St Francis, the Government Shutdown, and the Virtues of Americans (eCrozier #192)

On October 4, 2013, in culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

When I first reflected on what the Holy Spirit might be prompting me to write today, I felt drawn to offer a reflection about Blessed Francis on his Feast Day. But I also felt a nudge to offer some commentary on the reality TV show that our current federal government has become. Right now we’re witnessing the lust for political power overtaking serving the common good, the desire for political advantage trumping basic common sense. It’s like watching middle school boys on the playground when one of them has their emerging manhood ridiculed by another. Backing down isn’t an option when that much testosterone is so fresh in the bloodstream. As we watch that proverbial playground we know it won’t end well no matter who’ll claim victory afterward.

But as I continued to pray about this, I realized that if I allowed these “middle school boys” to determine what I was going to write, then, as the saying goes, I’d “allow the terrorists to win.” I won’t give them that power. The Blessed Saint of Assisi is too important a witness to the Truth not to write about. Anyway, maybe if we all just ignore the political middle schoolers in Washington and stop stoking their egos, then they’ll end this WWE Smackdown and behave themselves. I found from experience that such a strategy actually does work with middle school boys. They want attention. If you don’t react to them, they often calm down all by themselves. Worth a try, at least.

But back to Francis. I think the Holy Spirit working through Francis probably saved the Church from itself. By the early 13th Century when Francis came of age, the Church that had begun as a mass movement of following Jesus, the incarnate, crucified God, had become something akin to a large leaky barge of an institution taking on water but still afloat. The Church had morphed into a political power broker with little resemblance to the Church of the Acts of the Apostles. It was hawking the Crusades (the 4th Crusade was ending and they were planning, believe it or not, a 5th one) and through raw political power the Church was bending the will of various princes forcing them to accept Papal control. You can read all about it in the annals of the Fourth Lateran Council, much of that Council being the Papal reaction to those same princes who 35 years before had installed antipopes to rival the popes they didn’t like.

On to this scene comes Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone, nicknamed Francesco, who left the luxury of his father’s estate and profitable silk business to live among the poor. He preached a simple message: “follow the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and walk in his footsteps.” And he didn’t mean that metaphorically. Soon he had some brothers join him and later sisters with St Clare. Together they all kept alive the path of following Jesus and laid the groundwork for the Reformation centuries later. The Church is still learning and relearning the indispensable truth of Francis’ virtuous witness.

Come to think of it, maybe there is a connection between honoring what St Francis did for God’s mission and the lunacy in Washington? Maybe we will be blessed to have a secular St Francis rise up and remind Congress of the virtues of compassion and generosity that Americans have always had?

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Alex Rodriguez, Narcissus, and the “Law” that Kills (eCrozier #186)

On August 23, 2013, in culture, grace, by bishopbenhase

Narcissus in Greek mythology was the son of a god named Cephissus and a nymph named Liriope. He’ll forever be known as one who, upon gazing at his own reflection in a pool, was so enamored with it that he refused to leave that place and died there. I recall this myth because we live in a time where we’re actively encouraging the creation of one Narcissus after another. Enter Alex Rodriguez from stage left.

I have sympathy for this wounded soul. In another culture, one that didn’t encourage, even demand, his creation, he may have had the opportunity to show his amazing athletic skill without the ceaseless pressure of the larger culture. I’m not saying he isn’t to blame for his actions. Clearly he chose to cheat. I’m merely saying we as a society have a share in creating what’s become the Alex Rodriguez we now see in all his shame.

From the beginning of his professional career, he was put on a pedestal and told he was entitled to everything he could get because of his baseball prowess. When he became a free agent in 2001 (the same year we were told to “go shopping” rather than sacrifice for the common good), teams were falling all over themselves to bid for his services. The Texas Rangers signed him to a $252 million, 10-year contract. Baseball’s free market was telling him he was worth that much. This channels the old Mac Davis song: “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way. I can’t wait to look in the mirror ‘cos I get better looking each day, to know me is to love me I must be a hell of a man. O Lord it’s hard to be humble, but I’m doing the best that I can.”

While not a psychologist, I would think that someone like Mr. Rodriguez, upon being told his baseball acumen was worth $252 million would find that anxiety-producing. How could he possibly prove every day that he was worth that much? The “law” (in the Pauline sense) crashed down on him. Could he ever be good enough (perfect?) to justify such compensation? The performance enhancing drugs were his solution.

Some have classified Mr. Rodriguez’ story as a “fall from grace.” But that assumes he was ever “in grace.” From what I know of his life, it’s been a relentless pursuit to prove to others he was worthwhile, deserving of adoration, and the best baseball player ever. So, rather than a fall from grace, I see his life as a predictable capitulation to the demands of our cultural “law” (again, in the Pauline sense) where he (and we) will always come up short. The twin drivers in Mr. Rodriguez’ life were the internal fear that he’d never be good enough and the external demand from a voracious public that he prove he was worth his contract. Those two combined to produce a predictable outcome.

How much wealth, celebrity, and status are enough? For those living by the “law” and not grace, there’s never enough. Thus, we see income disparity widening because the wealthy can never seem to have enough and constant campaign dollars being sought because politicians can also never seem to have enough. Alex Rodriguez merely reflects back to us in our own Narcissus pool the world we’ve created for ourselves. The “law” that tells us we will never have/be enough is simply killing us. Only grace can save us.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Paula Deen, the N-Word, & Uncle Screwtape (eCrozier #184)

On June 28, 2013, in culture, racism, by bishopbenhase

The outrage and then the counter-outrage over Paula Deen’s use of the N-word should have been predictable to anyone who has been paying attention to race relations and racism in our country. First comes the shock by well-meaning people that anyone in this day and age, especially a contemporary icon of the culinary arts, could possibly still use that word. Then comes the counter-outrage from other well-meaning people who either (1) want us to get over all this hyper-sensitivity around race, or (2) think those shocked by her comments are totally over-reacting, or, (3) excuse and justify her word use because she is merely “a product of her generation and where she was raised.”

All of those responses have some small kernel of truth to them. All people of good will, and especially those of us who attend ourselves to discipleship in Jesus, wish we could finally move on, be less reactive to mean-spirited language (no matter who utters it), and be more merciful to those who, like Ms. Deen, have yet to grow up emotionally and spiritually beyond the limits of the way they were raised.  We all wish this, but we as a culture still have too much unfinished business around race relations and racism for this wish to be realized just yet.

One of the reasons, I believe, we still have unfinished business is our collective self-deception and self-denial when addressing this subject. Our self-deception shows itself by all the heat that gets generated when someone like Ms. Deen makes such immature comments. We prefer to bask in the heat of outrage, rather than stand in the light of truth that comes from really listening to one another’s experience of race and racism. And because there’s more heat than light on this subject, our self-deception leads us to a collective self-denial about the pervasive power this persistent sin has over all of us.

C. S. Lewis’ Uncle Screwtape would be chuckling away were he to witness all this. In addressing his nephew Wormwood, he might write: “We now have them right where we want them. Keep them outraged by blaming one another and then by making further excuses for why no one should be outraged. That will keep them so resentful and so angry at one another that they will never stop, listen to one another, and then learn the emotional and spiritual maturity needed to deal with the sin faithfully together. So, Wormwood, keep up the good work!”

When the Devil is smiling and cheering us on, then we should wake up and take notice. And then we shouldn’t simply resign ourselves to it saying: “well, that’s just the way it is.” Race relations in our culture won’t improve, and we won’t faithfully address the sin of racism, until enough of us say “enough,” which will come by empathizing with one another’s pain, and fear, and hurt, and loss. It’s time to stop blaming one another. It’s time to do something about this sin. Outrage and counter-outrage will just continue to stir us up, distract us from the real work we must do, and make Uncle Screwtape smile.

+Scott

(The eCrozier is off to the wilds of the Galapagos Islands on an exotic holiday and will return around Labor Day)

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

the gods must be crazy? (eCrozier #183)

On June 21, 2013, in culture, by bishopbenhase

The 1980 film, The Gods Must Be Crazy, tells a wonderful, comic story of Kalahari tribesmen. They live content knowing that the gods, while watching their every move, are appeased. This must be true because the tribe is living well in contented happiness. But then one of the Bushmen finds a bottle that fell from an airplane landing unbroken in the Kalahari. This bottle introduces new knowledge into the tribe. At first they see this bottle as a gift from the gods, but it soon produces dissension in the tribe as various people fight over its possession. Their fear of the gods and their desire to keep the gods appeased turns into a realization that truly “the gods must be crazy.”

We modern people view this film and laugh at the tribesmen’s simplicity and naïveté. But truth be told, our Jewish & Christian ancestors had similar views about appeasing a God who they perceived as angry and often fickle. Jesus more than once was asked: “Who sinned this man or his parents that he is suffering so,” implying that God was always just watching and waiting to lower the boom on someone. The not-so-ancient practice of indulgences was a way of buying off and appeasing the wrath of a God who watched with anger and needed satisfaction (hard currency accepted and appreciated).

But we modern people aren’t nearly as sophisticated and evolved as we’d like to think we are. We’ve simply replaced an all-watching god who must be appeased and satisfied with an all-watching state that also must be appeased and satisfied. Just as the gods of the Kalahari tribe kept them safe and secure as long as they were appeased and satisfied, we now are willing to do the same as long as the state promises us safety and security, even if the state fulfills that promise by means we really don’t want to know much about.

To wit: We’re passively endorsing drone strikes. As my good friend Paul Zahl has written: “Our use of drones gives these people no chance to surrender. It is like capital punishment without an arrest, a charge, a trial, or a right of appeal. Our use of drones is not humane.” But the gods of the state have promised us safety and security if we just let them use drones to assassinate anyone who just might be a threat to us. We’re also passively endorsing unprecedented invasions of our privacy. The gods of the state and their demigods of corporate America (Verizon, Google, etc.) will take away our safety and security, or so they threaten, if we don’t appease them by allowing them to do this.

We used to fear the Lord God Almighty and believed that God alone held us in the hallow of God’s hand. Now we fear the loss of our safety and security, so we pray to the new gods of the state to protect us. But throughout human history we must know that such safety and security has always been elusive, as St Paul who lost his head to the executioner’s ax and St Peter who was crucified upside down have attested. Like the revelers in Poe’s castellated abbey with welded doors shut, we’re willing to ignore all manner of suffering and death outside just so that we can have a wishful promise of safety and security inside, if it will just stop the Red Death from creeping in.

The gods must be crazy? I think not. We need to look to mortals for that.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Happy Birthday Soren Kierkegaard! (eCrozier #177)

On May 10, 2013, in culture, by bishopbenhase

“Our age is essentially one of understanding and reflection, without passion, momentarily bursting into enthusiasm and shrewdly lapsing into repose.”- Soren Kierkegaard

To those of us who admire Soren Kierkegaard’s profound contribution to theology and philosophy, this past week held an important observance: his 200th birthday. The so-called “melancholy Dane” wasn’t, at least in my view, melancholy at all. He was an insightful observer and critic of what passed for Christianity in his time, but also what passed for a cultured life by those indifferent to, or critical of, the life of the Church.

His quote above could’ve been written today about our culture. By “passion,” I believe Kierkegaard meant seeing and living life holistically where both one’s inner life and outer actions have a fundamental congruency. His critique of “understanding and reflection” doesn’t mean those undertakings are, in themselves, problematic. It’s rather the skewed stance toward the world that they so often represent.

At one extreme, such a stance can represent a subjectivity that becomes nothing more than sentimentality where feelings become paramount. This isolates us leading us toward a creeping narcissism. Think people who can see only how an event affects them personally. At the other extreme, such “understanding and reflection” can increase the likelihood that we have a detached objectivity toward the world where we can observe and comment on the world without ever having to engage the world at any cost to us. Think people who see the world primarily through sarcasm and irony.

Kierkegaard called us to get past the bifurcating extremes of subjectivity and objectivity. Honesty and appropriate self-criticism can only come through engaging ourselves objectively. In other words, we need to see things clearly and not simply through our own often biased lenses. Likewise, we are subjects whose thoughts and feelings matter. Subjectivity is natural and not in itself a bad thing. Our personal convictions, beliefs, and passions give our lives meaning, purpose, and a sense of destiny. What’s needed is a balance that helps us live holistically avoiding the extremes.

This need for balance leads me to have, along with Kierkegaard, a high doctrine of the Church. For it’s in the Church where I’m called through the Scriptures and the Liturgy (always aided by my fellow disciples) to avoid the deadliness of the above extremes. In the Church, I can be myself (subjectivity) while also being called to see myself through both the eyes of God and my fellow disciples (objectivity). At our best, that’s a primary gift we ask the Holy Spirit to give us through our life together. In the Church’s narrative told through the Scriptures and the Liturgy I’m reminded again and again of God’s love for me all the while being confronted with the truth that the story of the Cosmos isn’t only about me. As Fr Alan Jones wrote: “I don’t want my friends to just accept me as I am; God Lord I hope they love me more than that. I hope they demand more of me.” Good Lord, do we ever need the Church!

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

There is No Right to Be Unlimited (eCrozier #169)

On March 15, 2013, in culture, by bishopbenhase

“I need, no, I have the right to be unlimited.”

Advertisements in the media do not so much drive cultural forces as they reflect them. Those who develop advertisements tap into cultural trends and exploit them in order to entice consumers to buy their product or use their service. Such exploitation can quicken the pace of a cultural trend, but not create it. So, presented for your consideration: Sprint’s new TV ad for their services. It jumped out at me when I first saw it a few weeks ago. In the middle of the ad the narrator utters, I need, no, I have the right to be unlimited. As if to beat this into the viewer, the word “unlimited” flashes across the screen a couple of times after that.

The “unlimited” the ad’s creators were referring to, of course, had to do with the particular cellular service they were offering that gives the consumer unlimited minutes and data each month for a flat fee. But that piece of information alone is apparently not enough to move consumers to purchase that service. Sprint needed to make a larger metaphysical claim about the consumer’s right to be unlimited.

The language of rights has been with us for a long time. If one can frame any situation as an issue of a “right” to something, then there becomes an implied moral or legal warrant for having it. There follows the next logical claim: anyone who questions my right to this or that or anyone who might wish to prevent me from having the right has now fundamentally violated me. Codified rights we have are well enumerated in our laws, as they should be. I believe we are all thankful they are there. But when we begin equating the right to unlimited cell phone usage with such basic human rights like the right to vote, or the right to follow our religious practice, or the right to face our accusers in a court of law, then we have entered a whole new realm of individual expectation that is, well, unlimited.

And that is the other part of the ad that gives me the willies: the implication that we should have no limits. Of course in the Jewish and Christian narrative we know that limits enter the story from the very beginning when God says to Adam and Eve “y’all can eat whatever you want in the garden, even the eggplant if you’re that desperate, but y’all got to stay away from fruit on that tree in the middle of the garden” (translation mine).

Now, I may be making a mountain out of a molehill here. One may say: “It is only a TV ad. You are blowing this out of proportion.” But I don’t think I am. This advertisement reflects a larger cultural disease with which we all live and it is literally killing our souls.

This disease tells us that world exists (or at least should exist) to satisfy our limitless desires and preferences, which are now understood to be ours by right. The Gospel of Jesus is in direct contradiction to this claim, but it is also the remedy for it. The Gospel tells us what God has done and is doing in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s a tough sell to people who believe that their life should be selfishly unlimited.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Distinguishing the Gospel from the Religion of Me (eCrozier #167)

On March 1, 2013, in culture, gospel, by bishopbenhase

America has had a civil religion for all of her history. It’s the religion that’s invoked at government functions such as city council meetings and at other public or sporting events. This civil religion is now so ingrained in our culture that many people can’t differentiate it from the particular claims of Christianity. While this civil religion lacks overt doctrinal convictions (it needs such lacking to be so widely accepted), it does, in a kind of passive-aggressive way, make claims about God and humanity. Our civil religion claims:

  • God created and continues to order the world.
  • God is absent from the particulars of daily life unless God is needed to solve problems, provide solace to the grieving, or to win a sporting event.
  • God wants all people to be good, kind, and happy and that’s our goal in life.
  • Good, kind, and happy people go to heaven when they die.

As this civil religion continues to grow in its approbation, it shouldn’t surprise any of us in the Church why people say that they don’t need to be part of a Church or other religious community to have a relationship with God. In such a belief system, who needs the Church or a religious community as an external authority of the Divine? Each person can have a relationship with God unmoored from any particular tradition or practice. This is the logical distortion of the understanding of the “Priesthood of All Believers.” Or, as John Prine sang so eloquently, they “can all find Jesus on their own.”

In his book, Habits of the Heart, Robert Bellah described a woman named Sheila who practiced a religion she called “Sheilaism,” which she described as being good as she could possibly be to herself. If she treated herself well, she’d do the same to others. In some ways “Sheilaism” is the quintessential civil religion. It’s a worldview of total liberation for the individual from any authority other than his/her own judgment. Since there’s no authority that’s outside people’s judgment to guide them on their search for meaning, purpose, and destiny in their lives, then the individual is left to his/her own devices. Searching for God’s desires for one’s life then becomes a de facto search for oneself and the “baptizing” of one’s own worldview.

For those outside of the Church this appears to be exactly how they understand their freedom, particularly their religious freedom. And they see this as a positive thing. But in truth, it’s just another form of bondage. They simply become slaves to their own desires and worldviews. Or, as George Bernard Shaw said: “Hell is where you have to do what you want to do.” Or maybe as John Prine sang: “Your flag decal won’t get you into Heaven anymore.”

This is our evangelistic challenge for this generation: to persuade others that the particular claims of the Gospel of Christ are the truth; that they aren’t synonymous with our civil religion; and, that a distorted understanding of religious freedom only brings greater bondage. This won’t be easy as we are facing a civil religion that has built up a head of steam for some time now. Nevertheless, go and make disciples.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Some Semi-random Reflections after our National Election (eCrozier #154)

On November 9, 2012, in culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

1. As a Christian, I understand my vote as primarily “damage control.” Which party or candidate will do the least damage to the poor and most vulnerable in our society? In my judgment both damage them, so the real question for me is which one will do the least damage? As I see it, any other plumb line for my vote becomes a rationalization for my own selfishness.

2. Government can do a lot of good, but governmental laws can’t legislate love, compassion, or reconciliation. Only God can change the human heart and only in following Jesus do we discover God’s desire for humanity. Too many Christians, in my opinion, place way too much faith in our government, our political affiliations, and our political processes.

3. In Matthew 25, the Gospel tells us that God will judge the nations by how each nation cares for the poor, those in prison, and the sojourner in their midst. The Bible says that God will judge the “nations,” not the Church, by this standard. So, God will judge the United States, like all nations. We don’t have a special exemption.

4. In his Beatitudes in Luke 6, Jesus declares: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” Jesus does not say: “Blessed are you who are middle-class.” Yet, that’s all I heard from both parties. Where was the voice for the poor in this election? Hence, my observation in # 1: My vote is “Damage Control.”

5. Democrats, Republicans, and others spent over $2.5 Billion in this election. The result? We have the same political calculus now as we did before the election. I don’t know who primarily benefitted from that $2.5 Billion, but my hunch is it didn’t feed the hungry or heal the sick (unless it was a political operative’s “sick” bank balance). I know that sounds like Judas questioning Jesus, but the amount of money in our politics can’t be anything but corrupting for all sides.

6. Jesus wasn’t a political partisan. He had Zealots, Herodians, Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees who were his disciples. He called people beyond “party” affiliation to a deeper commitment to God’s Kingdom on earth as it already is in heaven. We need Christians who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Greens to make a similar movement from party followers to followers of Jesus. Such non-partisanship is not being non-political. It’s just putting our lives in the proper order.If I give my allegiance to any political party, then I’m creating an idol (the Bible frowns on such).

7. We can’t wait on politicians to change the world, because they won’t. We can’t wait on governments to legislate love, because they can’t. And we must not allow politics to determine the means by which we love one another. How we love one another should determine the means of our politics.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Economic Self-Interest and the Gospel of Jesus (eCrozier #151)

On October 19, 2012, in culture, gospel, politics, by bishopbenhase

The economy seems to be on everyone’s mind this fall as the election season burns on and candidates on all levels tell us what’s wrong with the economy and how, if we elect them, they will fix it to make us individually better off. This promise they make, that is, to make me as an individual “better off,” is, of course, an appeal to my self-interest, and to some extent, my selfishness. Because in the reptilian part of my brain, the lizard inside is telling me to protect what is mine and get just a bit more if I can. The candidates really do want me to ask: Am I “better off” now than I was four years ago?”

I noticed this in the recent town hall presidential debate. Both candidates addressed each questioner as if the candidate was a personal problem solver, and if elected, he would put in place such policies that would make them personally better off financially. I know the candidates have been advised by the legion who direct their every move to do this. These advisors have done the research and crunched the numbers. They know that candidates need to make such appeals to self-interest, maybe even selfishness, or the candidate in question won’t get elected. They are thus counting on us to selfishly vote our self-interest as if self-interest were not only primary, but also something simply deduced as what is economically best for me right now.

But, we must know, what is best for us cannot be reduced to such facile, empirical measurements as what puts more money in our pockets today. For example, what if there were a free market for human kidneys and applying the standard of what would make a person “better off” financially were applied? If a buyer and a seller could come to agreement on a price for the kidney, the deal clearly, under this rubric, makes both parties “better off.” The buyer gets a life-saving new organ and the seller gets enough money to make the sacrifice worthwhile. Both are “better off.” We must ask though: do we really want to live in a world where such an economic deal can be done?

Financial reasoning and moral reasoning are not the same. Pure financial self-interest cannot and must not be the plumb line for moral reasoning. In fact, I would say, as Christians, if our economic self-interest is the prime driver of our behavior and choices, then we need to do some serious soul-searching. Yet, as I observe many people who seek to follow Jesus as his disciples, they have cordoned off his teaching from their own economic understanding and practices. We all need to reconnect the Gospel of Jesus to how we think and act around what we understand to be our economic self-interest.

In this Sunday’s Gospel (Mark 10:35-45) Jesus teaches his disciples about how they need to be different from the standards of the world. His teaching there is principally about desiring power over other people and how it should not be so among those who follow him; they should seek to be servants. But his teaching has broader implications and is therefore related to issues of economic self-interest. James and John in the story wanted what they considered their due. In a sense, they wanted to be personally “better off.” But Jesus calls them out of their myopic self-interest to see their lives and their purpose in life quite differently. I pray we can do the same.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Stop waging war and start washing feet (eCrozier #139)

On June 15, 2012, in Body of Christ, culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

Author Rachel Held Evans recently said that it was time for the Church to move “from waging war to washing feet.” She was referring to the culture wars in the Church over human sexuality. I could not agree more, even though I think “war” is too strong a metaphor for what we have been experiencing. Clearly, however, people have taken sides and are bent on their side winning. Maybe a more apt image is one of a circular firing squad. I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who wrote that the Church is the only known army in the world that shoots its own wounded. We are our own worst enemies. In some ways this is nothing new since human nature is nothing new. St Paul dealt with such partisanship in the Church in Corinth (and in other communities) where differing factions insisted that their way was the only way and if there was to be any compromise it would be by others coming to their way of thinking.

This sort of partisanship is steadily disempowering and marginalizing the Church. We are declining across denominational lines by just about every form of measurement one can use. Regular church attendance is in decline and the numbers of people claiming no religious affiliation is growing. The Church does not have much influence in the culture any more, it no longer is respected by a majority of the people outside the Church, and as Kinnamon and Lyons and other researchers have pointed out, two-thirds of young adults see the Church as being too partisan in its political engagement.

Robert Putnam and David Campbell, in a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, conclude that this partisanship is an important factor in the Church’s decline. They write: “In effect, Americans (especially young Americans) who might otherwise attend religious services are saying, ‘Well, if religion is just about conservative politics, then I’m outta here.'”

Of course, the Church’s way out of this is not to make religion about liberal politics either. That would be just as wrong and partisan. Nor is it for the Church to become a place offering a privatized religion disconnected from the world. The Church must be political, at least in the generic sense of that word meaning being involved in the lives of the polis (that is, the human community). Jesus was very much concerned with the lives of the polis. One can’t address the plight of the poor, the needs of the sick, the care of those afflicted with wounds of body and mind, or any other challenge of the human community without being involved in politics.

So the issue is not whether we as the Church should be involved in the politics of our communities and nation. The issue is how we do that. The partisan, divisive strategies adopted by factions in the Church are not only turning away young adults, they are not working! After 30 years of the so-called Culture Wars, all we have to show for it is more of the same vitriol and fewer people engaging with the ministry of the Church as we serve God’s mission.

Rachel Held Evans is right. It is time to stop waging war and start washing feet.

+Scott

 

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Go To Top »