Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts

Vote With Your Money - A Christian Idea?

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

"Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." - II Timothy 2:23
I struggle with how much I should delve into politics publicly.  A lot of that is practical.  I get beaten down by some of my Facebook friends who always have their nose in the latest hot button issue, and I don't want to be That Guy.  I'm also looking for a job, and it's probably not in my best interest to seem like the outspoken politico - The Bullhorn Guy, to borrow an image.  

Mostly, though, it's about how down and dirty I'm willing to get for what I believe.  I've always been very interested in politics.  My political opinions are ever evolving, and I love to discuss them with people who are willing to think critically about the issues.  Those sort of conversations seem to be few and far between - most of the time when I read political discussion, people are yelling past each other, indignant that anybody could possibly take the other side.  It's a microcosm of the public part of elections that we've always known.  The Republican primary for the US Senate seat in Texas got particularly ugly this year.  I saw an ad yesterday that attacked the other guy for how many attack ads he'd run.  I wish I were making that up.  I have friends who have washed their hands of the political process, and it's easy to see why, but I (perhaps naively) want to believe that there's something to be redeemed from the free exchange of ideas on policy.

It's difficult to hold on to that faith when we start arguing about fast food restaurants.

I realize that Chick-fil-a is just a symbol for a larger issue that's currently at the forefront of our "culture wars," so I'll grant that characterizing it as a fight over fried chicken is a bit reductive.  Still, it's pretty clear to me that we've collectively lost the plot.  Are we ready to start pledging allegiance to certain corporate entities because of the belief systems of their chief executives? (There's a Supreme Court decision in here that I'm tempted to speak out about, but that will wait.)  I'm reminded of an email that circulated in the days before Facebook, where recipients (presumably Christians; I've always wondered if agnostics circulated similar messages. "If you don't believe there's a God, pass this on or you'll make him cry.") were urged to boycott all Procter & Gamble products, as the CEO had publicly stated that he donates a portion of the huge company's products to the Church of Satan.  Like 98% of these emails, it was patently false, and I don't know a single person that actually abstained from using any P&G merchandise.  The message was clear, though: This person (company) is capital-W Wrong, and we are voting with our money.  The reverse is happening now.  The Other Side (This bothers me more than anything - somehow this has turned into a Christian vs. non-Christian battle, as if all Christians are in agreement on this issue) calls for a boycott, so today is "Support Chick-fil-a Day."  Vote with your money.

This misses the point, in my opinion.  My faith tradition is very much into going back to the roots of the early church, or so we say.  As it happens, the early church had the deck stacked against them.  Yes, they believed in changing the world, but it was a grassroots movement, lived out on the margin of society.  It was a radical reimagining of living community as an expression of God's love for his people.  The idea that we have to grab as much power as we can so we can force the unbeliever to live like us is distinctly American, and I don't think there's much, if any, Biblical support for it.  

I don't believe it's my Christian duty to coerce anybody into faithless orthopraxy.  I believe it's my Christian duty to share Christ's love with the world.  I believe it's my Christian duty to love black and white and brown, sinner and saint, rich and poor, divorced and happily married, alien and stranger and native, male and female, gay and straight.  Not once in any of the debates I've witnessed over the last few days have I seen anybody from either side question how our response to the Chick-fil-a issue shows love to homosexual people, and that's why I don't believe it matters whether or not you're eating there.  Boycott it or don't.  Vote with your money or don't.  But please let's not pretend that any of it has anything to do with our noble intentions or our willingness to Contend for the Faith.  All I can think about when it comes to Chick-fil-a is that I have failed to love all of God's people.  I have used hurtful language, sometimes directly to gay people.  I have argued that certain people shouldn't have certain rights based on their sexuality.  I have failed to speak on this issue in a graceful manner, and I have wrongly justified myself for doing so based on my faith.  I don't want to fail in these departments any longer, and this Chick-fil-a business has little, if anything, to do with that.  I have to believe that following Jesus is a little harder - and more meaningful - than making a politically charged lunchtime decision.

I don't mean to tell any Christians that they can't support or boycott Chick-fil-a.  If that's how you imagine your faith or your political beliefs being lived out in the world, then go for it.  However, consider doing this: whenever you think about whether or not you're going to enjoy some delicious fried chicken in the near future, take a moment to also think about what actions you're going to take to love a gay person that day.


We who say we love God...

Sunday, January 29, 2012

We who say we love God: why are we not as anxious to be as perfect in our art as we pretend we want to be in our service of God? If we do not try to be perfect in what we write, perhaps it is because we are not writing for God after all. In any case it is depressing that those who serve God and love Him sometimes write so badly, when those who do not believe in Him take pains to write so well…

The fact that your subject may be important in itself does not necessarily mean that what you have written about it is important. A bad book about the love of God remains a bad book, even though it may be about the love of God. There are many who think that because they have written about God, they have written good books. Then men pick up these books and say: If the ones who say they believe in God cannot find anything better than this to say about it, their religion cannot be worth much.

- Thomas Merton, from a meditation set down on 14 August 1947

(with thanks to Jeff Childers)


Stockholm Syndrome

Sunday, August 22, 2010

A sermon I preached this morning on Revelation 13:1-4:

Stockholm Syndrome - Revelation 13:1-4 by happinessforblessing

So many "um"s!


Master of the Sea

Thursday, April 8, 2010

A sermon I preached on March 21, 2010 on Mark 4:35-41:

Master of the Sea - Mark 4:35-41 by happinessforblessing

Sorry for the poor quality. This is a recording of a recording and will have to do for now. Feedback (both positive and negative) welcomed and encouraged!


The Book of Eli

Sunday, January 17, 2010



Warning! This post contains major spoilers for "The Book of Eli." I strongly recommend that you see the movie before reading this.

The Book of Eli is, for lack of a better term, prophetic. I hedge my bets a little because this interview leads me to believe that perhaps I'm drawing more meaning from the movie than perhaps the filmmakers are themselves. Still, I believe that God can speak through people despite their intentions. Even if you can't go there with me, I think you'll agree that there are "lessons" to be found in the ordinary.

Depending on your viewpoint, the message of TBoE is either really good or really terrible news. This wasn't evident to me immediately, but upon further reflection I have come to this conclusion. I believe this is true for other works in the same genre. Perhaps the most famous entry in the Apocalyptic tradition, Revelation, contains an extensive passage that explicitly backs up this claim. In Chapter 18, Babylon, the symbol of excess wealth (among many other things) falls, and the people who have built their lives on the sandy ground of materialism weep for it. In the very next chapter, the multitude who have been calling for its destruction celebrate the one who destroyed it. Two groups of people witnessed the crumbling of an empire and had completely different reactions to it.

So it is in TBoE. When asked about the difference between the world they live in versus the one before "The Flash," the titular character observes: "People had more than they needed...we threw away things people kill each other for now." This is the thought of a man who is not invested in the culture of STUFF. In fact, this is the thought of a man who is truly on a mission from God. Contrast his attitude with that of Carnegie. The entire infrastructure of the world has collapsed. Roads and bridges are no more, cannibalism and "hijacking" is commonplace, and even the currency system has been replaced by bartering. Yet Carnegie is a man who is so in love with capitalizing on capitalism that he hoards what is probably the most precious resource in the world (water) and uses his coercive power to gain more power. He exploits the weaknesses of others. Optimistically, we would call him an opportunist. Either way, you have to admit that he is smart. And because he is smart, he knows that one surefire way to control people is through religion.

We Christians don't like to admit that this is true. We're not under anybody's control but our own, we say. (Church of Christ-ers have a particular independent spirit due, in no small part, to the autonomy of our congregations.) But if we're honest with ourselves, how often do we use religion as a means of control over others, both within and without the Church?

There's so much more I want to talk about in regards to this movie - the symbolism of the blind man being the one that "sees" the best and the weak shaming the strong, the fact that Eli's ultimate destination is nicknamed "The Rock," the moral ambiguity of Eli ignoring the women getting raped so he can complete his mission, the subtle and not-so-subtle references the director makes to other post-apocalyptic and dystopic works, and so on. This post was originally a lot longer and rambled more, if that's possible. But ultimately, I cut it down because I want to discuss this question with you. Whose side are we on? When our infrastructure crumbles, are we going to be rejoicing because we have been faithful to the Word of God, or are we going to be devastated because we've used the Word of God as a false pretense to wield power over others?


Finding The Invisible Church

Monday, February 16, 2009

Before today, it had been a long time since I waited on the table at church. We moved several months ago and have just now settled on a church to attend regularly. Before that, we actually changed churches and then moved from Abilene just 6 months later. It wasn't until Jodi's uncle pulled me aside as we entered service today and asked me to help that I realized this fact. I actually got nervous, despite having performed this function dozens of times in various places. I think part of it is that I have never really paid much attention to the logistics of communion here, so I was afraid of getting up at the wrong time or committing some other crazy faux pas.

Mostly, though, I believe it was because I was thrilled to be put in a position of service once again. I majored in ministry, and it's been a frustration of mine that I have not been able to use my degree vocationally since. In many ways I have been fighting for the right to serve, and to be given without asking the opportunity to do what many consider a minor service humbled me in a somewhat ironic and incredibly beautiful way.

When the time came, I stood in the back of the "auditorium" (it's really more of a soundstage), trays in hand, waiting for my signal to walk down the aisle. We were watching a video from the Pioneer Bible Translators (one of our families is headed to Africa), and I was struck by a scene that showed two people from very different cultures sharing in the Lord's Supper. It reminded me of what those in the theology business like to call "The Invisible Church." This concept is actually somewhat controversial in Churches of Christ (but what isn't?), and what it means for our discussion is that whenever we take part in Communion, we do it with all believers across time and space. In my mind, that is what makes the traditions that we have so important. I was reminded that whether or not I am able to make ministry a vocation, I will always be able to serve. Perhaps more importantly, I will always be a part of The Invisible Church. I have spent a lot of time recently questioning myself, and this simple incident was the calm in the storm that I needed.


Happiness For Blessing. 2008 One Winged Angel.Bloggerized by : GosuBlogger