Chuck Colson wrote a commentary at CNN today about the corruption scandal surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. In reading it, I was struck by the empathy and compassion he expressed for the governor. As a leading Christian conservative, one might expect him act the part of an intolerant moralist. Yet, Colson does not. As a convicted Watergate conspirator, Colson provides a perspective that is unique among the media.
As I have gotten older, I have struggled to encounter people as real human beings and not caricatures. It is a challenging proposition, since we all make presumptions about people, many times based on their political or religious views. There was a time in my life when Chuck Colson confronted me with that challenge.
Back at the turn of the century, I had the opportunity to produce two video projects with Chuck, "Countercultural Christians" and "Playing God". Many of my more progressive-minded friends were horrified I was working with him. Certainly, Chuck and I had very different views about theology, philosophy and some social issues. Chuck and his writer had seen another video I had produced for a more liberal Christian author. Still, he wanted to work with me. So I figured I would keep an open mind, since he had about me.
During the shooting, I disagreed with much of what he said to the point that there were times when I bit my lip to avoid shouting "Cut!" That is not my most vivid memory of the projects though. I remember one day scouting locations with him. We were in a county jail in Virginia. Having never been in a prison before, I was a little nervous. Chuck, however, was right at home. His experience of serving time and his subsequent founding of Prison Fellowship made him comfortable in this setting. At one point in our tour, I made a wrong turn and lost him. Since we had a few more locations to visit that day and were falling behind schedule, I became nervous when I could not find him.
Well, it wasn't quite like Jesus' parents finding him in the Temple, but eventually I found Chuck. There he was, pressed against the prison bars. His hands were extended into the cell and joined with those of a prisoner. They were praying together. Guess he was about his Father's business.
It came as no surprise to me today to see that Chuck is offering an empathetic view of the Illinois corruption scandal. After getting to know him just a little bit, that is exactly what I would expect. In the coming weeks and years, our country will have many heated discussions about a variety of issues. It will be tempting to react to our adversaries based on our preconceived notions about conservatives, liberals, evangelicals, whatever... However, in the midst of tossing around all those labels, I will do my best to remember that in the end, there is one label far more important. It is the one I saw on Chuck that day - integrity.
Earlier today I took part in a great online discussion led by my friend Doug Pagitt in which he asked how some religious people are willing say things in writing about another person that they would never say to the person's face. He recounted a recent experience in which a moderate Christian leader did not speak up to condemn some of the more extreme members of his group after they wrote rude comments about emerging church folks. It led Doug to wonder how we have this penchant for calling out members of other ideological groups for inappropriate behavior, but seldom critique the behavior of those who believe as we do.
On one hand, I understand this happens in all arenas of life, for example, in politics. Partisan commentators can usually be counted on to condemn the dirty politics of the other camp while turning a blind eye to the mud-slinging in their own. By the way, if as you read this you are saying to yourself, "Yes, the other side does do that," you may be one of them. There are countless other examples of this hypocrisy and imbalance. No surprise there.
However, I think that we religious people have turned it into an art form. Since I can only speak from my own tradition, I will limit my comments to Christianity. Basically, I have found that people in ministry (both lay and clergy) often behave in ways, which if they were in the real world, would lead to them being fired, arrested or having the crap beat out of them. Yet somehow, this behavior is not only excused, but almost expected within the church.
The example Doug shared is just the tip of the iceberg. In my ministry, I routinely encounter persons who have been hurt by churches or Christians in general. This hurt has run the gamut from gossip to sexual misconduct. All too often, when these persons have complained about the problem to a pastor or church authority, they were told that they were the one who needed to act more "Christian" or display more "grace". Instead of being applauded for exposing injustice, they were labeled as spiritually deficient or divisive.
Even worse, those on the receiving end of the injustice often buy into this nonsense. Refusing to name the behavior of some Christians as inappropriate, they in turn condemn themselves. Where did we ever get the idea that living in denial is a spiritual virtue? It's OK to say someone else's behavior is not OK. Keeping silent about uncivil behavior does not make us more Christian. We are quick to condemn the morals and actions of those with whom we disagree. We are slower to condemn when the criticism is targeted at those and comes from those within our own ranks. We rapidly correct the perceived doctrinal shortcomings of another faith group, but spend little time asking whether or not our own faith group is simply acting like decent human beings.
Shocking as it may seem, the so-called secular world is way ahead of us in this department. In my own career, I have seen ecclesial leaders treat as normative things such as incompetence, anonymous accusations and unethical behavior. As one who has and still does work beyond the walls of the church, I know that much of what I have witnessed would never fly in the corporate world. I am not naive and realize these things go on in business. However, at least in the business world there is some inkling that those things are to be avoided. Over the years, I am becoming less sure that the church understands that. A more extreme example - in any other profession child abuse is considered a matter for the police and legal system. How is it that when faced with this tragic occurrence some churches could possibly entertain the notion that it was an internal matter?
Why do we get it so wrong? I think it may be our theology. Some might question how something as ethereal and abstract as theology could affect such down to earth affairs as human interactions. But that's the problem. Theology should never be ethereal and abstract. In fact, this is what we celebrate at Christmas. God is not up there, over there, or out there. God is here.
Conversely, if we believe God is above it all, then it is a short step to the Nixonian delusion that we are too. When religion is primarily ideological and doctrinal, real world actions become secondary. Before we know it, we become less about incarnation and more about self-preservation. Simply put,if our faith does not happen here, it happens nowhere.
I will delve deeper into this in my Sunday message, so stay tuned for the podcast.
In
an interview with ABC's "Nightline", George W Bush said that; belief
in God and evolution are not incompatible, he is not a biblical literalist, and
God is "broad and big enough" to encompass people with different
religious beliefs.
My
thoughts:
First,
no, this is not an article from the Onion.
Second,
thank you, Mr. President.
Third,
why didn’t you say this eight years ago?
The
answer to the last question is obvious.Bush never would have had the support of many evangelicals in the
elections of 2000 and 2004 had he expressed these views publicly. Biblical
literalism and the Creationism it spawns, have sadly become assumed
non-negotiable foundations of faith for many Christians.In the minds of the Religious Right,
believing in God and evolution as mutually exclusive.Never mind the millions of Christians who think
otherwise.After all, we are not
“really” Christians.
If
anything, Bush’s comments expose the inordinate power of the Religious Right
and the hermeneutical lap dance some politicians must perform to get their
support.I loved the John McCain
of 2000 who criticized the intolerance of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.I cringed at the John McCain of 2008
who kowtowed to them.How would
George W. Bush’s relationship with moderates and liberals been, had he
expressed his true beliefs eight years ago?How differently would his administration be
remembered?
I
never bought into the mass-hysteria that painted Bush as a religious
fanatic. According to the Bill
Maher’s of the world, Bush is an apocalyptic evangelical who started wars to
hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Granted, some of his supporters may have held that view, but I doubt he did. The roots of his
foreign policy failures lay in his administration’s poor decision-making, not
in the pages of Hal Lindsey’s books. Bush was not seeking the fast track to the
Great Tribulation.Iraq was tragic because wars are tragic.This is why Jesus advised against them.
Furthermore,
while in office, the President attended a fairly mainline church. If he really
was counting down the days to the Rapture, he could easily have found another
church to attend that was more in tune with those presumed beliefs. In fact,
attending such a church would have shored up his conservative credentials even
more. Instead, President Bush attended a United Methodist church.Even the most conservative Methodists
are not Dispensationalists. Besides, there is no political clout in being a
United Methodist – believe me.
Additionally,
I am not familiar with any instance of him expressing such apocalyptic beliefs.
Our media is so ignorant in matters of religious belief that it automatically
equates Christianity with the “Left Behind” series. Unlike my adamantly liberal friends, I never thought Bush was a rabid fundamentalist.I believe he is a sincere, yet often
misguided man, who had a personal experience of God in his life.That does not necessarily mean that he
believes Jesus is going to show up on a white horse with sword in the streets
of downtown Baghdad.
So
why is Bush my hero today?Because
he clearly (although regrettably belatedly) expressed what most moderate
Christians believe.Biblical
literalism is the albatross around the neck of Christianity that has often
choked the pneuma
out of me.Having a conservative
icon like Bush question it might just let us all breathe easier.
I
know it is fashionable in the emerging church to dismiss debates about biblical
literalism as relics of the modern era.As postmodern conversationalists, we encourage one another to move
beyond the literalism debate.However, how can we move beyond it when so much of the church is mired
in the LaHaye tar pit of literalism?Although I agree that much of what we label as truth is subjective, I do
not believe that we should excuse bad science under the rubric of
postmodernism. Postmodern and emergent thought should challenge us to move
forward in our understanding of God and the universe.It should never be a means to allow pre-modernists to skip
over the scientific discoveries and historical scholarship of the modern
era.Forgive me if that conjured
up too linear of an image.
It’s
easy to criticize Bush for only expressing his true beliefs in the last days of
his administration.There is
something almost sad about Presidents like Bush, or LBJ, expressing their lack
of infallibility only as they step out of the spotlight. Yet, let us not be too
hasty in that criticism.Many of us
in emerging and mainline churches are not biblical literalists.Yet, fear keeps us from expressing our
views clearly and openly; the pastor afraid of upsetting the faith of the
little old church lady, the Christian leader who struggles with speaking out vs losing publishing deals
or speaking engagements.By default, our timidity allows literalism to be the loudest Christian voice in America.
Bush’s
silence on his religious beliefs was a missed opportunity.Let it be an example to all of us
church leaders of what not to do.Let’s not wait until we are leaving our jobs to express what we truly
believe – whether on this or any other issue.
Believe
me, I have no interest in continuing modernist-style debates or
name-calling.I do not despise
those who take the Bible literally.I just ask that they stop despising those of us who do not.Perhaps this interview with Bush will
cause them to reconsider who is or is not a Christian.So from now on, when I am attacked for
not being a biblical literalist, I will draw my defense from the most unlikely
of allies.When a critic tells me
I must be a Creationist or biblical literalist in order to be a Christian, I
can look them straight in the eye and say, “Hey.Not even George W. Bush believes that!”
Thank
you, Mr. President.Turns
out, you are more reasonable and open-minded than many of the Christians I have
known.
I
never expected to say that.
UPDATE - Here's some analysis of the fallout. Although I don't buy David Brody's spin that Bush really meant "microevolution".
