On Finding the Good

I don’t get into TV series very often because there are a lot of evening meetings that, as a minister, I need to attend. It’s frustrating to get interested in a show and then not be able to follow it.

“West Wing” was an exception. I hadn’t intended to get started; but I did, and it quickly became perhaps my all-time favorite series—moving ahead of the original “Star Trek” and the original “Boston Legal”. True to form, however, I missed more episodes than I watched. By the third season I just gave up.

When the series ended, Jo Lynn gave me the DVD set of the whole series. Yesterday morning I finally watched the last episode, and actually found myself grieving that it was done.

Martin Sheen played the part of President Josiah Bartlett, a liberal Democrat from New Hampshire. I, too, am a liberal Democrat; so perhaps that’s why I was so attracted to the show. On the other hand, Aaron Sorkin’s well-written scripts and the “walk and talk” technique of director, Thomas Schlamme can’t be ignored. The whole scenario—the sets, the characters, the plots and the political interplay—came across as believable.

Believable or not; realistic or not, the show has left me with an appreciation for the pressures and the agonizing choices that confront a United States President and his (and someday her) staff. President Bartlett made decision after decision that impacted people and entire nations, and often was forced to make those decisions on a moment’s notice. He then often agonized over whether it was the right decision.

It was that agonizing—that ongoing moral struggle with his own values—that perhaps most endeared me to the character of Bartlett. I hope every President struggles with the moral dimension of his/her decisions as much as did the fictional character in “West Wing.”

I often wondered what my conservative friends thought of the show, and whether they avoided it and condemned it with the same bitterness that some of them often display in reference to real-life Democrats. Then I realized that I was too often reacting toward most Republicans with the same level of bitter condemnation.

It long has been my belief that between me and any other person there are infinitely more similarities than differences. We all want pretty much the same things for ourselves, our families and our nation. We just disagree about how to actualize those desires.

But, if there are more similarities than differences between us, then there must be some good, even in those whom I least admire and with whom I most bitterly disagree. So back in September of 2012 I launched a research project to look for the good in the Presidents I least admired.

I started with President George W. Bush. By golly! The man did a lot of really good things while in office! My previous image of him basically as a buffoon mellowed, and I came to appreciate his vision for our nation. I still disagree with his strategy for realize his vision; but I came to admire and respect the vision, nonetheless.

Long story short: I ended up doing the same research on every President beginning with President Harry S. Truman. It was a worthwhile project for me, and I commend it as a worthy challenge for all Americans. The final results of my research were summarized in a blog (connect here) I posted September 10, 2012. Each President has positive accomplishments to his credit.

Anyway, yesterday morning as I finished watching the final episode of “West Wing,” I thought of that blog and looked it up. In the thoughts that followed my review of the blog I wondered what might happen if a large number of us would devote significant time and energy to looking for the good in everyone.

I passionately believe that no person is totally good and not person is totally bad. There is good in each of us, if we but seek to find it. For that matter, how many of us really know and acknowledge the good in ourselves?

What might happen if we identify and affirm the goodness we see in each other, and then work together to pool that goodness? We seem to have no qualms about identifying the bad in everybody, and hammering away at it. If violence breeds violence, is it possible that mutual respect and affirmation might reproduce itself?

What if?

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.