I'd Rather Fight than Switch!

Passions are high, but solutions are rare, whether the subject is terrorism, health care, public education, the arts, personal morality or the role of government in any or all of the above; whether the concern is for the needs of the many versus the needs of the one; whether the question relates to the causes of poverty or the degree to which “the market” should be free or regulated.

It’s just easier to call somebody a liberal (or a conservative or  radical or wacko or whatever) and point fingers of blame, than to set aside personal or party ideology and engage in effective problem solving and collaboration.

Remember the cigarette ad from the 60s? "I'd rather fight than switch!"

The word, ‘paranoia’ is being tossed around a lot these days. From where I sit, however, the dominant cultural reaction looks less like paranoia and more like scapegoating. The aim is to redirect responsibility and accountability. As a result, whatever it’s called, not only are solutions rare, but so, also, are viable initiatives for new directions.

The recent health care program presented by the Republicans was said to have been a slipshod, hastily-thrown-together mish-mash that was no better—perhaps worse—than the Affordable Care Act it was intended to replace. Some even said it was primarily an act of revenge against Liberals.

I wasn’t there, and therefore don’t have first-hand knowledge[1]; however, what came across in the creation of both the Affordable Care Act and the American Health Care Act was the absence of any attempt at bi-partisan collaboration. Neither party acknowledged validity in the other party’s input, and each party engaged in efforts designed solely to undermine whatever the other party initiated.

The result is two “better than nothing” health care plans, neither of which is sufficiently comprehensive. Nobody’s happy; and most are angry and scapegoating (again, the act of redirecting responsibility and accountability.

Remember your childhood sibling squabbles: “It’s your fault!”

What we have here is a collision of values! On the one hand, conservatives believe “That government is best that governs least”[2] and attempt to enact that dictum through legislation. On the other hand, while I don’t think anyone really disagrees with the dictum, liberals tend to focus more on specific human needs that go unattended and see government involvement as the only viable alternative at a given moment.

Both perspectives are valid; indeed, most issues are both/and, rather than either/or, concerns. What is missing is a workable strategy of application—a strategy to reduce government involvement while making “other arrangements” for meeting human need. Theories and opinions abound. Passions are high. But workable strategies are rare.

Eliminating welfare fraud and dependence are valid, worthy goals; but going “cold turkey” destroys people, especially those who are most vulnerable and who, in reality, constitute a much larger population than those who manipulate and abuse the system.

Like everyone else, I have strengths and weaknesses. Among my strengths are training in group dynamics and conflict resolution. Whenever I begin any conflict resolution, whether it’s a marital conflict, a conflict between teachers and administration, or a church fight, I always open with a question: “Do you want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight?”

Maybe it’s just me; but, in my observation it seems obvious how most politically-involved people would answer.

It’s beyond sad. It’s tragic and dangerous.

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Nor am I privy to any other person’s mind; therefore, I am unable to judge a person’s intentions or motivations. I am, however, relatively capable of reading people’s behavior, body language, voice inflection, choice of vocabulary, etc., all of which give credible evidence into people’s intentions and motivations. Even so, it’s a tangled web of assumption when we presume to judge another’s mind.

[2] Henry David Thoreau opened his pamphlet, “Civil Disobedience” with this phrase. It has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, although it is not found in any of his writings. (Source: http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco09.htm )

On Choosing to Be a Part of the Solution

It’s time for confession and repentance. I am under conviction from a new reading of Ephesians 4:29 (RSV) “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.”

I enjoy my Facebook friends; but I am perhaps too vulnerable to being drawn into the negativity to which a few of them seem passionately committed.

While I still refuse to “unfriend” anyone on Facebook (anti-censorship is a personal core value), I have started blocking (hiding) all websites that promote negative, blaming or scapegoating messages emerging from either side of the conservative/liberal spectrum.

I further have decided (and I hope I can stick with the decision) not to respond to posts from any Facebook friend that promotes negative, blaming or scapegoating messages or perspectives on any subject.

One reason for my decision is that posts on Facebook, if intended to persuade or change anybody's mind on controversial political, moral or religious topics, are exercises in futility and are totally ineffectual. For the most part they do nothing but drive the wedge of division deeper, precisely at a time when our nation needs healing.

But a more important motivation is my recognition that, to the extent that I have not contributed to the solutions, I have been part of the problem; therefore, the conversations I enter in the future regarding any of the controversial issues will be restricted (1) to responding affirmatively to any effort to promote healing, restoration and respectful collaboration toward a solution, or (2) making statements that hopefully will lead to healing, restoration and respectful collaboration toward a solution.

I pray that my Facebook friends and blog readers will affirm and support my pledge to try to become a positive influence, and that my words will be “good for edifying, as fits the occasion, (and) may impart grace to those who hear.” And I pray for endurance, so that I may not “backslide” once again into the negativity that overwhelms our nation.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

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.

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #7

The Blessedness of Unity

Psalm 133:1 How good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters live together in unity!

Unfortunately, churches all around the world experience brokenness. Christians are divided over things as petty as the style and time of worship services. We have said that unity is crucial, because it is the Secret of God’s Will. Nothing is more important to God than the unity of Christ’s Body. Unity also is crucial to any organization for the achieving its purpose. So how is it possible to live in unity when disagreements arise?

Most of my readers know that I am an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Our founders, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, were fond of quoting St. Augustine: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love.”

So, what is essential, and what is non-essential? That’s the question about which Christians have been unable to agree since the day the Church was born.

Some say evangelism is the most essential element in the Christian community. Others suggest that following Jesus in meeting human needs must take priority. Some insist that one’s ultimate relationship with God comes only by way of a specifically worded affirmation of faith, while others contend that we are known by our fruits.

Some put forward issues such as abortion and gay rights as “deal breakers” and still others counter with their focus on grace and forgiveness and being non-judgmental. And all of the above use and abuse scripture to rationalize their positions.

In a perfect world, we would sit down together and prayerfully and lovingly collaborate to discern God’s will in a given situation. Sometimes we just have to reach a consensus and walk by faith—test out the consensus to see if it edifies or tears down.

But, it isn’t a perfect world; nor are we perfect creatures. As long as there is freedom of thought, there will be differences of opinion; and as long as we humans are incomplete (a fundamental definition of sin), we will not always be able to discern the difference between “opinion” and the “truth.” We can’t even agree on the understandings of specific verses of scripture.

The fundamental beliefs of the faith, those tenets generally shared by virtually every Christian, are not negotiable. But if the dispute has to do with a nonessential issue—even certain interpretations of doctrine, (i.e., free will versus predestination)—some prayerful discussion in love is acceptable, but believers should not let it cause division. In such cases, a consensus is likely to leave some people disappointed with the results. Yet both sides should be willing to accept differences without strife. Sometimes the old adage is valid: we just have to agree to disagree—and continue in love.

In a democratic organization in which votes are taken, there usually will be winners and losers. Sadly, win/lose resolutions virtually always divide, rather than unite. But when Christians are united on the basis of our common need of God’s grace; that is, when we can understand that none of us is capable of understanding God’s absolute truth absolutely, then there is the possibility of unity, even when “the other side wins” on a particular issue.

We all love democracy until “our side” loses. But if we are to remain a democratic body, and if we are to choose unity over division, then we all are required to be prepared occasionally to accept defeat graciously, and move on. A broken, divided church is Christ’s worst enemy, and the devil’s greatest friend. Two generations of North Americans are leaving the church (or never getting involved), and the number one reason given is the divisiveness and judgmentalism they see in the church.

It also is good strategy in many cases, once an issue is resolved, to agree to revisit it from time-to-time, preferably on a planned schedule (e.g., once a year). Issues can be re-evaluated, and sometimes new information can influence the outcome. Although in many cases what really divides us is personal pride and unresolved control needs, rather than the truth, it is possible under some circumstances that humans actually can change a position when convincing new data is provided.

But in some cases there simply will be nothing we can do in our human strength to mend our differences. If we selfishly (and often irrationally) cling to the belief that we cannot be wrong and that our preferences are better than others’ opinions, division will be unavoidable.

I've done conflict resolution consultations between departments of corporations, in school settings and even in city government; but, whether the conflict is between marriage partners, parent and child or in some larger corporate setting, I always begin with two questions: (1) Do you want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight? (2) Which is more important, this issue or the effective continuation of the relationship? I truly believe that any conflict can be resolved to the benefit of all parties. Obstinate pride is the only impenetrable barrier to unity. 

At the infamous “bottom line,” after prayerfully giving our best effort toward agreement, sometimes we just have to settle instead for understanding, and graciously accept the will of the majority, even when we disagree. While no single issue should ever take precedence over the unity of the Body of Christ, when the disagreements begin to outnumber the agreements, it may be time to lovingly part company. But in the Body of Christ, it is never--EVER--acceptable to fight.

I'm not suggesting that we surrender our convictions; indeed, I already have suggested that resolved issues should be reexamined from time-to-time. Such reevaluation should always include new data and new perspectives, and should never be simply the resumption of beating the proverbial dead horse.

Limited as we are by the clay of which we are made, I may be wrong! In deference to that possibility, once we have presented our case and born witness to our deepest convictions, if we then acknowledge our own fallibility, and if we voluntarily and humbly subordinate our own need to "win the fight" for the greater good of a unified church, we please God. 

And pleasing God gives greater joy than getting our way.

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #6

The Purpose of Unity: God Can Finish What God Has Begun

Philippians 1:6 (NRSV) I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

If you are active in a church or synagogue or other faith community, think  of times, situations and events in which you see God at work in that group. Is that work completed, or is it still in progress? The verse from Philippians promises that God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

If your faith community has discerned a vision or mission or other guiding expression of God’s call, where and how do you see that being lived out in the life of the community? Again, God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

[And when I look in a mirror I rejoice that God isn’t finished with me yet!]

There once was a young minister whose first parish was a small church in a farming community in the Midwest. There was some resistance in that community to a woman minister, and she found a cool reception on her first Sunday.

“They’ll warm up to me as they get to know me,” she assured herself, and she set out Monday morning to begin calling and getting acquainted. She approached the first farm house, and was greeted with restrained courtesy.

In her most enthusiastic, bubbly voice, she began, “God has so richly blessed you on this farm. Every direction I look I see healthy cattle and green fields. It’s such a beautiful place God has given you.”

The farmer cleared his throat and said, “Well, preacher, you shoulda’ seen this place when God had it by himself.”

It’s true: God completes what God begins; and God’s work sets us up for accomplishment. God gives us all we need; but God doesn’t do the work for us.

In Paul’s joyful letter to the church in Philippi he writes of two days: “^1:5(I am) thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.  ⁶And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. There’s a “first day” and a “day of completion,” which he calls “the day of Jesus Christ.”

The uncertainties and upheavals surrounding our own lives us remind us that the day of completion has not yet come. We live in a “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world, to which there are two usual responses:

The first is a kind of utopian expectation that things will get better and better until they reach an omega-point (“the day of Jesus Christ”) and it is the task of Christians to work for that day. We are commissioned to build the kingdom of God, and its growth is a foregone conclusion.

There are two problems with that understanding: (1) in the verses quoted above God is the subject of the sentence, not us; it is God’s work, not ours, that will bring about the day of completion. (2) Life contradicts it—things are not getting better and better.

The second response in the “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world is fatalism: why bother? No matter how hard we work, the outcome is not up to us.

The truth is that some things are important and deserve our faithful efforts; other things are to be left to God, and part of our work is to discern the difference. And while we wait for that day of completion, our calling is to live in unity in order to live out our servant vocation.

There’s a story that’s been around for awhile. It’s about another minister going to a new parish. On the first Sunday he disguising himself as a homeless man and showed up at the front doorstep of the church holding a cardboard sign asking for money. The people either ignored him as they entered the church, or told him to go away.

There was concerned when their new pastor hadn’t shown up, and the time for worship drew near. Imagine their dismay when the homeless man walked down the center aisle, peeled off his shabby wig and beard, donned his pulpit robe and introduced himself. Then he announced his text, “Inasmuch as you did it not to the least of these…”

That church had no unified sense of calling regarding the work to which the minister’s text referred; therefore the work was not completed. 

Compare that story with the stories of countless churches and faith groups that engage in times of prayerful discernment and, having discerned God’s calling move together toward the fulfillment of their calling.

Or contrast the story with the inestimable number of faith groups involved in some hands-on form of mission, whether its purpose be evangelism, feeding the hungry, visiting prisons, organizing a mission trip to Honduras, hosting a blood drive, participating in “Habitat for Humanity,” or any of innumerable expressions of God’s work. In virtually every case the work produces a sense of unity among those who participate, and those involved will likely participate in more mission-oriented activity in the future.

God completes what God begins; but God is not finished with us yet.

It works both ways, and it matters little whether the church discerns a common sense of calling and on that basis unifies their life and work, or whether it is through doing the work of the Gospel that the church becomes unified and discerns its calling. Whether the heart follows the hand or the hand follows the heart, the Lord’s work moves toward accomplishment, and “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Certainty vs. Trust

The longer I live the more I realize that faith has more to do with trust than with certainty.

I grew up in the years during and immediately following World War II when, as with most American families, church was the center of our life: Sunday morning and evening and Wednesday evening, and I was active in the “Royal Ambassadors”—a wonderful kind of faith-based