If at First You Don't Succeed

There’s a story about a new, young preacher whose first sermon at his new parish was well received. The next week, he repeated the same sermon.

The people weren’t too worried. After all, he was young and probably nervous. They spoke among themselves, “We just need to encourage him,” which they did.

But when he repeated the same sermon on the third consecutive Sunday, the elders took him aside. “We understand that you’re young and new and inexperienced. What can we do to help you develop other sermons?”

The young preacher replied, “Oh, I have other sermons ready; and, as soon as I see evidence that you’ve heard this one, I’ll move on to the next one.”

Boy, Howdy! Have I been tempted to do the same thing!

There’s an issue before us as Americans and as citizens of the Earth, that needs to be addressed over and over and over. I’m not arrogant enough to believe I have the definitive Word on the subject, even though I have addressed it many times in this blog and in other venues.

This time I thought I’d broach the subject with several quotes from another, more influential source. Jim Wallis[1] is founder, editor, and publisher of Sojourners magazine. I abandoned a major writing project on the subject when I discovered Wallis’ writings, because he says exactly what I feel, and does so in a manner much less adversarial than my own efforts have been (ironically, my campaign against adversarial partisanism could not avoid adversarialism!)

Wallis’ passion, like my own, is for bipartisan collaboration for the common good. His presupposition, like my own, is that both the right and the left have important gifts to offer in the pursuit of the common good, and that the ideological warfare[2] that has replaced civil debate is perhaps history’s greatest barrier to that common good.

The quotes that follow are from two of his books:

·         Jim Wallis, On God’s Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned About Serving the Common Good (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group) 2013.

·         Jim Wallis, Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group) 2013.] This little book contains excerpts from On God’s Side, listed above.

I use a Kindle, which gives “Locations” instead of page numbers.

“The day after the 2012 presidential election brought a great feeling of relief. Most of us, no matter whether our candidates won or lost, were so weary of what elections and politics have become that we were just glad the process was over. Many were disappointed with how the dysfunctional and bitterly partisan politics in Washington had undermined their deep desires for hope and change. Politics has severely constrained those possibilities by focusing on blame instead of solutions, and winning (ideological confrontations) instead of governing [italics and parenthetical mine]. … But the election results produced neither the salvation nor the damnation of the country, as some of the pundits on both sides seemed to suggest. Instead, they called us to go deeper.” [Opening words of the Preface of On God’s Side, Location 165].

* * *

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” ~ Reinhold Niebuhr [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 39].

* * *

“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government… The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows…. I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” ~ C. S. Lewis [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 44].

* * *

“Perhaps the greatest loss is to the common good—because I believe that both conservative and liberal insights and commitments are necessary for it to exist. In short, I am convinced that the common good requires us to be both personally responsible and socially just (italics his). These are the two best big ideas of conservatism and liberalism respectively.” [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 52.]

* * *

“The 24/7 news coverage today… doesn’t really “cover” the news but rather fuels the audience’s already-held prejudices about what is happening. Almost all of it is biased, much of it is distorted, some of it is just plain lies, and too much of it is downright hateful. Unfortunately, we are losing genuinely important ideas that the other political side has, which are often critically needed to find more balanced answers to our complex social, political, and economic problems. We’ve lost our integrity in the public arena, substituting ideological warfare for genuine and rigorous political debate, replacing substance with sound bites…

“In such a polarized, paralyzed and increasingly poisonous political environment, it is very difficult to find or even discuss the common good. But I believe that both the conservative and liberal philosophies have critical contributions to make in solving our problems and that the best ideas from both are essential for reestablishing a serious public discourse about the common good.” [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 73.]

Most of my political exposure, other than the virtually universally biased media, is on Facebook, where some of my friends complain constantly about the “liberal press” or the “leftist media,” etc., with virtually no critical evaluation of the biases of their favored conservative sources. At the same time, other friends continuously point out the inconsistencies of the conservative media without critical analysis of their favored liberal sources.

I can think of few Facebook friends who share my own passion for trying to find balance and bipartisan collaboration—for seeking reconciliation and healing of our land. Most just want to win the fight, and for their side to prevail.

I recommend—no, I implore my readers (both of you!) to read carefully the writings of Jim Wallis referenced in this blog, as well as his earlier book, God’s Politics: When the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. I also recommend Parker Palmer’s Healing the Heart of Democracy as a call to healing, reconciling collaboration to replace the current culture wars.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Since I first published this blog, Wallis has become virtually a persona non grata among conservatives, and many conservatives categorically dismiss and refuse to read or hear anything they anticipate will be counter to their own ideological cocoon. But that’s precisely the point and is the reason I quote him here. It is so crucial that we read and listen to all perspectives. No single person—no human group of any size—is totally right or totally wrong about anything. Every person, and every human group, has something of value to contribute to the common good, and to cut them off without a hearing is to abandon the common good to a closed ideology.

[2] Since this blog was published the first time, the ideological referenced above has become so pervasive that now it has its own label: “culture wars.”

More on Balance

A theme (some might say an obsession, given the content of my blogs!) of my faith is balance. My first student sermon in seminary compared John 3:1-18 with Matthew 25:31-46.

The former is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus, and includes the phrase, “You must be born again.” It also includes the best-known verse in scripture—John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” 

The latter is Jesus’ Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, with the familiar injunctions to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisons, etc. The conclusion: “As you did it(or didn’t) to the least of my brothers, you did it (or didn’t) to me.”

One is about spiritual and eternal matters, while the other is about what has been called “The Social Gospel” or issues of social justice. The point of my sermon was that the same Bible contains both emphases. To date, I have not discovered a biblical prioritizing of the two emphases. So far as I can see, we are enjoined to a balance of ministries to people’s spiritual and eternal needs as well as to their physical and immediate needs.

When asked which was the most important commandment, Jesus responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ³⁸This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40 NRSV).” 

The second is “like it.” “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” I don’t find any way in that text to rationalize one to the exclusion—or even to the moderating—of the other, and I’ve preached that theme several times each year since then (1969); but I think I have a new way of articulating it.

I think the greatest weakness in the community of Christian discipleship is the problem of reductionism. Even in Jesus' day there was a tendency for people of faith to reduce discipleship to a simple formula ("Which is the greatest commandment?")

“All ya’ gotta’ do is…” and then recite the list. I sometimes have called it “formulaic” Christianity or Christianity by theorem—the lowest common denominator.

I observe two specific reductions.

The first is what Jim Wallis calls an atonement-only gospel: the only purpose for Christian discipleship is to lead people to salvation—to avoid hell and attain heaven. In my estimation it is impossible to deny the New Testament premium on that kind of life and witness, which is generally called “evangelism”.

The second reduction is an ethical absolutism: the primary measure of faith is our behavior toward others. Again, there is no denying that Jesus taught an ethical paradigm few humans have attained. Too few have tried; indeed, many rationalize away the injunctions to minister to the poor (or to tend in other ways to matters of the common good) by labeling them “secular humanist” or “socialist” or “communist”.

Few teachings strive for a balance between the two reductions.

In my last blog I described a debate between Jim Wallis and his close friend, Southern Baptist seminary president, Albert Mohler. The topic was, “Is social justice an essential part of the gospel and the mission of the church?”[1] 

Wallis argued yes, justice is integral to the gospel. Dr. Mohler said no, arguing that social justice was important but that “the gospel” was the atonement brought about in Christ that saves us from our sins and secures our souls for heaven. 

I admit up front that I have no hard data to support my observation and, moreover, that I am biased toward my own reductionist tendencies. Given those qualifications, however, it seems relatively clear to me that:

1.      Those who, with Dr. Mohler, say that social justice issues are important but secondary to evangelism tend to rationalize and thus to neglect and even to oppose efforts to minister to the poor. To be fair, in my limited observation almost all who oppose ministries of social justice are really opposing government involvement in those efforts. On the other hand, the truth of the matter is that if the government doesn’t do it, who will? There certainly are not enough resources in the churches, most of which are declining and struggling to survive; and no other entity has stepped up to the plate!

2.     Those who emphasize social justice ministries tend not only to neglect evangelistic ministries but even appear condescending or even contemptuous toward those who do. To be fair, in my limited observation such opposition is not to evangelism itself but to specific strategies of evangelism (I am in that category: indeed, I find many evangelism strategies outright counterproductive to the gospel!) On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing an effective evangelistic strategy emerge from that set. I do hear considerable rationalization about quality versus quantity.

Which brings us around to the issue of balance.

I watched the “Stupor Bowl” last night (you might guess I had no pony in that race). I’m not a fan of either team; but, it was less stressful to watch without caring who won. I don’t think I yelled at the TV even once!

It occurs to me that evangelism and social justice ministries might be like offense and defense on a football team. It takes both. If a team is weak at either, it is less effective.

The hoards leaving the church, and those who never got involved, speak volumes to the ineffectiveness of an unbalanced church.

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Wallis, Jim (2013-08-15). Who Jesus Is and Why It Matters (Ebook Shorts) (Kindle Locations 192-213). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

An Invitation to Balance

I am not a Muslim. Nor am I a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, Methodist, Catholic or Baptist (although I honor and cherish my Baptist background); nor am I an advocate for any of the above. I recognize that each has made positive contributions and had negative impact on human history, and I respect the right of anyone to adhere to any of them.

This writing will not argue the relative merits or weaknesses of any of the above. While I am more than willing to share my own faith perspectives with any who want to hear, I have no desire—indeed, I have no right—to inflict my perspectives on anyone who does not wish to listen.[1]

I advocate open sharing between all the above, in order to generate greater mutual understanding and appreciation, because there is much common ground among all us—common ground upon which to build a more peaceful, cooperative and enriched humanity.

But I face a wall. I've lived on the other side of the wall, so I think I understand and empathize with those who are there, and I have no wish to insist that they conform to my perspective before we proceed.

Here’s the wall: there are those who, because of their utterly sincere faith and commitment do insist that all humanity accept their confession of faith before we proceed. Nor does their faith and commitment encourage them to collaborate with those who are not under their roof.

I understand that. As I say, I’ve held the same passion as they; a passionate belief that they hold the exclusive, ultimate truth of God—which is the only path to God and to eternal salvation—and that they are responsible for proclaiming that truth until all of humanity has accepted it and has made the same affirmations they have made.

I honor that sense of commitment, nor would I ask them to cease and desist in their efforts (although I would wish them to honor the rights of those who feel violated by some of their strategies. Indeed, I find some of their strategies counterproductive to the Gospel. That’s another debate I’m willing to pursue, but in a different venue.)

Jim Wallis[2] recalls a public forum in which he debated a close friend and colleague, Southern Baptist seminary president, Dr. Albert Mohler. The topic was, “Is social justice an essential part of the gospel and the mission of the church?”[3]

Wallis argued yes, justice is integral to the gospel. Dr. Mohler said no, arguing that social justice was important but that “the gospel” was the atonement brought about in Christ that saves us from our sins and secures our souls for heaven. Wallis reports:

“It was a very civil and respectful conversation because Al and I know each other and because both of us wanted to demonstrate a kind of discourse different from what now prevails in our culture and politics. But we did disagree, and our disagreement is at the heart of very different visions today for the future of the church” (emphasis mine).

First of all, I find it refreshing and encouraging when disagreeing Christians debate with civility and respect, and remain close friends.

In this writing, let’s affirm Dr. Mohler’s stance that biblical imperatives for justice are important, but only an implication of the gospel. In practice, I have rarely seen evangelicals acknowledge social justice as important at all.

In fairness, I confess that, except for a few congregations and isolated judicatory examples, my own denomination is seriously lacking in effective evangelistic theory and practice. Actually, many of our constituents reject evangelism as valid (although, I have the sense that by evangelism they mean those counterproductive strategies to which I refer earlier).

So, here’s my question: can we overlap? Is it possible for evangelical and mainline Christians to work together on both evangelism and social justice without anyone compromising a priority?

I understand that we don’t even agree on terminology (e.g., I and most mainline Protestants don’t buy “substitutionary” atonement.) 

But, bottom line, whether atonement/justification/salvation is substitutionary or exemplary or sacramental or reconciliatory or universal, the overwhelming majority of Christians will agree that Jesus is the medium through which God extended (or at least demonstrated) that salvation, and that such extension/demonstration was an expression of pure grace.

Never mind that we won’t even agree totally on what grace is (e.g., virtually all will say it is “unmerited favor;” that it can’t be earned. But some will place prerequisites upon the reception of grace, while others will say it is given gratuitously.)

Never mind that we will never agree on all of the faith. Can we at least start to work together, just so the world can witness what a united Body of Christ looks like?

Gandhi is reported to have said, “I love your Jesus. It’s Christians that give me problems.” 

A sizeable portion of the generation called “Millennials” would agree, and are leaving the church en mass. Thomas G, Bandy calls them the fastest growing spiritual population in North America: the "spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public."

Can we begin to remove that roadblock to the Gospel?

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] I do not limit this discussion to the groups named above; indeed, should I try to be all-inclusive, it would be an exercise in futility. Suffice it to say that the above constitutes a representative sampling of the human diversity that I believe enriches humanity.

[2] Wallis is a self-proclaimed evangelical; although, his social activism has resulted in his being pushed, at best, to the periphery of evangelical circles. Indeed, many evangelicals reject him as a valid Christian voice.

[3] Wallis, Jim (2013-08-15). Who Jesus Is and Why It Matters (Ebook Shorts) (Kindle Locations 192-213). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.