Moderating Islam

Posted on March 30, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

Ever since 11 September 2001 people in the West have been searching for “moderate Islam.” A couple of days ago I briefly mentioned Akbar S. Ahmed’s book, Islam Under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World, with particular reference to his revival of Ibn Khaldun’s concept of asabiyya. Ahmed strikes me as one any but the most Islamophoic would consider a moderate.

Ahmed believes that features of modernity, globalization and urbanization in particular, have put a strain on Islam. While existing in traditional societies, the families, clans and tribes were held together by asabiyya. Now that these social entities are being torn asunder, some among them feel the need to re-assert the cohesion of asabiyya, what Ahmed calls hyper-asabiyya. It is this paranoid and frenetic quest for a lost cohesion, that results in extremism and terrorism.

Some have observed the similarity between asabiyya and what modern scholars call social capital. Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam, has been my main source for learning about social capital. He identifies two types of social capital. Bonding social capital, akin to asabiyya, is an agent of social cohesion. It is the glue that holds a community together. Bridging social capital, working outward instead of inward, seeks out connections with other groups or to draw outsiders in.

Here in the USA, when we hear people complaining about how illegal immigrants (or immigrants in general) are diluting the sense of what it means to be an American, we are hearing an assertion that bonding social capital is lacking, or rather, that it is breaking down on a national level in favor of ethnic expressions. What is it that makes me an American? I don’t care, I’m a hispanic/white/black/turkish/italian – that’s enough for my identity. The next step, that would take us in the direction of the break down Ahmed sees, we in those who feel utterly alone. Perhaps through something like hyper-asabiyya they turn to gangs for their sense of identity.

What I see lacking in the segments of Muslim culture where hyper-asabiyya reigns (and no, I’m not an expert on Muslim culture, so correct me if I’m wrong), is bonding social capital worked to the exclusion on bridging social capital. A moderate Islam – like, perhaps, a moderate Americanism – would be concerned not only for in-group health and cohesion, but would see that health partly consisting in relationships with outsiders. Even when there is fear and fragmentation, making room for the outward focus of bridging social capital would help break down the harshness of hyper-asabiyya.

Posted in Clash of Civilizations, Islam, Social Capital | 1 Comment

A Church with vision

Posted on March 28, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

I like learning from a wide variety of people. In just the past couple of days I’ve posted comments on what I’m learning from a Pakistani Muslim college professor and two leadership types from out west. Another person I’ve been learning from lately is Perry Noble, pastor of New Spring church in Anderson, South Carolina. Perry and I are very different. He’s a southern redneck by upbringing. Though I was born in California, my home town is in Illinois – though I’ve never lived there, since my dad was in the Navy while I was growing up. He’s a baptist (though apparently not very well behaved) and I’m a methodist. He talks about making a 790 on his SAT and I have advanced degrees. His church was planted less than ten years ago and already has thousands, mine is 150 years old and we have about 200. Sounds like a big difference, doesn’t it?

But what we have in common, I believe, overcomes the differences. Here are the most important things I see us having in common. 1. We’re centered on Jesus. 2. We’re called (to put it mildly) to build up the Body of Christ so that more people might come to faith in Jesus.

I like Perry’s passion for Jesus – and passion for the people Jesus died to save. I like his sarcasm. I work hard quenching my sarcastic streak, but I still feel it on the inside. I listen to his Sunday messages from time to time, listened to his presentations at New Spring’s recent Unleash Conference, and read his blog. If you insist on only learning from people who are entirely civilized, prim and proper, forget Perry Noble. If you are – or want to be – passionate for Jesus and for people, you might consider taking a peek.

Perry recently had a post entitled, “15 signs that you (or your church) lack vision.” Here are his points with my comments (Perry’s words are in bold):

#15 – No one is ever challenged to radically rearrange their lives to be a part of what God is doing. In my church I get the idea that it’s easy to take “radical life re-arrangement” as something only for pastors and their families. I really want my people to get a vision of what God wants to do in Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas – and to the ends of the earth. Then, having seen that vision, catch God’s passion to rescue people through Jesus and join in the work. But too often we settle for playing church. “Good sermon, pastor.” I don’t care if you think it’s a good sermon. Is God speaking to you? Will you respond? Will you say yes to him? Will you take his agenda as your own?

#14 – God hasn’t asked you to give something up. I’ve had to give up living in a house of my choice and in a community of my choice. But God has blessed me here so I’m ok.

#13 – Everyone in your church is perfect. (If you are truly reaching lost people then you will discover that ministry is messy.) We’ve progressed to the point that we have some imperfect people, but I’d like to see us get to the place that we revel in having them around, and love them no matter what. A truly healthy church will have plenty of sinners around.

#12 – Nothing in regards to how you lead has changed in the past year. I’m learning all the time. I feel like I have so much more to learn.

#11 – When your youth group wants to do something you make them have a bake sale in front of Wal Mart–but when your senior adults want to do something the church covers the cost; after all, they are tithers! (And that same church will wonder why “the youth don’t come to church anymore.”) We support the youth ministry, but I’m don’t think we do it to the degree that they always feel supported and valued.

#10 – You always find something wrong with ministries that are seeing fruit. I want more fruit! We’re too happy doing what we’ve always done. I know my conservative bent gets in the way.

#9 – You can do everything you have in front of you WITHOUT the help of God AND others. My constant prayer for the church is that he would do something in our midst that is only explainable as the work of God – so that outsiders will be attracted to Jesus. I pray at the same time that we will let him do that, that we won’t insist on having all the resources in sight, in the bank, or in our pockets before we step out and obey.

#8 – You spend more time on other churches websites than you do reading your Bible. Conviction time for me. I need more time in the word.
#7 – You think the answer to every problem is, “If we just had more money.” God’s blessed us mightily in terms of finances in the past few years – well beyond my wimpy expectations. Too often I think in terms of what they say about investments, “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” God is faithful – you’d think I’d’ve learned that by now.

#6 – No one has ever left your church. A few have, but I think it’s the wrong people. I’m probably too “nice.”

#5 – You continually call other churches begging them for money. Hey! I’m doing ok on this one!

#4 – You allow people with money to dictate the way you spend your time and the direction of the church. I think we’re ok on this one too. I want to listen to the people who are listening to and obeying God.

#3 – When you go to a conference and come back and announce “we are changing everything” because you have received INSPIRATION not REVELATION. I’ve been to enough conferences over the years that I’m mostly cynical. If I could get the rest of my leadership to go, it might be different. Too many times what I brought back was “crazy preacher ideas,” and people just humored me, knowing reality would knock me down soon enough. I’ve learned the hard way that I need to listen to God, not just the latest expert.

#2 – You’ve never spent sleepless nights wondering, “How in heck are we going to do this? Seriously, I told our church we were going to do WHAT?” Plenty of sleepless nights, plenty of agonizing over responding to God and seeing him move.
#1 – You worry more about keeping the people in your church happy then you do about pleasing God and speaking the truth. I think most of our leaders are primarily desiring to see God happy. We still have much to learn in regard to how that actually works out, but I think we’re on the right track.

Posted in Leadership, Ministry, Perry Noble, Uncategorized | 4 Comments

A Jealous God

Posted on March 28, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

I just finished reading Akbar S. Ahmed’s Islam Under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World, a book well worth reading. Ahmed attributes much of what we in the West see as extremism in the Muslim world as originating in the breakdown of asibiyya, a concept of social solidarity he derives from the writings of Ibn Khaldun. Here’s one quote from the book:

“Asibiyya, which presupposed exclusivity, glorifies the group. But God while universal and generous in His attitude toward mankind is nonetheless possessive about praise. God certainly does not approve of sharing praise with rivals called ‘tribe’ or ‘nation.’ By conflating God and the group, leaders of the community employ an effective strategy: The honor of the group can now be defended in the name of God. As a consequence we see the emergence of a frenetic, distorted and dangerous form of asibiyya – one I am calling hyper-asibiyya. Thus God’s vision of justice and compassion are set aside for the group’s need for honor and revenge. To unlock the conundrum of hyper-asibiyya anthropologists who study communities and how notions of honor affect behavior need to be in discussion with theologians whose business is to attempt to understand God. One without the other would only comprehend part of the picture.”

While it’s easy to see how some Muslim groups have conflated the sense of God’s honor and the honor of their group, it looks like Americans – presumed Christians – are not off the hook here.  Muslim experience of social breakdown and fear of its consequences lead to disastrous consequences. Our fear of terrorism (or of Muslims – or immigrants) will also likely lead to disastrous consequences – if fear is our primary motivator.

Posted in Clash of Civilizations, Islam, Politics | 2 Comments

Starfish and the Spider, part 3

Posted on March 27, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

Brafman & Becstrom, authors of The Starfish and the Spider, offer some “New Rules for the Game.” Here are their rules along with my comments.

New Rules to the Game

  • Diseconomies of scale – larger is not always better: Bill Easum has been saying for a while that the era of the Mega-Church will come to an end before too long. I’m not enough of a futurist to assess this claim, but I know many churches continue to grow huge – some to several thousand in just a few years. They are reaching people for Christ and doing powerful ministry. I wouldn’t want to be in their place, with debt and investments in BIG if the day comes when the masses tire of BIG and decide they want small. As things stand now, even the BIG churches preach the necessity of small – of making ways for people to connect face to face and do life together.

  • The Network Effect – New members increase the value of the network. I believe that God brings people into the church – adds them to the Body – so that we can be healthier and better achieve Kingdom purposes. Churches in particular benefit from new folks, bringing in their new networks of relationships and broader experience.

  • The Power of Chaos. Most people out there seem to hate chaos, preferring certainty and predictability. I’m a P – as in INTP – so I have a fairly high tolerance for chaos. A few years ago when I was reading a book on chaos theory, I learned that when medical researchers were studying the regularity of heart rhythm, they expected to find that the more regular a person’s rhythm, the healthier the person. They discovered, however, that extreme regularity could be a sign of unhealth. A normal healthy heart follows a chaotic pattern. I can imagine that a healthy church might also.

  • Knowledge at the Edge. Everyone in the church, however marginal, has knowledge needed for our wise fulfillment of our mission. If we only listen to the official leaders we will lose out. As leaders, however, we need to find ways to harness and discipline that knowledge.

  • Everyone wants to contribute. I know that I want to make the world a better place. I don’t have much direct impact on the world as a whole, but I do have the capacity to work for the good in various local institutions: my family, my church, my city, the local schools. I like to work on the assumption that other people think that way also.

  • Beware the Hydra response. Dangers are multi-headed and complex. I’ve seen that in church, yes.

  • Catalysts rule. Here’s my paraphrase: People who can energize and equip others to join in the mission of the church are immensely more powerful than some powerful leader at the top who tries to do or control everything.

  • The Values are the Organization. In Built to Last Collins & Porras talk about how the best organizations they studied were absolutely clear on their mission and absolutely flexible on how they pursued it. As we find our identity and security in Jesus, take his mission as our own, our organization will be more than just organizational structure, but can become an agent of the Kingdom of God.

  • Measure, Monitor and Manage. Pay attention to what’s going on around us. Ask questions about it. “Are we there yet?”

  • Flatten or be flattened. Hierarchical organizations will be relatively weaker to the degree they are more hierarchical. Learn from the Starfish or be squished. This is the message of their book. I’m still convinced that while this is valuable, clarity regarding our mission is even more important.

Posted in Books, Leadership, United Methodism | 1 Comment

Starfish And Spider, part 2

Posted on March 26, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

Continuing my interaction with the book, The Starfish and the Spider, I’d like to see what relevance their discussion of discerning the one from the other might have for the United Methodist church. The authors give these questions to ask when trying to tell spider from starfish:

  1. Is there a person in charge? The UMC as a whole has no person in charge. The General Conference, and the General Conference alone is supposed to speak for us. In the Annual Conferences, however, the bishop is in charge, in the District the Superintendent, and in the local church – to some degree – the pastor is seen as being in charge. In each of these cases the actual degree of control varies from setting to setting, partly determined by the nature and history of that setting, partly by the personality and style of the leader. My guess is that more of us like being in charge than ought to, partly because we think something along the lines of “If you want it done right, do it yourself.” We’re take charge kinds of people.

  2. Are there headquarters? Each Conference has a headquarters (at least in my experience), and we have various Boards and Agencies that in some ways serve as headquarters for the church. Personally, I feel a gap between Nashville and New York on the one hand, and the local church on the other.

  3. If you thump it on the head, will it die?The UMC is not vulnerable to thumping on the head – though it may well have been at some point in Wesley’s day (in the UK) or in Asbury’s day (in the USA). I don’t think our death is coming from the top.

  4. Is there a clear division of roles? We have a nearly absolute differentiation between clergy and laity. We have begun to speak in terms of spiritual gifts, but whether that will overcome our strict dichotomy, I don’t know. I have often heard people ask someone whether they have the proper authority to do what they are doing (or proposing to do). This sounds like a spider concern to me.

  5. If you take out a unit, is the organization harmed? We have enough units (at this stage) that taking out one won’t harm the organization. We’re in decline, but losing units (churches/members) seems to still be more of an effect than a cause.

  6. Are knowledge and power concentrated or distributed? We try to concentrate knowledge in our Seminaries, Boards and Agencies, and power in those Boards, Agencies, and key leaders. We need to do better at giving them away.

  7. Is the organization flexible or rigid? We’ve started talking about being flexible, but it’s hard to make the shift. Our Book of Discipline still reads like a mid-20th century bureaucratic manual.

  8. Can you count the employees or participants? We act (mistakenly, I believe) like counting all the employees/participants is a good thing.

  9. Are working groups funded by the organization or are they self-funded? Funding varies from level to level. Most Boards and Agencies are funded by the organization. Each local church is self-funding. Because of tax laws sub-organizations in the local church often are pressed to be centrally funded.

  10. Do working groups communicate directly or through intermediaries? In my (limited) experience most groups communicate through intermediaries. In the current Texas Annual Conference structure, we have so many new groups, and are pushing to do things in new ways, that we don’t know what we’re doing. The downside of that – from what I’ve seen – is that it means we just keep doing what we’ve always done, though with new names and titles pasted on.

Posted in Leadership, Local church, Ministry, United Methodism | Leave a comment

Church in Saudi Arabia?

Posted on March 22, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

Now that a Christian church has opened in Qatar, is it only a matter of time until a church is opened in Saudi Arabia? There are only a few million Christians there (officially, only the expatriates working there), so having a church (or churches) for them makes sense. But then again, maybe not:

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

“I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue,” he said.

“It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed.”

“If they don’t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?”

Some Christians have no trouble saying something like, “Sure, Mohammed was a prophet,” thinking that’s the way to be open-minded and tolerant. But how does one become a Muslim? My understanding is that becoming a Muslim is very easy. All you have to do is profess the basic confession of Islam, “There is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet.” But if Christians say of Mohammed what Anwar Ashiqi wants them to say of him, won’t that make them into Muslims? As Christians, it’s already likely that they’re monotheists (“No God but God”), so that’s not a problem. But now they’re adding the rest, “And Mohammed is his prophet.” They won’t need to build any churches at all if all the Christians will just “recognize Mohammed,” i.e., become Muslims.

Am I missing something here? If I am, would Christians, Muslims, and modern Western liberals explain what I’m missing the same way? If you have a different take, let me know.

Posted in Islam, Theology | Leave a comment

Starfish and the Spider

Posted on March 20, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

We had a stormy day Tuesday, so I took it as an opportunity to read a new leadership book (new to me, anyway), The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Ori Brafman & Rod A. Beckstrom. I found it to be a useful challenge to United Methodist Churches, given our penchant for highly structured command and control organizations – “spiders” in the jargon of Brafman and Beckstrom.

The authors present 8 “Principles of Decentralization” – though I found another in their book that seems particularly relevant. I’ll give their principles below with a brief comment of my own.

“When attacked, a decentralized organization tends to become even more open and decentralized.” This is closely matched with their last principle: “When attacked, centralized organizations tend to become more centralized.” From what I’ve seen, we UMs have a strong tendency to think in terms of bureaucratic solutions. A few years ago some were arguing that we needed a UM “Pope” to straighten things out. While I’ve often thought things needed correction, I think adding a Pope to the mix would be a horrible mistake.

“It’s easy to mistake starfish for spiders.” Superficially, yes. But if you pay any attention to them, or interact with them much, the differences become clear.

“An open system doesn’t have central intelligence; the intelligence is spread throughout the system.” Maybe it’d be better to say something like, “An open system doesn’t have peripheral stupidity.” Trust and shared vision and responsibility are distributed throughout an open system, leading to localized intelligences. There is no central brain that know everything that needs to be known. There is no individual participant who lacks the capacity to make wise decisions to accomplish the mission of the organization in is or her own particular setting.

“Open systems can easily mutate.” Since intelligence is distributed through the system, change happens as needed.

“The decentralized organization sneaks up on you.” The authors make a big deal of how you can cut a starfish in half you get two live starfish instead of one dead one. You think you’re doing away with them when instead you’re helping them. Try that with a spider. Rapid growth and multiplication is therefore possible. Perhaps a factor is that because intelligence is distributed, challenges become occasions not so much for worry, but creativity.

“As industries become decentralized, overall profits decrease.” This is why big business tends to prefer centralization: greater predictability and profitability. Big centralized brains are also expensive to maintain, and costly in terms of resources.

“Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute.” Hugely relevant to the church. What would happen if our members began to see themselves not merely as members, but as organs essential to the life and flourishing of the whole body?

“Open systems can’t rely on a police force. On the one hand, there’s freedom to do what you want, but on the other hand you have added responsibility.” The authors don’t identify this as a basic principle, but I do. Churches have too long made the mistake of treating people as if their only responsibility is to give money and do what they’re told. Instead, Jesus invites us all to take up our roles in his ongoing story. He doesn’t make us do the right things, but when we do what is right, things happen that wouldn’t happen apart from our obedience. The life to which he calls us is infinitely more important than mere hoop jumping.

Posted in Leadership, Local church, Ministry, United Methodism | 3 Comments

Better Seen than Heard

Posted on March 19, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

If you’re running for president, it’s better to be seen with a preacher, than for anyone to think you actually listen to one. This is especially true if the preacher looks like a preacher – the right vestments, the right hair – you know what I mean. If a candidate’s pastor just looks like an ordinary person, it just won’t help.

But whatever you do, don’t let it be known that you actually listen to your preacher. Now it might be that the preacher is saying things along the lines of Mr. Obama’s pastor – things disturbing and uncomfortable to white folks. Or it might be that the preacher is saying things disturbing and comfortable to non-white folks. Maybe its because I’m in the white folk category, but I confess I’ve heard more of the latter in churches than I have the former.

That’s the easy stuff to deal with. Although some of our favorite American sins have been in the area of race, Jesus didn’t say much about that. Oh sure, he had a deep conversation with a Samaritan woman – a person of such a gender and ethnicity that he wasn’t even supposed to speak with her. Or he once told a story where the Samaritan was the hero. Current American politicians seem to have heard this part of Jesus’ message, and though often far from our social reality, it at least depicts a reality we say we’d like.

It’s some of the other things Jesus had to say – and some of the other implications of his life that would embarrass any self-respecting presidential candidate. If you want to run for president you need to run on building the economy and national defense. Being strong on patriotism is a must. Old Jesus wasn’t into any of those.

Jesus thought the pursuit of wealth was a deadly mistake. Democrats and Republicans agree against him that it’s a good idea – though of course they disagree vociferously on how such wealth should be pursued.

Jesus preached non-violent response to attacks. Republicans and Democrats, though again differing in particulars, think violence, if properly conceived and democratically approved, is just fine.

When it came to patriotism, Jesus was too much like Jeremiah – the prophet who told his people the best thing they could do, assuming they cared what God thought, was to surrender to their enemy.

“Go and sin no more?” None of us like to do that. We’re way too comfortable with giving into to our urges, whether they be in the direction of lust, greed, envy, power, hate or the like. We’d rather hear “Try hard” any day.

All that Jesus stuff is way too particular. If preachers would only stick to things like, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you [in your private life];” or “God helps those who help themselves;” or “Be a nice person of faith,” then it wouldn’t be so bad to be known as a person who listened to a preacher. Or if the preachers, however biblical in content, would simply be good Lockeans and cede the real world to the Magistrate and tend to eternity, they would have no trouble at all.

You really have to keep an eye on those preachers.

Posted in Barack Obama, Elections, Jeremiah Wright, Politics | 2 Comments

How Many Allegiances?

Posted on March 3, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

Greg Boyd blogs about participating in a recent debate with Shane Claiborne and Chuck Colson on the issue of Christianity and Government. Since Greg doesn’t allow comments at his site, I’ll post some comments here. He reports:

Chuck believes Christians have a “dual allegiance” to God and country. I and Shane argued that the only allegiance followers of Jesus should have is to Jesus. We cannot “serve two masters.” (By the way, Shane is coming out with a book entitled Jesus for President. I think this is a brilliant title and said so in the debate. I pointed out that one of the reasons the confession “Jesus is Lord” is rather meaningless today is because we don’t refer to those over us as “lords” any more. So it doesn’t seem that the confession of Jesus as Lord rules out having other people or things rule us. But if we instead confessed “Jesus as President,” it would immediately become clear that this confession rules out pledging allegiance to any other president, nation, the military, etc….Way to go Shane!)

I’ve used “dual allegiance” language before, so I’m wondering if Chuck Colson and I really got it wrong. After all, if Jesus said we can have only one master, and identifying someone or something as being due allegiance is the same as ascribing “master status” to that person or institution, then any talk of dual – or even multiple allegiances – would clearly run afoul of Jesus. But do we have to say that all allegiance relationships reach “master status?”

I believe that it is appropriate, within the realm of Christian teaching, for me to give my wife exclusive allegiance when it comes to all the other women out there. There is no room in Christian ethics for me to go messing around with other women. I am committed to her in a way I am committed to no other woman. I want her to prosper, flourish, succeed, and have a happy and holy life. In taking this stance toward my wife, am I running afoul of Jesus? Have I set up my wife as my master? Some might read Luke 14:26 that way – “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.” If the literal reading of that verse is the standard of giving Jesus true allegiance, then I have run aground and strayed from the true path.

But I have no evidence that the Christian tradition in its majority (or even a large minority) has read Jesus in that verse so literally. We continue to perform marriages as if it is ok for a man and a woman to pledge allegiance to each other. Sure, we don’t use the word “allegiance,” but neither does Jesus. It’s a word imported from our political discourse and modified to, in this case, Christian and familial contexts. I don’t know Greg Boyd, but I don’t think he would have a difficulty saying marriage and the commitments it entails is ok – or else I read his post on his wife wrongly. So maybe we can get by with having something called allegiance to Jesus and to my wife. Must I stop there?

Suppose I am a baseball player by profession. My job entails working hard and doing all within my powers and the rules of baseball to help my team win. I want my team to win. I want the teams we play to lose. I have an allegiance to my team that I don’t have to other teams. Have I now strayed from Jesus? While I don’t think baseball teams use “master” language – any more than the rest of us in modern America – they might talk about having a “boss.” Can a Christian have two bosses – Jesus and a manager? Or must the Christian reject the commands of all managers and coaches – any who might try to stand in a boss relation – in favor of Jesus? “Sorry coach. I can’t bunt now. Jesus wants me to swing for the bleachers.”

Allegiance to wives or baseball teams – that doesn’t seem like too much of a problem. Surely it doesn’t get to the level of allegiance to Jesus or one’s country. So let’s try another example.

Should we have an allegiance to our immediate community, whether conceived as a neighborhood, town or city? Such an allegiance, unlike an allegiance to one’s baseball team, wouldn’t require taking a stance against any other neighborhood, town or city. My locale could flourish quite well at the same time others near and far flourished. But could I wish my locale well, could I work toward the prospering of the people around me and offer allegiance to Jesus? Or would it be better to ignore the people who lived in my neighborhood, town or city and devote myself entirely to Jesus? Maybe the problem isn’t an allegiance, an attachment to the flourishing of my neighbors that’s the problem. After all, Jesus had some quite positive things to say about loving our neighbors. Maybe the problem lies in attachment to our neighbors as more than individuals, as some sort of collective. As a pastor in Pittsburg, I can have an allegiance to the people of Pittsburg, I can employ myself in various ways to seek the well-being and prosperity of the individuals who live here, but the collective entity we know as Pittsburg, maybe that’s another story. When it comes to the organization, structure and activities of the town and schools, I should do nothing.

Obviously here we are shading over into politics, having moved beyond the merely individual. As I read the New Testament, I see that giving attention to select individuals and ignoring the organization and activities of political entities, whether neighborhoods, towns, regions, kingdoms or empires would be following Jesus’ example. At no time do I see Jesus attempting to influence or control the rulers or ruling of any of these entities. While I see Jesus doing nothing directly against Caesar (to justify one of the charges against him), I can’t imagine Jesus at any time pledging allegiance to Caesar or his empire. He exhibited no allegiance to the political entities of Nazareth, Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem or Rome.

Is Paul any different? I see Paul using his Roman citizenship from time to time, but I don’t see him doing anything to enact the agenda of that empire. A typical sign of allegiance to the empire was a symbolic offering of incense. No big deal, the Romans said. You can still believe in and worship your own gods, even a god has apparently nutty as that Jesus fellow. Just offer a pinch of incense. For most Christians it was a big deal. So big they’d rather go to prison or be killed than offer it.

How do we explain the gap between Jesus’ neglect of political organizations, Paul’s strategic use of his Roman citizenship, early Christian refusal to “pledge allegiance to Caesar” and our mostly thoughtless involvement in politics today?

One possibility is that Caesar, whether local or national, is today a Christian, not a pagan. The reason Jesus, Paul and others didn’t pledge allegiance to the political entities of their day was that they weren’t Christian. After Constantine/the Protestant Reformation/The American Revolution – take your pick – it’s now ok to do so. I don’t see it.

Another possibility is that while current Caesars aren’t necessarily Christian, they are relatively benign. The original Caesars were happy to call non-allegiant Christians. Current Caesars are tolerant of us. We can have our churches (as long as Caesar doesn’t need the tax revenue he could get from giving our property to some other enterprise), we can worship as we please, just as long as it doesn’t have too much impact on public (i.e., from Caesar’s point of view, “real”) life. I think this view is popular, but amounts to wishful thinking.

Since I’m running out of time to write (have to go home and cook dinner before tonight’s meetings), let’s try a quick – though temporary – ending to this question. Let’s start with Jesus.

Though Jesus did not do what we would call “pledging allegiance” to a political entity, he was a participant in the story of God and Israel, the real life story of God’s action through his chosen people to bring salvation to the whole world. More than a participant, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was the climax of that story. When I give my allegiance to Jesus, I am becoming a willing participant, under his direction, in that very story. I take up his agenda as my own.

What we think of Political entities, Rome, Jerusalem, Texas, the USA – each of these not only have their constitutions – implicit or explicit – but each also supposes and enacts a particular narrative or story line (with an agenda of its own). Some of these entities insist (the level of insistence various from occasion to occasion) that there is no division (other than logical) between their people, their constitution, and their story. Therefore, if one pledges allegiance to the entity, one is pledging allegiance to each of these. If one describes oneself as allegiant to the people but not the agenda, one is deemed confused or not “really” allegiant at all.

I’ve read a fair amount of history. I have not yet discovered any incarnations of Caesar whose agenda, whose implicit story line – has no conflict with the story of Jesus. While I’m an American, would rather live in America than anywhere else, think our political system is better than most, and would like to see my fellow Americans prosper, I see that the story of America is not only not the story of Jesus, but there are also conflicts between the two stories. If my being allegiant to the story (agenda) of Jesus is primary – and I think it must be for a Christian – then I cannot be fully allegiant to the story (agenda) of America. When there are conflicts, I will have to submit my participation in the life of America to the agenda of Jesus.

Posted in Chuck Colson, Culture, Greg Boyd, Politics, Uncategorized, War | 2 Comments

Healthy Theology

Posted on February 28, 2008 by Richard Heyduck

I ran across this excerpt from an interview with Richard Rorty at Faith and Theology:

 “I’m delighted that liberal theologians do their best to do what Pio Nono said shouldn’t be done – try to accommodate Christianity to modern science, modern culture, and democratic society. If I were a fundamentalist Christian, I’d be appalled by the wishy-washiness of [the liberal] version of the Christian faith. But since I am a non-believer who is frightened of the barbarity of many fundamentalist Christians (e.g. their homophobia), I welcome theological liberalism. Maybe liberal theologians will eventually produce a version of Christianity so wishy-washy that nobody will be interested in being a Christian anymore. If so, something will have been lost, but probably more will have been gained.”

The advantage that the liberals Rorty has in view have over many theologians of other stripes is that they are consciously engaged in a gospel-translation program. God thought translation – coming on the human level – was important enough that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Paul thought it important enough that he became all things to all people so that he might win some. But the problem with translation is that one can be left with nothing to say.

We who are not liberals have often taken liberals to task for this, mocking them – or inasmuch as they teach in our seminaries and lead our churches, bemoaning them – for progressively giving us less and less to disbelieve.

Unfortunately, liberals aren’t alone in the act. So-called conservatives  happily engage in translation also, though they usually choose a different audience. Some go so far in obeisance to their host culture that they have forgotten they’re involved in translation and, like some liberals, mistake the values and desires of that host culture for the gospel itself.

How do we avoid going the wrong way in translation? Some suggest we avoid it altogether. I don’t see that as an option. First, Jesus commands us to go make disciples of all nations. as we obey we will inevitably encounter people from different cultures who will not understand us enough even to reject our message. Second, we ourselves are always already immersed in some culture. Though we may imagine ourselves to be a in a pure gospel setting, we are never free from culture with its links beyond the gospel.

Very briefly, here are a couple of thoughts that come to mind.

  1. Be willing to be misunderstood. If, in our obedience to God, our following of Jesus, our actions always make good sense to us, we’re probably going the wrong way. As God leads us, chances are – if the scriptural stories of previous followers are any indication – that we will be led in ways contrary to what even we, godly as we are, consider counter-intuitive at the least. Surely then, if some of our actions don’t make sense to us, they won’t make sense to the world. When what we do doesn’t make sense, we give the Holy Spirit space to step in and do divine translation work.
  2. Never skimp on the work of “faith seeking understanding.” So many of us tend to major on one or the other. We need both. We don’t go out as experts, either in the gospel or the culture we’re called to reach. We go out as ambassadors. As we continually check in with the King and diligently pursue the King’s agenda, translation – and our other duties – are more likely to go right.
Posted in Evangelism, Theology | Leave a comment