Category: Blog

How many decision makers passing the bill to cut $40 billion from food stamps over the next decade actually know someone on food stamps? Debate rages in Washington among lawmakers on whether or not the bill would impact only those trying to milk the system. I know people on food stamps—hard-working people, people in difficult situations, people who need food stamps to survive. They are fearful that they will not be able to obtain basic food necessities to stay afloat in the system if the bill that passed in the House of Representatives makes it past the Senate.

Someone close to me wrote that many people in his community depend on food stamps to cover a large percentage of their basic subsistence needs on a monthly basis. In his region, it is extremely difficult to find consistent and stable work. My friend finds it difficult to believe that in spite of his spouse’s and his education, work experience and positive work history, they can’t find employment. He finds even more difficult to believe that some conservatives in government tell people that the solution is to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. His response is that it’s great to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps if one has bootstraps! Not only do many people around my friend not have bootstraps; many of them don’t even have boots. As my friend remarks, “What is the government to do with educated people like him and his spouse, who are willing to work, but are unable to find jobs?  It seems to me that underfunding these programs that provide basic essentials to struggling families is not the starting point for economic growth.”

The situation gets worse for my friend and his family. His mother-in-law had a major surgery a few years ago that left her body in a compromised position. She now needs regular doses of oxygen to stabilize her condition. Her oxygen provider has provided oxygen services to the poorest of the poor at no cost because of the lack of income. Recently, the oxygen provider slid the scale down further so that his mother-in-law, who barely makes minimum wage, is now required to pay a monthly charge for her oxygen.  Unfortunately, this charge is out of her price range. Depending on how everything works out, she may have to choose between her oxygen (which is an issue of life and death) and some other necessity.

A New York Times article claims, “The budget office said that, left unchanged, the number of food stamp recipients would decline by about 14 million people — or 30 percent — over the next 10 years as the economy improves. A Census Bureau report released on Tuesday found that the program had kept about four million people above the poverty level and had prevented millions more from sinking further into poverty. The census data also showed nearly 47 million people living in poverty — close to the highest level in two decades.”

My fear is that politicians will point their fingers at one another rather than make sure the poor don’t come under anyone’s thumb or foot. It will not do to point fingers at those across the aisle and say their economic policies force the poor to bear the burden of our financial challenges as a country. Why should the poor, especially those who try but who can’t get by, bear the brunt of governmental policies, whatever they may be? The day may come when those in power will slide down the social ladder and into poverty. Who will pick them up then if they fail to pick up the poor now? Even more disturbing, perhaps the poor who are trampled upon now will eventually get so fed up with the feds that they will pull themselves up by our bootstraps to bring us down. It is better that we work to pull one another up rather than tear one another down or let one another fall through the cracks. We can start by stamping out budgets that fail to provide food stamps for the poor.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

What difference does the Trinity make for Christian thought and life? While opinions vary, I share Lesslie Newbigin’s conviction that when many Christians think of God, they don’t call to mind the Father, Son, and Spirit, but the great divine monad. Newbigin maintains that Greek philosophy and Islamic thought have combined to shape the Christian imagination since the High Middle Ages, replacing the Trinitarian perspectives of the fathers of the first four centuries of Christian history.[1]

Newbigin is not alone in his critique. Michael J. Buckley argues that Christian apologists in the medieval and modern eras failed to debate their opponents in view of their Trinitarian heritage. According to Buckley, this lack of Trinitarian reflection was instrumental to modern atheism’s emergence. Beginning with Christian apologists’ critique of Baruch Spinoza, whose naturalistic perspectives on God and the world at large led to his Jewish community’s censure and the church’s harsh criticism, Buckley writes,

One of the many ironies of this history of origins [of modern atheism] is that while the guns of the beleaguered were often trained on Spinoza, the fortress was being taken from within. The remarkable thing is not that d’Holbach and Diderot found theologians and philosophers with whom to battle, but that the theologians themselves had become philosophers in order to enter the match. The extraordinary note about this emergence of the denial of the Christian god which Nietzsche celebrated is that Christianity as such, more specifically the person and teaching of Jesus or the experience and history of the Christian Church, did not enter the discussion. The absence of any consideration of Christology is so pervasive throughout serious discussion that it becomes taken for granted, yet it is so stunningly curious that it raises a fundamental issue of the modes of thought: How did the issue of Christianity vs. atheism become purely philosophical? To paraphrase Tertullian: How was it that the only arms to defend the temple were to be found in the Stoa?[2]

Further to Newbigin’s and Buckley’s claims, I find that there are many forces at work today that keep us in the church from thinking and acting in view of the Trinity. Some of these forces are rationalism, pragmatism, and individualism.

Let’s start with rationalism. One noted Christian thinker told me once that we should leave the Trinity alone since it is the greatest mystery of the Christian faith. I beg to differ. As the greatest revealed mystery, Christians must think and act in view of this doctrine. While the Trinity cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula of 1 x 1 x1 = 1 or a recipe involving an egg white, egg yolk and an egg shell, we Christians can and must approach everything in view of the God revealed in his personal Word, Jesus Christ, in the power of the Spirit.

How might this bear on the rational enterprise of modern science? There are many implications. I note several such possibilities in Connecting Christ: How to Discuss Jesus in a World of Diverse Paths. Here is one of them:

The creation of all things out of nothing by the personal Word of God safeguards science’s search for unity according to the canons of reason (affirming the link between minds and the universe as rational) as well as science’s free reign to pursue its course unhindered by an ideology that demands one recognize vestiges of God in creation or presumes that one must pursue science religiously. In his famous article on how Christian theology was instrumental in the rise of modern science, Michael Foster claims that modern science was able to arise and flourish when the quest for timeless frames of reference gave way to an empirical approach that focused on space and time forms. This involves the claim that God’s voluntary activity, which goes beyond the determination of reason, brings forth the creation in a dependent and contingent manner. What Foster points to as the voluntary will of God resonates in my estimation with the trinitarian doctrine of the creation of all things out of nothing by God’s Word. Just as God has relational space within his own being for otherness, God grants space for the creation to be the creation through the voluntary activity of God’s declaration by his personal Word.[3]

There is more to come. Let it suffice to say that for me—as well as for a growing number of Christian thinkers—the Trinity is not to be replaced with some great divine monad, removed to mysterious seclusion as irrelevant for broader consideration, or reduced to a recipe for how to make scrambled eggs.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

A professional clown informed a group of amateurs such as myself that “You don’t have to be in make-up” to fulfill the calling of a clown. She was talking about our calling as Christians to make ourselves vulnerable.

The clown in question, Trudi Sang, is chair of The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins‘ student community. Trudi was giving a talk to us on the New Wine, New Wineskins community formation retreat on how to be Christian leaders. She was drawing from her many experiences as a professional clown to appeal to us to be those who lead like good clowns as Christians. Trudi was not trying to be funny. In fact, she was making a serious case in view of the long history of Christians being conceived as clowns–not for clowning around but for imitating Christ–the ultimate court jester and holy fool.

Would you and I like to be professional or master Christian clowns rather than amateurs? We don’t have to wear make-up to be clowns, so you and I can save some money there. We can be clowns simply by being vulnerable with others.

If we want people to take off their masks, we will need to take off our own masks. Why is it that people have to put on make-up as clowns to get people to take off their masks of pretense and be vulnerable? Perhaps it is because they think the clowns aren’t real and so they can be honest with them. What do you think?

Of course, Hollywood has filled many of us with fear of clowns. As a result, many of us won’t even let down our guard with clowns for fear that the Joker from The Dark Knight might be lurking below the surface. So, we’ll need to prove to others that the vulnerability they see in us is for real rather than a thin veneer used to cover more pretense and to cause further pain and suffering in their lives.

I guess as Christians we’ll have to prove ourselves by clothing ourselves in Jesus. Easier said than done given how Jesus’ enemies mocked him, undressing him, then casting lots for his clothing, even as they left him hanging to die from a tree. But still, this is how we prove that we are professional or master clowns, like him. Instead of mocking others, we take upon ourselves the mockery and scorn, like him. Instead of hurting the defenseless, like some notorious clown pretenders have done, we lay ourselves down like Jesus did for the defenseless in their distress.

Jesus did not put on a mask to be vulnerable. In fact, in appearing before us face to face as God’s holy fool, he aims to aid us in taking off our masks so that we can be seen and known for who we truly are. We’re all clowns. The question is: what kind of clowns are we?

All of us are clowns. Either we wear masks in pretense to cover our foolishness or we expose our foolishness by taking off the masks so as to wear Christ. Jesus is God’s master fool whose cross makes a mockery of human sophistication and autonomy, which is nothing more than sophistry. If we try to be wise in our own eyes, we become fools.

We need to give up the circus act of performing for others’ approval rather than seeking to please Jesus. Only as we find our value in relation to God’s holy fool will we be able to become vulnerable and love others no matter how foolish we appear. Only as we die to ourselves and carry our crosses will we be free to live. Only as we give up trying to be wise in our own eyes, willing to look foolish to people who live by pretense, will we become wise in God’s eyes and prove to be of help to our fellows so that they can put away their masks. We don’t have to wear make-up anymore to be clowns, if we want to see Jesus and others face to face.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

The multi-ethnic church race is not a sprint, but a marathon race for life. What will energize us in the midst of the challenges and obstacles that would drain us, exhaust us and lead us to call it quits rather than overcome? Solidarity in community is key. But what kind of community? A community sustained by the reality that the God revealed in Christ by the power of the Spirit has already run and won the race to make one people out of many nations, tribes, peoples, and languages.

Ephesians 2 speaks to the reality of what Christ has already accomplished. He has already broken down the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles and has made them one (Ephesians 2:11-22). By extension, Jesus has broken down the dividing walls that exist between various people groups and sub-cultures in our day. We live now in light of what our Lord Jesus has done, is doing and will do in making his people one. Not only do we look back, but also we look forward to that future reality disclosed in Revelation 7:9-17. Here we find that God’s community of people from a plethora of diverse backgrounds is one, centered round the throne in worship.

This is no pie in the sky wishful thinking that leads us toward escapism, but an eschatological vision firmly rooted in the history of God’s reconciling act of just love in Christ. With this constructive vision, we can overcome the negative forces that would cause us to abandon justice for hate, justice for status quo peace, and love for revenge-based justice.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s vision for a post-racialized, unified America sustained him in the face of the extreme hatred of Bull Connor that was demonically oppressive, the moderate though perhaps more diabolical resistance of white clergy who favored peace apart from justice, and militancy that wanted justice apart from love. Dr. King had a dream that sustained him, a dream that was rooted deeply in the American dream of unity. King’s dream was also shaped by the African American church’s biblical, prophetic vision of a just future in view of God’s reconciling power of love in Christ. Do we have such a dream? We need to live now in light of what Christ has completed and bring the future into the present through concrete practices of reconciliation that are loving, equitable, and just.

We need to realize that the God revealed in Christ has big shoulders, big lungs and strong legs to help us win each leg of the journey. Our firm hope in the revelation of God in Christ should energize us to run well the multi-ethnic church marathon race. This all-consuming vision of what God has done, is doing, and will do will keep us centered, secure and sustained in the face of the consumer-driven culture that would divide us over petty preferences. We shall overcome, for Jesus has already won the race.

I will be addressing these themes as I speak at Mosaix 2013 Multi-Ethnic Church Conference, November 5 – 6 in Long Beach, CA.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

I remember hearing a lecture from a mainline Protestant liberal scholar who said that his seminary students were hard pressed to engage people of other religions well. It wasn’t because they weren’t deeply interested in other faiths (as is the case with many conservative Christians), but because they didn’t know enough about their own faith tradition, including Christology. While conservative Christians need to be inquisitive rather than inquisitional (further to what was stated in the last post on this subject), this mainline Protestant liberal seminary professor maintained that liberal Christians need to be better informed about their faith tradition.

If I wish to take someone else’s tradition seriously, I had better take my own tradition seriously, too. How can I understand the religious other in all her or his distinctiveness if I don’t understand well and take seriously my own particular tradition?

At the Buddhist temple yesterday morning, my world religions class got into this conversation with the Buddhist priest. The priest in question, Abbot Kyogen Carlson, added that regardless of our faith tradition we should all think ours is the best. If we don’t, he feels sorry for us. Those who are lukewarm about their own traditions usually end up simply sampling various trailheads without doing serious exploration of a given trail wherever it might lead. Instead of simply taking a few steps forward at various trailheads, we need to commit ourselves to explore fully one of the religious paths. Of course, it is not enough to say that our trail is best, but to express why it is best from our vantage point. Those who explore paths all the way to their end will experience challenges, struggles, risks, and dangers. They alone can really claim how costly the journeys are. They alone can claim that making the journeys were worth the cost. They alone have stories worth the telling, marked by battle scars and long-lost treasures now discovered.

Abbot Carlson and I agreed that this emphasis on considering our respective traditions best and providing the rationale for our claims is counter-intuitive to many Portlanders, who think that in the spirit of equality we should sample all paths rather than immerse ourselves in journeying up and down one trail all the way to the end. As a result, no trail will be fully explored and taken seriously. It is good for them that Lewis and Clark did not follow their approach in exploring trails. If they had only sampled trailheads and never risked the arduous, costly journey, those of us who call precious Portland and the great Pacific Northwest home would likely have never gotten here.

Those of us who are Christians need to love and consider our tradition best and be well-informed holistically and experientially about why this is so if we are to engage other traditions well. Moreover, being inquisitive of other paths by interacting seriously with serious adherents of those traditions may help us see and appreciate our tradition better, as was stated in the previous post on this subject: “Inquisitiveness rather than an inquisitional posture is key. One can be inquisitive in a way that does not leave one’s own faith behind, and which is informed by one’s faith. In fact, the answers people of other faith traditions provide can shed light on parallels and also distinctive and unique features of the respective faith traditions that further inform one’s own faith.”

Whether we are Christians or representatives of other faith traditions, we need to understand that taking seriously adherents of other traditions does not necessarily entail discounting one’s own tradition, especially if we consider our particular tradition best. Further to what was stated above, the religious other sheds light on one’s tradition’s uniqueness.

Just as taking seriously the adherents of other faiths’ views can enhance appreciation of one’s own tradition, so too, taking most seriously one’s tradition can entail taking the religious other seriously. How can we take seriously and appreciate other religions’ adherents’ convictions based on costly experience that their respective paths are best if we don’t consider our own paths worthy of being taken so seriously that we are willing to pay any price to reach our own trails’ end? Furthermore, if we practice the great commandments of loving “God” (however our various faith traditions define God) with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves, we should take one another seriously enough to enter into serious, honest and open conversations that will really cost us time, energy, and relational vulnerability. We need to share with one another the good news from our distinctive vantage points, showing why we all believe our respective faiths’ great commissions are really great and alone worthy of our ultimate allegiance. This requires understanding and experiencing the cost of pursuing our paths and finding our respective paths worth the cost no matter where they lead. Why would you and I take the time and find worthwhile what one another believes and practices if we don’t believe our distinctive paths are worth the risk of being explored, experienced and expressed to the full as the very best?

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.