Wednesday, December 30, 2009

America: Christian Nation?



I just read a tremendous article by Bill McKibben on the idea of America being a “Christian nation,” and how, given the way we often live, it is kind of a paradox (Read the entire article here, it is well worth it). While I have plenty to say about it, I figured I would just quote some of the most poignant points, as he had quite a lot of great things to say. So, here are a few excerpts, and I urge you to read the whole article:


“The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires.”


“Take Alabama as an example. In 2002, Bob Riley was elected governor of the state, where 90 percent of residents identify themselves as Christians. Riley could safely be called a conservative—right-wing majordomo Grover Norquist gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he'd never voted for a tax increase. But when he took over Alabama, he found himself administering a tax code that dated to 1901. The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits. So Riley proposed a tax hike, partly to dig the state out of a fiscal crisis and partly to put more money into the state's school system, routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully. Had the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have paid $1,432 in property taxes—we're not talking Sweden here. But it didn't pass. It was crushed by a factor of two to one. Sixty-eight percent of the state voted against it—meaning, of course, something like 68 percent of the Christians who voted. The opposition was led, in fact, not just by the state's wealthiest interests but also by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. “You'll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart,” said John Giles, the group's president. “They just don't want it coming out of their pockets.” On its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor “results in punishing success” and that “when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.” You might as well just cite chapter and verse from Poor Richard's Almanack. And whatever the ideology, the results are clear. “I'm tired of Alabama being first in things that are bad,” said Governor Riley, “and last in things that are good.”


“It's hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change.”


“Similarly, a furor erupted last spring when it emerged that a Colorado jury had consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. Experts debated whether the (Christian) jurors should have used an outside authority in their deliberations, and of course the Christian right saw it as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion. But a more interesting question would have been why the jurors fixated on Leviticus 24, with its call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They had somehow missed Jesus' explicit refutation in the New Testament: ‘You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.’

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Global Climate Change: Christian Action vs. Scientific Debate


Often the debate over Global Warming has been divisive and brutal. People with strong convictions on both sides passionately argue, and even accuse those on the other side of lying, deception, and political games. The huge underlying question in this debate has not been global warming itself as much as how much our human action has contributed to global climate change. In the last few years, it seems that those who argue that human activity has caused, or at least accelerated, global climate change have been getting the upper hand. Many reports, articles, and papers have seemed to point decisively to a correlation between humans and climate change (see this, this, and this, for a few examples).


The question that I continue to wrestle with is to what degree we, as Christians, are supposed to enter into this debate. I have seen people within the church be some of the most ardent defenders, and attackers, on both sides of this debate. But should this debate, and any evidence that is produced by either side, even matter when it comes to caring for our planet? I just read an awesome article by Greg Boyd (see it here). In it, he questions some of the assumptions made by those who insist that global warming is happening to the degree that many would like to think. However, his point is not really about climate change itself, but rather that, within the Kingdom of God, none of this should really matter. To quote him from the article, “Our commitment to live as good stewards of creation and as good caretakers of the animal kingdom shouldn’t be affected in the least by the state of the ever-changing and usually ambiguous scientific or political debate.”


I think this is very well said. Why should some scientific research tell us what we already know as followers of Christ, namely, that we must care for the world in which we have been created to live on? Whatever the next report says, how we care for creation reflects what we think about its creator. We should seek to end the exploitation and destruction of the plants and animals not because there is a new finding that says our human activity is hurting the world, but because that is what we have been called to do as citizens of this planet and of the Kingdom of God. I want to care for the world that we live on, not because I heard on the evening news that I should, but because as a follower of Christ I have no other option.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Taking Christ out of Christmas, or Putting Him Back In?


It is that time of year again. The air is cold and crisp. The hustle and bustle of the holidays is all around. And those little slogans are appearing on signs and on the lips of people. No, I am not referring to “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” I am referring to the “Keep Christ in Christmas” chant that usually begins shortly after Thanksgiving. Many vocal, and probably for the most part well-intentioned, people have made it their duty to decry what they see as the removal of Christ from the holiday that so prominently bears his name. Against the secular tide of holiday cheer they stand their ground, protesting anytime a Christmas tree is taken out of a public place or a simple “Happy Holidays” in muttered instead the proper “Merry Christmas.” Now don’t get me wrong, I love the Christmas season. I think it is a beautiful time for Christians everywhere to celebrate this beautiful and radical and mysterious idea that the God of the universe came down as a little baby, and entered into our human existence. While we are not supposed to just celebrate this a one time of year, I love that at the Christmas season we can come together and remember what God has done through the powerful act of incarnation. However, I have a few problems with the effort that has been put into the “Keep Christ in Christmas” campaign.



First, can anyone really take Christ out of Christmas? If this is a time of year for Christians to celebrate the incarnation and the work of God that has come through that, can people simply take that away? People can choose not to celebrate Christmas, choose to make fun of it, or even choose to fight having anything resembling it in any public place. But again, can they take Christ out Christmas? If your Christ is so easily taken out of Christmas by a few people who have every right not to think about Christmas the same as we do, what Christ are you serving? I believe that this idea of incarnation that we celebrate at the Christmas season, that God radically and decisively broke into our human existence so that humanity, and indeed all of creation, might be redeemed, is powerful enough to be true no matter how we keep Christmas. Also, can we as Christians really expect those who are not a part of our faith to keep the Christmas holiday the same as we do? Yes, the holiday began as a Christian holiday and is still considered one. But if others don’t want to celebrate it like that, who cares? I am serious, why must we make a big stink when those who are not Christian fail to celebrate Christmas like Christians? If we want to keep Christ in Christmas, how about we do our best to follow him this season, and remember what he did, and do our best to live as followers of him. This would involve less talking and more doing, which is usually better when it comes to showing the world our faith.



This leads to my second problem with the fight to “Keep Christ in Christmas,” which is, we would probably do better if we did our best to live in a way that kept Christ in Christmas rather than going out of our way to point out how people outside the faith are failing to do so. This is the season which we so beautifully celebrate the incarnation, so might we try to live a little more incarnationally? What if, instead of putting money and effort into signs and slogans, we put that same money and effort into making sure people around us had food for the holiday season? Or better yet, what if we said no to the soul-killing materialism that plagues the Christmas season and instead provided clothes to people who were cold? I am not saying don’t buy any presents for friends and family, but rather I am imagining what might happen if we kept Christ in Christmas by radically living out his Gospel in our homes and communities? After all, it is not our job as Christians to make sure that the culture around us conforms to our way of living, but rather to, in the midst of the wider culture, live out the Gospel of Jesus. This is what it means to live incarnationally, to be willing to enter in to our culture in a real and tangible way and live out the Gospel so that those around us might see the beauty of Christ.



Please let me say it again. I love Christmas time. I love everything we as Christians get to celebrate this season. So, in the midst of doing so, let us think how we might truly keep Christ in Christmas. As we go about our activities this Christmas season, let us be thinking about how we might live more incarantionally. Let us think how we might tangibly and powerfully live out the Gospel to those around us. Let us think how we might celebrate with, rather than fight against, those who do not hold the same faith we do or the same ideas about Christmas that we do. We must remember that Jesus is far bigger than Christmas or any other human holiday or institution that we might place him in. Christmas is beautiful, but only because we serve a God who is far bigger than Christmas.



Have a wonderful and beautiful Christmas season.



Luke



Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Tension in Two Kingdoms

"The proper distance from a culture does not take Christians out of that culture. Christians are not the insiders who have taken flight to a new "Christian culture" and become outsiders to their own culture; rather when they have responded to the call of the Gospel they have stepped, as it were, with one foot outside their own culture while the other remaining firmly planted in it. They are distant, and yet they belong . . . distance born out of allegiance to God and God's future. . . . Both distance and belonging are essential. Belonging without distance destroys . . . but distance without belonging isolates." —Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace