Category Archives: church and culture

October 31, 2008 · 5:42 am

Multiethnic Churches I


I plan to put forward an apologetic for multiethnic churches (where possible of course) over the course of several posts. Here’s my start that ends with several key questions I’ve heard asked over the years:

Imperative or Immaterial?

 

Church fellowship is not an optional part of the Christian life. It’s the God ordained structure whereby we corporately worship him, are refined in our faith, and serve others. It is to be a place that exemplifies the character of God: united (i.e., as the Trinity is united and as God is actively breaking down the walls between Himself and his children and between his children), pure (e.g., leaders and members that honor God in all of life), full of mercy (e.g., care for those within and outside the body), lovers of justice (e.g., Matt. 23:23f, Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.), and lovers of the Gospel of reconciliation. The body of Christ is a complex organism, needing every member, every gift, in order to function properly. The church, when it functions well, balances discipleship, evangelism, and worship as a means to root the Gospel into the whole of every member’s life. Although the church is its own community, it always exists within a larger community and is called to love its neighbors both near and far. To reach that end, the church must be a welcoming community to all in order to bring the Gospel to all. The welcoming church strives to exhibit more of the culture of the Gospel and less the dominant human culture. This does not mean that human culture is somehow irrelevant or that any people can remove themselves completely from their own culture. However, it does mean that we do not pay homage to our human culture in ways that hinder others. Instead, we willingly respond to the cross by sacrificing our own comforts for the sake of the spiritual growth of others. So, we always labor to shape the church’s culture by questioning how we best serve the lost around us.

 

But, when the church no longer represents her local community, how does she create a welcoming environment that emphasizes Gospel culture and welcomes cultural minorities? Is there more to this than greeting new people and inviting them to join our groups? More fundamentally, we must ask ourselves why we do not attract the culturally different? Do we have the option of remaining a monoculture, instead only financially supporting those ministries that minister to a particular ethnic group (because we believe that those churches will minister more effectively to that group)? While funding other ministries is a good idea, the church that desires to be a welcoming community must be willing to enter the world of minority cultures in order to know its issues, concerns, desires, beliefs, etc. Only then will we know how to welcome them and how to point them to Jesus. This will require us to be uncomfortable and to work against the tide of indifference. If you are like me, you have to admit that we more comfortable supporting ministries half way around the world than we are crossing the street to reach the culturally different in our own world.

 

Questions

When people from the dominant culture begin to wrestle with the prospect of multiethnic churches, a variety of questions arise:

a)     Is multiculturalism part of the Gospel or a relativistic fad? Is it really practical?

b)     If “they” are most comfortable in their churches and we are most comfortable here, is it really necessary to work so hard to make us both uncomfortable?

c)     Won’t we lose our own culture and identity if we integrate with people from other ethnic and cultural surroundings?

d)     Are we really doing anything that would discourage others from coming if they wanted to be here?

e)     Is it really practical or possible in this racialized world?

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity, church and culture, Race, Racial Reconciliation

Tagged as , ,

October 30, 2008 · 5:01 am

Dividing the church over politics


In the last 2 weeks I’ve heard several stories of individuals getting into heated discussions with other christian friends about whether to vote for Obama or McCain. Each of these stories are told by someone considering Obama as their vote. Each one describes their friend as nearly or actually questioning their sanity or faith if they would vote for Obama. I have yet to hear someone saying that a vote for McCain has cost them a relationship in their church.

Seems to me there are a couple of key reasons some Christians get up in arms over Obama.

1. He is clearly pro-abortion rights. He has as much as said he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice nominees. Thus, a vote for Obama is a vote for the continuation of abortion and probably a roll-back on restrictions that have been one in the last decade.

This argument has merit and I can see Christians having strong opinions and questions about the conscience of other Christians who are planning to vote for him. On the other hand, justice issues take many sizes and shapes. While you may disagree with the democratic plan for dealing with the poor, they are the ones more likely to talk about care. Justice and care for the widow and orphan (the poor) is considered to be one of the key facets of the Christian faith (Matt. 23:23). Should abortion trump all other justice issues. Do those who vote for McCain squirm over capitalistic idolatry and the false assumption that individuals will do enough to care for the poor? Do Republicans walk the walk about voluntary sacrifice (and so actually really give sacrificially to the poor) when they accuse Democrats of trying to force it via taxation?

2. Obama is a socialist and is for big government control and mandate into all aspects of life. Our faith rights will be restricted under his power.

Again, it is an interesting debate about the role of government. I think we should be discussing the size and influence of government. Do all Americans have a right to health-care?  Should the government pick up the tab? Why? These are good questions. But, should a debate here lead to the questioning of one person’s faith? I don’t see that. Scripture doesn’t support a capitalistic or socialistic government, a small government or large one. We are commanded to submit to our leaders. We are commanded to care for the poor.

Let’s not divide the church and question each other’s faith when we have political differences. The issues are important and there will be real consequences when either candidate gets elected. Let’s debate those and not the faith commitments of our brothers and sisters.

12 Comments

Filed under Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, Doctrine/Theology, Gospel, News and politics, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

October 6, 2008 · 10:25 am

Worldvision AIDS Exhibit


Worldvision has traveling show that you might want to consider attending. Locally, a church in Bethlehem, PA is hosting this 30 minute narrated event next weekend. If you attend (free tix that must be reserved on-line) you will hear the story of one of 3 children as you walk through the event. Was planning on going but the website suggests not bringing kids under 10 and some of the stories should not be heard by those under the age of 13 (due to information regarding sex trafficking, sexual abuse, murder, death, etc.).

Here’s the link: http://www.wvexperience.org/default.asp

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, church and culture, sexuality, stories, suffering

Tagged as ,

October 2, 2008 · 5:21 am

Economic crunch and the 2nd greatest commandment


Yesterday I mused about how I didn’t see much change in the spending and consuming habits of those in my area. Yes, Jess, it does appear people are spending to abandon around here. We do have less of the credit crunch I believe since housing developments didn’t boom in this area.

But, let’s consider another related area. When times are tough on the pocketbook, one of the first things to do isn’t stuff for me, it’s donations to others. We know this because nonprofits are registering their lowest levels of donations since the weeks around 9/11 (when we suspect many stopped giving to their usual ministries to give to 9/11 victim families).

There are two possible reasons for this drop in giving: (1) people actually have less income and so give less, or (2) people give less for fear of not having enough income. Probably both are true. The challenge when we face tough times is to keep remembering to love our neighbors and not become fixated on our own needs/wants. It is true that we can love our neighbors without giving a dime but I suspect even our non-monetary giving decreases when our own anxiety increases.

This reminds me of cry of Proverbs 30:8-9: …give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise I may have too much and disown you and say, “who is the Lord?” Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, church and culture, News and politics

Tagged as , ,

September 22, 2008 · 10:28 am

Bobblehead Christianity


At the Society for Christian Psychology, JKA Smith (a Calvin Coll. philosopher) made an offhanded comment about bobblehead Christianity–the kind where the head is huge but the body is nearly non-existent. This image has really stuck with me.

We fill the head with truth and facts about our faith and we expect that to transform us into Christ. But we ignore the body, or the practices of the faith. He made mention of this problem in a discussion about worldview. He said something to this effect: “I think worldview conversations are important. I love worldview. I’d marry it if I could. But we must pay attention to our practices as they are attached to worldview and shape it in reverse. Worldview discourse places too much emphasis on what we think and less on what we do. We need to include visceral ways of knowing…tactile involvement in worship.” (phrases from my notes, not true quotation)

Seems we ought to take his critique to heart. Where are we overemphasizing truth statements or thinking about self as change agent and underemphasizing performing (use of disciplines) as acting into the truth as a work of the Holy Spirit?

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, church and culture, Cultural Anthropology, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals, Psychology

Tagged as , , ,

August 8, 2008 · 5:07 am

APA’s resolution on religious, religion-based, and/or religion-derived prejudice


Just got my 2007 annual report from the American Psychological Association. I rarely read this thick document except for the ethics violation reports. But I saw that the board and council passed the above-named resolution. Some key passages to consider in the long document:

Prejudice based on or derived from religion and antireligious prejudice has been, and continues to be, a cause of significant suffering in the human condition. …

Prejudices are unfavorable affective reactions to or evaluations of groups and their members…

…it is a paradoxical feature of these kind of prejudices that religion can be both target and victim of prejudice, as well as construed as justification and imperative for prejudice. The right of persons to practice their religion or faith does not and cannot entail a right to harm others or to undermine the public good.  …

While many individuals and groups have been victims of antireligious discrimination, religion itself has also been the source of a wide range of beliefs about and attitudes and behaviors toward other individuals…

Allport and his colleagues observed that the relationship between religion and prejudice is curvilinear rather than linear, with highly religious individuals having lower levels of prejudice than marginally religious adherents.

It is important for psychology as a behavioral science, and various faith traditions as theological systems, to acknowledge and respect their profoundly different methodological, epistemological, historical, theoretical, and philosophical bases. Psychology has no legitimate function in arbitrating matters of faith and theology, and faith traditions have no legitimate place arbitrating behavioral and other sciences.

The document goes on to list multiple “whereas” and “therefore be it resolved” statements. The gist of which is to say, don’t discriminate; respect religion and spirituality; avoid prejudice; give no preference (as an Association to either belief or unbelief; recognize that psychology and religion cannot adjudicate either party’s tenets (but psychology can comment on the psychological impact of spiritual beliefs and religion can comment on theological implications of psychology); and try to collaborate if you can.

Problems galore despite their effort not to just paint religion as the bad guy. I’ll post just two. First, what is prejudice? They mention it as an “unfavorable affective reaction.” Okay. So, if I gently and cognitively say that my faith disapproves of certain behaviors or beliefs and based on those differences I decide not to hire you in my private, faith-based school, is that prejudice? I think some would say so. Currently, the debate over the appropriateness of having someone seek counseling to change sexual orientation has plenty of folk arguing that the problem is not affective but cognitive. If you believe you can or should change your orientation then you are accepting dominant prejudices.

Second, the whole document stinks of the separation of science and faith–as if science is all empirical and faith is all unsubstantiated belief. Also, what do those psychologists do who find themselves well trained in both worlds. It would seem from this document that the psychologist training trumps theological training. Again this is thought to be best for “the public good” and yet they do not recognize this as value, non-emprically based statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under church and culture, philosophy of science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

August 4, 2008 · 5:09 am

Divorce & Remarriage 13: A conspiracy?


On our journey thought David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to chapter 13 where he raises the question why, if the church has had access to rabbinical literature and understanding of the issues at play during Jesus and Paul’s time, hasn’t the church revised it’s understanding of the divorce passages. If you have been following along, I-B has been arguing that most of the church was unaware of the controversy surrounding the “any cause” divorce during Jesus day and that was what he was reacting to in Matt. 19. But now that we have this background available to us again, it helps us understand the context of Jesus comments. So, why hasn’t the church revised divorce teachings? Is it conspiracy? Or just disagreement with I-B?

I-B tells an interesting story at the beginning of this chapter. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, one scholar refused to make public one particular scroll. After he died, the scroll was translated and made public. The controversy? The scroll contains a 1-2nd century divorce certificate written by a woman for an “any cause” (or better, no cause) divorce. The scholar had previously published that this sort of thing didn’t happen in this wonderful period of orthodox Judaism so he sat on the document to hide it. I-B tells the story here because he believes this shows how even Jews had forgotten the only reasons allowed for divorce in Exodus 21 (neglect, infidelity) and that no cause divorces were allowed by both men AND women.

Yet I-B doesn’t really believe conspiracy is the problem with the church. Just confusion. Why the confusion? I-B reviews the sexual mores of the early Christian world. Outside the church immorality was a given at levels we don’t even have today–open sexual contact with prostitutes, friends, etc. even when married. So, I-B reports that the church reacted to this to even become suspicious of conjugal love in marriage. If a marriage ended due to the death of a loved one, the widow should not remarry and if he/she did, it was a sign of lust. He quotes Tertullian’s belief on this matter that Christians should seek abstinence. It is I-B’s believe that this view of sex and celibacy is what grew until the 9th century when the Roman church instituted celibacy for priests and comes out the believe that Paul and Jesus both taught that celibacy was superior to marriage. (Remember that in a prior chapter I-B stated his believe that Paul’s comment in 1 Cor. 7:1 that it is good for a man to not marry is not Paul’s belief but his quotation of a common belief which he rejects in following verses).

Further, I-B reports to us that many early church fathers (and contemporaries as well) believed that the OT was for then and the NT is for the church. So, even if the OT had other rules about divorce, Jesus rules supercedes and is the only rule for Christians today.

But since this “any cause” dispute has been known to us for 150 years why haven’t we reconsidered the divorce interpretations? I-B ultimately says it is because of the status quo. Church doctrines shouldn’t change. He says the thinking goes like this: God doesn’t change, the bible doesn’t change, doctrine doesn’t change.

I-B ends this chapter rather abruptly (IMHO) with the admission that he has undertaken this scholarly study given our better understanding of the misery of abuse within the church. And yet he believes his understanding of the key issues surrounding the culture of the 1-2nd century Judaism and Christianity helps us re-consider the meaning of Jesus and Paul’s words on divorce.

So, what are we left with? There may be more ambiguity in some of our passages on divorce, reasons for divorce, and remarriage. Certainly, we must admit there are some silences that trouble us. We would have liked greater clarity. We all recognize that Jesus and Paul rejected baseless divorces. That sexual purity is essential. That marriage is good, sex is good, but not to be worshipped. I think we can also see that divorce is part of the fall but a reality. It is forgiveable but there remain questions of whether remarriage is possible. If we take the no remarriage passages as speaking about baseless divorces, then we are to work for reconciliation. But if that is not possible, we must acknowledge that there are many situations with the Scriptures do not provide us clear direction. In those cases we ought to be careful not to act as if we did get a clear message from the Lord. We ought to be very careful not to hang weights on the necks of believers and to bind their conscience where there is ambiguity. This does not mean we cannot seek to preserve marriages as our ideal.

Well, we are almost at the end of the book. Two more chapters on recommendations for what the pastor/church should do given the possible new interpretations.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, book reviews, Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as , ,

July 16, 2008 · 10:18 am

Is burn-out an American phenomenon?


Part of my sabbatical is designed to understand how better to help pastors and their families avoid the crash and burn. There are many pressures (finances, conflict, loneliness, the fishbowl, etc.) on ministry families and while any one of them may not be overwhelming, together they can bring a minister to his/her knees. Worse yet, they can tempt the leader to seek comfort in ungodly ways.

But a friend of mine who cares greatly for ministry leaders was recently talking to an African pastor. This pastor has NOTHING. He ministers to those who have NOTHING, to those living under trees. They live in a country that is in the midst of a civil war.  He has his wife spend months apart ministering to the poor. When my friend asked about pastoral burn-out, this pastor could not comprehend the question. It didn’t compute–and not because he didn’t understand the concept.

Why? Are we Americans soft and weak given that we live in the land of plenty? Probably. But are there other explanations? I think so. Foremost in my mind is the place of expectationsin the life of Western pastors. Expectations of success, growth, contentment (from self and church community) create pressure and when expectations are only partially met, it leads to the temptation to discouragement and looking to greener grass. Secondly, I think living in constant crisis without hope for change rarely allows for collapse–unless it is to die. It is common for the greatest emotional collapse to happen when one has the opportunity to pause and reflect. In crisis, we do not reflect. When the crisis abates, then we reflect and see that our assumptions and expectations do not fit with reality. It is that point that leads to either leaning on the Lord while changing our expectations to match his OR either trying harder or choosing another assumption that causes greater pain.

What do you think?

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture, Cultural Anthropology, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring

Tagged as , , ,

July 9, 2008 · 9:24 am

Divorce & Remarriage X: Is remarriage adultery?


We come to chapter 10 of David Instone-Brewer’s book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church(IVP). He starts with this question: “Do people whose divorces were not biblically valid have to stay unmarried for the rest of their life?” (p. 118).

In answering this question I-B starts and finishes the chapter with the problem of how we might know whether a divorce was valid or not. Unless there is a trial, pertinent information may not come to light (abuse, adultery, etc.). So, I-B takes the stand that there are many who have valid grounds who are considered to have divorced for unbiblical reasons. He considers that God is to be the judge of this. Second, I-B reminds us that he has already covered the issue of being forced into an unbiblical divorce. The wronged partner is not enslaved and is free to remarry (1 Cor 7:15)

Third, and this is the most controversial, I-B states that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:32 (that the one who divorces for any reason other than unfaithfulness and then remarries commits adultery) is rhetorical and not literal. I-B believes this verse falls in a section of high rhetoric (5:21-31). Just as Jesus is not advocating gouging out eyes, nor is he saying that a woman has grounds for divorce if her husband lusted after another woman, neither is he saying that we ought to treat remarriage for groundless divorcees as literal adultery. This, I-B says, is not to take away the serious violation of groundless divorces. They should not happen and it is a sin if they do and all sin is serious!

Finally, I-B takes on the issue of whether an invalid divorce BEFORE conversion is any different from after conversion. Should they be treated differently as many churches do? I-B says no. He points again to 1 Cor 7:12-14 where Paul tells converts not to look down upon their marriages and not to leave their unbelieving spouses but only to let them go if they demand to leave. Here Paul is saying to honor the vow and not to be the cause of breaking up a marriage.

He concludes that since divorce is forgiveable, churches ought to be willing to remarry even the person who demanded an unbiblical divorce:

I think that a church should remarry somone even if that person had forced a wronged partner into a divorce–though only after that person has gone back to their former partner with a genuine offer of reconciliation and has truly repented of this sin. (p. 124)

MY THOUGHTS:

I-B tries to steer clear of having churches decide guilt or innocence. Seems he wants to do this because we often don’t get all the information and don’t have clear procedures for how we do this. And yet, it seems that elders and pastors are called to be leaders and to make Solomonic decisions. Maybe the problem has been church leaders too unwilling to get their hands dirty in a messy situation, or too unwilling to take the time.

Following his mindset a person who forces an unbiblical divorce ought to remain unmarried and open to reconciliation until their former spouse remarries. However, he doesn’t really say this.

I’m reminded of Philip Yancey’s line in “What’s So Amazing about Grace.” He tells the tale of a friend who asks him if God will forgive him if he divorces his longtime wife and marries a young woman. Yancey says something like this, “Yes, but the question is whether you will want it” (meaning if you want God’s forgiveness then you have to repent and turn AWAY from your sin and back to righteousness).

Leave a comment

Filed under book reviews, church and culture, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Repentance

Tagged as , ,

July 7, 2008 · 7:27 am

On Churches and sex offenders


It seems to be an increasing question these days: What should the church do when a sex offender finishes their sentence and wishes to return to church or join anew? I’ve written here on this before but want to return to the subject because it is controversial. Of the questions I get relating to this are,

  • Shouldn’t the church be a place where all sinners are welcome? 
  • If a sex offender is disallowed in church aren’t we removing the one thing they need (Christian community?)
  • Should victims of abuse have so much power as to say who can and cannot attend church?

Instead of answering this questions, I think churches need to have frank conversations about the following areas:

  1. Repentance. What is it? What are the fruits of it? What are signs of either inadequate or false repentance?
  2. Protection. There are more than 60 commands in the Old and New Testaments about protecting vulnerable members of society (widows, orphans, aliens, etc. ). True Religion, James says, is one that looks after the vulnerable. What does it mean to protect them. Is it enough to tell them that they are safe even though they do not feel so? Do we ever consider giving them power and some ability to say what they can tolerate?  
  3. Forgiveness/Restoration/Redemption/Reconciliation. These terms are sometimes used synonymously. They should not be. What does it mean to forgive? Does it mean I should act as if it never happened? Where does this idea come from? Restoration to God? The Body?
  4. The Church and access to it. As Christians we are called to meet together for worship and the teaching of the Word? What are the options we might think about that meet this calling but value that same calling for everyone? Can the “church” come to the sex offender? Is he willing to not demand rights to be in church but find ways to worship with other believers while also being concerned about the welfare of others?

That’s a start. If churches would be willing to explore these issues and delay answering the questions I noted at the beginning, I think they will have a better chance of ministering to all. And if either victims or sex offenders are so impatient that they will not allow the body to study the matter, then that probably says something about the interest to care well for all the sheep. If the offender becomes impatient and demanding, whining and complaining, then we have to question his/her interest in being ministered to. There may be other reasons they want in the church. As Anna Salter discovered in her interviewing many many offenders, some offenders see the church as a place of protection from scrutiny due to naivete.

12 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture, Repentance, Sex

Tagged as , , ,