Category: Podcast

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 28, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

Today is Maundy (Holy) Thursday on the Christian calendar.  On this day, Christians remember the Lord Jesus’ last supper with his followers and his institution of the Lord’s Supper before he enters into his passion.

Holy and/or unholy passions are flaring today in our society over the debate in the Supreme Court over same sex marriage. Regardless of the outcome of the case(s), I have been intrigued by how many of my Christian brothers and sisters appear to view democracy, or better American democracy, as a holy form of government, almost as if it were installed by the Lord himself. Pope Pius IX was under no illusion as to the tensions between the Roman Catholic Church and secular democracy. He had harsh things to say about Enlightenment-influenced visions of civil society that praised religious liberty and freedom of conscience and that limited the influence of the Catholic church on a society’s citizenry. In his Papal Encyclical titled “Quanta Cura” (Condemning Current Errors) and promulgated on December 8, 1864, he writes:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling. (under point 3)

Pope Pius IX goes on to say,

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

Regardless of whether or not one finds Pius IX’s encyclical pious, one cannot question his alertness to the challenges secular democracy posed for orthodox religion in his day. A Protestant Christian would be mistaken to read Pius IX’s critique of secular democracy as simply a Roman Catholic thing. Anyone who wishes to see the Christian faith play a prominent role in shaping directly a citizenry and a government of a city or nation will experience consternation to some degree.

While the United States of America has always included a significant Christian population, it has also included significant representation of communities with other convictions. Thomas Jefferson and many others were of a deistic persuasion. They were influenced by forces in Europe that were by no means champions of Catholicism or Puritanism.

This complex historical reality should not cause Christians to lose hope in being vital witnesses for what we take to be holiness during Holy Week or during any other week of the year. What I hope an awareness of this complex historical reality will do for us is cause us to look anew to Jesus and his historical context, which was also quite complex. He lived in a society that included a residue of Jewish theocracy that was forced to negotiate space for adhering to Judaism under the heavy hand of pluralistic Rome. Jesus did not try and reestablish a theocracy or remove the Romans; rather, as he told Pilate, his kingdom is of another world. For Jesus, this state of affairs did not let Pilate off the hook in terms of God’s foreboding judgment; what this state of affairs did signify for Jesus was that he had come to inaugurate God’s kingdom community—the church, which would serve as the essential means through which Jesus would rule and accomplish his mission.

In the midst of holy and unholy passions flaring this week, let the community Jesus inaugurated and the meal he instituted lead us forward to advocate for political power of a higher order. What is that order? Under this state of affairs, Jesus hangs on the cross and calls us to carry ours, offering ourselves as living sacrifices, where our freedom in Christ becomes our ultimate freedom, regardless of whether or not we experience freedom of religion or speech. May Jesus’ speech bridle our tongues so that we speak truth in love, even if our fellow citizens’ speech turns to hate. May they know we are Christians by our holy love.

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 26, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

This is not a post on what the Bible says about homosexuality, but about some of the questions I believe Evangelical Christians should consider when thinking about the Supreme Court’s decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act this week.

What kinds of ethical stances should we as Evangelicals seek to implement as laws of the land in our democratic society? I would assume most Evangelical Christians support adherence to speed limits in school zones for the sake of our children’s safety. Would we put forth laws that keep men and women from living together outside marriage? Why or why not? From a different angle, should we seek to support gay couples who have determined to live in monogamous relationships and who have adopted children, giving them stable homes rather than leaving them to grow up in foster care?

What kinds of ethical stances should we as Evangelicals take and seek to enforce in our post-Christendom, democratic society? While Christianity is still the largest representative religion and Evangelicalism may very well still be the largest Christian movement in the States, we live in a society where a large percentage of people don’t share what many Evangelicals take to be biblical stances on homosexuality.  Rather than seeking to enforce those biblical interpretations on others, would it be seen as more discerning to make sure that we of these convictions are not forced to go against our consciences to officiate same sex marriages in our churches?

What kind of missional stance should we Evangelicals take? Is it our kingdom calling to make America a Christian nation or the church truly Christian, including its approach to sexual conduct? Jesus did not make it his calling to take back Jerusalem, but to lay down his life for Jerusalem and build his church—a church that cared for people of alternative lifestyles while calling its members to holiness in all its relationships.

One of the fears I have as Evangelicals address the issue of the legalization of gay marriage is that we might win a battle on shooting down gay marriage and lose a war of building caring relationships with gay people. Will Evangelicals influence the morality of our culture on marriage most by enforcing its overarching view on marriage on others or by embodying its ethic of marriage and family in a way that demonstrates loyal love and self-sacrifice?

For a recent discussion of my view on what Scripture says about homosexuality and how Evangelicals should address the issue, see the chapter “Homosexuality, Holy Matrimony, and Hospitality” on this subject in Connecting Christ: How to Discuss Jesus in a World of Diverse Paths (Thomas Nelson, 2012).

This piece was originally published at Patheos on March 17, 2013.

Listen to this piece.

My wife, Mariko, has shared beautifully about the rainbow of love of her multi-ethnic experience. My rainbow of love experience is a bit different, and it breaks on through or rather past Jimmy Fallon’s impersonation of Jim Morrison of The Doors singing “Reading Rainbow.” The only books Morrison ever inspired me to read were those by the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche, Aldous Huxley, and Arthur Rimbaud.

I grew up in a strong Christian home and received Jesus into my life as a small child, but rebelled against what I would call “Churchianity”—a lukewarm and bourgeois Christian faith—during my high school years. The life and lyrics of Jim Morrison were significant forces that shaped me during this time. Even today, I appreciate Morrison for seeking to follow his convictions wherever they would lead him—perhaps even seeking to “break on through to the other side” through death.

After a few brushes with death and nihilism and the death of a friend, I came to realize after high school that what Jesus said was true at a very personal level: the thief comes to steal and kill and destroy, but Jesus has come to give life to the full (John 10:10). The potency of Jesus’ words woke me up after attending the wake of that late friend and I gave my life to bearing witness to Jesus who broke through death to the other side through his resurrection to bring us fullness of life. I went from being intoxicated with reading about the life of Jim Morrison to being inspired to follow Jesus from taking to heart the words of the martyred missionary Jim Elliot, who wrote of the Christian life in his journal: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.”

Churchianity would have us try to hold onto our comforts at all cost whereas Christ’s church always calls us out and beckons us to take up our crosses, die to our comforts, and find our comfort through union with him and those shaped by the crucible of Jesus’ reconciling and life-fulfilling love. Fullness of life in Jesus involves being reconciled to God and one another. That is a tall order, especially in an alienated world where people who are different than us and who view us as strangers appear strange and ugly, as Morrison sang. It is very hard to find sanctuary in a world like this, where everyone who is different appears to lock you out and you return the favor.

We all need to be called out from our comforts that isolate and alienate us. We all need to be called into community, where we are no longer strangers and where we can find a home among friends who, whether or not they are like us, really work hard to love us. I am grateful for Irvington Covenant Church, where we are being called out from strangerhood today as members of this body. Irvington Covenant Church on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Portland, Oregon is committed to offering reconciliation rooted in Christ where those who were once strangers—“those who are other”—can now become friends. Our church is a grand experiment—not with drugs and alcohol—but with tenacious love.

What brings us to Irvington and keeps us here is not its call to be Facebook friends, but friends in the biblical sense. Biblical friendship entails more than “likes” and “shares” and hanging out with those who belong to the same fraternity. It entails personal sacrifice and building community with those least like you. Through faith in Christ we are baptized by the Spirit into his death and raised through the Spirit into the fullness of his resurrected life so that we can break on through comfortable lives to his all-comforting love that gives us the courage to become what we already are—one in the rainbow of Jesus’ love—in community.

In the song “The Soft Parade,” Jim Morrison claims to have gone to seminary school. While I doubt he did, I undoubtedly did. Morrison claims to have heard in seminary that one could petition the Lord in prayer—a claim that he rejects. When I was back in seminary school, I also heard of petitioning the Lord in prayer. Now as a seminary professor, I speak of petitioning the Lord in prayer to make us one in view of Jesus’ prayer:  ^“I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:23). I want to believe with all my heart that I can petition the Lord to make this prayer come true. Irvington Covenant is a church I have always admired from afar. From afar, it is known as a beautiful experiment in race reconciliation. Certainly, it is beautiful. However, it is also very messy. Irvington Covenant—this beautiful and messy experiment—is not centered in a psychedelic supper but in Scripture and the Lord’s Supper, which beckons us to our Lord who got messed up to make us one.

The rainbow of Jesus’ messy, beautiful love (rather than Jimmy Fallon’s Jim Morrison’s “Reading Rainbow” or Levar Burton’s own rendition of “Reading Rainbow”) calls us to imagine and invest in the biblical vision of a world in which there are no divisions between Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free (Galatians 3:28). It calls us to envision and inhabit a kingdom that will appear in its fullness, where people of every tribe and tongue and nation will worship and commune together at the throne of God and the resurrected lamb (Revelation 7:9-10). I am grateful that our church is willing to take the risk and inhabit the Scriptures together and travel to that throne whose rainbow of promise and providential, holy love assures us that God will bring us through trials and tribulations (Revelation 4:3). Our story is still being written, as we find sanctuary here to ride through the storm and journey home.