What’s Next?

Posted on April 29, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

We humans are such odd creatures. We seem to oscillate between giving no thought to the consequences of our actions to being paralyzed with fear by imagined consequences of our actions.

Take one of the proposed constitutional changes in the United Methodist Church as an example. Here’s the proposed text for part of Article IV:

Inclusiveness of the Church — The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth and that we are in ministry to all. All persons shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members. All persons, upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith and relationship in Jesus Christ, shall be eligible to become professing members in any local church in the connection. In the United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body.

Doesn’t look very controversial on the face of it. One might naturally read the statement as saying something like, “We believe Jesus came, died, and rose for all people. Since Jesus came to bring all people back to God and to invite them to take up his kingdom agenda, we his followers aim to do likewise. There is no category of humans that we seek to exclude from this ministry.” For one who reads the New Testament and takes it as authoritative, I don’t see how they could be other than affirming of such an inclusive mission. So what’s the problem?

All UMs who have been following debates within the church for the past thirty years know what the problem is. Our greatest outward schism these days is over homosexuality. Some are convinced that the practice of homosexuality is perfectly acceptable from a Christian point of view. Others are convinced otherwise. The current disciplinary language affirms homosexuals as people of “sacred worth,” and thus a category of people not to be excluded from our ministry work. At the same time, the Discipline teaches that the practice of homosexuality is “not compatible with Christian teaching,” that we do not recognize or perform homosexual unions (whether “marriages” or another other kind), and do not accept “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” into ministry. These statements, however, are in parts of the Discipline other than the constitution. Thus, opponents reason, if the amendment is passed, the new form of the constitution will trump these exclusions, making them null and void. Since we say that “no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body,” that means that any member is eligible for participation in any body of the church. Currently this article has specific non-exclusions: “race, color, national origin, status or economic condition” do not exclude one from membership and participation in the UMC. It is possible that some see the switch from particular non-exclusionary language to complete inclusionary language as a less controversial (opponents may say “devious”) way to bring currently excluded groups into the areas from which they are current excluded.

If this constitutional amendment is adopted, surely some will seek to rule out the current disciplinary restrictions regarding homosexuality. But because some might – or even surely will  – pursue this course of action, is the language of the amendment any less true to our Christian convictions, regardless of our position on the acceptability of homosexual practice?

United Methodists often pride themselves on not being literalists. Such pride is mistaken. We, like most other collections of humans, are selective literalists. While some may push the literal language of an amended constitution at this point (along the lines of the “all means all” campaign) to turn the UMC toward official acceptance of homosexual practice, a literal reading of this text, as in purely literal readings of pretty much any text, be pushed to what seems absurd. Let’s consider other forms of exclusion we currently practice. When it comes to age, we have disciplinary language on mandatory retirement. Can’t do that – that’s exclusionary. Though I’m not aware of any specific disciplinary language on this point, I’ve never heard of a child (under the age of 16) being ordained in the UMC. Sounds exclusionary to me. What about the current educational requirements for ordination? Some people lack the capacity for such education – and we heartlessly exclude them from ordained ministry.

Surely such reasoning is silly. No one is out pushing for ordination of children or the uneducated. No one wants bishops and pastors to keep going until they drop dead or become totally senile. But a plain literal reading of the text of the proposed amendment could surely lead in such directions. Since people might use the text in this way, we need to refrain from tinkering with it at all, lest bad things happen.

If we argue this way, maybe we should take up Stanley Hauerwas’s idea of keeping the bible away from people also. There are passages in the bible that if read and applied literally might be used to justify and promote what we take to be murder. Yet while I strongly believe many unintended consequences have come out of the way some people have handled the bible – the word of God (not just the word of the General Conference of the UMC) – I still believe the bible in the hands of people to be a good thing. Dangerous? Certainly. Ought we to teach people to handle it rightly? Absolutely. But that goes for the Discipline as well.

Knowing then, that consequences I thing wrong might flow from passing this amendment, I’m still inclined to vote for it. I’m not basing this on my confidence on the maturity of discourse and argumentation in the UMC. I’m afraid my confidence in that is very low. I’m also not basing my position on a commitment to the gospel of inclusion. While I think there is a proper biblical concept of inclusion, I cannot see that what goes by that name in most discussions today has much connection with such an account. Rather, the gospel of inclusion, as I hear it preached, sounds much more like a version of modern individualism than the gospel of Jesus. I also have no confidence that debates over “sexuality” (I doubt the helpfulness of abstractions in this case) end soon or reach a conclusion satisfactory to all. We UMs mirror our culture (as we have since the beginning) in being pretty messed up in this area. Whether we identify as heterosexual or homosexual we tend to be (mis)ruled by our desires, thinking (with Alexander Pope) that “whatever is, is right.” Our desires are, so since God made us and everything good, our desires must be good also. Surely we ought not to thwart that which is good? (My position on this is that while we shouldn’t thwart that which is good, we need to (a) sometimes say “no,” (b) sometimes say, “not yet,” and sometimes (c) recognize that we might be mistaken in our identification of a good.

Instead, my inclination to vote for it is that as far as I can tell from my submission to the authority of the bible and orthodox Christian theology it is simply true. We United Methodist Christians do believe that Jesus died for all. We do believe that God calls all people to die to sin and live to holiness.

Enough rambling for today. If you’d like to argue with me, go for it! I’m amenable to correction or persuasion.

Posted in Bible, Discipline, United Methodism | 9 Comments

Memories

Posted on April 28, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

A Happy Memory: One Sunday about 14 years ago my son did the children’s message for the church service. Well, it was sort of a reverse children’s message. In a normal children’s message an adult gets up and tells the children a story. In this case it was a child – five year old – telling the story. He got up and told the story of the book of Jonah. He did a great job. I was really proud of him.

A Sad Memory: After the service that Sunday the church members were telling me what a great job my son did. One of them told me, “He knows the bible so well. He knows it even better than I do!”

I was happy that my five year old son knew the bible well. I was sad that someone who had been in church for at least five decades didn’t know as much as a five year old. What have we been teaching all these years? How have we been teaching our people?

Posted in Bible, Discipline | 1 Comment

Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals

Posted on April 14, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

In his book by this title, Carlos R. Blovell argues that institutional commitments to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy like that found in the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society are not conducive to the spiritual formation of younger evangelicals. He notes,

“It has been my experience that younger evangelicals feel the tension most when they are left with an authoritative Bible whose authority has been practically all but voided by philosophical and exegetical details that regularly keep popping up. What ends up being authoritative in the end is the evangelical tradition and this tradition  has to be taken on faith to the effect that it best represents what is ‘in’ the Bible.”

As younger evangelicals face the demand that inerrancy is the doctrine on which evangelicalism, or, more personally, their true faith, stands or falls, along with the multitude of qualifications, challenges and even incoherencies in that doctrine, Blovell sees the tension leading them away from the Christian faith altogether. If inerrancy is strictly essential to real Christianity, and inerrancy falls apart under what they take to be rigorous examination, then they are left with no choice but to leave.

Blovell wishes to remain both a Christian and an evangelical. He challenges the current generation of evangelical teachers to discover ways to have a high view of the Bible and its authority that are (a) truer to Scripture, (b) truer to the history of the way Scripture has been used by the faithful through out the ages, and (c) sensitive to the spiritual needs of their students. While he says that he wishes to contribute to such an account in the future, this book serves to identify the need rather than to offer the right way forward.

Evangelicals, especially those in positions of authority in evangelical institutions, are faced with the constant challenge of “going liberal,” or appearing to “go liberal.” Since maintaining the centrality of inerrancy is perceived as the main bulwark against going liberal, I’m not optimistic that many will listen to Blovell any longer than it takes to write him out of evangelicalism. One might think that Wesleyan evangelicals, given the fact of less of an interest in inerrancy in their own tradition might be able to take this step. Since Wesleyans are already suspect in an era when evangelicalism is primarily defined by Calvinists, it will likely be hard for them to take this step, however.

Posted in Bible, Books, Evangelicalism, Inerrancy | 6 Comments

Cult of Accountability

Posted on April 3, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

In his essay on the epistemological problems underlying the current economic crisis, Jerry Z. Miller refers to the “cult of accountability:”

The cult of “accountability” was linked to key innovations that turned out to have unanticipated undersides. One was the shibboleth of linking pay to performance, which put a premium on schemes that purported to measure performance. This tended to produce “hard” numbers that seemed reliable but were not. It created tremendous incentives for CEOs, executives, and traders to devote their creative energies to gaming the metrics, i.e. into coming up with schemes that purported to demonstrate productivity or profit by massaging the data, or by underinvesting in maintenance and human capital formation to boost quarterly earnings or their equivalents.

Accountability has been all the rage for the past decade, especially since the failure of Enron, Worldcom and their ilk. The thought is that if we can gain objectivity and accuracy by means of stricter and clearer accountability, we will avoid those problems of the past.

Business is not the only enterprise facing higher accountability. In at least my Annual Conference (of the United Methodist Church), we have had a greater emphasis on accountability over the past few years. As with Enron et al., the need (I admit that it is a need) for accountability arose from perceived failure. Our conference leadership saw that the churches of the conference were failing. While the population of the region was growing, the churches at best (and there were few at this level) were keeping even. Most of the churches in the conference were declining while the population grew. This failure was further evidenced by the lack of professions of faith in congregations. Half the churches in the conference were showing not a single profession of faith in a year. Speaking plainly, that means that as far as the official statistics show, not a single person had become a Christian through the ministry of that church that year. A key response to this crisis has been increased accountability, effected by weekly reporting of key statistics: Worship Attendance, Professions of Faith, People in “hands on ministry.”

All of these are good things. Having people come to worship, come to faith in Jesus, and join in Kingdom work – all of these are essential to church health. But are we missing something? Is it possible that just as the “cult of accountability” reflected faulty epistemological assumptions on the part of business and the economy, our own adaptation of that cult could reflect faulty assumptions as well?

Posted in church growth, Economics, Epistemology, Texas Annual Conference | Leave a comment

Stuck

Posted on March 31, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

Sometimes we get stuck. While getting stuck is commonly taken to be a bad thing, it depends on where we’re stuck or what we’re stuck in.

Perhaps you’re stuck in a family that keeps on loving you even when you act unlovable. You try to pull away, try to go your own way, but wherever you go, you end up back with the people that love you unconditionally. You’re stuck.

Maybe you’re stuck with Jesus. Like the disciples in John 6 you’ve seen Jesus do some wacky things – things that make no sense to you at all. Other folks fall by the wayside. You think of going away yourself. But you say to yourself, “Who else has the words of life?” And you stay with Jesus. You’re stuck.

Sometimes being stuck isn’t so good. Years ago at one of my previous churches I stopped by to visit a family. The man of the house was home alone so I visited with him. His wife was the church attender in the family so I usually only saw him at his house. I’d visted with him a few times before, but this time in the midst of our conversation he blurted out, “I’m not a believer. Everyone thinks I’m a Christian, but I’m not.”

At that point I’d been pastoring that church for a while. I’d never seen him at church. When I consider what the bible says and what I find in the Christian tradition, it seems normal for believers to spend time with other believers. A primary way that happens in our culture is by doing what we call “going to church.” Since I had never seen this fellow do what I thought was a normal activity for believers, I was not shocked by his admission.

In small town Texas our culture has a veneer of Christianity. Except for those real sinful folks, we assume everyone is at least sort of a Christian – especially if they’re from a church family. Some of them will even tell you, “I’m a Baptist.” “I’m a Catholic.” “I’m a Methodist.” We assume: Nice person, faithful to his family, hard worker, good citizen – must be a believer. But he’s not. And he finally built up his courage to tell someone. He’d never told his wife. He’d never told his kids. Never told a soul.

You know what? He’s not the only one. I’ve talked to several folks over the years, people outside the church like him, as well as every Sunday attenders, who finally admit that they’re not believers. They’ve heard the sermons, they’ve read the books, they’ve considered the arguments, they’ve been on the retreats. Nope. Nothing there.

I think there are more out there. Maybe they’re still actively trying to believe. Maybe they haven’t admitted to themselves – let alone to another – that they don’t believe. They keep thinking: If only I do this, then I’ll feel it, then I’ll believe. But they don’t. They’re stuck.

Part of that stuck (“stuckness” might sound better grammatically, but it sounds just plain bad) might be that they’re not really open to God. They say they are – they tell themselves and others that they are. But they’re not. It might be that God just hasn’t broken through to them yet.

I think believing in Jesus is a good thing – when understood biblically, the best thing. I want people who are stuck on the outside of belief to become unstuck. What can we do?

In the first place, I pray for my friends. I’m not just praying for sinners or lost folks. I’m praying for my friends. I believe my relationship with them matters.

Secondly, our churches need to admit the reality of this phenomenon. Instead we get stuck on numbers: Attendance, membership, offering, budgets. Or stuck on routine – doing what we’ve always done. Or stuck on keeping up appearances. We need to learn to tell the truth and become a place where people can safely tell the truth about themselves. I’m not assuming, however, that we have infallible insight into ourselves, or that telling the truth is simply or easy in any way. It’s hard. Some of the things we take to be the truth aren’t. When it comes to believing in Jesus this works two ways. Sometimes we say that, yes, we are followers of Jesus. But we’re fooling ourselves. We might think we’re telling the truth, but we’re not. Other times, we might say, No, we’ve tried to be believers, but we’re not. But that’s not quite right either. Jesus has more of us than we even know ourselves.

But assuming for a moment that at least some of the time we know the truth about ourselves. We need churches that allow people to openly identify themselves as seekers. None of the churchly or semi-churchly non-believers of the type I’m talking about are excited or proud of their lack of belief. They sound like they’d rather believe. What would happen if we allowed them to be open about their seeking? In such a setting perhaps others could come along side them – not with condemnation and lecturing, but with love and encouragement. I’m convinced that really healthy churches will have more than just believers showing up on Sundays.

A final thing we need is genuine work of God in our midst. Excellence is good, but we need more than excellent bulletins, sermons, studies, & music. We need more than clean restrooms, convenient parking and friendly people. We need God. We need the movement of God in our midst doing the unpredictable and the uncontrollable in our midst.

Sure, there will be rationality involved. God doesn’t desire us to leave our brains home or in sleep mode. But we need more than rationality (but surely njot less).

Sure, there will be emotion involved. God doesn’t desire that we somberly mourn the passing of our loved ones every Sunday. There’s joy that Jesus has defeated all the powers of sin, death and hell for us. The very stones would cry out if we didn’t. But we need more than emotion (though surely not less).

We need God. We need God’s work in the lives of individuals and families, work that is inexplicable by any other means. We need people to step into the story of God and then report what they see, hear and experience. We need God if anyone is going to truly come to faith. Then we might become unstuck and help other become unstuck – and stuck again with Jesus.

Posted in Evangelism, Local church, Spirituality | 1 Comment

Evolution in Texas Classrooms

Posted on March 27, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

The Texas Board of Education is again facing the issue of how to teach evolution in our schools. In an opinion piece in Tuesday’s Dallas Morning News Daniel W. Foster, M.D. argues in favor of teaching evolution. He closes his piece:

My views on this are informed by my faith. I am an elder in the First Presbyterian Church of Dallas where I have taught church school for more than 30 years. The teacher of the faith that I follow, confronted with the secular world of the Roman Empire, said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

To paraphrase, the teacher said, don’t mix up faith and the secular. The State Board of Education should heed that lesson.

Sounds to me like Dr. Foster is a disciple of John Locke. The church’s job is to deal with eternal life. The magistrate’s job is to deal with real life issues of this world.

The context of Jesus’ statement isn’t “the secular.” It’s paying taxes. “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar,” his challengers asked him. They knew they had him this time. If he said, “Yes – Caesar is an authority we need to recognize and bow down to,” then the Jews would stop following him. If he said, “No – We Jews should reject the laws of that pagan,” they could call in the Roman authorities to have him arrested. Either way, they finally had trapped Jesus.

But Jesus eluded their trap with the words the doctor quoted. But the Christian tradition has, to a great extent, not been content to divide off a secular realm where faith – if we mean by that, discipleship to Jesus – has no say. Is the doctor suggesting Christians – people of “faith” – should have nothing to say about abortion? Capital punishment? Stem cell experimentation? Slavery? An equitable tax code? War crimes? After all, Caesar wants the say on all these things. Sure our current Caesar is happy for us to have opinions about these things, just as long as we either agree with him or stay in our closets praying.

Coming to the doctor’s particular subject, does teaching that everything came into being by purely natural and purely random forces, that there is no such thing as purpose or meaning in life – unless that purpose or meaning be completely autonomous – have no connection with any legitimate form of faith? Saying that science qua science has nothing to say about these things is one thing. Saying that followers have no legitimate reason to question such things is another.

Posted in Church & State, Evolution | 1 Comment

Foolish Spending

Posted on March 21, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

I’ve heard a lot about foolish spending lately. Most recently it’s million dollar bonuses at AIG. Before that it was a lavish executive retreat. A few months back it was an office bathroom renovation.

Foolish spending is nothing new. A few years ago I heard of a major corporation paying $210 million dollars to a CEO (who is now running Chrysler) to make him resign. Sounds pretty foolish to me.

But who’s to decide what counts as foolish? We’re going through a time when government is taking over large swaths of the business world and legislating definitions of foolishness. “Excessive” pay is now deemed foolish, and the tax code is being re-written to punish the recipients of foolish largess. They don’t seem to understand that if congress has to approve of economic activity to make it legitimate, there will be much less economic activity.

I think yachts are excessive. I’ve never had a yacht and never thought I needed one. Years ago when the luxury tax was increased to hit yachts, it didn’t bother me. I wasn’t one of those rich guys out to buy a yacht. It’s also a good thing I wasn’t one of the not-so-rich guys who built or maintained yachts. If so, when the rich guys stopped buying yachts (that’s the message they got from the increased taxation), the yacht builders took the hit. Didn’t hurt the rich guys. They were still rich.

I’m sure some people think my industry is foolish. Can you imagine giving ten percent of your income to something as foolish as a church?  If people stopped giving to churches just think what they could afford: new cars, second homes, nicer vacations. But then some of us would be out of a job.

I’m not a big spender. I never have been. Family members tell me it’s genetic.  If everyone was like me we’d have a much smaller economy. Do our political leaders want everyone to be like me? Or do they want people to spend freely (like they used to) so the economy will recover? Will they promulgate a list of acceptable things to spend money on?

Maybe the government is hoping to do all the spending itself. Their wisdom is surely greater than that of the ordinary human. They know how to save money, too. Some are really creative. I’d rather see them get out of the way of us ordinary fools at the bottom of the food chain.

Posted in Current events, Economics | 1 Comment

My daughter is annoyed

Posted on March 19, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

I took my youngest child on a spring break trip to Washington. While there, the AIG bonus news was breaking (and breaking, and breaking) on every news outlet. She told me she was annoyed – more by the constant coverage than by the bonuses.

My thoughts on the mess are mixed.

First, why is everyone acting surprised that people want more money?Huge bonuses, some in the multi-million dollar range, sound attractive to me. They obviously sound attractive to people in congress who continually vote themselves raises and, when out of office, become lobbyists paid millions to get their former colleagues to do favors for their employers. I am not shocked that there is the appearance of greed on Wall Street. I am shocked that more people don’t see it elsewhere.

Second, I am unimpressed with the elite, with the “best and the brightest.” We fill our major financial institutions with the  “best and the brightest.” We put them in congress and the White House. We make them CEOs. Too many are overly impressed with themselves and too interested in forwarding their own interests. Sure, they’re smarter than the rest of us and so know what is best for us, but even then their execution isn’t what I’d expect.

Third, I have inadequate information on the mechanism of the AIG bonuses. What is it people are being rewarded for? Having a pulse? Working for AIG? Making money for the company? Only losing 2 billion instead of 3? The issue of retention has been mentioned. Are we trying to keep the guys who killed AIG corralled in one spot lest they inflict similar damage elsewhere? Or are they the realy good guys who might jump ship to go to a more successful company?

Fourth, do people who work for these companies have a social conscience? Sure, they probably vote for the correct political party and give token amounts to the correct charities, but is Mammon the chief of their pantheon? Do they ever think, “I could do this and make piles of money for myself and my company, but it’d destroy the lives of some and impoverish others, so I’m not going to do it – even though it is completely legal.”

Finally, is anyone in power willing to tell the truth – about their own actions, not just those sinful other guys? I precious few in either the business or political class willing to tell the truth. Instead, they’re prancing around defending their own righteousness and wisdom. I guess that at least those who like to see bipartisanship can rejoice that both parties are failing at the same time.

Posted in AIG, Current events, Economics, Politics | Leave a comment

Tired

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

I’m tired.

I believe that what we call the economy is (at least largely) a human institution. The markets and regional components of the economy are driven by human actions. Human actions are sometimes driven by the thoughts and feelings of the person acting. When I talk the economy up, a couple people might come to think the economy is looking up. When the President, Speaker of the House, Rush Limbaugh, talk the economy up, many more people might come to think the economy is looking up. If the economy being up is taken as a good thing, i.e, manifested in people having basic job security with the possibility of wages to support their families, then I’d think talking the economy up to be a good thing.

I’m tired of people talking the economy down. Yes, yes, I know the “facts.” I know that by many current measures it is down.  But why do I have to go by these measures? Why must I take description as the only valid illocutionary act? All the reported measures are selected from many more that could have been selected. None of the measures (unless they’re meta-measures, that is, measures of measures) are perfectly current. All reflect human action driven to a great extent by thought and action. Therefore reporting on the measures feeds back into the system and affects the measures. We bring up just any thing by talking about it. I’m not a prosperity gospeller. But our attitude does have an impact on systems for good or ill.

Our president is a human. As the one currently at the top of the heap, the influence of his words and actions is tremendous. As a human being he can be talked up or talked down. I’m tired of people talking him down. (But then I was tired of people talking Bush – and Clinton – down in their time.) Whether I agree with his policies, decisions and actions is irrelevant. I believe he will be better off if I talk him up than if I talk him down.

I have not yet lived under a president who – in my estimation – was right about everything, even everything I think is important.  But so what? Even if I’m right about everything (doubtful), my calling as a follower of Jesus is to edify people. “Edify” means “build up.”Jesus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” With the examples he uses one could add another phrase, “Even if he/she is wrong.”

I even wish Mr. bin Laden of Al Qaeda well. My wishing him well, however, is on my own terms. He is not my lord and master. When I wish him well, I express a desire that he would turn from sin to Jesus. I pray for him to learn of the truth and grace manifested in Jesus, so that he might become a follower of Jesus. Admittedly, Mr. bin Laden might not wish me to wish him well on those terms. That doesn’t matter any more than the intentions of the executioners mattered to the one who said, “Father forgive them they know not what they do.”

I understand what those who express a wish that our president fail are trying to say. I don’t have any evidence that they’re followers of Jesus, so I’m not terribly surprised.  Wishing your enemies well – even if they’re only ideological enemies – is profoundly unnatural. For me, it takes Jesus in my life.

But speaking simply on a practical level, I think wishing the failure of political opponents (instead of clearly and only aiming at policies or ideas or practices) is not good for anyone. I always want the president of my country to succeed. My wanting doesn’t do much good (who am I, after all). But I pray. When I pray for people to succeed (I confess I rarely use such a vague term in my prayers) I pray for their success on God’s terms. As when I pray rightly for my own success, I recognize that my personal standards of success and of what counts as success are not what ultimately counts. Judgment day will not be a self-grading exam. God’s word is what counts.

In this light, I believe that talking people down – especially people at the top – beyond being disrespectful, is counter-productive. It hurts me and innocent bystanders as much as hit hurts my target. Most assuredly it guarantees that the person I’m talking down will never listen to me. And I want people to listen to me. While I don’t want to talk people down, I do  think it is good to argue with them. Can you imagine that – Arguing in love! I take that as a variant of “Speak the truth in love.”

So let me put it plain and simple: In the same way that talking the economy up is better for the economy and those impacted (“enmeshed” might be a better word), talking the president up is better for him and for those who live under his leadership.

Posted in Barack Obama, Current events, Economics, Prayer | 3 Comments

Figuring out Islam

Posted on March 9, 2009 by Richard Heyduck

One way to understand the nature of a thing is to consult an encyclopedia, dictionary or textbook. Another way is to investigate it in the wild. Usually the latter shows the former to tend toward the simplistic. Since parameters are limited – just so many words or pages – authors have to limit their scope and selectivity. Investigation of phenomena in the wild tends to be messy and ad hoc, since reality doesn’t come with the neat demarcations we see in books.

Figuring out Islam has been important here in the US for almost a decade now. Sure, there was plenty of curiosity before that, but with the events culminating in and leading from 9/11, Americans have been forced to investigate Islam. We hear that it’s a “religion of peace.” We hear that it’s a movement of barbarians trying to move us back to the 7th century. Or we sit down with our textbooks and learn about “five pillars,” the life of Muhammed, the diversity in the current Islamic world, and the differences between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Alawite, etc.

Turning toward my own life, I find that textbooks on Christianity sometimes paint a picture of the faith not in accord with my own beliefs and practices. Once I see that the truncated definition of Christianity differs from what I see in practice, I wonder if the truncated version of Islam (and other “religions”) found in textbooks is as helpful as I’d been led to believe.

Here’s a story out of Saudi Arabia.  A couple of young guys help an elderly widow. The whole lot of them are arrested, sentenced to prison and lashings for breaking the rules of gender segregation. I see two key behaviors here. First, there is the care shown for a widow. Second, there is the punishment for mingling. Is either of these a pointer toward the nature of Islam? Might we understand these two young guys who show compassion to an elderly widow – who (troublingly for themselves in the light of the rules) was unrelated – as an instance of the ethos of Islam? If so, we could take Islam as teaching care for the unfortunate.

Or might we take the prosecution for mingling as a pointer toward the nature of Islam? Should we infer that it’s ok to let widows starve, according to Islam, as long as we remain completely pure? While they could both – or neither – be pointers in that direction, the combination of the two strikes my American sensibilities as an odd combination. The Muslims I have known came down more on the side of compassion than on the side of prosecution. I’d like to think that the action of the two helpful young men shows the true nature of Islam and that the action of the Saudi religious police is simply Saudi tribalism and misogyny at work.

The thing is, however, it’s not for me to say which – if either – is the true face of Islam. It;s not my “game.” I have no authority. While I have to choose my actions in accord with my expectations of what people will do, I am not in a place to define Islam for Muslims. But they are. When I claim to represent Jesus, I have to watch myself. I don’t want to do anything that would either cause people to think less of him or serve as a barrier to people coming to faith in him. With that commitment added to my role as a pastor and scholar, I am part of an ongoing argument (smile!) about the nature of this enterprise we call Christianity. In the same way, Muslims, as participants in the Muslim tradition, are engaged in a similar ongoing argument. Who will win? The question of “winning” over simplifies things and tends to assume an outsider’s point of view. As an outsider to the Islamic tradition, I would say that they have some work to do if they – as a tradition, not merely as individuals or as groups within – want to live with peace and respect toward people of other traditions. What will they do with it? Time will tell.

Posted in Islam | 1 Comment