A Balanced Image of Christ

An interesting reminder from the blog Students of Jesus that Christ not only ate with sinners and chastised pharisees. He also ate with pharisees and healed their children. Here is a taste:

In modern society we love to point out that Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. He crossed social boundaries. He was the friend of sinners. Sometimes we fail to note there is another group with whom he regularly dined: pharisees. What if Jesus reclined with pharisees for the very same reason he ate with the outcasts? What if he had the same mission whether he ate with Zacchaeus the taxman or with Simon the Pharisee? What if he cared for both? Perhaps the Lord knew we were all sick, all in need of a doctor.

Reading our rebellious ways into the ministry of Jesus is one of the dangers of our present age. We might assume he converted every sinner and condemned every priest. We might assume he ditched the synagogue for a day at the lake, or went to the Temple only to turn the tables. We might be surprised to discover that he loved his Father’s house, or considered the Law as sweet as honey, or longed to hear the prophets read week after week.

The same man who welcomed Matthew the tax collector was also friends with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. The same man who healed and returned lepers to the community of Israel also had mercy on the daughter of a synagogue leader. The shepherd of Israel cared for the whole flock and fed all the sheep. Later, he went so far as to chase down Saul, that murderous “pharisee of pharisees” and drafted him into the Kingdom cause.

If we choose to follow the Master we must be prepared to follow him into any house. In his day the disciples were shocked because he crossed the threshold of a sinner’s home. Perhaps today he shocks us by crossing the threshold of the church? Both houses stand in desperate need of his grace, and those who will carry such grace with them.

Check out the rest here.

Can the Social Gospel Be a Form of Idolatry?

Scot McKnight answers this question in the affirmative. Here is his take:

“For [the one] who has lost God the people [or, the nation]can be a first station on [a] new way.” These are the words of Martin Buber, that brilliant Jewish philosopher. He is reflecting here on the loss of his pietist roots in Hasidic Judaism and on his first impulse to channel that former faith into national hopes, into Zionism. Buber in some ways eventually came around to a more religious, Hasidic existential worldview.

But what struck me about this reflection of Buber’s is the need on the part of many (formerly) religious people, Christians included, to launch from their faith orientation into a social orientation. That is, they need to get lost — to give themselves to — a cause, something bigger than their own life. Many shift from the church to society (and sadly think the move is “kingdom” vs. “church”).

Which leads me to ponder whether or not the many today who are now entranced by social justice are expressing not so much a dimension of their faith but a stage on the way of losing that faith.

Has social justice become an idol? Has it become a substitute for God, for personal engagement with God?

Of course, justice is of colossal importance in the Bible, but that justice is always connected to covenant and therefore to piety. The question I am asking is if some need to consider the Why? question in their commitment to social justice. Are they abandoning piety and finding justice to be its substitution?

The struggle for nation will never satisfy; only God can ultimately satisfy.

Interesting in light of the protests/gatherings in Philly yesterday, and the difference in perspective between the Occupy movement, and the Christ-centered gathering led by The Simple Way. One was the social gospel with Christ at the heart, the other doesn’t seem to really have a heart, just anger.

Also, McKnight is not, I believe from reading some of his other writings, saying there is no place for the social gospel. He is simply saying that we should insure our walking toward social goals do not cover a walking away from God. We should be walking there with God in an attempt to bring His Kingdom to bear on the situation. Ignoring the poor is not the solution to this idolatry. There is an equal danger of idolatry at the other extreme, where we expect that God will take care of the poor without our help and we are free to give in to the idolatry of self-centeredness or the idolatry of nation by expecting the “nation” to take care of the poor in place of God and His people.

Update from Rob Martin

An Interesting View for a Picnic

Yesterday I posted about an attempt from The Simple Way to speak to the injustice they see in Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s proposed ordinance basically abolishing feeding the homeless unless you have permits and do it at approved places. My friend Rob Martin decided to participate in this gathering, and wrote about the experience over at his blog (Abnormal Anabaptist). Here is a taste:

So, despite all my panic, it was a very subdued, low-key event of a bunch of folks just spending time together.  What did we accomplish?  Well, in the eyes of the world, worried about laws, regulations, and government agencies, not a whole lot.  We didn’t change the law.  We didn’t change any politicians minds.  To that extent, we failed.

To the man who stocked up on sandwiches for the week, it wasn’t a failure.

To the man who stood there while we loved on him with a sandwich, a cupcake, an apple, and a bottle of water, it wasn’t a failure.

To the young man who, strange though he was, found a bunch of folks that just accepted him no matter how outrageous he acted, it wasn’t a failure.

You see, we were with Jesus.  Two or more believers gathered, and Jesus was there.  We fellow-shipped with each other and with other people made in the image of God and Jesus was there.

This was the third way.  This was the way of Christ made flesh.  This proved that it was possible to act counter to justice in a way that did not sacrifice grace, mercy, compassion, and love, even for those with whom we disagree.  Instead of attacking the counsel, we fellow-shipped.  Instead of shouting angrily, we fed quietly.  Instead of chanting slogans, we laughed together.  We demonstrated to everyone who saw us that there was something different, something other going on.

This is what faith can do.  It can change the world.  It’s subversive.  It gets under the skin and transforms people without them even knowing it.

“We’re with Jesus”.

If we remember that, if we take that every where we go, imagine the possibilities.  Imagine what we can accomplish when we decide that, when we’re acting for Jesus, we are acting with him.

And it’s uncomfortable.  When we decide to spend time with Jesus, we’re going to be taken in some very strange places and directions, places that we would never decide on our own to do.  I hate meeting new people, I despise walking into a strange situation where I know no-one.  And yet, that is precisely what God required of me so I could spend time with Jesus.

You see, this is a radical faith we have.  Following Jesus is not safe, it’s not comfortable, it will take you out of your normal life and you will never be able to go back to it the same.  For me, I’m no longer satisfied with living a “normal” life.  I’ve encountered God and the experience has changed me forever.  For those Christians who only know a faith of “agreement” and don’t know that radical, gut-wrenching, whole-body, throw caution to the wind kind of faith, I feel sad.  I know many who don’t know that.  I know many who are satisfied with their life as it is.

“I don’t think I would change anything of my life, even if I wasn’t a Christian”.

Yes, I’ve heard that from some.  And it saddens me.  It tells me that, as much as they may “believe” something, they haven’t yet experienced that transformation that comes from diving in head-first into the terror of a faith lived on the edge.  And it is that experience that I find in Hebrews 11.

If you haven’t experienced that yet, I hope you will stop, think, and start to look around with a new set of radical eyes, seeking for where God is moving.  And if you have experienced it, well… you know EXACTLY what I’m feeling right now.

“We’re with Jesus”.

Picking on the Homeless: Update

My friend Rob Martin will be heading into Philly to participate in an act of civil disobedience with The Simple Way this afternoon around 4:00. Here are some of the detail

On Thursday 22nd March, The Simple Way and family will be having a little love feast/radical “food sharing” at Thomas Paine Plaza. We will break some bread together around unjust regulations like these feeding ordinances. This coincides with the “Food is a Human Right Rally” which starts at 4pm and the final meeting of the Board of Health around the food sharing regulations in Philadelphia.

JOIN US. We will be wearing teeshirts with the slogan “Jesus didn’t need a health permit”. We will bring blankets and supper–with enough extra to share with those who don’t have.

Sharing food is a matter of conscience, and an act of faith, a spiritual practice, an exercise of religious freedom. There are many of us who believe that to be Christian means to be “born again” where we have a new definition of family that runs deeper than biology.

These are our brothers and sisters! The very name of our City comes from the Greek words “phileo”, meaning “I love”, and “adelphos”, meaning “brother” – hence the “City of Brotherly Love”. Phileo specifically describes the kind of deep love that brothers and sisters have for each other.  We hope our City lives up to its name.  We are committed to making sure that it does.
Date: Thursday March 22nd, 2012
Time: The rally starts at 4. We will be sitting down for a love feast at 4:30.
Place: Thomas Paine Plaza, JFK and 14th Street, Philadelphia
What to bring: A blanket to sit on, food to eat and enough extra to share around.

Here is The Simple Way’s public statement on these regulations.
http://www.thesimpleway.org/about/archive/philadelphias-new-food-sharing-ordinance/
We strongly encourage everyone who joins us to “Know your Rights”. You can find more information here. http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrataprotest.htm

It will be interesting to hear from Rob how it goes. I’m sure he’ll post something about it on his blog, so I’ll be sure to update my reader(s) about it!

Picking on the Homeless

In recent weeks, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and the department of health in the city have been championing regulations that would prohibit outdoor distribution of food to the homeless. This seems like the worst of big government intervening with sweeping legislation to solve an occasional problem. I thought I would share the following thoughtful response from The Simple Way.

On March 14, 2012 Mayor Michael Nutter announced a plan to ban “outdoor feeding” in the City of Philadelphia. In effect this would make it illegal to share or distribute food in public places without a permit.

We understand that there are some concerns from the Board of Health regarding health and safety of the food that groups share with the homeless. We are glad to see energy devoted to classes that educate and equip groups in food preparation, storage, and distribution so they can more carefully feed folks who are hungry. We share the desire of the Mayor and Health Department that folks eat in dignified settings. We echo the Mayor’s dream that every person be able to have a nutritious meal sitting around a dinner table, and we look forward to the day when homelessness and poverty are history. But homelessness and poverty are not yet history. They are a reality facing many of our brothers and sisters and fellow Philadelphians.

It is certainly appropriate for the City to intervene when there are specific groups that are sharing food in a way that is unsafe, unsanitary, or irresponsible. However, a citywide ban on food sharing is neither a necessary nor a sensible response to these exceptional cases. We are deeply concerned that these new regulations and policies – and the Mayor’s ban on sharing food – do more harm than good. They create bureaucratic barriers to compassion.

The very name of our City comes from the Greek words “phileo”, meaning “I love”, and “adelphos”, meaning “brother” – hence the “City of Brotherly Love”. Phileo is one of the three Greek words for love, and it describes the kind of deep love that brothers and sisters have for each other.  We hope our City lives up to its name.  We are committed to making sure that it does.

The proposed regulations suggest the requirement of permits when providing food for more than three persons, and other unreasonable requirements, such as providing a menu of food to be served as far as a year in advance. Our fear is that these regulations specifically target and will be selectively enforced against some of our most vulnerable citizens. It is hard to imagine every barbeque cookout, religious service with a potluck dinner, family reunion, or block party being prohibited from sharing food. Of course, failure to equally enforce this type of legislation would be a clear civil rights violation as well as an act of discrimination. The parks and public spaces of our city should be enjoyed by all citizens, rich or poor.

Sharing food with those who are hungry is a fundamental act of human conscience. The thousands of people who share food in any way, both inside and outside, make the world a better place. The economic challenges facing our nation have awakened in us a sense of solidarity, knowing that there is a fine line between “us” and “them”. Additional cuts in City funding threaten to make such acts of generosity even more necessary. Philadelphia’s Deputy Mayor Schwarz has noted that most funds for the City’s human services come from the State, where a new budget threatens to cut $41 million in social service funding, representing a 20% cut, threatening even those services that currently exist – and do so much good.

For many of us, sharing food is not only a matter of conscience, but is also an act of faith, a spiritual practice, an exercise of religious freedom. There are many of us who believe that to be Christian means to be “born again” where we have a new definition of family that runs deeper than biology, making it just as essential to care for those we are biologically unrelated to as those we are. This new legislation potentially makes it illegal for a church youth group to take pizzas to homeless folks in a park, or a family to take the delicious leftovers from a Bar Mitzvah to folks sleeping under a bridge. It is unconscionable.

In the Bible, Jesus even goes so far as to say that when we feed the poor, the “least of these”, we are feeding Christ himself.  When Jesus speaks of the final judgment he says we will be asked by God, “When I was hungry did you feed me?” Can you imagine if our response was, “Sorry God, the city would not give us a permit?”

One of the stories of the Gospel involves Jesus doing a miracle where he takes a few fish and loaves and multiplies them, feeding hundreds of hungry folks.  Jesus didn’t have a health permit to do that outdoor feeding. In fact if Jesus had tried to perform that miracle feeding in Philadelphia under these proposed laws, he would have gotten into serious trouble. Jesus bids us come and follow – feed the poor, care for the hungry. We are not willing to allow unjust policies to be obstacles to love.

Our organization, The Simple Way, started nearly 20 years ago as college students shared food with folks on the street in downtown Philadelphia. Over the years our organization has grown and evolved, but sharing food and resources with those in need continues to be at the core of our mission, and of our faith. In fact, as long as folks are hungry we cannot NOT share.

At various intervals in our history we have faced obstacles to our work, like this current policy. We insist on humbly but persistently interrupting injustice.

Twelve years ago the City began passing anti-homeless regulations and policies very similar to the current food ordinances being enacted by Mayor Nutter and the Board of Health. Hundreds of us voiced our concern about the laws, and dozens of us were arrested for sharing food and sleeping in public. In the end, we won a major victory in court.  In fact, the Philadelphia Judge even declared that those of us who broke the law were not criminals but “freedom fighters”, citing the Boston Tea Party and the Civil Rights movement.

We cannot help but see this current struggle as a new chapter in the story of American activism, which has deep roots right here in Philadelphia.

One of the proverbs of the Civil Rights movement in America was: “Noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as cooperation with good.” And it was St. Augustine who said, “An unjust law is no law at all.” This is an unjust law and we are obliged to not comply.

We deeply value dialogue and are convinced we can all do more together than we can on our own. As for this new government policy, we can do better – and we must.

A Good Use of 30 Minutes

Take the time to watch this video. It is 30 minutes long, and I’d suggest actually turning off your cell phone, clearing some mental space and really focusing on the content. There are two important things going on here. The first, and most important, is a call to action to tell our government that sometimes we need to do the right thing even if there is “nothing” in it for us. Finding this man will not make our lives in America more comfortable, and won’t solve all of the world’s terrors, but it will make a world of difference to the people of the nations in central Africa that he is tormenting. The other thing that is going on here is a referendum on whether the connected social network worldwide can turn the tide and bring to the forefront issues that the people deem to be important rather than allowing the media and the government to tell us as a people what we should think is important. I am hopeful that the creators of this video are correct, and that by mobilizing attention to this among the general public the effect will filter “up” to those in power and cause real change. I pray that our government, and others around the world, will help to equip the people of those countries affected (starting in Uganda, and spreading to the neighboring countries) to find this fugitive. I also pray that God would work in his darkened heart by the Holy Spirit to convict him of his sin and draw him to the One who died for sinners, even sinners as seemingly “gone” as Joseph Kony. What could be more pro-life than hoping for the apprehension and life change of someone who is spreading death? What could be more Christ-like than praying for the worst of sinners to receive forgiveness and salvation? I hope he has his heart changed by the Spirit, gives himself up and accepts the earthly penalty for his actions. I also pray for the healing and restoration of the thousands he has victimized. May they receive mercy and grace, and a PEACE that passes all understanding. Even so, Lord.

The History of Church vs. State in the U.S.

(Illustration by Jennifer Hewitson / For The LA Times)

John M. Barry offers a little historical perspective on the origins of the church/state relation debate. Not too surprisingly, the debate about the relationship between church and government in the US dates back to the earliest colonies. Barry looks specifically at the Massachusetts Bay Colony and more specifically the thoughts of Roger Williams. Here is a taste. (HT: John Fea)

The church-state conflict began when Puritans, envisioning a Christian nation, founded what John Winthrop called “a citty upon a hill” in Massachusetts, and Williams rejected that vision for another: freedom. He insisted that the state refrain from intervening in the relationship between humans and God, stating that even people advocating “the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships” be allowed to pray — or not pray — freely, and that “forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.”

Yet Williams was no atheist. He was a devout Puritan minister who, like other Massachusetts Puritans, fled religious persecution in England. Upon his arrival in 1631 he was considered so godly that Boston Puritans had asked him to lead their church. He declined — because he considered their church insufficiently pure.

Reverence for both Scripture and freedom led Williams to his position. His mentor was Edward Coke, the great English jurist who ruled, “The house of every one is as his castle,” extending the liberties of great lords — and an inviolate refuge where one was free — to the lowest English commoners. Coke pioneered the use of habeas corpus to prevent arbitrary imprisonment. And when Chancellor of England Thomas Egerton said, “Rex est lex loquens; the king is the law speaking,” and agreed that the monarch could “suspend any particular law” for “reason of state,” Coke decreed instead that the law bound the king. Coke was imprisoned — without charge — for his view of liberty, but that same view ran in Williams’ veins.

Equally important to Williams was Scripture. Going beyond the “render unto Caesar” verse in the New Testament, he recognized the difficulty in reconciling contradictory scriptural passages as well as different Bible translations. He even had before him an example of a new translation that served a political purpose. King James had disliked the existing English Bible because in his view it insufficiently taught obedience to authority; the King James Bible would correct that.

Given these complexities, Williams judged it impossible for any human to interpret all Scripture without error. Therefore he considered it “monstrous” for one person to impose any religious belief on another. He also realized that any government-sponsored prayer required a public official to pass judgment on something to do with God, a sacrilegious presumption. He also knew that when one mixes religion and politics, one gets politics. So to protect the purity of the church, he demanded — 150 years before Jefferson — a “wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

Interesting side note in there about the history of the King James Bible. Funny that it is often seen as the epitome of the unbiased standard against which new version are compared for any attempt to change the language, while it is a biased translation to begin with!

How Not to Do International Aid

Found this post a week ago or so, but wanted to share it with you. Matador Change highlighted what it calls the seven worst international aid ideas. Here are the intro, the seven ideas, and the conclusion:

Maybe their hearts were in the right place. Maybe not. Either way, these are solid contenders for the title of “worst attempts at helping others since colonialism.”

1. One million t-shirts for Africa
2. TOMS Buy-One-Give-One
3. Machine gun preacher
4. 50 Cent ransoming children in Somalia
5. Donor fund restrictions
6. Making food aid the same color as cluster munitions
7. Making USAID a foreign policy tool

Sometimes bad aid is just the consequence of someone caring too much, but knowing too little. Other times it’s people who should have known better not being diligent in considering the consequences of their actions. And sometimes politicians and unscrupulous businessmen are simply manipulating the suffering of others for their own ends. When it’s benign or thwarted, it’s easy enough to laugh it off. But when a bad idea is carried through, the results can be diabolical.

You can read their comments about what is wrong with each of these ideas here. If you want to connect with an organization making a positive difference while avoiding these pitfalls, check out Hope International.

Chris Smith on Why He Abstains from Voting

Chris Smith (photo from GoodReads)

I resonated with much of a piece from Chris Smith from Relevant Magazine. Relevant is currently in the process of offering a series of Christian perspectives on politics. (Previous posts come from a Christian Libertarian, Christian Republican and a Christian Democrat.) Chris is offering an explanation for his choice not to vote. I’ll give you a taste of his philosophy, and then offer some opinions.

“America, it may be, is doing very well upon the whole, notwithstanding these antics of the parties and their leaders, these half-brained nominees, the many ignorant ballots, and many elected failures and blatherers.”  —Walt Whitman

Whitman’s words ring as true today as they did when he penned them over a century ago. And although my rationale may differ from Whitman’s, I think these words get to the heart of why, for almost two decades, I have chosen not to vote.

Let me begin with the caveat that I don’t condemn people who vote. Rather, I simply believe voting is not the most important political practice of the Church—and I am part of a church community where a few of my brothers and sisters share this conviction.

My opposition to voting is rooted primarily in the narrative of Christ’s incarnation. Jesus was born and lived in a particular time and place; the kingdom He proclaimed did not seek to overthrow the Roman Empire and re-order society from the top down. Instead, He sought to reenergize the grassroots social order of YHWH begun in Ancient Israel, a locally embodied polis that functioned most healthfully without a king. Jesus called 12 disciples, a little community that recalled the 12 tribes of Israel, and they shared life together in a way that proclaimed God’s healing and abundance to the people they encountered.

After Jesus’ ascension, His disciples spread throughout the world planting little communities that embodied Jesus in their own particular places. These churches were, in a very real sense, the incarnation of Jesus in these places and the shape of their life together modeled a politics—a way of being together—that was not rooted in greed, power-grabbing or any form of self-interest. (If you want to know more about politics embodied in church communities, I suggest you read John Howard Yoder’s little book Body Politics.) This basic incarnational story of Christ and the Church is the one in which I and my brothers and sisters at Englewood Christian Church on the Near Eastside of Indianapolis find ourselves.

Our main political task, as a local church community, is to follow the mission of God in the church and thus to embody Jesus faithfully in our place and to work with our neighbors toward the health and flourishing of our neighborhood. Whitman’s assumption that there are more important political realities in our land than our elected officials rings true for me. According to theological narrative I have defined here, churches are the most important of these political realities, but also more important is the open dialogue and collaboration of neighbors as they seek to cultivate their places in such a way that they flourish and can be sustained. To invest ourselves in this political work is a viable alternative to voting, and perhaps more effective in shaping the future of our places.

Over the last decade, I have moved decidedly closer to this perspective, but I have not yet fully endorsed it. I have, however taken the attitude that I will not vote along strict party lines, and I will not vote in any election in which I do not feel that I know enough about the candidates to make an educated vote. This has resulted in skipping mid-term elections at times when I have to admit that I am uneducated. At other times, I have voted in some races, but left others blank. The situation continues to be exacerbated by my growing conviction that Chris is correct that local action and involvement in Christ’s movement through His Church is more essential than any election, local or national. If I have the choice between educating myself about the election or acting locally (even simply ministering to my family), I will always choose to act. This has lead to an increasing disconnect and lack of involvement in much of politics. You will likely find my posts here to be devoid of partisan politics unless my theology leads me to find fault or credit due to one side. I think that the world has seen enough of the Church getting distracted in search of earthly power rather than focusing on spreading the Kingdom in which we really claim our true citizenship.

Thanks, Chris, for you insightful piece, and for further stirring my wrestling with the Spirit as to the appropriate response. I look forward to finding time to talk in person some time when we are out in Indy or your family is back in PA!

A “Proud Papa” Moment

My Oldest Daughter and Me

With the arrival of my fourth child coming tomorrow (Friday), I can’t help but brag a little about my oldest. Last night amid the falling snow I ventured out to shovel the front walk. My daughter, who had been playing in the back yard saw me come out the back door and grab my shovel. She quickly dropped what she was doing, and grabbed her shovel to come help me. On occasions, one or more kids have done this, usually helping for a few minutes before getting distracted or bored and leaving to return to playing. This time was different. After clearing a little path from the side of the house to the front walk. Then I turned to clear the front walk. My dear daughter turned to clear the walk toward our neighbors’ house. We have a good relationship with the neighbors, so I wasn’t shocked. After I cleared our walk and the walk of the other half of our double to save that neighbor some work later, I turned around to find her almost done the entire walk and turning to shovel the path to their front steps. I went over to help, my heart swelling with pride at her diligence. Once that was done, even as I was telling her I was proud of her hard work, she turned and started to clear some spots that the next house had missed. We don’t really know those neighbors, but I was pleased that she wanted to bless them as well.

I figured we were done and started to think about getting inside for supper, but I underestimated her resolve. She asked to cross the alley and keep going! I suggested we stay on our block, but relented about going in. We went past the other half of our double, and cleared the sidewalk and path to the steps for both halves of the next double. Once again, my daughter was having so much fun working for others that she asked to keep going. We decided to check on whether Mommy was ready for us to come in for dinner. She was, so our journey was ended. Before we came in, though, I had Mommy take the picture above of me with my oldest.

There, I think I’ve bragged on her enough. Thanks for reading!