Posted on

Documented and Undocumented “Parasites”

iStock_000001687490XSmallA friend of Hispanic descent shared with me after New Wine, New Wineskins’ recent conference on immigration reform that someone seated near her said, “I hate parasites.” My friend said that the person in question—presumably a Christian given the Christian setting of the conference—was questioning the value of undocumented people living here in the U.S. I have a hard time not devaluing the statement and perspective of the unidentified person to whom my friend referred. There are several reasons why I find the statement troubling and worthy of critique.

Certainly, undocumented people benefit in a wide variety of ways from living in America.  But as they pay a variety of taxes, they are benefiting our system, even as they may not benefit from those tax dollars to the extent that we do. In some ways, citizens and other documented people may be benefiting disproportionately from the undocumented, as with such tax dollars and in the purchasing of produce that would quite possibly be priced higher if citizens and other documented people were working the fields where such produce is harvested by those without legal status. By the way, if Americans benefit from lower prices for food products harvested by the undocumented, does that not make American consumers accomplices in illegal activity, knowingly or unknowingly? (By the way, New Wine will address this subject at our spring 2014 conference on the multi-faceted phenomenon of food). Regardless of one’s response to that question, America benefits from the work, purchasing power, and taxes paid by the undocumented.

Having said all this, for those who are still concerned about undocumented people benefiting from the American system, the best way to keep undocumented people from benefiting inappropriately from the system is to put in place a path to citizenship, while allowing them to remain and work as they pursue legal status. In keeping with the Evangelical Immigration Table’s call for immigration reform, it is in the best interest of all parties that we as a country establish “a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.”

Even so, beyond all the talk of benefits, we should never view another human being as a parasite, regardless of their legal status. All people are created in the image of God and have inherent dignity and worth. Or as Elie Wiesel has been quoted as saying, “You who are so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal. That is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?”

We must not allow categories like “illegal” or for that matter “parasite” to be imposed on people, for such terms suck the life and dignity from them. We must not allow such devaluing words as “parasite” to replace God’s concern for the stranger (regardless of legal status) set forth in Scripture: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34) As I have written elsewhere, dehumanizing words like “parasites” matter: sticks and stones do break bones, and words often lead there. Such faulty thinking and language constructs like “parasites” as applied here should not be allowed to benefit from what is taken to be “civilized” or “biblical,” but taken to be alien and parasitical impositions on what is to be conceived as humane and Judeo-Christian.

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.

Posted on

Predatory Proselytism: The Hard Sell

By Paul Louis Metzger and John W. Morehead

iStock_000013364303_ExtraSmallHave you ever had a salesperson try and get you to buy something you did not want, and the person could not take “No” for an answer? The salesperson came across as a consumer predator.

Many salespeople are aware of the negative associations people have concerning their trade. So, they engage in soft sale tactics to avoid the perception that they are engaged in predatory proselytism. You may be as amused as we are when we get Christmas and birthday cards from former realtors. How much they care for us!

Like the realtors noted above, Evangelicals today are often aware of the negative associations people have of proselytism (including that the term “proselytism” is now often associated with unethical forms of evangelism). But are we sensitive enough?

In April, a lecture was given at Grand Valley State University in Michigan that featured Padma Kuppa, a Hindu interfaith activist with the Hindu American Foundation. She was sharing the results of her research into “predatory proselytization,” which she defines as unethical conversion strategies. Kuppa offered examples of how this phenomenon takes place in her home country in India. One example was that Christians used public obituary information in order to send sympathy cards to the relatives of deceased Hindus, only to include evangelistic elements, involving not only the citation of biblical verses, but also mention of eternal punishment. The response of these Hindu families should give Christians pause for reflection: “While unhappy, they seemed resigned, treating it as one of those unwelcome features of life in a religiously diverse society that one learns to accept and tolerate. ‘This is what Christians do.’”

Such lack of relational sensitivity is not simply a problem in India between Christians and Hindus. Similar relational insensitivities occur in the U.S. as we engage a number of different groups. At the annual Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, thousands of Muslims come together to celebrate their religious and ethnic heritage. The festival has become the focus of many aggressive forms of evangelism by several ministries that have included shouting at people to “study and obey the Bible” and holding up signs that call the Prophet Muhammed a pervert. The efforts of Christians at the festival have resulted in violent clashes, a constant police presence, and several lawsuits.

Moreover, friendship is sometimes abused, when it is reduced to the end of evangelism. In one instance where an Evangelical has been involved in a high-profile relationship and dialogue with a Mormon scholar, many Evangelicals have called for an end to the relationship after a period of time because the Mormon has not converted. Aren’t relationships valuable in and of themselves without being used merely as a tool to convert others? For all our emphasis on personal relationships, one might be left to wonder how relational the Evangelical movement as a whole is.

To return to Kuppa’s talk, she raised issues that call for careful soul-searching and thought. Cases like the one she noted, as well as those we highlighted, illustrate the need for Christians to engage in careful reflection on the ethics of evangelism. Christians see the gospel as a great gift: the self-giving love of God through Christ on behalf of all people everywhere. But how are such evangelistic strategies to be viewed as loving and fulfilling Christ’s call to love our neighbors? For many people outside our faith, this evangelistic work is not viewed positively. For them it is unwelcome and even predatory at times. Their concerns need to be heard, especially by Evangelicals, as we wrestle with thinking through appropriate evangelistic expressions and ethical approaches to evangelism. The lack of soul-searching and critical thought will impact negatively our witness, including “soul-winning.”

In response to the troubling example above involving sympathy cards, would it not seem more appropriate simply to express our grief and mourn with those who mourn in such situations, nothing more? At least, our former realtors would understand that much! Of course, realtors are not trying to warn people to exit burning buildings, but rather sell houses. Evangelicals, on the other hand, sometimes reason that just as one would warn others to flee burning buildings, it is important to warn them to flee the fires of hell. Sure thing. We get that as Evangelicals who believe in the reality of hell. But expressing this in sympathy cards to those experiencing the loss of loved ones? Talk about making a hard sell all the harder! To us this seems manipulative and even predatory. Would we like it as Evangelicals if Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses sent us sympathy cards with their evangelistic messages at the deaths of our loved ones? In view of our conviction that God is sovereign and can provide meaningful occasions to share the good news of Jesus with people and produce appropriate fruit, we should guard against forcing the issue. There are appropriate times and contexts for engaging in proclamation evangelism. We need to ask God for wisdom and walk in step with the Spirit, not wrongly grieving him and others.

Zeal for evangelism is a very good thing, as long as it does not involve predatory dynamics. No one likes to be someone else’s prey. As we love our neighbors we need to learn to do to others what we would want them to do to us. This is the golden rule of Evangelical witness.

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.

Posted on

The Trayvon Martin Case: A Case for Race?

The Trayvon Martin case is back in the national news. The other night, an African American pastor posed the question to a group of people: why has the Trayvon Martin case captured the American public’s eye? Tragedies like this happen all the time. Why did this one shoot America in the face on the evening news?

In reflecting upon his question, I thought back on other high profile cases that raised questions about race: celebrity trials involving OJ Simpson and Kobe Bryant respectively and the late Rodney King. No doubt, each case was different, but each case attracted national attention. One of the striking features of this case is that an African American youth was shot to death by a Hispanic American man, who claimed he shot him in self-defense. In the Rodney King beating, captured live on camera, there was no way in the world that the police officers beat him to a pulp in self-defense. For some at least, this case is not so clear cut. And yet, why did Zimmerman—a community watch volunteer—pursue Martin, even when the 911 operator told him to stop? Was he racially profiling Martin?

It will be a long time coming before our country ever gets to the point of not considering race as a contributing factor to whether someone is charged as innocent or guilty. Remember how split the nation was over the Simpson trial? Was OJ innocent or guilty of killing his ex-wife and her friend? It seemed to many that people responded along black and white lines [For example, it has been reported that according to an ABC poll, 77% of white Americans believed Simpson was guilty;  according to the same poll, 72% of black Americans believed Simpson was innocent; see J. Chidley, “The Simpson Jury Faces the Race Factor,” Maclean’s 108(41) (1995, October), 69-70]. Whether or not race contributed to Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin, race is still part of the conversation. We can’t avoid it.

America goes on trial as Martin and Zimmerman go on trial. Can our justice system right the racial wrongs of the past? No. Can we keep race out of the courtroom and out of people’s minds as a contributing factor in such shootings and trials? No. But can we at least learn from the trial that racialization—how race shapes us as a nation in a variety of complex dimensions—will not die with Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman or the rest of us? Unlike people, racial suspicions and considerations live on long after people shoot them down.

The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins will be hosting a forum to discuss the matters of race raised by the Trayvon Martin case. Please join us for this important dialogue on Saturday, June 15 from 1 – 5pm at Irvington Covenant Church (4003 NE Grand Ave. in Portland).

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.

Posted on

Aborting Tim Tebow

The Jets released Tim Tebow this week. Now the debate is on as to what team, if any, should sign him. Great athlete. Great person. But does he have the makings to be a good NFL quarterback who can win with his arm, not just his legs? I wonder if at some point he will abort an NFL career for another career path.

Yesterday, in an ethics class, my students and I discussed various models of ethics. As we discussed outcome-based ethics, we turned to consider the subject of abortion. We reflected upon the argument that is sometimes made that people shouldn’t abort based on the possibility that their children might grow up to be someone special. I was reminded of Focus on the Family’s 2010 Super Bowl commercial featuring a mother talking about how difficult it was giving birth to one of her children, and how he almost didn’t make it. It is only at the end of the commercial that you realize that she is Tim Tebow’s mom and is talking about him. While it is not explicitly stated, the message appears to be: it is worth fighting for life in a culture of risk and death because the child at risk may become a Heisman Trophy winner.

Now that Tim’s NFL career has taken a hit, possibly a nosedive, what happens to his value as a human being? Certainly, he has already experienced far more success and popularity than most humans. But is his value in the past? What about those who will never be Heisman trophy winners, not even close? What is the basis for risking for another’s life? Is value inherent or determined by external forces, like athletic and academic skills or looks or even gender? After all, as far as I can tell, women can’t be Heisman trophy candidates as of yet.

Of course, the light and warm-hearted commercial involving a special mom and her beloved son was not intended to address all these issues, only celebrate life. Perhaps most people didn’t even think about these ethical concerns. But we need to think about them as a society so that we don’t decide to keep or abort a baby based on Heisman trophy potential or the likelihood of being released by the New York Jets.

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.

Posted on

A Liberal You Don’t Know—And Need to Know

Tom Krattenmaker is one of the liberals we evangelicals need to know.

In The Evangelicals You Don’t Know: Introducing the Next Generation of Christians, Krattenmaker, one of America’s leading journalists on religion, presents a fair-minded, critical assessment of evangelicalism from his liberal vantage point. Krattenmaker complexifies the situation in which we find ourselves in America today. Drawing attention to a groundswell of compassion and civic virtue within evangelical Christianity that does not fit the negative stereotypes of much of secular America, Krattenmaker powerfully argues that the battle is not between evangelicals and non-evangelicals, including secularists. As he sees it, the culture war dividing line is between religious and secular totalitarians on the one hand and those from across the religious and cultural spectrum that are coming together in support of the common good. Journalism of this caliber and scope is vitally important if we are to move beyond the partisan politics and religious fervor that so divides our society in the pursuit of a more humane America. A must read for all concerned—everybody.

The preceding statement is adapted from my endorsement for the book. Actually, it is more than an endorsement for a book. It is an endorsement for the kind of public discourse that is needed today.

I have known Krattenmaker for several years and I have always been struck by his rigorous effort and evident skill in presenting an even-handed account of evangelicalism from his liberal progressive vantage point. You will not find here the kind of scathing rhetoric displayed by H.L. Mencken at the demise and death of William Jennings Bryan. In fact, while reflecting his liberal progressive instincts and concerns, Krattenmaker also demonstrates concern over the mishandling of evangelicals by his liberal counterparts. Moreover, he does not declare the demise of evangelicalism, but an awakening. While it is not without its criticisms of the movement, this book is no obituary for evangelical Christianity.

As a movement, we evangelicals still have a long way to go on developing a robust and comprehensive public theology that is pro-life, all life—including on subjects of prison reform, gun control, women’s rights, and the environment. For his own part, Krattenmaker is quick to point out that secular progressives have a long way to go as well. Sometimes its brand of tolerance does not go far enough in refusing to tolerate injustices committed against the least fortunate, like the failure to engage fully the moral dimensions of abortion and the male dominated hyper-sexualization of girls and women in culture.

In closing, I wish to draw attention to words from my endorsement that I believe reveal the most important feature of the book: “Krattenmaker powerfully argues that the battle is not between evangelicals and non-evangelicals, including secularists. As he sees it, the culture war dividing line is between religious and secular totalitarians on the one hand and those from across the religious and cultural spectrum that are coming together in support of the common good.” Evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike struggle with totalitarian self-righteousness, believing everything about our particular selves and constituencies is good and “the other” is all bad. We will never get anywhere as a society in affirming and cultivating the common good if we don’t seek to come together in search of shared values, acknowledging our own weaknesses and the other’s strengths, even while cherishing our own traditions. As much as possible, no matter how hard it is, we need to develop the kind of rhetorical sophistication and conflict resolution strategies that make it possible to build a common America. To that end, Krattenmaker’s book is a prophetic witness.

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.