Monthly Archives: May 2011

Did martyrs fail?

This post is based on a question I received (or rather, an answer I gave) about how to view those who are killed for speaking about God. Here’s my reply to the question.

Source: BBC

Matthew 7:6. “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (esv)

What does this say about those who die in proclaiming the gospel? Did they fail, by allowing themselves to be attacked?

I don’t think this verse says much about martyrdom, for I reckon Jesus is making a different point (or set of points). Matthew 7:6 is after Jesus’ words about not judging. This verse states that there is a kind of judging that disciples should exercise – seeing if a person is pig or dog! But it’s not the kind of judgement that decides their eternal status. This is for God alone to judge.

In relation to gospel proclamation, it is worth asking ourselves, ‘Will talking now cause more damage than it’s worth?’ If apparent hard-heartedness possibly becomes an excuse to slander the gospel message or to damage Christians, we should at least ponder the options of speech or silence.

Note two things, though. Firstly, Jesus’ words are you plural – yous. It may be that a primary application for me is to consider the effects my words and life have on all of us. Secondly, our sin means we have great skill in avoiding doing the right thing, especially if it is hard, We should be wary of justifying silence too easily.

Most importantly, Jesus is not giving a reason to avoid all suffering, even death. Later on in Matthew we read of the way of a disciple – to take up a cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 10:38-39). Jesus’ way was suffering, so too will be his disciple’s way. What’s more, Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount. There’s no hiding from Jesus’ startling declaration of who is blessed by God: “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Mat 5:10-11, esv)

So, we strive to do no damage to the Gospel message, nor to the church that the Gospel creates. But we have no reason to avoid personal cost, or to judge as failures those who suffer for Jesus.

Be like God

The serpent spoke about eating the fruit: You will be like God (Gen 3:5).

The Lord spoke of the law he gave his people: You will be like me (Lev 11:45).

So similar sounding, yet one was hate-filled and the other perfectly loving.

The serpent hated God so much that he sought to dethrone God. His ‘be like God’ was a putsch, a revolution to overthrow the rightful ruler. This antipathy for God resulted not in divine downfall, but the overthrow of humanity. To hate the Creator is also to hate his creatures.

The Lord’s ‘be like me’ is loving gift and invitation. He saved and provided for his people. He was taking them to a place to live – the Lord himself would live among them. The Lord’s good gift was to raise humanity to share with him in holiness.

The same destination was on offer – likeness to God.

The pathways to this end-point diverged completely.

Be careful! When you are offered a good thing, check out if that good comes in a good way. Because the same ‘end’ is offered by Satan and God, we know that end does not justify the means.

Attacking belief – Christianity

I claimed, in this post, that attacks for any belief will – imperfectly – match the message of that belief.

To quote myself again (sorry!):

Any ‘truth’ that can be announced can also be attacked. And that’s a wonderful thing.

The truth may be political, scientific, social, or religious. If true – as its proponents would claim – it’s not fair to keep it a secret. It must go public. As soon as it does so, reactions will follow.

I’m convinced that the message of Jesus is true! And therefore accept that people will hear the message and react, at times with intensity and vehemence.

What, then, are some of the basic or fundamental attacks on Christianity? Which comments can be expected, or commonly heard?

My answer to those questions is this. Christians and Christianity are attacked as irrational, exclusive, and judgemental. Also, the attacks do not treat Christianity as a minority, or requiring protection. Christianity is seen to be fair game.

Before some reflections of mine, have a thought about your own answers. If you have different ideas, please share them via the comments. I’d love to know!

Here are some thoughts about what to make of these attacks on Christianity.

First, let’s not hide the fact that Christians mess up all the time. It’s a starting point for forgiveness to admit evil and sin. Including judgemental words and action.The attacks are sometimes right on the money.

Next, there are always parts of the Gospel of Jesus that look dumb, in every culture. Jesus died for the sins of all people? Jesus is alive from the grave, and thus Lord of all? It’s unexpected, at the very least. The whole contrast between human wisdom and divine wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 warns us that irrational should be what Christians hear. To be called irrational suggests speaker and hearer have both understood something of God’s extraordinary intervention into history. Recommendation: keep that conversation going.

Next, to be thought exclusive and judgemental also links directly to clearly Christian teaching (and now I’m not thinking of the truth that Christians sin all the time).

There is, in Christianity, both vastness and specificity. The whole Bible keeps narrowing down the focus: Abraham’s family (not others), Isaac (not Ishmael), Jacob (not Esau), all the way to Jesus. Ultimately, it’s Jesus alone who serves God, trusts God, obeys God, reveals God. But the whole Bible has vast field of view: from the creation of all things to the re-creation of heaven and earth. Jesus himself claims all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), as well as being the only way to the Father (John 14:6). All nations receive blessing through him.

There’s enough evidence there for the feeling of being judged – saying that Jesus is in charge automatically implies something about those who ignore Jesus. Yet it gets worse when we remember the blanket statement about humans: we’re evil, sinful, rebellious and stained.

Put all these together, and Christianity sounds big and – if you think it untrue – mean. Enough to make Christian teaching open to attack. We’re fair game.

Though I do not agree with the attacks on Christianity, I can see in these attacks a shadow of Christian teaching. The original message might be poorly grasped, it might be deliberately twisted, but the nature of the disagreement shows that something did get through.

Perhaps a new way to talk about Jesus is this conversation-starter: what don’t you like about the Christian message?

 

PS I am only speaking in this piece about the attacks I hear in Australia, or other places where Christians are not more violently opposed. There are too many of these places (have a look at 13:3, for example). I don’t suggest I know anything about that experience.

Attacking belief – introduction

Any ‘truth’ that can be announced can also be attacked. And that’s a wonderful thing.

The truth may be political, scientific, social, or religious. If true – as its proponents would claim – it’s not fair to keep it a secret. It must go public. As soon as it does so, reactions will follow.

I consider that attacks for any belief will – imperfectly – match the message of that belief. There will be some correspondence between push and push back.

For example:
Push: The Leeches are the best team ever to play swarfball!
Push back: No team has won more swarfs than the Earwigs!

The initial claim elicits a related reaction.

Since I think this pattern is true for claims about God, I’m going to blog a little about attacks on belief. I’m not going to do extensive research, with footnotes and all. It will be mostly impressions and my generalisations. I’ll be asking myself, ‘What do people at large think about Christianity/Islam/etc?’

But before that, what do you think of the basic logic, that message and attack are somewhat related? If that’s off-beam, perhaps the following posts won’t be required!

This generation …

Your challenge: pick the decade in which the following words were penned.

Don’t cheat! The answer is down further.

(I am helping you, you know, by including a couple of extra paragraphs.)

The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt if it were not pungent, or of the edge of the sword if it did not slay?

Any ideas yet?

(Source.)

The words are from Martin Luther, and were penned in 1520 in Concerning Christian Liberty. It was an amazing year for Luther, with three seminal tracts. (The other two were The Appeal to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.)

Luther was frustrated that any criticism was met with a crafty sidestep, ‘That’s a bit strong.’ I’m pretty sure it was not just his generation with that problem.

Used & abused

The unfolding scandal involving the French (ex-)head of the International Monetary Fund, and putative candidate for President of the French republic, has one false distinction.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has been arrested and charged with a violent sexual attack. He has promised to defend himself legally – so there’s no comment here about his legal guilt or innocence.

But note this ‘distinction’:

All agreed that the image in France of DSK as a serial-seducer whose friends claimed he “loved women” was totally different from someone committing violent sex attacks

I’ve seen this imaginary line drawn in a few places. The example is from the UK’s Guardian.

All accounts place DSK in the upper league for seducing women. And also place the use of force in the category of ‘beyond the pale.’ As though he crossed an invisible but clear line.

Rubbish.

Both categories are the same – they are categories of men who use women. Perhaps one man is nice, uses roses, fine wine and flattery. He’s still a user. In truth, I think he’s an abuser. He doesn’t care for her, he cares for him.

Such use and abuse simply does what’s required to get sex. If the cost was a can of VB, he’d pay it. If it’s expensive champagne, so be it. Once set in a pattern of viewing women like this, the path to considering violence has already been chosen.

Submission & empathy

Submission is not a dirty word. (With nod towards fans of Skyhooks.)

For Christians, submission is woven through all of God’s work and word.

Jesus himself submits, or did submit. To his parents (Luke 2:51), when he was a young ‘un. To God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Since Jesus is Lord, all things are subject to (= in submission towards) Jesus (Hebrews 2:8-9). Pointedly, this includes the church (Ephesians 5:24). All who believe are called to submit to God (James 4:7), while the mind of the flesh is one that refuses to submit (Romans 8:7).

Of course, the shadow hovering behind any modern discussion of ‘submit’ is how the Bible applies this imperative to wives. There’s no denying that this is so, check out the number of verses (1 Corinthians 14:34; Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5).

Right now, what I want to do is note what Christian men husbands should make of this instruction.

In short, husbands should have complete empathy and understanding of their wives, to be able to support them in their role as wives.

Why? Because what Christian men and women have in common is submission. All submit to Christ.

As the church submits to Christ … (Eph 5:24)
Submit yourselves therefore to God (Jas 4:7)

If you are Christian, you know right submission. That includes knowing its difficulties. There are times we know to submit to Christ, but don’t want to because we doubt his way is best. Or times we desire to submit to Christ, but fear the cost.

We know submission is good. We also know it’s not always easy. And we know that our Lord constantly lovingly invites us to submit to him.

When our wives look to us, there are all these doubts. And more! Husbands, let’s show we understand these difficulties, because they are our difficulties too.

So yep, it’s the bloke’s job to be empathetic.

On the other hand – and this is my opinion now – if a wife doesn’t really ‘get’ all the tough bits of being the family leader, that’s not a disaster. If it’s not her role, then it’s unfair for blokes to insist she empathise. She has enough to do without also taking on the role of the man.

Sometimes I put it more directly: if she doesn’t get all the difficulty that comes with being head of a family, then suck it up. It’s not her job to have empathy, it’s his.

How to be smug

In case you want to know. Because it’s very powerful to be smug, or complacent. You can do whatever you want, if sufficiently self-satisfied.

The easy path to smugness: do the right thing.

It does not need to be often, simply often enough for you to notice it.

I found this out myself driving home after doing something for church (self-serving glow). It was 7am (increase glow). Approaching traffic lights I heard the voice in my head, ‘Even if the lights change now, I’m going through.’

I’d done enough – well, I’d done something – and used this to give myself some moral leeway. Obviously, God owed me one. I’ve proved I am better than average, so I have licence to return to average (or worse).

All of this is crazy talk.

And it’s ever been a temptation for the people of God. God gave clear warning through the prophet Amos.

“You only have I known
of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
for all your iniquities.”
Amos 3:2

There was real privilege in being known by God. That’s grace! This privilege is never an excuse, a reason to be corrupt (‘God will look after us, he always does’). God has already anticipated and cut off my path to smugness.

Instead of smug self-congratulation, relationship with God brings heightened responsibility. Since he knows us therefore he will judge, discipline & hold his people to right standards. Guess what: when God cuts off the evil pathway, that’s grace too.

 

Chaplains in schools

This week’s federal budget included money for school chaplaincy. The most unfortunate thing about this is listening to raving loonie ideas as it is discussed on the airwaves – and it’s not just the callers who say weirdly offbeat stuff, it’s journalists too.

I wanted to find some of the facts of the program. The details below come primarily from this (pdf file), the National School Chaplaincy Program guidelines. There are more of the specific guidelines here. All from the website of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

(Since I am a church minister, my personal thoughts on being a chaplain might be relevant. So, here it is: I am not against the idea, but would be a touch uncomfortable about being employed in such a position. I might do it, but my preference is for churches to pay for church workers.)

State religion?

Some folk froth at the mouth, stating that this program reverses the separation of church and state, that it ‘establishes’ a faith. There’s huge misunderstanding of church-state separation, but let’s leave that aside. Instead, look at who can be employed in this program.

To receive funding, schools and their communities must engage a school chaplain/secular Pastoral Care Worker and demonstrate how the services provided by the school chaplain/secular Pastoral Care Worker achieve the outcomes required by the Program.

Did you see that? Secular pastoral care worker. It’s in the guidelines. I have heard no one bother to mention this. Why not? If they did, it would end the ‘established religion’ hoo-ha. Paying someone from public money – be they of faith or not – does not compel citizens to believe the same. At most, it permits a place for such beliefs in our society.

By the way, the difference in qualifications between these two categories is the addition, for the chaplain, of appropriate training and authorisation by some religious body.

Religious teaching?

This one really got me today. People were agahast that chaplains used their position to teach their beliefs. Shock! That’s awful! They should just stick to the counsel that they are employed to provide.

Not so.

Secular pastoral care worker guidelines include this:
an individual pastoral care worker will in good faith express views and articulate values consistent with his or her own beliefs

Chaplain guidelines include nearly identical words:
an individual chaplain will in good faith express views and articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious beliefs

It’s expected that anyone employed in this program will express their beliefs. There’s no need for silence. Religious – or anti-religious – ideas are premitted.

Conversion?

This final criticism is closer to having some legitimacy. Are chaplains (and we should include secularists) using the program to get converts? Here’s the relevant principle in full (only partly quoted above):

While recognising that an individual chaplain will in good faith express views and articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious beliefs, a chaplain should not take advantage of his or her privileged position to proselytise for that denomination or religious belief.

This is the chaplain version. The secular version uses ‘advocate for a particular view or spiritual belief’ in place of ‘proselytise’.

It’s very clear that proselytising is out. Unfortunately, proselytise is not defined in the glossary. Does it ban any mention of conversion, for example? Some would say so. Or is it saying that conversion is ok, but the problem is undue influence and pressure? Many would agree with this. I have been party to discussions in other ministries that distinguish between proselytise and evangelise on the basis of coercion.

For my part, and comparing the chaplain guideline with the secular guideline, it seems to me that proselytise in these regulations has a low threshold. The difficulty that remains is finding where the line is drawn between acceptable exression of views and unacceptable.

So then, is there a summary? At least this, the politics of the chaplaincy program will continue to play out. Often with no regard to reality or to the nuanced situation in which it stands. Yet we can, I hope, each strive to understand what is actually in place, rather than the bogey-man so many heard speaking through the budget papers.