Those who disagree with us are not necessarily immoral (eCrozier #134)

On May 4, 2012, in culture, moral foundations, self-righteousness, by bishopbenhase

“The idea of reading the Gospels and keeping Jesus’ commandments as stated therein has been replaced by a curious process of logic. According to this process, people first declare themselves to be followers of Christ, and then they assume that whatever they say or do merits the adjective “Christian.” – Wendell Berry

I wholeheartedly agree with Berry’s assessment. We’re all guilty of the sin of baptizing what we say or do as “Christian” in order to underwrite what we see as righteous. We come by this sin honestly. We’ve been schooled in the celebration of the self all our lives. So, it makes sense we’d understand our point of view as righteous in contrast to those who understand things differently. After all, the great American poem is Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” the great American essay is Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” the great American novel is Melville’s Moby-Dick, all of which insist on the self. Can there be any doubt that we’d see ourselves as righteous, while those who disagree with us are wrong?

This week marks the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots. The riots were fueled by a “not guilty” verdict for four police officers who, a year before, had nearly beaten to death one Rodney King. King became famous for asking during the riots: “Can we all get along?” We all saw the videotape. It was detestable behavior by the police, by my lights. But 20 years later, other people seeing the same videotape and recalling the same set of facts, arrive at a different conclusion. They conclude the police’s behavior was justified, even though they had compassion for Mr. King. How can this be? How can two groups view the same incident and set of facts and arrive at opposite conclusions?

Jonathan Haidt, in his new book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, addresses this and related issues. Haidt, a professor of Moral Psychology at the University of Virginia, takes the reader “on a tour of human nature and history from the perspective of moral psychology.” One aspect of his research I found revelatory. When his researchers asked people about their moral foundations, they ranked their responses into five areas: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. They then asked the interviewees how they described their political or religious convictions: Very Liberal, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, Very Conservative.

The results clarify the disagreement between liberals and conservatives. Self-described liberals valued Care and Fairness more than the other three moral foundations. Self-described conservatives, however, endorsed all of the moral foundations about equally. These results show that people who disagree across a spectrum should be careful not to classify those who disagree with them as “immoral,” which often occurs in our culture wars. What may be happening is this: People are putting a higher value on certain moral beliefs than others. This helps explain why two people can reflect on what happened to Rodney King and arrive at a different moral conclusion. Rather than engaging in the current cultural blood sport of demonizing people who disagree with us, we might be able to go deeper into a conversation about moral foundations and recognize the other person’s deeply held, commendable, and good moral convictions.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Loneliness is an Epidemic and We know the cure (eCrozier # 133)

On April 27, 2012, in culture, loneliness, mission, by bishopbenhase

“Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” is the provocative title of the cover story in May’s Atlantic Monthly. Author Stephen Marche’s answer is: sort of, but only because it perpetuates a trend that has been present in our culture for some time. He contends that Facebook offers an illusion of connection, faux intimacy if you will, without actual human connection. He reports on the growing data about loneliness. According to one prominent study, about 20 percent of us report that we’re lonely most of the time.

Concurrently, doctors are beginning to talk with some alarm about an “epidemic of loneliness.” One such doctor, John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago, is a leading expert on loneliness. In his book aptly titled, Loneliness, he showed how loneliness impacts our physical health. He reported: “When we drew blood from older adults and analyzed their white cells, we found that loneliness somehow penetrated the deepest recesses of the cell to alter the way genes were being expressed.” Loneliness then isn’t only an emotion. Our whole bodies are lonely. And the data shows loneliness makes us sicker. It is becoming a public health crisis.

Ten years ago I remember reading Robert Putnam’s compelling book, Bowling Alone, where he documented the rise of suburbia’s isolation, media’s omnipresence, and the instant gratification of technology all of which makes our separation from one another more possible. Combined with the decline of traditional associative institutions like unions, community groups, and churches, we see the result: greater loneliness. Marche argues we’ve done this to ourselves willfully, but without a conscious awareness of the consequences. As he writes: “We are lonely because we want to be lonely. We have made ourselves lonely.” I can hear Screwtape and Wormwood laughing out loud right now.

Marche quotes Sherry Turkle, from her book Alone Together: “These days, insecure in our relationships and anxious about intimacy, we look to technology for ways to be in relationships and protect ourselves from them at the same time…The ties we form through the Internet are not, in the end, the ties that bind. But they are the ties that preoccupy.” We Christians know about the “ties that bind,” as in the hymn: “Bless be the tie that binds our hearts in Christian love.” I recall the Episcopal Church Ad Project poster from a few years ago that showed a television set with a corporal, paten, and chalice atop it with the caption: “Can your TV set give you Holy Communion?”

This growing data on loneliness offers an insightful description of our current mission field. We need to find Gospel ways to address people’s loneliness at its core and not superficially, and by that I mean, only socially. That probably means that more Church Bowling nights or other group activities are not the answer, although they certainly might help. We need to go deeper and somehow convey the Biblical truth from the Genesis creation story that it is “not good” for us to be alone; that God has created us for one another; that St Augustine was right (“Our hearts are ever restless until they rest in thee, O Lord”); that “there is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole; there is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul.” God has a mission for us.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #126

On March 9, 2012, in culture, gospel, love, sin, by bishopbenhase

St Paul writes in Romans: “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” Even though we sin against God and defy God, God still loves us. But why? People who don’t think about that question probably haven’t given much attention to their sinfulness. If we think that we’re basically OK, that we’ve done nothing to draw us away from God, then it wouldn’t make any sense to wonder why God loves us. We’d conclude that God should love us because we deserve nothing less – we’re that lovable.

So, our question wouldn’t be “why?” but rather “why not?” For this question to gnaw at us, we must know ourselves to be separated from God by our sin. I fall into this category. Like the writer, Frederick Buechner, I see the Gospel of Jesus as bad news before I see it as Good News. Buechner writes: “The Gospel is the bad news that we are sinners; that we are evil in the imagination of our hearts; that when I look in the mirror each morning what I see, at least in part, is a chicken, a phony, and a slob. That’s the bad news.”

I don’t share this so some people might have the satisfaction of saying: “I just knew bishops were like that.” No, I share it because it’s the truth. But I also share it with some concern because we live in a culture where people have lost the capacity to hear such truth. People love to hear celebrities talk about how awful they were, how addicted they were, etc. There’s a certain voyeurism in our obsession with other people’s sin. But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that there’s no repentance in such talk. It’s merely a way for people to say: “Isn’t that just awful.”

So, when I agree with Frederick Buechner that I too am “a chicken, a phony, and a slob” you might be tempted to say: “Isn’t that nice, I saw someone like that on Oprah once.” But it’s not the same. That’s why I’m concerned with letting you know what I see when I look in the mirror. Not because you’d discover I was a sinner – good Lord, that’s not news – but because I run the risk of placing my bad news (and yours) in the wrong context, namely Oprah and not the Bible.

We must place our bad news in the proper context: The Gospel of Jesus and not our culture. The Gospel can only be good news after we first face the bad news. As Buechner writes: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the news that we are loved anyway, in spite of our sin – that we’re cherished by God, forgiven, bleeding to be sure, but also bled for.”

But why does God love us anyway? The Bible never says why. It’s as if that’s a ridiculous question even to ask. The Bible assumes that it’s simply God’s very nature to love us.

In the middle of the 20th century, the great theologian, Karl Barth, was taking questions from a group of seminarians in Chicago. One seminarian wanting to show off asked Barth to tell them the greatest truth of the Christian faith. Barth smiled and said, “Jesus loves me this I know, cause the Bible tells me so.”

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

I’m not afraid of the Girl Scouts – except maybe their cookies during Lent! (eCrozier #125)

On March 2, 2012, in culture, discipleship, fear, by bishopbenhase

This year is the centennial of the Girl Scouts founded by Juliette Gordon Low, who was a native of Savannah and a beloved member of Christ Church. All Girl Scouts make the promise: “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country, to help people at all times, and to live by the Girl Scout Law.” Their slogan is: “Do a good turn daily.” This is a great organization that for 100 years has helped girls gain confidence and abilities in outdoor activities, has provided a place for girls to learn the importance of working together, and has helped instill in them the virtue of citizenship for the common good. My only complaint with them: They sell those tempting cookies during Lent every year.

So, one can only wonder why Mr. Bob Morris, an Indiana State legislator, wants his legislative colleagues to defeat a nonbinding resolution honoring the Girl Scouts on their centennial. An old Hoosier friend of mine sent me a copy of the letter he sent to his colleagues referring to the Girl Scouts as a “radicalized organization” dominated by “liberal progressive politics” and committed to the “destruction of traditional American family values.” He points to the fact that since Michelle Obama is the Honorary President of the Girl Scouts, this proves his case. Oh please!

Now, it seems, the Girl Scouts are the next thing we are supposed to fear. A culture of fear is stirred by incessant talk radio, 24-hour cable news, and internet blogging (Mr. Morris claims he arrived at his conclusion about the Girl Scouts after doing a “small amount of web-based research”). The daily fear-mongering we endure has transformed conversations about the common good into shouting monologues where each voice vies to make more outrageous claims than the other. Modern communication technology, rather than providing opportunities for greater community, has moved us farther down a tribalist path. We’ve been instructed to fear these other tribes. Such tribalist fear affects our moral lives because it deforms our discernment, character and judgment.

In some ways, this is nothing new. It is only hyper-actualized in our contemporary culture. Appealing to people’s fears has always been a tactic used by some to control the lives of others. You will recall that Jesus in the Gospels spends a good part of his teaching ministry with his disciples telling them: “Do not be afraid.” You see, Jesus clearly recognized the corrosive capacity of fear, understanding profoundly how living by our fears would lead us away from the traditional spiritual practices of hospitality, generosity, and bearing one another’s burdens. Thus, living in a culture where fears are repetitively stirred up and then served up for us to consume, we will find it increasingly difficult to practice the Christian virtues of those who attend themselves to discipleship in Jesus.

One of our important roles as church leaders is to help people develop the habits, practices, and virtues that correspond with following Jesus. We can only do so effectively if we are clear about what prevents people from doing so. My hunch is that people’s fears are on the top of the list. So, I will not let Mr. Morris make me afraid of the Girl Scouts. And, if I buy their cookies, I will save them until Eastertide.

Scott+

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Virtuous and Godly Living Matters But Not for Demagogic Reasons (eCrozier # 122)

On February 10, 2012, in culture, discipleship, scapegoating, by bishopbenhase

Charles Murray in his new book, Coming Apart, addresses the growing cultural and class divide our country has experienced in the last 50 years. Innovations in technology and manufacturing have transformed the work place and business practices. This has meant one gets rewarded quite well in our economy if one has the technological smarts to compete. But for those who do not, their ability to earn a living wage has declined. As Murray writes: “just about all of the benefits of economic growth from 1970 to 2010 went to people in the upper half of the income distribution.” Even though we rightly criticize former Senator John Edwards’ immoral behavior, he was right about there now being “two Americas.”

As this has occurred, there has also been a change in marriage practice. The number of American adults who are married has fallen from 72 percent in 1960 to barely 51 percent, and the number of new marriages fell 5 percent between 2009 and 2010. In working-class America (30% of the country) this is even more acute. Marriage rates have gone down steadily during this time while out-of-wedlock births and divorce rates have dramatically increased. This is not so for the upper-class (20% of the country) where only 7% of children are born out-of-wedlock. Among the working-class it is 45%.

In the upper-class (20% of the country) nearly every man age 30 to age 49 is working, but in the working-class (30% of the country) this age group of men has been leaving the labor force in a continual flow even when the economy has been better. Murray states from his research that people in this class, representing nearly one third of our country, are much less likely to get married, are less likely to be active in their church, less likely to be involved in their neighborhoods and schools, are more likely to watch a lot of TV, and are much more likely to be unhealthily obese. To avoid distractions to his analysis, Murray limited his study to white America. His alarm bell is about class not race.

From Murray’s argument, it is easy to see why both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have struck such deep chords in people. People sense this “coming apart” of our culture, but are not sure how to mend the rift. Demagogues pick up on people’s anxieties (as they always do) and offer up scapegoats to blame. The scapegoats du jour are immigrants and the gay people. But the truth is neither one of them can be honestly blamed for the lack of virtuous behavior in the nearly third of white America that Murray has described.

We in the Church need to hear what Charles Murray is saying. We have a pastoral challenge here. The Church is not only a hospital for sinners. It is also an academy for saints. We need to teach people about “virtuous and godly living” such as life-long monogamy, the spiritual discipline of weekly Eucharist with the Body of Christ, and the duty we all have to be meaningfully involved in our neighborhoods and schools. We also need to instruct folk in the virtues of family life where we discourage sloth, gluttony, and the like. That will take a deft pastoral hand from our leaders, but we need to do it to mend what is coming apart.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Is it sufficient enough just to have convictions, but not act on them? (eCrozier #118)

On January 6, 2012, in baptism, Benedictine, culture, incarnational, by bishopbenhase

The comedian Louis C.K. performs a hilarious bit about flying first class now that he’s become a successful entertainer. In the bit, he tells how when he’s sitting in first class and sees military personnel walking back to coach class, he considers getting up from his seat and saying to them: “Look, you’ve been willing to serve and maybe die in your service, the least I could do is trade seats with you so you can fly first class.” Of course, he never actually does this and probably never will, but he nevertheless believes he’s a better person, maybe even better than most people, for simply contemplating doing such a good deed. Louis C.K. is so funny because his comedy captures the spirit of our contemporary culture, sometimes devastatingly so. In our culture, you really do not have to act on your beliefs or convictions. It’s sufficient enough just to have them.

A few years ago I asked an adult Sunday School class: “What are the expectations of a faithful Muslim?” A number of people immediately responded: “pray five times a day.” Another quickly added: “Fast during the daylight hours of Ramadan.” Still another said: “If possible, make a pilgrimage to Mecca in your lifetime.” I then asked: “What are the expectations of a faithful Christian in our Anglican tradition?” There was some awkward silence before one person offered: “Go to church on Sunday and try to live a good life.” I saw a lot of nodding heads. Everyone seemed satisfied with that answer, but I said that in our Anglican tradition there were more behavioral expectations than that. I then spoke about weekly participation in the Eucharist, daily prayer using some form of the Daily Office, and the regular practice of service and justice in the world. And that was just for starters. I asked them to review the Baptismal Covenant in the Prayer Book. I said our Anglican Tradition had a Benedictine quality to its spiritual practice where we seek a balance of work, rest, and play; that we’re strongly incarnational in living our faith, finding God particularly in the people, things, and circumstances of our lives.

The general response was that this was all well and good, but none of these should be considered “requirements” or even “expectations.” One man even said that it wouldn’t be very hospitable to newcomers if we laid expectations on them. “It might turn them off. They wouldn’t feel welcome. Besides, we’re saved by faith, not works.” Yes, that’s true. But faith, at least as I’ve always understood it, is more than going to church weekly and trying to be a good person. Faith is the joining together of belief and action so that it changes and shapes the way we live our faith in the world.

Like with Louis C.K.’s comedy bit, it’s not enough for us to just think good thoughts about God, or really intend with all our hearts to help, for example, with building a Habitat house, or to contemplate seriously sharing our faith in Jesus with our neighbor. It matters that we do these things rather than to congratulate ourselves for merely desiring to do them someday. Is it any wonder that many people, particularly young adults, are turned off by what they perceive as the hypocrisy of the Church? As one young adult said to me recently: “I want to follow Jesus. I’m just not too sure I want to hang out with members of his fan club.” Such perceptions will only change when others see in us a congruency of belief and action.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Once Again We Struggle Against the Wrong Enemy: The Real Danger is not TLC’s All-American Muslim (eCrozier #116)

On December 16, 2011, in culture, by bishopbenhase

This week I read that an organization called the Florida Family Association (FFA) convinced the Lowes home improvement company to withdraw its advertising from a show called All-American Muslim on cable’s The Learning Channel (TLC). The FFA claimed this show did not depict Muslims accurately. The show apparently views Muslim-Americans living in Dearborn, Michigan as having arguments with their teenage children, going to the doctor for a medical condition, and trying to balance work and family life, among other things. In other words, pretty much what all of us do. But the FFA said the show is “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda.”

I’ve never, to my recollection, watched any show on TLC, so I went to the channel’s website and watched clips of All-American Muslim. I found just another voyeuristic “reality show.” I can’t see how anyone would find it threatening, or for that matter, want to watch it. Watching grass grow is more compelling (and more intellectually engaging). While I was on TLC’s website I saw other shows the channel offers. Here’s a sample: “Toddlers and Tiaras follows families on their quest for sparkly crowns, big titles, and lots of cash.” Watching a few clips of the show made me ill. Mothers were rehearsing their five year-old daughters to “shake their bottoms” for the pageant judges. “Strange Sex” is a show where “individuals divulge the obstacles and frustrations they face as they cope with unique sexual conditions.” These were things I didn’t want to know. “Freaky Eaters follows individuals who must confront their strange food obsessions.” I can’t even tell you how much I didn’t want to know about any of this. I felt embarrassed for these poor people exposed to the world and exploited for financial profit.

My question is this: Why isn’t the FFA seeking to get the advertisers on these shows to pull their ads? Toddlers and Tiaras is the closest thing I’ve seen to televised child abuse. It sexualizes kindergartners! When we baptize a child, parents and godparents “renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God.” These little girls are being corrupted. The other two shows exploit sad, pathetic persons for the entertainment of a voyeuristic TV audience. The Germans have a word for this. It’s Schadenfreude, the pleasure we derive from the misfortunes of others. In our baptismal covenant, we promise to “respect the dignity of every human being.” But apparently, the FFA thinks these shows are just fine, or at least not worthy of their ire.

Now the FFA has every right to do what they are doing and Lowes has every right to advertize only where they want to, but I have trouble seeing how the show All-American Muslim will ever “corrupt and destroy the creatures of God.” It will bore the creatures of God, but not much else. These other shows, however, provide the real danger, because they continue to desensitize viewers to the corruption and degradation of the children of God. In fact, the shows suggest we should somehow delight in it. The FFA is clearly struggling against the wrong enemy. And anyone who watches these shows needs to do some serious self-examination (not to mention, get a life), because as St. Paul writes in Galatians, they are feeding themselves on the works of the flesh and not on the fruit of the Spirit.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Declining Violence?, Walmart Pepper Spray, and “Myside Bias” (eCrozier #114)

On December 2, 2011, in culture, discipleship, humility, by bishopbenhase

In his new book: The Better Angels of Our Nature: the Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes, Harvard professor Steven Pinker contends that violence has steadily declined in the world since the end of the Cold War. He makes this claim based on lots of data and his belief that we as a species are growing up, morally speaking. I found his argument interesting, but impossible to accept, even with all his supporting data. If I had the time, I am sure I could find just as much data to make the opposite point. It all depends on how one defines violence. He is right if one means world wars, but not so much if one means violence in general. Even then, the violence of war did not end with the Cold War. It continued in the first Gulf war, the Balkan wars, Rwanda, Chechnya, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Added all up, they are significant. Pinker barely refers to them. He focuses on the developed world and its sustained peace.

But even in the developed world, we aren’t all that developed, when it comes to being violence-free. As Rod Serling would say in an episode of The Twilight Zone, “submitted for your consideration:” Last week, at 10:10 p.m. on Thanksgiving night (or Black Friday Eve, as it will soon be known) twenty shoppers at a Walmart in the San Fernando Valley had to be treated for injuries after a woman fired pepper spray at them. Los Angeles Fire Captain James Carson said the woman was “competitive shopping” and was apparently attempting to “gain preferred access” to some sale-priced electronics. Dr. Pinker, I rest my case.

Dr. Pinker, I believe, suffers from what economist Daniel Klein calls “myside bias,” which is the tendency to judge ideas or information according to how conveniently they conform to a person’s already settled view of the world. Dr. Pinker set out to find a decline in world violence and he did. He even found evidence to support it. But he had to ignore a lot of other evidence to get there.

I suffer from “myside bias” and so do you. We all do (except Georgia Bulldog fans who are completely free from it). Pure objectivity is thus a myth. We all bring to every idea or piece of information a subjective interpretation of that idea or information based on how we have come to see and comprehend the world. So, anybody who insists to you that they are unencumbered by this, I strongly suggest that you be wary of them. These are dangerous people (or maybe I’m just exhibiting “myside bias” against Cable News?).

Our common admission and confession of “myside bias” has the benefit of helping us become humble before the Truth of God in Jesus Christ, while at the same time, compelling us to acknowledge that we are finite, limited creatures who get things wrong, often frequently. It can also aid us in our empathy toward other equally finite and limited creatures; the ones the Bible calls our “neighbors” (as in, “love your neighbor as yourself”). Such humility and empathy will help us develop and maintain generous hearts and open minds as we seek to follow Jesus in a world full of people like us. We will learn to judge less and love more. It will aid us in the ongoing work and practice of the forgiveness of one another. Put simply, it will help us be better disciples of Jesus.

+Scott

 

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

What Steve Jobs and Apple can teach the Church (eCrozier #113)

On November 18, 2011, in baptism, culture, identity, by bishopbenhase

Much has been written about Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, after he recently passed away. I have not read Walter Issacson’s biography of Jobs, but I have heard him interviewed and the picture he paints of Jobs and the company he led for many years is fascinating, and I might add, it offers some wisdom for us in the Church.

Lots of other companies have been in the market place for decades making computers, smart phones, and other personal electronic devices to store and play music, lectures, radio programs, etc. Apple, however, has exceeded their competitor’s success. I have heard many people offer reasons why Apple has been so successful. I have heard things like: “The I-Phone, I-Pad, and Macbook are cool, intuitive, and user-friendly” (full disclosure: I have a MacBook and I-Pad). Still, there are other competitive, very good choices out there for people’s use, so that does not explain the phenomenal success of Apple. To be sure, Apple would not have had its success if its products had not been cool, intuitive, and user-friendly, but that alone does not explain its success.

I think Apple and Jobs touched something far deeper in people. Whether we are selling a product or making a case for something, we tend focus first on the “what,” that is, what we are selling or making the case for. Then, we move on to the “how.” How will this product I am selling or claim I am making be of use to you. And then, eventually, we get around to the “why.” Why is it so important to you to have this product I am selling or accept the claim I am making. So, for example, the pattern usually goes: This is a widget (what), it allows you to clean your pet’s teeth (how), and it will make you and your pet more content and better off (why).

What Apple did was begin with the “why,” which is an identity, purpose, and destiny question. “What” and “how” are questions that focus on content and methodology. Now content and methodology are important, but those questions do not address people at their core, which is a “why” question. When Apple and Jobs rolled out the I-Pad, the world was not demanding it. As I recall, there were many jokes about it when it was first introduced. But Apple basically said: “Here is the I-Pad and it will change your life. You need one of these.” The secondary questions were what it did and how it worked. The marketing was about the person’s identity, purpose, and destiny in the world.

That is what we claim in baptism about following Jesus as Lord & Savior. It’s a question of identity, purpose, and destiny in the world. It is a “why” question. I think we make a huge mistake in making our claim to the world about the truth of God in Jesus when we focus first on the “what” and then on the “how,” that is, what you need to do to become a Christian and then how you go about doing that. People at their core identity want to answer the “why” question first (which is why Apple has succeeded). Why should I be Christian? If our only answer is: “doing so will save you from Hell,” then we will fail miserably.” The answer must be from the via positiva: “We follow Jesus as Savior & Lord because it is the way God has given us to share eternally in the life of God.” Then and only then, can we work on being cool, intuitive, and user-friendly.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Ann Tyler’s “Saint Maybe” and getting clear on Jesus’ Gospel (eCrozier #112)

On November 11, 2011, in culture, discipleship, forgiveness, gospel, by bishopbenhase

As a Church, we face many external challenges from an increasingly post-Christian culture. Those challenges include, but are not limited to, a growing ignorance of just what the Christian Gospel means. A generation ago, if someone referred to another as a “Prodigal Son,” then many people would’ve known that term referenced Jesus’ parable about a father who forgave his son. I don’t think we’re there anymore as a culture. I believe, however, our internal challenges are even greater.  It’s also more pressing that we address them. Besides, we have very little influence over the larger culture. And we can deal with how the Gospel is taught and lived out in our Church.

Ann Tyler, in her book, Saint Maybe, tells the story of Ian Bedloe, who as a 17 year-old mistakenly tells his older brother that his brother’s wife is having an affair. His brother angrily drives away recklessly in his car. Soon after, Ian learns that his brother has died in a car wreck, apparently from being so distraught over the accusation. His brother’s widow is shattered by the loss and a few years later, consumed by the grief, she dies leaving three young children. Ian is racked with guilt over what he seemingly caused. Seeking forgiveness for his sins, he visits a storefront church called the “Church of the Second Chance.” There he learns there’s no such thing as cheap forgiveness. He must do something particular about the lives he has devastated. The church’s pastor counsels him to take responsibility for raising his dead brother’s three children.

Ian does this. The story comes to an end when he’s middle-aged and all three children are grown. As he reflects on how his life turned out, he wonders if he’ll ever experience forgiveness and absolution for what he did. As a young man, he sacrificed his own dreams in order to raise his brother’s children. In an apocalyptic moment, he realizes he hadn’t been doing penance all along. Having the privilege of raising the children into fine adults was a gift he never could’ve expected. As this comes to him, he experiences the forgiveness he has longed for. It was in the actual practice of the Christian faith that Ian discovered the truth of what he was taught at the “Church of the Second Chance.”

Tyler’s book calls into question some of the misguided assumptions many people have about forgiveness, grace, and what it means to live the Christian life. And that continues to be an internal challenge for us as a Church. The Church needs to be abundantly clear about Jesus’ Gospel of forgiveness and grace and then preach and teach it consistently. Jesus’ Gospel demands a response from us not passive assent or thoughtful intent.

Many people in the Church today want to be tended and serviced, not served and led. We don’t lead and serve them truthfully if we somehow convey to them that being a disciple of Jesus can be reduced to church attendance, a few bucks in the offering plate, and just saying we’re sorry when we sin. Discipleship must engage our whole being. It’s who we are, what we do, all the time, even when no one else is looking. Internally in the Church, we must teach people that. Rather than bemoan what our culture has become or seek to use it as an excuse for passive resignation, let’s get clear on what the Gospel demands of us and then let’s respond.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Go To Top »