Unto Others As Unto Me

In the midst of a persistent and perplexing war in Iraq and the non-ending battle between national political leaders to determine the best course of action, the media hoopla over the offhanded and off-color comments made by radio personality Don Imus appears off-base.

Aren’t there are more important issues to tackle? Does it seem the reaction to his “three word tirade” is equal to the response, especially when compared to the vulgar characterizations that so often fill the airwaves within a younger hip-hop and rap culture? Shouldn’t the far more dangerous issues of hunger, poverty and HIV/AIDS be emphasized more than hurt feelings over verbal insults-including those that purport to be said in humorous dialogue?

But in case those of us in the white community become too quickly dismissive of the offense experienced by the family and friends of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team, I offer a few observations regarding why this issue is so explosive.

(1.) When derogatory language is used within the hip-hop and rap culture, it is usually a dialogue within the community it describes instead of an assault from outside. For example, a disparaging comment I might make about men is less offensive than one I might make about women simply because I cannot legitimately explain their experience without actually being a part of it.

(2.) Also, when derogatory language is aired in hip-hop and rap it usually is done so in the abstract without identifying a specific person or persons. Yet, Mr. Imus was direct and specific. He was not talking about a generalized group of persons (which should be enough to get into trouble), but about a select group of real persons. His comments were reserved for a particular set of individuals who could not hear his comments without also receiving them as a personal attack upon their own personal appearance, character and behavior.

(3.) Further, Mr. Imus is considerably older and we might hope wiser than the famous hip-hop and rap promoters of similar disparaging exaggerations. Their youthfulness does not excuse their terrible excesses in profane language but neither does this similarity excuse Mr. Imus when he sinks to the lowest common denominator as well. His listening audience should demand a little more from him than that.

(4.) His excuse that he is a “good person who said a bad thing,” does little to belay the observation that he did not merely misspeak, but actually holds a deeper prejudice against those of different color. His indignant and reluctant apology reveals the same problem characteristic of a quick dismissal by those in the white community, namely an insensitivity to just how offensive such language is received by those to whom it is directed.

This recent illustration of the racial divide in our nation deserves serious attention. Until we can truly understand an issue from another’s vantage point, we will evermore stay entrenched in our prejudice and bias, all the while believing wrongly that we have somehow magically found ourselves on the other side of true reconciliation. In other words, believing that this was not a problem is the first indication that a real problem exists.

When interviewed on the “Today” program this morning, Rutgers head basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer (no stranger to adversity herself) was asked if Mr. Imus should be fired. She said she is not the one to make that decision but instead encouraged each American to examine and answer the question, “What kind of country do I want to live in?”

She elaborated how this recent episode is an opportunity to change the climate by changing what each of us says and thinks. “If those of us in positions of influence would take some leadership…. we could teach our young people what should be and we need to be shining examples so that we don’t have the kind of situation where Mr. Imus says ‘he is only reflecting on what a rapper said.’ If we set the example… there can be a return to real decency and respect for all peoples and all ethnic groups (in our land)”. It sounds to me like it should be the coach who deserves the microphone that Mr. Imus has, perhaps though too much familiarity, treated with such contempt.

Lord! Gimme my mansion.....NOW!

I think I’m serving in the wrong denomination. A recent news story from the Detroit area reports that a Redford Township church has just brought its pastor and family a $ 3.65 million dollar mansion. Because the property now falls under the tax-exempt status afforded to churches, township officials were upset but had no choice but to lose the $ 40,000 in annual revenue for the 11,000 square foot home.

The understanding behind this development is an extravagant brand of Christian teaching known as a “health and wealth” theology. It is taught and obviously practiced by the 4,000-member Detroit World Outreach Church who surrounded their pastor with this lavish lifestyle. They believe God’s desires the faithful to do well and wants to abundantly supply them with beautiful things. Other more prominent names associated with the prosperity movement include Joel Osteen, T. D. Jakes and Pat Robertson.

Is there harm in this interpretation of being “blessed by God?” After all, Jesus is found saying in John 10:10 that his mission was to offer his followers life and to offer it “abundantly.” As a loving parent, why would God not want the best for all of God’s children?

Apart from the obvious inequity of distribution, I notice another telling problem with this “prosperity theology.” It is the temptation to limit our understanding of abundance to mere material possessions. Do we really believe that the acquisition of more and more stuff leads to greater and deeper fulfillment? Even if you are quick to answer a resounding “no,” I wonder how many still hold to a “mansion in the sky” hope that the sacrifices I endure on earth will be honored by greater rewards in heaven? If that is your perspective, then why should you have to wait until you die? Aren’t we supposed to pray “on earth as it is in heaven?”

But there is another possibility. What if abundance (and prosperity) as spiritual realities have very little to do with materialism? Could we value being rich in mercy, love and friendship as much as we value being surrounded with marble floors and vaulted ceilings? Could we appreciate the value of a beautiful sunset that is not marred by more concrete and drywall? What if we valued the process of increasing the size of our minds and our hearts as much as our living spaces? Would you still want to go to heaven if it was a call to service and not a Taj Mahal?

What makes living enjoyable is not always having more stuff. In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus teaches about the allure and worries of material possessions and riches that distance us from the kingdom of God. While material riches don’t always keep us out of the kingdom, it doesn’t always guarantee its arrival. With wealth comes greater responsibility and the warning that our love for it might blind us to deeper and more fulfilling pursuits.

So it is an irony of our times that the man who had no earthly home would also have such dedicated followers who see no conflict with a multi-million dollar parsonage. Perhaps more spiritual wisdom was offered by Township Clerk Sue Hillebrand who complained that Northville schools can ill afford to lose more revenue. But she's amazed by the church's generosity. "They could buy a very, very nice home out here for half a million," she said. "Can you imagine how many miracles you could perform, how many people you could help with the $3 million left over?"

Completely Hypocritical

Thank goodness! After 90 days of “intense” counseling, it has been reported by Rev. Tim Ralph, one of a “four-man oversight board, that evangelical mega-pastor Tim Haggard is “completely heterosexual.” While there is some mention of other forms of therapy, I find this particular headline revealing. Notice little mention is made of the reconciliation and forgiveness of his wife to whom he was unfaithful. Nor is there any apology to those he so vehemently preached against while privately practicing the very same behaviors he taught were morally wrong. There is not even one sentence of gratitude to the grace and forgiveness of a God who in Jesus Christ loves all of us sinners especially in our failures and shortcomings.

Instead the observing public is offered the assurance, against all of our fears that at least this influential Christian evangelical (voted as one of the top twenty-five in 2005 by Time Magazine) is not in any shape or form a homosexual. It seems, from this perspective, that being a “homosexual” is a worse fate than participating in homosexual behavior. How ironic!

Especially when it is a twist on Jesus’ use of the “inward life” that reveals our double standard when we judge others. When talking to the moralists about their “hard-heartedness” toward adulterers, he takes them to task about the presence of lust in their own hearts (Matthew 5:27-28). In this way, Jesus hopes they might see that no one is “completely” pure. Yet in Haggard’s case, the inward life is implied to be “pure” when hardly a passing interest is offered to any amends to those Haggard may have harmed with his reckless behavior. I fail to see how this honors any standard of justice or reconciliation. But rest assured, at least he is not gay!

Please forgive me if I am making light of a very serious and complex issue facing the Christian world. In no way would I want to dismiss the authentic feelings of many sincere individuals who have struggled over the reality of homosexual identities and behaviors. But I fear the church is over-reaching on this one.

Currently, groups like “Exodus Student Ministries” and “Truth and Tolerance” have been bombarding the University of Kentucky campus with special events to promote an ‘anti-gay” agenda with the expressed purpose to help struggling students “overcome” their homosexual temptations. While this alternative is one way to address the issue, there are other options available to Christians who sincerely desire to do the right thing while seeking to lead healthy and moral sexual lives.

In the church, our hope is to deal with redemption, fairness and equality to all persons. But as illustrated with the Haggard incident it seems when dealing with the issue of homosexuality all the standards change. Here, there is such scrutiny that even an hint of “homosexual attraction” is worthy of a full court press, while heterosexual lust and immoral behavior among all Christians occurs about as frequently as with their non-Christian counterparts.

Clear thinking is necessary and below I’ve included some insightful essays and sermons that address this topic sensibly and fairly. They represent a minority opinion on the issue of homosexuality from a Christian perspective. But they are reasonable treatments that challenge our prejudices and over-simplified answers. They should be required reading for all Christian seeking clarity on this topic:

“The Bible, Homosexuality and Us” – A sermon by H. Stephen Shoemaker, Senior Minister of Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte North Carolina.

“Homosexuality and the Church” – A reflection and chronology of this issue in the local church by Larry Bethune, Pastor of University Baptist Church in Austin, Texas.

“What I Learned from Tommy” –. An antidotal account of early prejudice and final acceptance between two Christian friends, one heterosexual and the other homosexual by Miguel A. De La Torre- Associate Professor of social ethics at Iliff School of Theology in Denver

“When Religion Loses It’s Credibility.” An op-ed from Rev. Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, in USA Today Editorial November 19, 2006

For me, when it comes to the issues of sexual orientation and identity, I believe we enter into the area of conscience (that is between a person and his or her God) and for Baptists that has always been within the domain of personal liberty. In other words, the only person I can truly understand first hand is myself and of that I am “completely homeostatic.”

The Unlikely Leadership of Jimmy and Jesus

Many of you have likely heard about the firestorm that has resulted from former President Jimmy Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” to describe the plight of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. According to Carter, the Palestinians are “being deprived of the necessities of life by economic restrictions imposed upon them by Israel and the United States.” Challenging Carter’s perspective is the Anti-Defamation League who countered, “Apartheid, that abhorrent and racist system in South Africa, has no bearing on Israeli policies. Not only are Israel’s policies not racist, but the situation in the territories do not arise from Israeli intentions to oppress or repress Palestinians but is a product of Palestinian rejection of Israel and the use of terror and violence against the Jewish state.” (Christian Century, January 23, 2007, p. 15).

Without entering into the technicality of what constitutes “apartheid,” what is particularly more striking to me, is the way the fear of terrorism is now driving every global issue. The term “terrorism” in the 21^st Century seems to function in the same way “communism” functioned in the later part of the 20^th Century. We can rationalize all manners of behavior, even the type that might lead to further acts of terrorism or even global suicide with a label so powerful in evoking fear that at first glance it “makes sense.: The “communist” scare led to an arms race and the existence of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads that if ever found in the hands of real “terrorists” will flatten the earth a thousand times over.

The Christian approach to peace and reconciliation is rooted in the remarkable - and from the perspective of worldly values – the utter foolishness of the cross. It is borne by a people who are not afraid to die. But not in the way a suicide bomber is not afraid to die.

Instead it honors the ethics of Jesus teaching us to “love our enemies” and even to “do good to those who hate you and bless those who abuse you.” (Luke 6:27-28). The suicide bomber is motivated out of revenge and perhaps the empty promise of celestial reward. But those who follow Jesus are willing to die at the expense of the self, trusting that staying in love with God is worth any cost, even the cost of one’s life.

I believe this unconditional love is the only true remedy for terrorism, for only this sort of power can repel fear. It is this love that provides the courage to stand up for the outcast and the forgotten. It is this love that is willing to face conflict and seek to work for the things that work toward peace. It is this love that I would suspect a Georgian Baptist raised in Sunday School would know something about. I wish I could look forward to few more Christian leaders who might attack terrorism without resorting to more acts of terror. But unfortunately, they all seem to be going the route of dead presidents.

What and who needs to be "Left Behind"

There is a new Christian video game flying off the shelves at 10,000 Wal-Mart's, Targets, Circuit Cities and other outlets around the country. It is called “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” and follows the best-selling Left Behind books written by Christian ultra-conservatives, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. These books teach what theologians have called a “pretribulation, dispensational, premillennial” eschatology meaning there will be a sudden “rapture” when true believers simultaneously leave earth followed by a seven year period of tribulation and upheaval before the return of Christ. This view borrows from a literal reading of Revelation 20 and was also popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible.

Interestingly, these books were more popular leading up to the recent calendar change from 1999 to 2000, than now when we are nearing the second half of the first decade of the 21^st Century. But that’s another point alongside the observation I have about individuals claiming to know the theme of this new millennium when it is hardly a few years old (Who knows what the citizens of 2099 or even better 2999 will say about this new Century and even Millennium when that time comes to look back on it – oh, that’s right, according to the Scofield crowd it won’t matter by then).

Which gets us back to the video game that seeks to prepare believers for these “last days” and allows participants to have the option of either converting or killing non-believers (of course, if you choose the second option you lose “spiritual points”). Bruce Prescott offers a compelling list of questions parents might want to be ready to answer if they choose to allow their children to play this game, which by the way is endorsed by Focus on the Family:

1) Why is this game set in New York City? Does God want me to shoot my fellow Americans?

2) Why are the forces of evil associated with the United Nations? Is God opposed to the United Nations?

3) Why do I have to kill everyone who will not convert to evangelical Christianity? Does God hate unbelievers?

4) Why do I hear "Praise the Lord" every time I kill someone? Does God want me to kill people?

5) Why do I lose "Spirit points" every time I come near a rock musician? Is rock music evil?

6) Does Jesus want me to love my enemies or blow them away?

7) Is Christianity a religion of peace or a religion of war?

8) What would Jesus do? Would he play this game?

I am naturally appalled by this game (and this “Christian” theology) and wonder what kind of reaction we might encounter from the group promoting this “entertainment” for children if a similar game was produced for ultra-conservative Muslims or “secular humanists” teaching their children that you must either convert or kill your opposition.

Instead of this crazy strategy, I have a much more humble suggestion on how we can eagerly await the return of Jesus into the world.

It is as simple, as immediate and as frequent as celebrating every time someone does something Christ-like in the world. When we forgive a wrong, when we offer compassion to the poor, when we pray and work for healing to the afflicted, when we offer kindness to the stranger, clothes to the naked, food and water to the hungry, companionship to the sick and those in prison, when we defend the cause of the powerless, when we reconcile with a neighbor, when we give of ourselves and our resources sacrificially and unconditionally, when we become the church; the living body of Christ in the world, when we do those things and many more Jesus has returned.

While we await the birth of Christ in the world, we also wait for his return. I thank God it is 2,000 years later and Jesus has not come in “shock and awe.” I am thankful that while LaHaye and Jenkins have written best selling fiction, it is, nevertheless, still fiction. I just hope those of us in the church would not be so gullible.

A world waits with us for the presence of Christ. It certainly won’t be found in a new video game that trains Christian children to become violent zealots. But it will be found in the faces of the broken, bruised and forgotten. If there were only a few Christians left to bear his image and not just his name to these needy ones. If so, they are exactly the kind of Christians I hope will be “Left Behind.” The rest, as far as I am concerned, are welcomed to be “raptured”. Now that would be a Christmas miracle!

A model for Behavior Mod

Being a Christian is hard work, especially when so much of our moral fabric is tearing away. Efforts at defining and speaking about values are lost on a distracted and addicted public who are plugged in and tuned out. It's hard to be shocked when Amish children are the target of a madman; when political crusaders, who have built their career on a facade of defending morality, are the perpetrators of the very exploitive characteristics they criticize and when the US government desires permission to defend the legitimate use of torture. It’s enough to make my head swim.

Admittedly, I have resisted the popular Christian moralists whose hypocritical tendencies eventually come to light. And in this resistance, I wonder if I and those like me have totally lost the power of our moral discourse? In an effort to find a higher ethic of fairness and justice, have we become too silent in defense of the truly weak members of our society and world? Has our prescription of silence become more radical than the disease? To quote Glenn Hinson, "to cure deafness, as it were," have we "recommended the cessation of speech?"

In Matthew's gospel, at the end of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount we are told we are to be perfect or as some have properly interpreted, we are to be "whole" or "complete." It is a lofty standard and in comparison to all that is indefensible in the world, a seemingly impossible challenge. We are told to go the extra mile; to carry heavy burdens for others without expectation of reward; to love our enemies; to work for peace; to give without keeping score and to consider the tiny sins within ourselves before we notice the macro-abuses of our neighbor. I wonder why I should strive for such a world class Olympic record when it's enough of a challenge for me to merely be civil while parenting my own teenagers!

And yet, Jesus' teachings are more than suggestions. They are commands, beaconing me to realize somehow my own spiritual health is at risk as well as the overall health of the whole planet if I fail to abide by them. I am to take seriously this message of “death to self,” in the giving of life. In this struggle, I have benefited from a simple “hierarchy of behavior.” It provides me with a simple way to calibrate my moral life against a measurable standard with the hope that learning to jump small puddles trains me to reach greater heights. So here they are -

First: “Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.” This is behavior at its worst. There is little, if any redeemable value here. I hate because I have been hated. I injure because I have been injured. I abuse because I have been abused. It is the reverse of the limits of the lex talonis (an eye for an eye, etc.) It means I lash out to others because I too am a victim of evil. While this is becoming the fashionable explanation of high profile failure, it can hardly be considered an excuse. Maybe confessions can start here, but little moral progress is possible.

Next: “Doing the wrong thing for the right reason.” It is better known with the saying, “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” This understanding provides us with a pass to those things we have done that have resulted in harm to others. It allows us to retain our inward self respect, knowing that if our motivation was pure, our actions really don’t matter. It also allows us to improperly judge others because we don’t give them the benefit of the doubt (what they intended), but look at what they actually did (reversing our measure of how we assess the self). Here we can condemn everyone but ourselves. No wonder it is a path to hell, when we are the only ones left in heaven.

Moving up another notch, we have: “Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.” I hate to say it, but if it wasn’t for this level of motivation, very little in the church would likely get done. But it should not come as any surprise that most good will is accomplished by way of guilt, obligation and the slim chance of public praise. We do the right thing because, well, it IS the right thing to do and mainly because there is the off chance that someone (including God) might actually notice us for it. It is very difficult to raise our motivation beyond any expectation for a special reward.

Finally, the high bar of moral behavior is: “Doing the right thing for the right reason.” This is the place our behavior can make us whole and complete. It is the banner over all that we do that can truly be called "good" because only here is the promise of a changed heart that can parallel a good action. At this level personal transformation, spiritual growth and emotional depth are possible. This is the area Jesus is addressing in his famous sermon. We consider our motivation in as much need of correction as our behavior. I wish I could say I was an expert in this path, but I am only now learning the way. It is the narrow path to growing in Christ and becoming like Christ. It questions any motivation but love and reminds us that if what we do isn’t leading us toward greater compassion to others, than we are only making a lot of noise (1 Corinthians 13: 5).

This final level is pole vaulting compared to merely jumping puddles. Perhaps the church is not only the place where we look up, but where we also encourage one another to jump and to jump high. It is not easy, but can something so rewarding be any less worthwhile?

Mis-ap-pope-pri-ation

Most have become aware of the current controversy surrounding remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI when he quoted a Medieval text that described the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman." While some have noticed how this occurrence reveals, in comparison to Pope John Paul II, a weaker gift for diplomacy and might even suggest a further splintering within the Roman bureaucracy, I am more interested in the meaning of an apology.

Pope Benedict has been quoted as being sorry for "the reaction" his words have caused within the Muslim world. I truly wonder if this kind of apology passes the muster of an appropriate form of authentic repentance. Even while he says that he does not personally agree with the text he quoted (which begs the question; "why then did he use it?") and how he hopes this will help create a healthier dialogue between world religions, his apology is found lacking.

For example, how would we feel if every time someone apologized to us, they said, "I'm sorry for the way YOU have reacted," or better yet, what if we said to God, "I'm regret God how YOU have reacted to my behavior." Both seem to reveal a defiance that counters the very sentiment that warrants our saying sorry in the first place. This appeal is a sort of "have your cake and eat it too;" being able to say we are sorry without prompting any admission of wrong doing or offering any promise to insure a similar offense will not occur again.

That's why this stunted form of an apology hardly leads to reconciliation or the ways that work toward peace. In contrast, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount often encourages his followers to go the "extra mile," to offer more than is required, to take the next step toward being peacemakers.

I fear we have lost the power of this kind of redeeming discourse in our civic conversations. We are so concerned with being right that we have forgotten how to be humble. It would seem that Christians would be those who might embody a better way; teaching through behavior and by the careful use of words how to keep the focus of religion on offering healing to a troubled world. But who I am to suggest to the pontiff what he should do? Maybe I should just say, "I am sorry for how you feel the world has misunderstood you?"