Verses 'R Us?

We've seen them everywhere--on signs at sporting events, etched into the eye-black of football players, silk-screened onto T-shirts cheap and pricy, inscribed on all sorts of toys, trinkets, and baubles. First, a couple of letters which good Christians recognize as code a particular book of the Bible, followed by a number, a colon, and another number. Most of the time the verses so referenced have little if anything to do with the particular product bearing the reference. But we're oh so convinced that this is a great form of evangelism.

Well, this harmless (?) Christian kitsch has been taken to a new level. It seems that the scopes of certain guns used by the U. S. military forces have also been used to display references. So the soldier catches a glimpse of a verse from the Bible while aiming, presumably to kill an enemy combatant. The irony grows when we learn that many of the verses point to Jesus as the light of the world. The weapon has one message about dealing with the world's problems; the text referred to has quite another.

My point is not to argue for a pacifist stance on all military conflict. That's a different issue for another day. The point for consideration here is that we have been brought to a place at which to consider the wisdom of using isolated verses from the Bible as a form of evangelism. As long as the "message" contained in the verses is out there, someone will see it and be saved. But is it so? Lacking context, devoid of explanation in terms of the larger story the Bible gives us, isolated from the community of faith which is being shaped by that story, one is left to wonder what has been accomplished. Particularly in a culture which has lost its ability to remember even the vague outline of the Bible's story of the world, and has been implicitly formed with the expectations and habits of a different one altogether, such short-cuts to evangelism are unwise at best.

What do you think?

Health Care, Politics, and . . . Redemption?

Today voters in Massachusetts are selecting the successor to the U. S. Senate seat long occupied by Edward (Ted) Kennedy. Almost unbelievably, at least by conventional wisdom of two months ago, there seems to be a real possibility that the Republican candidate can claim the seat. Two theories and a multitude of hybrids thereof have been offered as explanation of this change in sentiment. One is that Martha Coakley ran a horrid campaign as the Democratic candidate. The second, and the more intriguing for the national interest, is that what we really are witnessing is a mini-referendum on the massive health care reform package from Pres. Obama--if not on his entire legislative agenda. At least the smaller claim has some validity, given that State Rep. Scott Brown, as the Republican candidate, has stated in unequivocal terms his opposition to the bill now in House-Senate negotiations.

Why does this matter? Well, the two issues brought together in this conversation--health care distribution and payment on one hand, politics on the other--are very much matters of our lives together in the world. As such, they are of concern to Christians who are called to participate in God's redemptive activity in this world. One cannot read the gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry and conclude that physical and mental health are irrelevant to God. Going just a bit further, one will also note that the healing ministry of both Jesus and his disciples after the resurrection did not favor or discriminate against rich or poor.

In politics, there are unquestionably ways to conduct the necessary business of governing which are closer to and farther from the ways of the kingdom of God, especially with regard to how those ways respect, honor, and reflect the image of God in all persons. To participate in the world in redemptive ways takes note of how Jesus participated in the world of the first century Jerusalem and Judea. While that does not immediately yield easy answers for policy, it does rule out, in my view, some of the cynicism and caustic rhetoric coming from both liberal and conservative quarters. It means we try to find truth in both the existing situations and proposed solutions, rather than venting over half-truths and inuendo. How can we contribute to a move toward the ways of God's Kingdom, rather than away from it, not only in policy, but in the manner in which the debates are conducted. There are times that I agree with the ideas of, for instance, an ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh; but there are few times I want them to speak for me, for they do so in a most un-Jesus like fashion.

I don't know what will ensue from this election or from the final health reform attempt. But I do need to look at it and talk about it as much as possible through the eyes and mind of Jesus.

Brit, Tiger, Faith, and Media

Just when all the media noise and some of the rumors surrounding the Tiger Woods saga had begun to subside, a spin-off scandal began. Fox News journalist Brit Hume, a Christian whose faith has been known to colleagues and has been credited with sustaining him through the tragic suicide of his son, was asked what he would say to Tiger Woods. Innocent enough a question, one might surmise, and one stated in such a way as to allow him to speak freely without fear. What would he say?

However, a firestorm of protest, not to mention fodder for comedy and talk show hosts of many flavors, almost immediately ensued. It's a long list of indignant, incredulous media luminaries weighing in with their outrage. Don Imus, Jon stewart, Keith Olberman, Dan Savage, anyone who gets to pontificate for a living (as opposed to those of us who do it gratis). Why? Well, in the course of his comments, Mr. Hume apparently committed the unpardonable sin. How? He dared to suggest that Christianity offers a path to forgiveness and redemption which Buddhism, the nominal religion of Mr. Woods, could not match. In other words, Brit Hume had the audacity to suggest that one religion is actually superior to another.

In perusing the shows on which the comments have been aired, several things are immediately apparent. For starters, virtually all of them omit the introductory question to which Hume responded. I'm not sure how much difference this would actially make in the minds of his critics, but it should be noted that he responded to a hypothetical opportunity to speak directly to the world's most recently fallen hero. Secondly, it is universally taken an axiomatic that no religion should ever claim to be better than another. This, of course, owes to the fact that "everybody knows" that religious belief is one of those things built upon (blind) faith, not on any empirical evidence. It has to do with subjective preference, not objective validity. In this vein, even the claim that Christianity offers "a kind of forgiveness and redemption" that Buddhism cannot match is not to be tested, but dismissed as an example of hubris. One does not, according to prevailing canons in politically correct circle, simply test the claim, asking whether or not it is true that the tenets of the two faiths actually do differ (they do, by quite an astounding gap).

Hume also alluded to his belief that mention of the name of Jesus Christ is what sets off immediate reaction in the mainstream media. This is a familiar refrain to Christians, but one continually scoffed at by those who--well, by those who do the scoffing. Part of that scoffing in the present case comes in the form of twisting Hume's terms--forgiveness and redemption--into an extreme form of cheap grace. All Tiger needs to do, in the media rendering of Hume's position, is confess and move on. Relatively speaking, that's quite simple, a good deal. Completely missed is Hume's passion for the wholeness of Tiger Woods, matching a compassion over the loss of his family sure to ensue from this scandal.

I wonder, though, if all too much of the caricature is self-drawn by Christians. Does our passion for people extend to their wholeness, not merely to their forgiveness--and that without deeply felt conviction and remorse, not simply over what has been done, but over what one is? The world hated Christ, and he told us to expect it to hate those who are his as well. That doesn't mean we wear a persecution complex as a badge to be displayed; it means that speak with integrity and hope. That hope is what we must offer as the ultimate redemption, for Tiger Woods and Keith Olberman and Ken Miller alike.

New Ventures

Well, here goes. I've told by people with varying degrees of influence that I need to begin blogging. They have prevailed, even if long after their initial suggestion.

My first thought was to use the initial post as an invitation to suggest topics upon which to alternatively comment, muse, wax eloquent, offer my perspective, or crassly pontificate. And that offer is indeed hereby extended. But the events of the past 30 or so hours in and concerning Haiti have led me to a topic I'd like to engage and invite your responses.

We have heard of the devastating earthquake in one of the world's poorest nations, one not terribly far from our shores. It has spawned grief, desperation, pain, and helplessness the likes of which few if any of us have ever known. I pray that we will have our hearts open to God's promptings to provide what form of assistance He suggests to us.

Perhaps you have also heard of the comments from Pat Robertson, declaring that the tragedy is really God's retribution for a turn by this lowly nation toward the devil some 200 years ago. As many of you, I decry the unabashed hubris of the declaration. How does he come by such an assessment--not by any means the first of its kind from Robertson? Yes, the prophets in the Hebrew scriptures told of disasters to come upon a stubbornly sinful and haughtily rebellious people. But they spoke before the disaster, not with hindsight and a large dose of prideful grasp on the mind and intentions of God.

But my larger question is the perennial one of who speaks for God. What are the boundaries between proclamation and hubris, and how do we discern their crossings? Who gets to proclaim, and what is the content of that word? Is it only an exegetical explanation of the scripture? Does it extend to application in culture, or even into the specific events in the world, natural and humanly perpetrated? Quite frankly, it is a question we as Protestants, and more especially we as evangelical protestants, have long ignored--other than to say that "God told me to say this" in one form or another. Does it strike our notice that no one outside our already established boundaries is listening--except when a Robertson or a Falwell pronounces certain events as God's retribution at work? Or when a Baptist church in Kansas uses military funerals as occasions to declare God's hatred of homosexual persons.

There you have it. My initial foray into the blogging world, more as question posed than as position established. Let the opinions come forth.