies? I think there are several, inter-related reasons:

  1. Our personal and work lives are complicated and stressed. We don’t want to take the time to educate ourselves on the way a particular Federal program works, and to look at the statistical evidence on how effective it has been. Its too much work. Yet, we feel the need to somehow participate in the process. Its much easier to wave a dismissive hand at something as “another failed, government program” than it is to understand what it is about and how it might be reformed.
  2. The “news” media panders to this. We are looking for reassurance that our simplistic philosophies are valid. The media responds to this need by giving us talk shows, columns, and even entire news networks that assure us that our philosophies are “correct.” For the most part, when you watch Bill O’Riley or Rachel Maddow, or when you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you are not educating yourself, you are just trying to reinforce your viewpoint that everything boils down to the few, simple political philosophies that you espouse.
  3. Political candidates, likewise, want to avoid policy discussions. Philosophies make politicians popular. Policies offend people. Rick Perry has been awakening to this reality in recent weeks. When he espouses the philosophy of “securing our borders,” conservatives love it. However, when – in the past – the time came to deal with the policy of whether we will educate immigrant Hispanics in Texas schools, the issue became more complicated. In principal, his policy was perfectly coherent: We need to secure the borders better, but if people are going to end up in our State because of the failure of the Federal government to do that, then we want to be compassionate, and allow them to be educated. But that policy is too nuanced, and therefore incomprehensible to most conservatives, who simply think it means he has rejected the anti-immigrant philosophy.

I’m convinced that we will never get anywhere by shouting philosophies at each other. This is because philosophies don’t account for the complexities of the economic and cultural systems in which we live. To make matters worse, we often assume that anyone who is not enthusiastic about our philosophies of choice must be “against” them, but that isn’t always true.

Are you “pro life”? That doesn’t make everyone else “pro abortion.” Some people are offended by abortion, but think its overly intrusive for the government to regulate it. They don’t advocate abortion.

Are you “anti big-corporations”? That doesn’t mean that your conservative friends are “pro big corporations.” They may be indifferent about it, or see it as a minor problem in relation to other issues.

Simply because conservatives are “anti-big government” doesn’t mean that all liberals want government to get bigger. Its wrong to assume that, simply because someone isn’t enthusiastic about your philosophy, that they just “want to increase the size of government.”

Yet, again and again, these are the assumptions we make. If you don’t like my philosophy, you must be vehemently against it. And that’s not normally true. Reality is much more complicated and nuanced than that.

Consider this example:

“We should be compassionate like Jesus!” shouts (or posts) one philosopher.

“The War on Poverty didn’t eliminate poverty!” shouts (or comments) another philosopher.

These philosophies are not mutually exclusive. The first speaker is not against reform that improves the way we respond to poverty. He wants to see it reduced! The second speaker is not against Jesus or compassion. She is worried about wastefulness. They think they are disagreeing, and they are probably angry with each other because of it. But if they ever bother to start talking about policies (how can we make welfare more effective and less expensive? how can we do things that get people to work so they don’t need welfare?) they may discover that they have more in common than they think.

So there you have it. Philosophies are simple. Policies are complex. Philosophies view the world in black-and-white. Policies involve hard work and compromise. Philosophies make good bumper stickers and Facebook posts. Policies don’t.

If our political dialog is going to take us anywhere, we have got to get beyond a culture in which we are all parroting sound-bytes from talk show hosts, and start talking about the nuanced, gritty world where policies are actually made and implemented.

Share
 

Rabbi Jill Jacobs hits the nail on the head in this piece. Money quote:

The Torah is political because it lays out a vision for a just civil society. It is political because it forms the basis for a social contract. It is political because it concerns itself with relations among human beings as much as with relations between human beings and God. It is political because a liberation struggle stands at its core. It is political because it demands that those with more wealth take responsibility for those with less. It is political because it forbids those with more power from taking advantage of those with less. And it is political because it is a document meant to be lived.

As a member of the Jewish community, she speaks, of course, of the Torah only. However, for the Christian, her remarks are equally applicable all of our scriptures: from the Prophets, to the Gospels, to the Epistles.

She contrasts “political” with “partisan.” The point isn’t that God is on one “side” or another – it is rather that God is always deeply concerned with the way human societies organize their affairs.

Share
© 2012 Theoprudence Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha