1. I used to love Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's famous quote: "The arch of history is long, but it bends toward justice." I knew it wasn't true for the individual histories of many places. The arch of history in so many places is conquest, plateau, decline, conquest by someone else.
But I thought it was true for the US, at least for this period. Unlike those who liked the motto, "Make America Great Again" in the last election, I have felt that America was, on the whole, getting better and better. I was truly proud of our nation. And I felt the church was getting better and better.
The biblical standard, the Christian standard for ethics is love of God and neighbor, and the primary manifestation of the love of God is the love of our neighbor. And we remember that the love of our neighbor includes the love of our enemy. I don't think the Bible is calling us to be stupid in the face of our enemy. But this is Jesus' ethic. This is the biblical ethic. This is God's ethic according to Scripture.
So what would being a great nation mean? It would mean, of course, being a nation that truly serves God. But that love of God would chiefly mean being a nation that embodies the love of everyone in that nation.
2. As far as loving God, these last years have led me to take to heart Jesus' words that "narrow is the gate and few there be who find it." There will be times and places culturally where most people claim to be serving God. But the number looks to be about 30%. What I mean is, even if 60-70% of Americas were to say they are Christians, I bet the true number in the invisible church is always more like 30%.
The implication is that there will never truly be a Christian nation. In fact, by extension, perhaps only about 30% of Israel was truly Israel. We tend to confuse political units with the church, but I suspect that only 30% of the medieval Catholic church was truly part of the Church. I'm not being rigid or flippant about these thoughts. I'm only saying is that, on this planet, on this project of God in this corner of the universe, humanity seems doomed to be a majority profligate species, even after God's offer of salvation.
God couldn't care less about a people that says they are serving him. That is a trick. That is a path of self-deception. We use our power to force people to our ways and call it "Look God, we are serving you." My hunch is that those who push for this sort of civil religion are themselves probably not truly in the church. My hunch is that the greatest proponents of civil religion are themselves drunk on power rather than the Holy Spirit.
3. So a nation that serves God in name is not a nation that serves God. The greatest embodiment of a nation that serves God is a nation that loves its people and that sets up structures that embody the love of one another. Growing up, I was proud of the American experiment because I believe it at least tried to embody this biblical ideal.
What might this look like? A nation that loved its neighbors would believe that "all humans are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable" privileges, because they are all created in the image of God. That means a system of equal justice under the law, and laws that fight against the natural human gravity of tribalism and inequality toward equality.
A loving system fights against classism, racism, sexism, and any -ism that privileges--intentionally or unintentionally--one group over another. I'm speaking of equal empowerment for opportunity, not communism. "The greatest good for the greatest number" with a Bill of Rights to protect minorities and individuals from what might benefit the majority to the detriment of the minority. Yes, I believe a carefully regulated capitalism makes for greater overall human thriving. Working out the details is always a matter of expertise (and the will to do so).
4. This direction is not inevitable. I knew it, but have long wanted to believe that Dr. King's motto would be true for my lifetime. Yet I cannot say with confidence that history will look back on these days and say the right thing. I still think it will, but I'll admit I'm not sure.
What is the right thing? I think it is clear that the last three years have been a major step back in the move toward justice. Has America become more loving toward its neighbors and the world in these last three years? The self-deception of the evangelical church has been astounding.
The attitude and comments of John MacArthur on Beth Moore this past week are representative of the heart of the evangelical church in general in America. It thinks it is standing up for God when in fact God's Spirit has left the room. I wish I could say, "Let them wither on the vine." God's truth is marching on. I hope that's true.
But God's kingdom is not yet fully here. It will only be fully here when Christ returns. Until then, the true invisible Church may face some rough waters... often from the visible church.
Showing posts with label futurist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label futurist. Show all posts
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Friday, December 14, 2012
Younger Evangelicals/The Boomers Strike Back
Ten years ago, Robert Webber's book The Younger Evangelicals really seemed to capture for me the state of evangelicalism. I would have told you it was in transition. I would have told you that the twenty somethings who were on a trajectory to become the evangelical leaders of tomorrow were characterized by interest in things like social justice and creation care, that they were interested in less church hierarchy and more "organic," informal ministry, that they couldn't care less about previous evangelical concerns like church growth or inerrancy.
It feels quite different to me today. For example, are we seeing a culture of metrics rise in church hierarchy (as opposed to larger churches and their followers)? It seems like there has been a wave of "crack downs" at various conservative colleges with regard to professors. And given the Christian election dynamics, it sure doesn't feel like the social and environmental concerns of the then twenty somethings are in power.
I wonder if here's what has happened in part. Boomer Christianity is now in its leadership twilight. It spent the last few decades largely inwardly-focused, preoccupied pretty much with its own church and local church growth. But for various reasons Boomers have now taken an interest in the trajectory of the broader church. Perhaps in part they didn't like the rising values of the now thirty somethings. 9-11 also has to play in here somewhere VERY significantly, I think.
Here are my wonderings. I don't think the values of the thirty-something evangelicals have gone away. I think they have gone silent over and against the VERY vocal Boomer evangelicals of these last days. I suspect the election results in part support this hypothesis. Boomer conservatives were shocked to lose the election because they had been so vocal and convinced the silent were on their side. Instead, to some extent, they had apparently created a climate where differing voices felt it was better to be silent.
I think the same dynamics are in play right now in the evangelical church. The values of the thirty somethings have not changed but are lying dormant because of the "Boomers Strike Back" dynamic at work right now. I predict it will be difficult for the Boomers in retirement to see what will happen when the thirty somethings finally come conclusively into power.
But what of the 9-11 generation that follows them? What of the current twenty somethings? I'm no sociologist, but I suspect that the climate of the last 10 years has created a much more "conservative" group of leaders that will follow the thirty somethings, at least in some areas. That is, if they stay Christian. That is the big concern right now. They are conservative now, but they may be on some kind of crash course of faith that will eventually make them look much different than they look now.
So will the twenty somethings who remain Christian push a version of Christianity thirty years from now that is much like the Boomer Christianity of the moment? I think it's quite possible in one scenario. But we are also potentially facing a sharp rise of the non-religious in the next decade, and I predict Boomer Christianity will have little affect on that trend.
Here's what I wonder, will the thirty somethings facilitate a revival once they get conclusively into power in ten to fifteen years? And will the now twenty something Christians who rise from that revival bring a shocking but vibrant and dynamic faith then that will both scare and excite those of us who are still living?
It feels quite different to me today. For example, are we seeing a culture of metrics rise in church hierarchy (as opposed to larger churches and their followers)? It seems like there has been a wave of "crack downs" at various conservative colleges with regard to professors. And given the Christian election dynamics, it sure doesn't feel like the social and environmental concerns of the then twenty somethings are in power.
I wonder if here's what has happened in part. Boomer Christianity is now in its leadership twilight. It spent the last few decades largely inwardly-focused, preoccupied pretty much with its own church and local church growth. But for various reasons Boomers have now taken an interest in the trajectory of the broader church. Perhaps in part they didn't like the rising values of the now thirty somethings. 9-11 also has to play in here somewhere VERY significantly, I think.
Here are my wonderings. I don't think the values of the thirty-something evangelicals have gone away. I think they have gone silent over and against the VERY vocal Boomer evangelicals of these last days. I suspect the election results in part support this hypothesis. Boomer conservatives were shocked to lose the election because they had been so vocal and convinced the silent were on their side. Instead, to some extent, they had apparently created a climate where differing voices felt it was better to be silent.
I think the same dynamics are in play right now in the evangelical church. The values of the thirty somethings have not changed but are lying dormant because of the "Boomers Strike Back" dynamic at work right now. I predict it will be difficult for the Boomers in retirement to see what will happen when the thirty somethings finally come conclusively into power.
But what of the 9-11 generation that follows them? What of the current twenty somethings? I'm no sociologist, but I suspect that the climate of the last 10 years has created a much more "conservative" group of leaders that will follow the thirty somethings, at least in some areas. That is, if they stay Christian. That is the big concern right now. They are conservative now, but they may be on some kind of crash course of faith that will eventually make them look much different than they look now.
So will the twenty somethings who remain Christian push a version of Christianity thirty years from now that is much like the Boomer Christianity of the moment? I think it's quite possible in one scenario. But we are also potentially facing a sharp rise of the non-religious in the next decade, and I predict Boomer Christianity will have little affect on that trend.
Here's what I wonder, will the thirty somethings facilitate a revival once they get conclusively into power in ten to fifteen years? And will the now twenty something Christians who rise from that revival bring a shocking but vibrant and dynamic faith then that will both scare and excite those of us who are still living?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
21st Century Christianity
Here are some features of Christianity that I believe have staying power, despite strong streams to the contrary at present.
1. A genuine love
Forms of Christianity right now that focus on what you believe focus on the most superficial part of the human brain. Our motives are deep, and our choices are what define us. What arguably matters most to God is our "heart," our intentions toward others as they lead to our choices and our actions. This focus is real. This focus is genuine. This focus shows up in life. This focus will persist.
2. Interest in the whole person
You cannot neatly divide up a person into mental, physical, and spiritual. A person's eternal trajectory may be the most important aspect of his or her life, but God is genuinely interested in the whole person. For those who are "burned over ground," the frontal assault to try to convert is counterproductive. Christianity that will persist will need to build relationships, be genuinely interested in the whole person (meaning physical, social, economic, and needs of all kinds), and let issues of spiritual trajectory arise in God's own time. This principle carries over to being interested in God's world as well.
3. Focus on trajectory, not event
Christianity that will persist will be less interested in mile markers than in the direction a person is traveling. This includes the person who has made a confession of faith--God does not weigh a person by where he or she has been but by where they are going. It can become a myopic preoccupation.
3. Focus on reconciliation over justice
The picture of justice as God's dominant characteristic pictures an immature God. Because love is God's ultimate character, God's sovereignty does not point to his right to condemn anyone he wants for whatever reason but to his right to forgive anyone he wants for whatever reason. Justice in the modern sense is a good, but one might argue that even true justice aims at reconciliation and protection.
4. Views all people as full participants
Artificial distinctions between men and women, between races and social groups are at best distractions, at worse fallenness trying to disguise itself as godliness. The roles we play should ideally come from the gifts God has given us. Christianity that will persist will be color and gender blind.
5. Scripture as our story
Fundamentalism is strong because it plays to simple understanding and simple answers, not to mention frequently base emotions. It creates an idol of words and mistakes words for the Word, Jesus Christ. In Scripture Christians find their story. They find God walking with his people in the past. Christianity that will persist will live in full recognition that we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" as we make our way through life, recognizing the constancy of God from the past--revealed especially in Christ--but also his principle of meeting us in flesh, of incarnating truth and ethics in specific contexts.
1. A genuine love
Forms of Christianity right now that focus on what you believe focus on the most superficial part of the human brain. Our motives are deep, and our choices are what define us. What arguably matters most to God is our "heart," our intentions toward others as they lead to our choices and our actions. This focus is real. This focus is genuine. This focus shows up in life. This focus will persist.
2. Interest in the whole person
You cannot neatly divide up a person into mental, physical, and spiritual. A person's eternal trajectory may be the most important aspect of his or her life, but God is genuinely interested in the whole person. For those who are "burned over ground," the frontal assault to try to convert is counterproductive. Christianity that will persist will need to build relationships, be genuinely interested in the whole person (meaning physical, social, economic, and needs of all kinds), and let issues of spiritual trajectory arise in God's own time. This principle carries over to being interested in God's world as well.
3. Focus on trajectory, not event
Christianity that will persist will be less interested in mile markers than in the direction a person is traveling. This includes the person who has made a confession of faith--God does not weigh a person by where he or she has been but by where they are going. It can become a myopic preoccupation.
3. Focus on reconciliation over justice
The picture of justice as God's dominant characteristic pictures an immature God. Because love is God's ultimate character, God's sovereignty does not point to his right to condemn anyone he wants for whatever reason but to his right to forgive anyone he wants for whatever reason. Justice in the modern sense is a good, but one might argue that even true justice aims at reconciliation and protection.
4. Views all people as full participants
Artificial distinctions between men and women, between races and social groups are at best distractions, at worse fallenness trying to disguise itself as godliness. The roles we play should ideally come from the gifts God has given us. Christianity that will persist will be color and gender blind.
5. Scripture as our story
Fundamentalism is strong because it plays to simple understanding and simple answers, not to mention frequently base emotions. It creates an idol of words and mistakes words for the Word, Jesus Christ. In Scripture Christians find their story. They find God walking with his people in the past. Christianity that will persist will live in full recognition that we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" as we make our way through life, recognizing the constancy of God from the past--revealed especially in Christ--but also his principle of meeting us in flesh, of incarnating truth and ethics in specific contexts.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Computers Win
I'm struck with the fact that a computer beat two human contestants on Jeopardy. We've all enjoyed iRobot, Matrix, Terminator, and all the sci-fi movies where computers take over the world. I am struck by the very real possibility that the thought experiment could one day be a reality.
It is naive to think that there is anything a computer could not be programmed to "simulate." Emotion, moral values, virtue, vice, intellect, research capacity--I have little doubt but that these processes could one day not long from now be programmed in a manner that gave a robot the appearance of much greater consistency than anyone in your neighborhood. This brings a number of related thoughts:
1. At first, robots and machines replaced those who do hard labor. Next, they will replace doctors and researchers. Why go to a doctor who is very fallible? Why not go to a robot who is better than any human diagnostician could ever be?
2. Our sense of these things is generally very simplistic. The American ethos makes fun of taking classes on things like psychology or the brain, then thinks its opinion is as valid as any other on these sorts of matters. The physical structure of the brain can account for far more than we would like to think in the areas of emotion, religious experience, and values.
Here's the bottom line: the notion that the existence of a detachable soul might be necessary to account for human processes is an act of faith--and one many Christians do not think is dictated by Scripture or creed. It could turn out that the word "simulate" in relation to robotic thought is a rather artificial distinction. I am not taking a position here, since the answer seems unprovable at present. I am simply saying that at present, it is unclear what "mind process" is not accounted for adequately by the physical brain.
Just to fend off alarm, if you are unfamiliar with this discussion, those like Joel Green who take this position believe in the afterlife, believe in human moral responsibility, etc. They just consider language of the soul as metaphorical and unbiblical. I have blogged on this before.
3. This also bears on some of the, in my opinion, naive statements sometimes made about God. For example, many say that God became Jesus so he could learn what it felt like to be human, as if emotional and experiential knowledge are fundamentally distinguishable from cognitive knowledge. For God this distinction is nonsensical. God created emotions, experiences, and even the potential to sin. Omniscience means that God must know not only "intellectual" truths, but experiential ones as well. This distinction is meaningless on the level of God.
Some thoughts on Jeopardy ;-)
It is naive to think that there is anything a computer could not be programmed to "simulate." Emotion, moral values, virtue, vice, intellect, research capacity--I have little doubt but that these processes could one day not long from now be programmed in a manner that gave a robot the appearance of much greater consistency than anyone in your neighborhood. This brings a number of related thoughts:
1. At first, robots and machines replaced those who do hard labor. Next, they will replace doctors and researchers. Why go to a doctor who is very fallible? Why not go to a robot who is better than any human diagnostician could ever be?
2. Our sense of these things is generally very simplistic. The American ethos makes fun of taking classes on things like psychology or the brain, then thinks its opinion is as valid as any other on these sorts of matters. The physical structure of the brain can account for far more than we would like to think in the areas of emotion, religious experience, and values.
Here's the bottom line: the notion that the existence of a detachable soul might be necessary to account for human processes is an act of faith--and one many Christians do not think is dictated by Scripture or creed. It could turn out that the word "simulate" in relation to robotic thought is a rather artificial distinction. I am not taking a position here, since the answer seems unprovable at present. I am simply saying that at present, it is unclear what "mind process" is not accounted for adequately by the physical brain.
Just to fend off alarm, if you are unfamiliar with this discussion, those like Joel Green who take this position believe in the afterlife, believe in human moral responsibility, etc. They just consider language of the soul as metaphorical and unbiblical. I have blogged on this before.
3. This also bears on some of the, in my opinion, naive statements sometimes made about God. For example, many say that God became Jesus so he could learn what it felt like to be human, as if emotional and experiential knowledge are fundamentally distinguishable from cognitive knowledge. For God this distinction is nonsensical. God created emotions, experiences, and even the potential to sin. Omniscience means that God must know not only "intellectual" truths, but experiential ones as well. This distinction is meaningless on the level of God.
Some thoughts on Jeopardy ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
