War, Peace, and Afghanistan: The Fall 8 SEMI

This week’s issue of the SEMI, Fuller’s student newspaper, deals primarily with the war in Afghanistan. Those of you who know me well know that issues of war and peace are very important to me. Peacemaking is a gospel issue, and it is an issue that should be of central importance to Christians of any and all political perspectives. That being said, I recognize that advocating for peace is difficult. It is difficult because peacemaking confronts the notion that we are entitled to revenge. It confronts the notion that violence solves problems. It confronts the notion that uncritical nationalism is virtuous. Advocating for peace is difficult because it must be done in a way that honors those who serve in the military. However, I argue that in tactfully advocating for peace we are truly “supporting our troops”. Advocating for peace gives our rhetoric legitimacy, and demonstrates the extent to which we are shaped by the gospel, which is at its core a message of peace. Advocating for peace is also difficult because we live in a violent, vengeful world, a world that often leads us to find peace more threatening than violence. Advocating for peace is difficult, but peacemaking is a gospel issue.

This issue of the SEMI has a few different perspectives on war in general and Afghanistan specifically. You can access a PDF of the issue by clicking the link above.

Captain Dana Krull wrote the front page story. He is a soon-t0-be Army chaplain, and he wrote an excellent article about the challenge of loving and ministering to soldiers during war.

My column is on page two. It provides more questions than answers. The seriousness of the column is somewhat compromised by the silly cartoon of my face that is next to it, but I love the cartoon and I’m grateful to the guy who drew it, so I included it. It will be included with the rest of my columns.

Jake Diliberto wrote the article of page three. Jake is a two-time Iraq veteran and is the founder of Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan, and he wrote passionately about the need for the Church to advocate for peace. Needless to say, I agree with his perspective. Jake was recently in Washington, D.C., where he appeared on Larry King Live to discuss Afghanistan and the potential disaster that a troop surge would be.

Garry Mathew wrote the article on page six. Garry spent several years working with a non-governmental organization in Afghanistan doing humanitarian work. He believes that pulling troops out of Afghanistan is not a good idea, and believes that a military presence is necessary for grassroots movements to be effective.

There are a few other articles in the issue that aren’t related to Afghanistan, but are still worth reading. I’d love to hear any comments you have, whether you are a part of the Fuller community or not.

What parts of the Bible make you uncomfortable, and why?

My Old Testament Exegesis professor asked us that question in class the other day in the context of a discussion about monotheism in ancient Israel and today. We talked about how, for the most part, the people of Israel weren’t monotheistic, but instead worshiped any number of foreign deities in addition to their God. Many of the passages in the Old Testament that talk about God’s uniqueness are not descriptions of Israel’s thought at the time as much as they are exhortations towards a particular belief system. Throughout the Old Testament, and particularly in Isaiah 40-66 (the passage this class is dedicated to) God is repeatedly summoning his people to monotheistic belief.

Later in the lecture the conversation turned from monotheism in the ancient world to monotheism in 2009, and we talked about the various false gods that we have a proclivity to worship in our churches and in our private lives. As you can probably imagine, it didn’t take long for us to come up with a list of false gods we tend to worship in church. Our false gods are not made of wood or stone, but they are objects of worship nonetheless.

My professor then went on to say that discomfort is something that we should make more seriously when we read the Bible. We should ask ourselves the question, “what parts of the Bible make us uncomfortable, and why?” The answer to that question can give us insight into our own false gods. My professor said that it is through the uncomfortable parts of the Bible that God is trying to break down the false gods that we have built up. Conversely, the parts of the Bible that we presume affirm and endorse our own beliefs are dangerous. When we misappropriate Scripture to reinforce our beliefs as an American, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or a man, or a woman, or a rich person, or a poor person, etc., we really run into trouble. That is evidence of our false worship.

I believe that discomfort is an important part of spiritual formation. I know that I come to the Bible with various presuppositions and biases that come with being a male, a Caucasian, a Protestant, an American, a young person, a graduate student, a married person, a political moderate, and person whose allegiance is distracted by any number of cultural narratives that seek to be formative for me. It is through allowing the Bible to confront those presuppositions that I can begin to be formed less by my presuppositions and more by the voice of God speaking through the Scriptures. To quote my professor, “We need to learn to take the Bible’s critiques of us seriously.” Discomfort is thus not something to be afraid of, but is in fact a wonderful gift that God gives us.

It is through acknowledging this discomfort and being broken by it that we learn to submit ourselves to God and subsequently be carried by him. If the Bible does not make us uncomfortable and it does not confront our presuppositions or beliefs, that probably says something about the way we are reading it.

So then, I invite you to reflect with me on the questions, “what parts of the Bible that makes you uncomfortable?”, “why?”  and, “what are you doing about them?”

I, like the rest of the world, was utterly horrified when I heard about the shooting that took place at Fort Hood last week. It was and is a heartbreaking tragedy.

I was also saddened to hear that the gunman, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a Muslim. I knew that it would likely provoke an anti-Muslim backlash against a minority group that has already suffered more than enough because of the behavior of extremists who claim to share their religious beliefs. My heart hurt for those that would be affected by such a backlash, and it was angry at the thought of people who would inflict physical or emotional pain on Muslims because of these events.

In light of our cultural proclivity to lash out against Muslims, I appreciated Arsalan Iftikhar’s article on cnn.com entitled “Murder has no religion”. Iftikhar is a Muslim, and in the article he shares what most of us already know: that Islam is a nonviolent religion, and the Quran is a non-violent book.  Iftikhar does a good job of showing that Hasan’s heinous act was not a Muslim act, even though he said, “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”) as he began his killing. To quote Iftikhar:

First of all, someone simply saying “Allahu Akbar” while committing an act of mass murder no more makes their criminal act “Islamic” than a Christian uttering the “Hail Mary” while murdering an abortion medical provider, or someone chanting “Onward, Christian Soldiers” while bombing a gay nightclub, would make their act “Christian” in nature.

Simply put; murder is murder and has no religion whatsoever.

I find it odd that in our culture (particularly the more fringe conservative fractions of our culture) we are willing to write of abortion doctor killers and gay nightclub bombers as extremists who don’t represent Christianity, while we are inclined to believe that Islamic terrorists like Hasan are somehow the product of mainstream Isalm. The reality is, as Iftikhar said, “murder is murder and has no religion whatsoever.”

Iftikhar’s article is very good, and he ends it with this statement:

The larger point is that Muslims in America completely disavow and wash our hands of any acts of murder (or terrorism) claimed to be performed in the name of our religion. Acts of mass murder, regardless of their time or place, are simply ungodly criminal acts that have no religion whatsoever.

I do not, for a second, believe that all religions are the same. I do not believe they all lead to the same place or worship the same god. I do not believe that our specific beliefs don’t matter as long as we are sincere. I believe in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the reality of human sin, the inspiration of the Bible, and the need for repentance and a relationship with Jesus for salvation. But I also believe that part of being a Christian is loving Muslims and standing with them when our wider culture wants to hate them because of the actions of extremists. Just as Muslim organizations condemn Hasan’s killings, Christians should be the first to condemn any anti-Muslim backlash.

It seems tragic to me that even though the Christian and Muslim holy books clearly prohibit killing, Christians and Muslims continue to kill one another, and often invoke their deity in doing so. Additionally, Christians and Muslims continue to support state-sponsored killing. Makes me wonder how religious we really are. Or, better yet, it makes me wonder what our religion really is.

The Week 7 SEMI: Exploring Asian American Theology

This week’s issue of the SEMI features articles from several Asian American students at Fuller. The goal of the issue was to help the Fuller community better understand the specific challenges that those who are ministering in an Asian American context face. Asian Americans are by far the most prominent minority on campus at Fuller, so it is important that their concerns are understood and addressed by the community. Enjoy the issue!

There’s a thought provoking article in this month’s issue of Relevant Magazine (the entire issue can be viewed online by clicking the link and entering your e-mail address). The article that caught my attention was called “Church Mutiny” and it was written by a young adults pastor in Florida.

The premise of the article is essentially that ministries for young adults, generally speaking, start as a form of rebellion against their own churches. They are a way for young adults to get what they want without leaving their churches. Young adult ministries thus reduce inter-generational relationships and are bad for churches.

Needless to say, as a former (and hopefully future) college pastor, this caught my attention.

About three years ago I helped start a college and young adult ministry at the church I worked at. Words like “rebellion” and “mutiny” were not a part of the vocabulary of the small team of us that cooked up the idea of starting a worship service for young adults, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that there was a general sense among us that the needs of young adults were not being adequately met by inter-generational church programs. We liked our church (and our jobs!) and we didn’t want to leave, but we knew something had to be done to better reach young people with the Gospel. So we started our own service with the blessing of the church, and it was pretty successful. I’ve since moved on, and the service has continued to flourish, even without a full-time staff leader.

According to the author of the Relevant article, who himself has led a fast-growing young adult ministry for several years now, that sort of model may not be healthy. Here are a few quotes from the article:

“The attitude (rebellion) is rarely named. We prefer to cloak it, to explain it away as a simple difference in musical tastes, or as an aversion to getting up early on Sundays But let’s call it what it is. Rebellion. Mutiny.”

“This season-of-life segregation in our churches–that pastors like me have been responsible for creating–has fed the consumerism monster and turned many church leaders into babysitters who try all sorts of toys and treats to keep the different babies from crying.”

“Relationships formed over a lifetime with people who are just like you is, honestly, a form of self-worship.”

“…the ownership of this tension (the tension between generations in churches) must be shared. Older generations have spent much time trying to prove themselves as a worthy ‘captain’ of the ship. They have chosen not to heed the younger voices around them as contributing members of leadership. The truth is, churches still only hire young people to work with young people.”

The article then goes on to talk about the need for intergenerational ministry and the needs for both the young and the old to learn to work together to carry on the work of the Kingdom of God. The author rightly criticizes the use of the phrase “Next Generation” to refer to youth and young adult ministries, as it implicitly devalues the contributions younger generations can make to the life and leadership of a church.

I’m not entirely sure what to think of all of this. In a sentence, I think the author overstates the ‘rebellious’ nature of young adult ministry, but he also makes a number of valid points.

On the one hand, generational separation is problematic, and I began to see this towards the end of my tenure at my old church. It was very difficult to foster relationships between older adults and younger adults when they attended different church services. On the other hand, the young adult service provided a legitimate function, and it was something that younger people could relate to. I’ve been pleased to hear that recently my old church has been fostering intergenerational relationships by encouraging young adults to join small groups with older adults. This seems like a great way to foster these relationships while allowing people of different life stages to attend worship services where they can connect with God.

I really think the author of the article is on to something when he talks about the need for shared leadership. I believe there is a mutual distrust between younger adults and older adults, and there is general desire to gain and grasp power that afflicts many of us with leadership gifts (to our shame). That distrust and power hunger will have to be overcome if generations are going to work together, but I believe it certainly can be.

What do you think? Are separate young adult ministries good or bad for churches? Why?

In this ten minute video John Piper gives a brief yet thorough critique of the prosperity gospel that is, in my opinion, 99% right on. I’m not sure how many of my readers subscribe to prosperity theology- the notion that God wants you to be rich, healthy, happy all the time- but I’ve been surprised before by people’s views on this subject, so I thought I’d post this video.

One of the many aspects of the true gospel that I love is that it speaks of power that is manifested in weakness. Throughout history a great multitude of gods and goddesses that have been worshiped have amounted to little more than capricious good luck charms that were supposed to help bring prosperity. The God of the Bible is not like that, and we need not assume that the God of the Bible is intent on bringing prosperity and painlessness to his people in this life. God is one who redeems suffering and who will one day wipe away every tear. Our hope is thus not in a good luck charm, but in a suffering God who has suffered on our behalf and uses suffering to bring about redemption. We need not judge whether or not God is for us and with us by our temporal circumstances, but rather we can know God is for us and with us because of the cross of Jesus Christ.

As an aside, for those who are inclined to think that because I posted this video I endorse everything Dr. Piper has ever said or written, or those who are inclined to ignore this video because they disagree with Dr. Piper on other issues, please take a look at this post.

Here’s the video:

…and that is a problem.

There is something about dissenting, sticking to the man, and subverting social norms that is strangely alluring. Like other sexy things subversion can be distracting and dangerous, and I believe this is especially true amongst people my age. Subversion and dissent have their place, to be sure, but they are always a means, never an end. My fear is that dissent and subversion are often made to be an “end”, an end that can distract from ends that have value.

By way of example…

As I blogged about earlier in the week, I had the chance to go listen to Stanley Hauerwas lecture on Monday night. Hauerwas is a prominent figure in the world of theological ethics. The lecture was outstanding, and I left with much to chew on. However, I also left someone disheartened by what I sensed was the most memorable part of the evening for many in attendance based on the conversations I overheard (I should note that there is not necessarily anything wrong with remembering a line like the one I am about to share. If that line is remembered at the expense of the rest of the content, that is what’s unfortunate).

During the Q and A period, Hauerwas, who is known for having a sharp tongue, was talking about preaching when he said, “If your preacher starts a sentence with, ‘My ten year-old son said,’ then you know the rest if going to be bulls__t.” That statement drew lots of laughter because, well, it was funny and unexpected. He said that such sentences usually are more about giving advice about how to have an easier life than they are about proclaiming the Word of God. I don’t entirely agree with that generalization, but at the same time I will admit that it is, in most cases, true. The general point that Hauerwas was making, namely that preachers should feel an intense responsibility when preaching, is a good one. Preachers should know that they are bringing the words of God, not merely life advice. Those are important, accurate, words, and that statement I quoted above proved to be one of the most memorable of the evening.

For the wrong reasons.

In my estimation, the statement was memorable not because Hauerwas delivered a prophetic word about preaching, but rather because he said, “bulls__t”. That was “cool” and “funny”, and it appealed to that part of us that thinks subversion is irresistibly sexy. And I fear it distracted many in the audience from the importance of the point of that statement and the many important points that he made throughout his lecture. I understand that shock value and subversion are powerful rhetorical devices, I only wish we could see that they point to a more important end.

Being subversive is not necessarily a bad thing, as the gospel itself is a subversive. The gospel, as Hauerwas stated in his lecture, allows the Church to become a radical alternative to war, and in this way it subverts the violent ethos of our world. Similarly the gospel confronts the notion that the State is our God, or that we are to be defined by what we own, or that we should seek vengeance against those who harm us. Those are all wonderful truths that should be constantly celebrated and never taken for granted! The gospel beautifully subverts many of our cultures most destructive values, and that is part of why I love it and am challenged by it.

But gospel subversion is a constructive subversion. It points to the glory of God, and seeks to join God in the work of manifesting the Kingdom here on Earth. It forms us into partakers of a new reality, and it subverts in order to unify. It is not an end unto itself. Too often I have been captivated by subversion for the sake of ’sticking to the man’ because, well, subversion is sexy and I’m young and stupid.

So I suppose I will end by encouraging you to join me in examining your own heart and the subversive tendencies therein and asking yourself the question, “what is this pointing to?” because subversion is a wonderful means with the potential to point to God’s glory, but it is a terribly destructive end.

Last night I had the opportunity to hear a lecture given by Stanley Hauerwas at Azusa Pacific University. Hauerwas is an ethicist from Duke University, and is one of America’s most prominent theologians. I have been a fan of his for a long time, and he has been influential in the development of my own theological thinking.

His lecture at APU was entitled “America’s God”, and it was brilliant, convicting, inspiring, prophetic, hopeful and funny all at the same time. Here are a few of the highlights (some of these aren’t exact quotes, but they are at least very close paraphrases):

“The American god is not interesting enough to reject.”

“That you care more about your doctor’s qualifications than your priest’s is an indication of your quiet, desperate atheism.”

“The great enemy of Christianity in America is not atheism, it is sentimentality.”

“Both the Religious Right and the Religious Left find America to be more salvific than the Church.”

“America cannot live without a war because without war we have nothing to focus our moral compass.”

“The War on Terror gives us what we want: a war without end.”

“That Americans are willing to die for America is an important clue to America’s religious power.”

“Christianity has become unintelligible because we don’t know how to die for our faith. We know how to die for America, but we don’t know how to die for our faith.”

“What Americans call “freedom” is the attempt to live as if we will not die.”

“Protestantism in America has lost the sense that our lives are unintelligible without the God of Jesus Christ.”

“We have to recover the sense that when you go into church you enter foreign country, and when you leave, something has happened to you that has been so determinative that you are frightened.”

“The Church offers friendship as an alternative to loneliness rather than relationship. Friendship occurs when we are engaged in determinative common good work.”

“War and how it dominates our histories make the sacrifices of war more determinative for us then the slow task of the Church as an alternative to war.”

“What it means to worship the resurrected Christ is to say, ‘it doesn’t have to be that way.’”

“Voting is a form of coersion in which 51% tell 49% how to live. Voting can never be an end unto itself.”

“Democracy is a long & hard work. How elections became a form and exemplification of democracy just beats the hell out of me.”

“The problem with fundamentalists is not that they go public with their convictions, but that the convictions they go public with are stupid!”

Stanely Hauerwas is not a perfect man by any stretch, but I am grateful to God for Stanley Hauerwas for a number of reasons. I am particularly grateful to God for him because he tells the truth. All too often in Evangelical circles we don’t know how to tell the truth, or we allow America, or culture, or philosophy, or practicality to tell us what is true, when that is a job that belongs rightly to the Scriptures. This is something I’ve experienced for years, and continue to experience to this day. Those sad experiences make lectures like the one I heard tonight that much more refreshing.

This afternoon I was clicking around ESPN.com and I found a video of a college football coach making some angry remarks at a midweek press conference. I won’t recount what he said, but suffice to say that portions of his remarks were terribly inappropriate and potentially offensive.

I then clicked on a video of an interview that took place a few days later, a clip that was entitled “(Coach’s last name) explains his comments”. In the midst of his unapologetic minute-long explanation he said this:

“To those who are offended, I’m offended that you don’t think I get to exercise my first amendment rights, so that makes two of us.”

Classy.

Prior to saying that he said that he “wasn’t in any hot water” over the comments, because “we live in a great country.”

T comments of this football coach reminded me of something that is critically important, particularly in a culture where it is easier and easier to communicate impersonally and anonymously:

Our words matter, and we must take responsibility for them.

Although it is easy not to.

We can use text messages to replace awkward coversations.

We can thoughtlessly post Facebook and Twitter updates that are overly critical.

We can send cowardly, anonymous cheap shots to pastors, churches, and other organizations that we disagree with, while we sit back and do nothing (just the other day I received a letter from a Fuller student that attacked a Fuller professor for something he had said in a public debate. The author of the letter wished to have his letter published and to remain anonymous. That letter is not getting published.)

We can anonymously post whatever we want on any of the millions of message boards and review sites all over the Internet.

We can, like this football coach, foolishly think that the first amendment means we can say whatever we want, whenever we want and not take any responsibility for the damage that our words cause.

We certainly do have the right to speak freely, and that is a wonderful freedom, but we must take responsibility for the words that we speak. We must remember that if we are not willing to attach our name to our words, and take responsibility for their consequences, we ought not say them.

And, of course, we must also remember that those whom we criticize are people, too. I forget that sometimes.

I say all of this as one who has often not been as careful with his words as he should have been. I have failed in this area more times than I care to count, and with God’s help I am trying to grow.

Despite my general aversion to conflict, I tend to write and say things from time to time that get people pretty upset. Most of the time I stand behind my words, because I believe they are important, and they are spoken or written about causes that are central enough to the Christian life that they are worth taking heat for. I grieve the fact that they divide, particularly because I often write about causes around which Christians should joyfully unite. I am continually amazed at the push back I get when writing about those sorts of issues.

There have been times, however, where I have written or said things hastily that I have lived to regret. There have been times where I have unintentionally offended people, both strangers and those I care about. The single greatest regret of my life is an instance where I did that over a decade ago, and I think about it several times a week. Remembering  all of those times makes me sick to my stomach with regret.

While we must seek to avoid those situations in the first place, we must also own them when they come. We must make the necessary apologies and clarifications. We must not hide behind our perversion of our “first amendment rights”.

I’m not saying that words always have to be soft, and I’m not saying that words can never be critical. There is plenty in this world that is worth criticizing. I am saying that we have to take responsibility for the words we speak and write.

We live in a world where the power of communication is as great as it has ever been. The mere fact that I can sit in my living room and type and then have a smattering of friends and family from all over the world read this is astonishing. But with that “power”, a power that we all possess, comes great responsibility. May we all seek to steward that responsibility well, because our words matter and we must take responsibility for them. And I write all of this knowing that I need to hear it as much as anyone.

Was Paul a pacifist? Michael Gorman , Professor of Sacred Scripture at St. Mary’s Sminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland, seems to think so. From his book Reading Paul:

It is easy to think of Paul as a preacher or pastor, even as an example. It is more difficult for us to see him as a critic of empire or a peacemaker, much less a pacifist. Yet the turn to nonviolence is at the very heart of Paul’s conversion, and his gospel. Paul’s pacifism…was rooted in his gospel’s proclamation of how God in Christ had treated enemies and insurgents against the divine order with reconciling, suffering love (Rom 3:9-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:18-19). This nonviolent divine love was then manifested in Paul’s own practice of absorbing violence without retaliation (1 Cor 4:10-13) and communicated to this churches as the only appropriate lifestyle for those converted by and to the love of God (1 Thess 5:15; Rom 12:9-21)…We do not hear the whole gospel according to Paul–or perhaps we do not hear it at all–if we do not hear this essential dimension. Nonviolence is not negotiable for Paul the convert and apostle.”

Gorman then goes on to say rightly how a misinterpretation of Romans 13 has led many to believe that Paul was not, in fact, a proponent of nonviolence

Nonviolence, of course, is something that extends far beyond physical nonviolence and includes the nonviolence of our words as well. Often times it is those pastors and scholars who are teach what the Bible says about nonviolence that are most violent with their words and most dismissive of their detractors. I will confess that, despite my commitment to physical nonviolence that is rooted in the Scriptures, I too have at times been quite violent with my words with those who disagree with me. That is just as contrary to the gospel as physical nonviolence and physical revenge. That is a sin for which I am constantly repenting, and it is an area that I am seeking to grow.

The nonviolence of the gospel is not something that should cause us to argue, or disrespect, or condemn, or slander, but rather it should cause us to rejoice, that our God is one who has sacrificed of himself to make his enemies his friends, despite the fact that we are most worthy of vengeance. He has offered us a way out of the myth of redemptive violence that has so captivated our world. No matter your race, religion, occupation, or socioeconomic status, this is good news.

May we then be nonviolent peacemakers with those we sit in church with, with those we work alongside, with those whom with disagree, and with those who threaten us.  Most of all, may we thank God for the nonviolent way of Jesus, our example.