The Adjective of Christian?

Christian politician, Christian education, Christian Marine, Christian Cop, Christian musician, Christian MMA, Christian ...?

In 21st century America, it seems that our individualized need for recognition have far outweighed the communal call of the church to, "...serve one another in love." (Galatians 5.13) The Apostle Paul is attempting to unite a church, divided over Christians wanting to utilize their individual systems of power to gain some type of influence over other people, usually those perceived as weaker than themselves. Paul therefore, alludes constantly to the central praxis of Christ's cross as being the symbol of our relationship to one another. In our current society, we also have utilized the "idea" of Christianity, making it into an adjective which has created people to think that Christianity is a stamp which justifies their need to gain a foothold in the world of power, privilege and status.

This end result of this problem is that the latter (Politician, Cop, Marine, etc.) informs the former (Christian) far greater than we will ever know. From a psychological perspective we constantly being shaped and formed by our society, by our experiences, and by our system of beliefs. So, in a society which has said that each individual needs to provide for themselves, our vocations as Christians end up shaping our Christianity, based predominantly upon an economic system which pushes people into these jobs, which may have detrimental affects on our lives in Christ. I do not have a definitive answer, but I do know that it is weakening us as followers of Christ.

I read Acts 2 this morning and I have difficulty imagining that the resurrection of Christ empowered people to do what they were already doing. Peter is preaching in the Temple and this is the reaction of the people, "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) What shall we do?

Here is their response: They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.⁴³Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. ⁴⁴All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. ⁴⁶Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, ⁴⁷praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

So a good question to ask would be, “Why does the book of Acts have anything to say for our present order?” Because, I believe as Christians, we hold to the stabilizing world that the Spirit of God continually forms through our mutual life together. We seem to have interpreted the text to make sense of the increasing amount of power associated with our economic systems, but I think we, as a community should allow the greater influence of the narrative to shape our lives, I think that the telos (the end result) of this interpretative framework is a greater reliance upon a shared life. We practice the task of the shared life, because we as human beings need to form habits, out of which will flow the creative emergence of nuanced ways of engagement with our society. Simply assimilating into the already existent created power systems will in the end diminish our ability to care for the needs of others.

The question remains, Are Christian politicians willing to lose their jobs for the sake of another? Are Christian Marines willing to say no, when asked to kill and face court marshal? Are Christian Educators willing to not exclude people from the knowledge that they have been freely given? Probably not, and why you ask? Because for far too long, we in North America have bought into the system that values the self actualized needs of people over the life of the community of faith. It also comes from the believe that I have somehow earned what I have. I can not get around the statement by Gore Vidal that we live in the United States of Amnesia. We forget as quickly as we learn.

Max Weber in, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has detailed that post-Reformation and especially post-Industrial Revolution, the church began its slow, insidious descent into securing power for human beings through our institutionalized vocations, which naturally would lead to teaching to that each person finds their purpose in what they do. We as Christians though affirm that our life in Christ is found in relationship with each other and with God. We affirm each human being as created in the image of God and thereby has innate value. We do not affirm people for what they can produce in terms of industrialized society, but by the value of love which produces fruit which other people can experience. Our Scriptures are written and attested to by those who were willing to suffer and still willingly offer love, peace, and blessings to those who by every definition of the term, did not deserve it.

So, when we really look at this issue, are we pursuing these vocations because we're following the call of God, or are we doing it because it makes us feel good about our positions? It gives us influence and power and status, and people look at us at great people.

This short clip from Dietrich Bonhoeffer explains this above mentioned task more appropriately.

Her choice...?

2 Samuel 11:2-5: One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, ³ and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" ⁴ Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. ⁵ The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."


How many times have we heard this story? Not necessarily this specific story from Scripture, but the story of power, seduction, and violence. This story could read from a Hollywood movie script.

Recently though I have been studying this story again, simply because it seems that a few points have been overlooked, not in understanding the implications of David's adulterous act, but in the set paradigm of power in relation to the king and one of his civilian subjects. The eventual outcome of violence later in the story in relation to the woman's husband Uriah, the Hittite seem to really be an extension of the initial violent act against this innocent woman committed by a man given the incredible responsibility of actually building trust in a community committed to the faithful act of being Yhwh's covenant people. I wish that more could be said about the inter communication between David and Bathsheba. Verse 4 says that, "David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her." So, a woman living by herself as her husband, a soldier in the king's army is in battle is brought into the king's palace. Was she nervous? Was she apprehensive? Was she thinking that she must impress the king to keep her husband safe?

From an outside perspective, I have to ask, "Did she even have a choice in the matter?" Now I do not assume to place my modern worldview of the 'autonomous individual' into the story, simply because the people in this story did not think in those terms. And the fact that the idea of the 'autonomous individual' is deeply flawed anyway, because even in our modern world, we continuously have to understand the dynamics of how power is utilized in relation to each other. In this story, we seem to have focused primarily on the fact that the king slept with Bathsheba, (committing the act of adultery) but we do not view this act as a situation of an extreme power imbalance between two parties. This act was probably not a consensual act, but an act of manipulative power, utilized by the king, especially since in Bathsheba's mind, she understood her husband as being a soldier under David's regime. I can imagine the feelings of powerlessness as she consented this act by the king, possibly with the tacit threat to her husband's life. The threat may have been greater than tacit, it could have been formal, i.e. David could have stated that her husband's well being depended on her consent. I would be quick to believe that this interpretation would be possibly correct, since the eventual outcome of this act was the subsequent killing of her husband. The very lie told to Bathsheba to gain her consent was eventually actualized in this story to cover the fact that this facade would be exposed. But this story is not surprising in the least given the institutionalization of power through the monarchy and the explicit violence associated with war.

David's act of violence against Bathsheba is simply an extension of an institution which needed violence to perform the duties of preserving its position. Previously in 1 Samuel 8 when the leaders came together and petitioned to have king other than Yhwh lead them, one of the stipulations of the monarchy would be war with other nations, and the exploitation of human beings. The institutionalization of power needs a presentation of an image in order to sustain itself. Therefore, people would be utilized for the purpose of creating an image which creates a facade of impenetrability.

Now, I am of course taking certain liberties with the text, since the story does not unpack any of what I have interpreted above, but I believe that the implications of David and Bathsheba's relationship is not only demonstrated in the eventual killing of her husband, but the violent acts committed later in the story by David's children.

Take up your cross and...

The Passion of the Christ

I had written a couple months ago about something which I titled, "The Illusion of Caring", referencing the documentary Roots by Alex Haley. What initially grabbed my attention in this mini-series was the Captain of the slave ship, The Lord Ligonier, who professed Christianity, and was deeply perplexed about his first slave mission to West Africa. The Captain originally seemed disturbed about this mission, but participated anyway, and I thought that the documentary did a marvelous job portraying the slow, insidious process that took place in the Captain's actions during this endeavor. Slowly, the Captain seemed to succumb to the power of evil associated with this slave trade, until he was fully engulfed and participating in the trade wholeheartedly. I thought about Jesus' call to, "Take up your cross and follow me" in Matthew 16 and how the cross is a counter intuitive to what we think will bring forth life, but in essence will bring us to the point of death.

The Christian tradition over the past thousand years has interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus through the lens that the cross "pays for the penalty for our sins and appeases the wrath of God", which is a marvelous way to understand Jesus' crucifixion as long as we understand what "sin" really looks like. The Penal Substitution model basically says that Jesus stood in the place of humans and took upon himself God's wrath for the sin of humanity, which in essence appeased an angry God and therefore, allowed humans to once again know God, since his wrath was subdued. (My words) The penal substitution model though in our culture, because of it's implicit dualist worldview, does not situate sin as participation, but situates sin as either individual or abstract. This model therefore, has limited power to address or due justice to the historical reality that Jesus died a death as a Roman agitator and the only way Jesus would be thought of as an agitator would have been to challenge the Roman imperial policies of his day. That the "sin of humanity" killed Jesus through the participation of humans, in their actions, hearts, and public policies.



The central praxis of the crucifixion of Jesus fits with Jesus' direct interaction with the practices of Israel and Jesus' own statements of kingship over against the kingship of Caesar. If Jesus stood against the powers which were attempting to destroy humans for the sake of power, privilege, and status, then what would this mean in relation to the ministry of the church? The ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation should recenter our worldview to at least default to the fact that we must work toward love for an enemy, but the splitting of the world and the splitting of the human being into various parts, can keep humans from understanding that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (MLK, Jr.)



The difference of course in Jesus' way of challenge and other counter revolutionaries that came before and after (Barabbas as being a good example) is that Jesus did not pick up the sword to overthrow by violence, but bore the violence of humanity into his own body. Therefore, the invitation by Jesus to "take up your cross and follow me" in Matthew 16:24, could have been interpreted by the faith community as being embodied in the counter revolutionary act aimed at subverting the system of oppression contained in the slave trade. The Captain not simply looks perplexed and strained at participating in this horrible industry, but engages with other Christians who offer a language more in line with the voice of God and he says "No!" to the British Imperial Crown, i.e the systems of the world which Paul talks about, but then suffers the fate associated with counter worldly wisdom. His fate is that he loses his position as Captain, he no longer makes the money which procure for him a life of luxury, and people no longer heap upon him complements for the position he holds. In turn, he gains freedom to say and do those difficult tasks to which Jesus calls his followers. His position as Captain no longer matters, because the community of faith embraces him as having suffered along with his Lord and in a major way contributed to the release of those held in prisons (Luke 4). The paradox and scandal of the cross is that freedom is found in bearing the cross by becoming the exact image for another of the "good news" that yes, Jesus cares for how one is treated in society. The world continually proclaims very loudly that freedom is found by throwing off the boundaries, or throwing off any forms of authority, whereas it is not the boundaries and authorities which are the issue, but the domination systems associated with these boundaries and authorities. When one creates boundaries which are unable to be crossed at various moments. When authorities proclaim that they possess the truth and one must assimilate into their likeness in order to know the truth, this poses serious problems for truly understanding the dynamics behind systems of power.


As a Christian, I know that I am endowed with power by the Holy Spirit's direct action in the midst of the church, of which I participate through the communion of the saints of God. When this communion is broken through my participation with the communion of the systems of the world as described above in the slave industry, I must gain power through the direct demonization of another, since identification with those who suffer is usually non-existent. This poses a significant problem for Christians, since the call of Jesus is to "love God and love neighbor", this means we must somehow develop a way to address the problem of caring for those who are not as "blessed" as we are. How then should Christians trained in the ways of Western Civilization address caring for others? For the most part, we have followed the ways of the Enlightenment thinkers before us and tilted our heads to the side, looked concerned, and maybe even shed a tear or two at the suffering in the world. We then return to our vocations, our houses, and our isolated lives, afraid that real participation in the kingdom of God will cost too much.


Remember that Pentecost brought forth the Spirit of the living God, drawing people together from all tribes, tongues, and nations, forming a community of people who no longer were held by the bondage of property, but understood that all earth's abundance is truly a gift from God and the hoarding of property in lieu of the communion of the saints could cost Christians their lives (Annanias and Saphira). There is a degree of socialism within the structure of God's economy and only an economy of individualism would believe that each person provides for themselves. Individualism within the scope of the Captain of the slave ship contributed to his eventual demise, since he believed that he could be a Christian and participate in an evil industry. Roots does an incredible job in portraying how as the lone individual Christian on the ship, he slowly succumbs to the pressure of assimilating into the evil associated with being the Captain on a slave ship.


Although at any point the beautiful gift of grace would be available to this Captain, in my opinion his repentance, i.e. his turning away from this horrible industry would be needed to truly experience God's grace. I do believe that grace is always found in the midst of evil, but the continuing of participation with evil would in the end diminish the grace which we find in following Jesus. In order to truly follow Jesus, I must not make God into my image, but be recreated into the image of God, who brings the slave out of bondage, not into bondage.
We today have these same institutions and I continually struggle with our participation in them. Our world has created massive institutions, which make it very difficult to live outside of their powerful influence upon our lives. In Max Weber's, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he very clearly examines how the individual vocations of Christians became their ministries from the Reformation onward and how this has affected the life of the church in Western culture. Without the community of faith standing alongside the the Captain of the slave ship, the power of the systems of the world will most likely ensnare him and all that he will be left with is an "illusion of caring."

The Cross and Control

-

Confessions

For approximately the past three years I have spent countless hours researching, reading, and writing concerning the powerful systems in our society which have slowly and insidiously enslaved numerous Americans. At the center of this American system is the ability of humans to believe that they can 'control' everything. This system, mainly based upon economics has slowly distanced human beings from other people, since other people are really the one aspect of life that will never be completely controllable. And that which is not controllable is not commodifiable and therefore will not produce wealth. In essence it is an unproductive aspect of our daily living. Yet, I want to say that these supposed "unproductive" aspects of life are most valuable within the scope of the kingdom of God. The problem though is that they won't give us the value which our society demands.

These systems have appeared to benefit some people to a great degree, with the appropriate term being "appeared". While it appears that the people have gained prestige, status, and wealth in our society, their children have subsequently grown up isolated in rooms playing by themselves. Many of their relationships never gain depth, because of the idea that each individual is responsible for themselves, therefore contributing to divorce rates which never need to be so dramatic. People that have grown up in American culture over the past fifty years have some serious identity issues, mainly because, "Identity is formed in the midst of communities." (Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God) Without these communities, people are limited in human to human contact, making it appear as though the world is very controllable. It is only through our human contacts that our understanding of the world is formed. As God has given the earth food and water to nourish humans, the human brain also needs the nourishment of diversity in order to grow. Our brains are constantly forming memories and as we grow older, we are making it continually more difficult to make change if we are not willing to live in and among difference.

Difference also allows humans to offer that wonderful gift of forgiveness for the offenses that will come and the hope of being reconciled. It will allow human beings to actually participate with the ministry of reconciliation. We have the option of distancing ourselves from difference, but this may be the option of "losing one's life" that Jesus speaks about. In the midst of "losing one's life for the sake of the gospel of reconciliation, we will find our life." (My paraphrase)

Now as a Christian, I believe in God asking humans to participate in the renewal of creation, which is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This participation can manifest itself in numerous ways and the formation of relationships should be the primary aspect to our commitment to this "good news". Yes, it is good news that God does not want us to live our lives separate from each other. But, here is the deeper call to the gospel. God wants us to live our lives completely connected to those to whom we can not control.

In my opinion, the thought of controlling our world actually usurps the rightful place of God. When the Israelites were called out of Egypt in Exodus 32 and came to Mt. Sinai, they formed a 'golden calf', because the 'golden calf' was something which they could control. The 'golden calf' had no real power outside of the value which the Israelites placed upon it, but idolatry always gives the facade of control. Life was not turning out how the Israelites had envisioned and they wanted to gain some control over this adventure. We human beings really believe that we can control everything, but in reality much of life will simply happen, because in essence we can not control the world. This facade of control is indirectly related to the fear of death. But what happens in the end if I really can't control other people? What if those people really are as dangerous as I initially believed?

The control that Jesus exhibited before the Romans and the Jews was that he had the ability to control life, but faced the power of those systems, and defeated this evil power contained within the fear of death. This power was the driving force behind his crucifixion, from the cosmic and earthly level. Jesus was faced with the alluring premise of controlling everything in his life, yet refused to succumb to this powerful idea. Why did Jesus refuse?

Without reading the idea of the modern 'autonomous individual' back into the text, I think that Jesus refused because his trust was completely in God final deliverance. Much of what control is based upon is fear of the unknown and the anxiety that can cause. Trust though should reconfigure our default positions. A default position is something we need to fall back upon. I believe that Jesus' default position in "God's final deliverance" was the resurrection from the dead. The resurrection from the dead defeated the fear of death and brought humans into the fulfillment of God's new creation.

I confess that fear has gripped my life for so long and has slowly squashed so much of my faith and trust in God's final deliverance. Amen.