The Heartbeat of Richard Twiss

Richard Twiss

This piece was originally published at Patheos on February 8, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

Please pray for Richard Twiss, Co-Founder and President of Wiconi International. Wiconi (“we-cho-nee”) means “Life” in the Lakota/Sioux language. Richard had a heart attack on Wednesday. Pray for his heartbeat, which beats for Wiconi—life. An update on Wiconi International’s Facebook page last night read: “Richard is on full life support for his heart and lungs. Right now the doctors are neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the situation, but they agree it is a serious situation. They are going to keep him sedated for a couple of days, at which time [they] will be able to determine the extent of any damage.”

Richard is loved by countless people for his love for life, the ways of Jesus, and justice for Native peoples. His heart breaks for the damage done to Native peoples in our country and longs for a hope-filled future for them. Here is the heartbeat or aim of Wiconi International, the work Richard co-founded:

“Our aim is to provide education, encouragement and offer practical support to Native American families and communities in creating a preferred future. Historically, Native people have been underrepresented and underserved in mainstream America. Economic, cultural and social barriers continually limit access to viable resources, thus hindering many healthy community change efforts. Wiconi’s primary mission is to empower and serve Native people to experience a desired quality of life and a hope-filled future through authentic relationships and culturally supportive programs. We seek to live and walk among all people in a good way, as we follow the ways of Jesus—affirming, respecting and embracing the God-given cultural realities of Native American and Indigenous people, not rejecting or demonizing these sacred cultural ways.”

Richard has touched my heart and life over the years. As a result of his own love of God’s distinctive handiwork in native cultures, I have come to love Jesus’ ways more. Richard has helped to teach me that Jesus is by no means homogeneous or generic. He speaks life into every culture through the Spirit—reversing the curse at Babel by bearing witness through diverse tongues at Pentecost. May God grant Richard life and may our own lives beat for life for Native peoples. Perhaps you will find what I have found—that one’s heart comes alive, as God destroys our idolatrous towers of cultural imperialism reaching to the heavens and builds his kingdom on the cornerstone, Jesus, with the bricks and mortar and living stones of many tribes and tongues.

Evangelicals: Now’s the Time to Challenge President Obama’s Middle East Strategy

iStock_000016840199XSmall

This piece was originally published at Patheos on February 7, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

You may have watched the third presidential debate a few months back in which Governor Romney confronted President Obama on his dealings with Israel. Governor Romney argued strongly that the President had failed to sustain and strengthen strategic connections with Israel. Such negligence would impact negatively and dramatically America’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

I wonder what the six men charged with overseeing Shin Bet—Israel’s intelligence agency focused on protecting Israel from terrorism—would say of Governor Romney’s charge. I look forward to watching the new documentary, The Gatekeepers, which interviews all those who led Shin Bet the past thirty years.

Here’s what Richard Cohen of the The Washington Post has to say about the documentary:

“The film is a tough indictment of Israeli policy, particularly the continued occupation of the West Bank and the expansion of Jewish settlements there. All of the former officials are traditional Israeli secularists, and they show a commendable loathing for the religious militants that Israeli governments continuously pandered to. Above all, though, they are critical of government after government that lacks a strategy to somehow withdraw from the West Bank and instead relies on oppression. “You can’t make peace using military means,” says Ami Ayalon, head of the Shin Bet from 1996 to 2000 and a former navy commando.”

One doesn’t have to be an American or Israeli secularist to see that there is a problem with trying to make peace using military means. While many Israelis may be more concerned for making safety, not peace, can there ever really be safety without peace? Religious centrists can see there is a problem with using military means to make peace or safety without peace. Religious centrists also understand that religious militancy only leads to hate and more bloodshed. Evangelicals need to guard against religious militancy. African American Evangelical civil rights leader John M. Perkins said something to the effect of, “Why do we as Evangelicals have to love one kind of people and hate another kind of people? I don’t get it. I can love the Jew and the Palestinian at the same time.” Perkins knows how painful hate can be and how difficult it is to center on love. Perkins was the ‘beneficiary’ of religious and/or secular militancy over the years in the form of white supremacy. White militants beat him within an inch of his life in 1970 in Mississippi. While it has been a difficult and challenging road for him, the only thing Dr. Perkins is militant about is God’s centrist love revealed in Jesus that makes enemies out of friends. He did not respond in kind to his oppressors, but has worked to build peace between whites and blacks and other divided people groups here and abroad over the years. For him, love is the final fight.

We fellow Evangelicals need to take up Dr. Perkins’ charge to love Israelis and Palestinians, not to love one and hate the other, but to make love the final fight. While I think President Obama needs to be challenged on his Middle East strategy, I disagree with Governor Romney about who it is that the President has neglected. President Obama has been neglectful in his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He has failed to consider the well-being and fate of a people about whom our country cares, or should care. The President, like many American Evangelicals, has not shown adequate care and concern for the Palestinians. The President has not advocated nearly enough in support of the Palestinians, to the dismay of the Arabs. Of course, the President faces daunting challenges in advocating for a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict and other calls for freedom in the region (See for example these articles addressing Middle East problems). Of course, there is blame for all sides to bear. Still, in the ongoing conflict involving the Israelis and Palestinians, if the President does not challenge Israel more and advocate on behalf of both sides, it may not only be the Muslim and Christian Palestinians and other Arabs who are filled with dismay. Israel will never experience lasting rest, safety and peace, which I hope they too will find.

Jesus, Darwin and Donald Trump

This piece was originally published at Patheos on February 4, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

iStock_000016068158XSmallI often see bumper stickers with a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish devouring one another. But I have never seen a bumper sticker depicting a Jesus fish fighting for its life with a Donald Trump fish. Regardless of how Charles Darwin or Donald Trump view(ed) Jesus or the Bible, they represent dominant systems of thought and life respectively: evolution-survival of the fittest; and market economics-survival of the economic fittest.

The Scopes Monkey trial in Dayton, Tennessee back in 1925 served as a key symbol of the fight between creation and evolution in America. If the results of the trial in American society were indicative of reality, the creationists lost, even though they won the court case. While Darwin has gone on trial repeatedly in Evangelical circles over the years, I am not sure the same thing could be said regarding free market economics. And yet, if Gordon Bigelow is correct, it is not religion or the biblical narrative, but economics that offers the dominant creation narrative in our day. Here is what Bigelow claims:

Economics, as channeled by its popular avatars in media and politics, is the cosmology and the theodicy of our contemporary culture. More than religion itself, more than literature, more than cable television, it is economics that offers the dominant creation narrative of our society, depicting the relation of each of us to the universe we inhabit, the relation of human beings to God. And the story it tells is a marvelous one. In it an enormous multitude of strangers, all individuals, all striving alone, are nevertheless all bound together in a beautiful and natural pattern of existence: the market. This understanding of markets-not as artifacts of human civilization but as phenomena of nature-now serves as the unquestioned foundation of nearly all political and social debate. (Gordon Bigelow, “Let There Be Markets: The Evangelical Roots of Economics,” in Harper’s Magazine v. 310, n. 1860, May 1, 2005).

If Bigelow is correct in asserting that economics (in particular, the model generated by the “neoclassical” school of economics) is the cosmology and theodicy of our contemporary culture, wouldn’t Evangelicals consider challenging it with the same kind of passion that went into the fight with Darwinian evolution? Perhaps the reason why Evangelicalism as a movement has not been outspoken on the issue is because it often assumes the free market economics narrative as gospel truth. According to Bigelow, Evangelicals don’t simply assume the market’s gospel truthfulness but also promote it. In his estimation, Evangelicals have been responsible for cultivating the sense of scientific certainty around markets. If he is accurate, the movement has been far more successful in generating support for the evolutionary supremacy of the market system than it has in challenging Darwin’s Origin of Species. Why? We’ll reflect on this and related questions in future posts on the subject.

Erosion: Christian Dominance in America, Not Freedom?

iStock_000001687490XSmall

This piece was originally published at Patheos on February 1, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

According to a recent Barna study, a strong percentage of Evangelical Christians believe their religious freedom is under threat. But is our religious freedom under threat, or simply our dominance? In view of the study, David Kinnaman, Barna’s president argues, “Evangelicals have to be careful of embracing a double standard: to call for religious freedoms, but then desire the dominant religious influence to be Judeo-Christian. They cannot have it both ways. This does not mean putting Judeo-Christian values aside, but it will require a renegotiation of those values in the public square, as America increasingly becomes a multi-faith nation.”

While some may argue in response that it is our Christian values that make it possible for there to be religious freedom, history in this country and elsewhere would show that this has not always been the case, when Christianity or Christendom has prevailed. Our country’s democratic values were certainly shaped in view of such problems as religious oppression in Europe, but such oppression occurred at the hands of what many hailed as a Christian empire or Christian nation states. It is a mixed bag: if it weren’t for the influence of enlightenment philosophers and minority Christian groups such as the Puritans fleeing from societies where Christendom had held sway for a very long time, we may never have seen the development of the American democratic experiment. That experiment is still under way, for those fleeing persecution and establishing our democracy did not think long and hard enough about how to preserve the freedoms of others, including the indigenous people on American shores and Africans taken from their continent to these shores. To this day, there are inequitable racialized structures still in place. We have a long way to go in terms of preserving and promoting liberty.

Regardless of what we make of history and the role of Christian values in the formation of the United States, here are some practical recommendations for how we Evangelicals should live in the present context:

First, we need to guard against double-talk: wanting to preserve Christian dominance and calling for religious freedom for all. If we Evangelical Christians want religious freedom, we will need to champion the religious freedom of others, even if we disagree with them on their views, and even if it means that they will critique us with that freedom.

Second, we cannot assume that everyone will agree with us. We have to argue our case in a manner that makes sense to everyone, and to do so in a gracious, irenic manner. With this in mind, we will have to learn not to use Christian jargon, but speak in a manner that everyone can understand. Nor can we discount others’ views because they are Mormons or Muslims, for example. We need to evaluate their positions on the merits of their arguments, and ask that they do the same with ours.

Third, in those cases, however many they may be, where our Christian convictions are critiqued simply because they are Christian, we will need to learn how to be long-suffering, in part because it is a Christian value, and in part because we belong to a movement that has unfortunately caused many to suffer because of our faith. The same scenario would likely be the case if another religion had dominated the American scene for so long. Whenever an individual or institution has power, it tends to do harm, not simply a lot of good. If we learn to listen well, we will eventually earn the right to speak as part of the conversation; the same principle holds true when engaging in conversations on race, as our society becomes increasingly ethnically diverse. White Evangelicals such as myself need to learn how to listen more and change our posture so that we are part of a conversation rather than dictating the terms of the conversation. As participants in the conversation, we will find that we have so much to learn from others of diverse perspectives, even while adding value to the discourse.

Fourth, we need to learn to be collaborative. Kinnaman used the word “renegotiation”: Evangelical Christians need to renegotiate our faith in our increasingly multi-faith society. Some will read “renegotiation” to mean compromise, as in sacrificing core convictions. “Renegotiation” does not necessarily mean compromise. It can suggest collaboration, which is how I understand Kinnaman to use the term. Compromise as defined here is different from collaboration. Compromise entails surrendering core convictions for the sake of being at the table with others. Collaboration entails operating in a way that the aims of the various parties are integrated in such a manner that the resulting state of affairs is more beneficial. Some may point to the recent story, “Dan and Me: My Coming Out as a Friend of Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A,” as an example of such collaboration involving a nationally recognized LGBT leader and Chick-fil-A’s president and COO, Dan Cathy, a conservative Christian. Closer to home for me was the invitation to participate in the twenty-fifth anniversary celebration of the building of a mosque in Portland. I did not go there to preach the Gospel, but to demonstrate the Gospel as a neighbor and friend of these Muslims who have been involved in significant works of service in the Greater Portland area and beyond. If I am not willing to support Muslims’ freedoms in this country, such as space for their mosque, why should I expect that they would support space for churches in our increasingly multi-faith society? We should do for others what we would hope they would do for us. I look forward to partnering with my Muslim friends in various ways, including care for Muslim refugees and immigrants in the pursuit of peace (the subject of an interview I did with a Muslim leader yesterday that will air later) that benefits not simply Evangelical Christians, but also Muslims, and people of all other backgrounds. The resulting state of affairs is more inclusive discourse and a more inclusive peace benefiting all.

The loss of religious dominance does not have to spell the end of religious freedom for Evangelical Christians, but an opportunity for collaboration that benefits the freedoms of all.

Are Christian and Muslim Convictions Compatible with American Values?

This piece was originally published at Patheos on January 31, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

???????????????????lAre Christian and Muslim convictions compatible with American values? I suppose it depends on which convictions one is talking about, and what American values one has in mind.

I find it inconceivable that Christianity and Islam could ever affirm secularism as a reigning ideology. Here I am referring to the attempt to bracket consideration of God from public life. The more secularism as articulated here becomes entrenched in American society as a reigning value system the less compatible Christian and Muslim convictions will be with America’s value system. Please note that I used the words “public life” in a prior sentence. While many Christians are comfortable with privatizing or compartmentalizing their faith, biblical Christianity sits uncomfortably with compartmentalization of the faith in view of its claim that Jesus is Lord over all domains. I believe the same abhorrence for the bracketing of the faith from public life is found in large segments of Islam. Christianity can make space for what we might call the secular (in contrast to that which is deemed sacred, as in sacred art, etc.) and for secularists and can operate alongside secularists in pursuit of democratic values, but public faith requires that we speak to those shared democratic values from our Christian heritage and biblical vantage point in pursuit of the common good. Wouldn’t the same hold true for Muslims?

iStock_000008529485XSmallI do believe Christianity and Islam can operate well within a pluralistic world. Of course, the history is very spotty for both religions, but adherents of both religious traditions have often had to operate among other faiths and can make space for other perspectives to operate. America has always valued a form of pluralism, as exemplified in its doctrine of the separation of church and state. As long as such separation does not entail compartmentalization, and as long as public witness to Christianity and Islam does not move toward religious totalitarianism, these faiths can flourish and help the country to flourish. We Christians and Muslims will need to learn how to work together in cultivating public theologies and civil society in cooperation with those of other religious persuasions and secular vantage points. We will need to generate new narratives that do not compromise but champion the narratives of our respective traditions and our country’s fundamental values of liberty and justice. The American experiment with religion that shaped the civic sphere in light of Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism will need to expand, not retract and be reduced to a secular experiment. Only by coming together as various religious and secular traditions in the effort to cultivate a just and equitable society will we ever be able to embody our country’s founding ideal of making this a nation by all the people for all the people, whoever they may be.