Upbeat Newsflash: Too Much Good Stuff!

I subscribe to various webpages and newsletters, trusting that others whose opinions I generally tend to respect (though do not always share) will point me to the most useful tidbits to be found amongst the vast piles of uselessness that characterizes much of the internet. I've linked to some of them already, but mostly refrained from pushing any of them too hard. But I would encourage you to subscribe to Evangelicals for Social Action's ePistle. The issue this week has many worthwhile things to check out, including an article (.pdf) about 'Jesus the Troublemaker', and the following story/link about "political charity":

“The Republican Party is the moral party and the Democratic Party is the
immoral party.” That is the answer I received in an introductory political
science class from a bright, Christian college sophomore when I asked, “What is
the difference between the two political parties?” I shouldn’t have been
stunned. Humans seem to like to think in terms of dichotomies rather than
complexities. This, of course, is not always bad, but dichotomous thinking
often trades the truth for something more comforting.

The student said this, of course, out of a commitment to a simplistic
perspective of what she believes is her political enemy, the Democratic Party, a
party that, as she sees it, stands against her ideological commitments.
Perspectives like this are myriad, and they are sustained and reinforced by the
hive mentality some media nurture. The political blogosphere is but one
place where this happens ad nauseam. Cass Sunstein, a renowned
constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago, has argued that places like
the political blogosphere have led to “ideological amplification” as people of
like mind talk to each other, complain about their political opponents, and
blithely turn those with whom they disagree into evil enemies.

Facing, and in some cases actively fashioning, our increasingly polarized
public square, Christians would do well to consider Sunstein’s call for what he
terms “political charity”. Exercising political charity means 1) one doesn’t question the motives of the opponent, 2) one respects, if she cannot support, the opponent’s deepest commitments, and 3) one deliberately works to create policies that one’s opponents can accept (see Sunstein’s brief definition). Political charity resists turning an ideological opponent into an enemy. Charity—what Jesus said defined his disciples—surely must include political charity.

Bret Kincaid
ESA Editor, Public Policy

Another website that often gets me thinking is The Scriptorium Daily, put out by some of my former professors at Talbot, now with the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. I especially appreciated this recent essay on Mother Theresa. And I suspect some fantasy/sci-fi fans/critics might also be interested in a little piece titled "Harry Potter is Dreadful and Vulgar".

Where do you stand . . . and why?

I wouldn't put too much faith in the accuracy of these tests or the value of the labels they employ, but I find the attempt to focus on issues and ideas (the "why?" part referred to in the title) rather than the partisan liberal/conservative divide (the "where" part) refreshing. And who doesn't like having their personal, complex and nuanced beliefs pigeon-holed into an easy category by some simplistic 2-minute 20-point questionnaire?

In case you are wondering, according to both the "Vote Match" study and the "Political Compass", I'm a "Moderate" leaning toward the "Libertarian Left". That apparently puts me in close proximity to Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Interesting company! And in the Pew study I'm among the "Upbeats". I'm not sure what any of that means, but if I have to have a label, "Upbeat" seems acceptable . . . .

Peace in the Middle East and Wars in the Pews

Occasionally, a headline of interest will prompt me to pick up one of the copies of the "Christian Examiner: Los Angeles County edition" that are sometimes to be found in the workroom at church. This month, it was two headlines: Chuck Colson's column on "Should Christian Kids Read Harry Potter?" and an article about Tony Campolo and "Red Letter Christians" as a "growing political force".

I encourage you to take a look at both those articles, but what I really am blogging about is a commentary on p.7 by Leo A. Giovinetti, senior pastor of Mission Valley Christian Fellowship San Diego and host of Real Life Radio: "World Council of Churches abandons Bible with new proclamation on Israel". Read it for yourself and be your own judge, but to me it reads like an overly-literalist and hyper-alarmist end-times left-behind apocalyptic scenario. You may disagree.

But what is of most interest to me is what inspired Pastor Leo's jeremiad: a June 2007 WCC statement called The Amman Call on "Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East". Even more interesting is that presumably the situation has since gotten much worse for Pastor Leo, as the WCC statement has been followed by a similar statement (actually a letter to President Bush) by evangelicals in the U.S. and published by the New York Times July 27, 2007.

What is all this about? I prefer to let you draw your own conclusions, but one of the things that interests me is the way in which evangelicals are beginning to publicly express a much more diverse range of opinion than the conservatism of the Religious Right. And, in light of that, I think it is crucial for us to be able to assess and evaluate the varieties of responses Christians can have to such diversity of opinion among evangelical believers. A fragmentary form of theological-political-social denominationalism, or contentious in-fighting and name-calling and proof-textural Scripture-bashing, or perhaps something else entirely?

And what are we to say about the modern secular nation-state of Israel with respect to the chosen people of God? Are the two synonymous? Should the people of God be so in name only, or should they also be expected to demonstrate the character of God -- doing no wrong to a neighbor, blessing peacemakers, loving enemies, never taking your own revenge but leaving room for the wrath of God?

Baptists on War and Peace

Associated Baptist Press has an interesting trio of articles entitled "War and Peace". The first and third deal mostly with the war in Iraq and evangelical congregations more generally, while the second gives some historical perspective on Baptists, including their early connection with peace churches like Friends.

Comments?

Evangelical Friends Mission

Donna shared Sunday about Friends missionaries in other parts of the world experiencing right now the same sorts of violent opposition as we have been reading about regarding the early church in Acts. Like the Thessalonians, these believers have become "imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for [they] also endured the same sufferings at the hands of [their] own countrymen" (1 Thessalonians 2:14).

To sign up for regular email updates, please go to the EFM website and click the "Email Prayer Focus" tab.

P.S. If you are wondering (as I was) why there are no references on the public portions of the website to the specific mission fields Donna mentioned, this is apparently to protect the safety of everyone involved.

Pocketbook Hypocrisy

Why is it that many of us so-called "religious" folks (remember how James defines "pure religion"?) claim a "spiritualized" salvation on the basis of grace (i.e. receiving good that we don't deserve, haven't earned and can't afford) yet operate all other (i.e. "non-spiritual"?) areas of life -- government, business, education, etc. -- on the basis of law (i.e. receiving only what we deserve, have earned and can afford)?

This article about religious physicians and poor patients seems to me to be but one more illustration of this widespread phenomenon, surely not limited to physicians alone.

Jesus has something to say about this. If eternal damnation for sin is comparable to a debt of 10,000 talents (or, according to my math, over 150,000 years' wages), what are our dollars and hours worth by comparison? 100 days' wages?

Body of Christ as Substitute State?

This morning, I came across the following paragraph in Michelle Lee, Paul, the Stoics and the Body of Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 22.

[T]he question of community identity must also be understood in relation to the political context. James D.G. Dunn comments on the political importance of the body of Christ metaphor. He views it primarily as an adaptation of the Stoic use of the imagery of the body for the state. But since Paul uses it for the smaller community of the Christians within the Roman Empire, this is "a striking assertion of ecclesiological self-understanding" (Dunn, "'The Body of Christ' in Paul" 161). In other words, Paul is setting forth the Christian gatherings as substitutes for the state. This leads to issues of loyalty and identity, with the result that "the sense that the church in this city or that region was the body to which believers belonged carried with it the implication that this belonging was more fundamental than any other citizenship" (Ibid.). Thus, the image takes on even greater significance within the political context of Paul's writing. If Paul is defining the community as distinct from the greater society, the use of a political metaphor could mean he is making a statement about the status of the Christian community in relationship to the Roman state. This is the view taken by Richard A. Horsley, who argues that 1 Corinthians is Paul's attempt to persuade the community to maintain "group discipline and solidarity over against the imperial society" (Horsley, "1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul's Assembly as an Alternative Society" 252).

(If you want full bibliographic references, please ask.)