Islamic Fundamentalism

I heard this definition yesterday while listing to Tony Campolo's Podcast "Across the Pond." It's in reference to Islamic Fundamentalism but as Tony pointed out, and I agree, this could be applied to all types of fundamentalism; including Evangelical Fundamentalism.

Islamic Fundamentalism:

"A reactionary non-scientific movement, aimed at returning society to a centuries old set up, defying all material and historical factors. It is an attempt to roll back the wheels of history."

(Aside: The only thing I don't like about this definition is that it presupposes that if we go back in history, culture becomes more moral. But, if you could ask those from yesteryear, they'd look backward for a critique of their "modern" culture too.)

Fundamentalism seeks to provide simple answers to complex questions. It promises to take it's followers back to "the good-old-days" when black was black and white was white (all too often, not as much anymore though, this is/was, unfortunately, in a literal sense). At face value these simple answers appear to be intellectually lacking; however, they do bring comfort to the confused soul. At some point in our lives fundamentalism is the only societal system we understand. Try communicating complex, morally ambiguities, situations to a child and you'll soon resort back to a fundamentalist "that's right" or "that's wrong" (ex: how lying is OK when it's to save someone's feelings but not when it's to save someone from getting into trouble).

As I look back at my teenage fundamentalist years I see how they helped me navigate the temptations of life. I didn't need a discussion on "how far is too far," I needed a guide line to follow. And, if it was up to me, I'd preach one thing and practice another. But, as I got older, this approach did more harm than good. It caused me to define people as good or bad and not consider the complexities of human relationships and the human experience. I couldn't make decisions in grey life because I was always looking for a pole to agree with. And most of life doesn't occur at the poles, it's somewhere closer to the equator; where simple answers cannot fully satisfy complex questions.

More Letters to a Young Evangelical Quotes

Here's a good one. It's from a chapter where Tony is talking about the responsibility of Christians to the environment. Especially the need for a focus on nuclear disarmament and support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from 1968 that 43 some odd nations signed but most of those actually posessing nuclear weapons failed to follow through on. It's a quote from General Omar Nelson Bradley's speech on Armistice Day in 1948.

"We live in a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants, in a world that has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. We have solved the mystery of the atom and forgotten the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about dying than we know about living."
-Page 211 of Tony's Book "Letters to a Young Evangelical"

Letters to a Young Evangelical Quotes

I've been reading the book "Letters to a Young Evangelical" by Tony Campolo and in the last couple of chapters he's quoted other sources. I just wanted to share these quotes with you. I think they're cool.

"The Church is a whore, but she's my mother."
- St. Augustine (page 68 of "Letters to a Young Evangelical")

"Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish existentialist, once said there are those who tell lies in such a way that you think they are telling you the truth. He went on to suggest that far more dangerous are those who tell the truth in such a way that you think they are telling you a lie. When the Gospel is presented with little regard for the sensitivities of others, it may redily be rejected not because of its content but becuase of how it has been delivered."
- Tony Campolo referring to Soren Kierkegaard (page 56 of "Letters to a Young Evangelical")

If you want to learn more about Tony's book you can find all the info at TonyCampolo.org

Navigating the Grey Inport

I've imported a bunch of postings that I did on my previous blog, "Navigating the Grey." However, I didn't input the comments so if you want to read them you have to go to the original website: Navigating the Grey. Here's the new posts as they show up on this blog. They are posted with the original date so they don't show up at the top of the list.

Inspirational Keys

Why Can's I Own Canadians?

Repsponse: Jesus vs. The Church

Is Jesus' Salvation Just a Ticket to Heaven?

Why am I a Christian?

Act with Action

Alcohol-ism

The Power of the Dark Side

Absolutly Relative

The Good News

Awhile ago I did a sermon at my parent’s church called the “Good News.” The basic premiss is that the gospel (“the teachings of Jesus and his apostles - the Christian revelation,” as per dictionary.com) is only really the “good news” if it is two things: good, and news.

For the message of Christ, and thus the message of Christians, to be gospel it must first be good. “God hates fags,” would not fall under the title of good! Where as, “God loves you,” does. Jesus commanded us to love God and love others (Matt 22:34-40). He didn’t command us to love God and judge others. Although we tend to get love and judgement mixed up.

Not only must the gospel message be good, it must also be news. If it sounds stale and boring it is not news. Stanley Grenz says in the beginning of his book “Theology for the Community of God” that one major aspect of theology is that it is contextualized to the present time. The message of Christianity must be news. It must have urgency, be important, and be on the minds and mouths of everyone that knows it. It must break through into every conversation; not forced, but naturally included.

In our society and especially in our churches we need to make the gospel “Good News” again. We need to strip it of hatred and judgement and dress it in love. Clean it of cobwebs and dust-bunnies, and freshen it with urgency. Only when it’s “Good News” does it truly the gospel, the message of Jesus and his followers.

Apathy - Bastard Son of Safety and Security

As I think about the history of church people, or people in general for that matter, it's clear that when everything is going well, all the well seem to get going. That is, those who are dedicated to the ideology and community of the church begin to become a smaller and smaller percentage of the Christian population. When something is "easy" or "cool" it attracts all the wrong crowds.

Take for example the time in church history right after Constantine (Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under emperor Theodosius (r. 379-395) not Constantine, though Constantine definitely contributed to it's popularity; as per Ask Me Now). Yes the popularity of Christianity provided many opportunities for theological reflection, but there was also a safety in being a Christian. In fact, there was more than safety; becoming a Christ follower was a good political move. The church became "cool" and popular, attracting those who were just in it for themselves. The cancer of apathy slowly took over and the commitment dwindled. Someone once said that the church grew more under persecution than it did under popularity.

We don't feel a need for God when we feel safe. We still need him; but we forget. It's our education that gets us the job, our job that pays for our house and food, and it's the house and food that fulfill our needs. We become apathetic because we can provide for ourselves, we aren't hiding in the catacombs struggling to stay alive. But the real need for spirituality remains, hidden under the satisfaction of physical safety and security. How, then, do we unveil this need and shake off our apathy? How do we learn to live and love with compassion and desire not blind to the truth?

Why Can't I Own Canadians

Here's a letter placed expertly inside a book I've been reading lately. The book is called "What Jesus Meant" by Garry Wills (Viking: 2006). Though though the book aligns with much of the "radical, irreligious, postmodern, postliberal/conservative, frankly posteverything" stream of thought I find his concise-ness and to-the-point-ness refreshing. This letter he recovered from an unknown internet source and described it as being written to a "protestant evangelical who believes in literal reading of the Bible:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination - end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is: how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor to the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?
7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. It is really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "
P(33-35)

Response: Jesus vs. Church

This post is in response to a friend of mine who posted on the same topic a couple of days ago.

Original: You Like Jesus, but not the Church?

I once heard that Gandhi said "I like your Christ, but not your Christians."

How do Christians respond to this quote?

Here's how not to respond:
1. Get all mad at Gandhi, call him a crazy, eastern, "new age," yoga man, dismiss not only his comment but also his roll in history politically and spiritually, tell everyone this opinion, continue on not being like Christ and not being liked by the majority of non-Christians around you, start a "good old fashioned Gandhi bashing" small group at church.
2. Jump completely on Gandhi's wagon, say "to hell with the church," leave and start a group half Christian (so-to-speak) and half Gandhian that meets on Sunday morning but at a tranquil yoga studio, abandon the word "religious" for the word "spiritual" and give it a definition that serves no purpose other than to make yourself sound smart and "postmodern."
(please note the sarcasm)

But how should we respond? How do we deal with this issue. On one hand Christians are supposed to be like Christ. On the other them not being like Christ is likely why they are Christians. Where's the middle ground, if there is one? The response to this quote is not as simple as it may seem. It is as complicated as discovering how the church as an organism works. The answer may more aptly be put in the form of a question? What is the church? What should it be? What should it look like? How should it function?

Is Jesus' Salvation Just a Ticket to Heaven?

It seems that the most logical question after "Why am I a Christian?" would be "Would anyone else want to be a Christian because I'm one?" Maybe I'm strange for thinking that way. I just do. But let's not go there yet. That can be a troublesome topic to reflect on. I may find out that my faith is about as contagious as good genes. I only multiply it by reproduction.

Anyway, again McLaren has helped me to reflect on another topic. The topic of salvation. He writes a chapter entitled "Jesus: Savior of What?" in his book Generous Orthodoxy. He discusses how many "Evangelicals" (big "E" Evangelicals as McLaren calls them) have truncated Jesus salvation. They've cut and boxed it up so it fits right where they want it most, at the end. This type of salvation is a heaven entering, judgment freeing, restoration achieving type of salvation. It's a ticket. A ticket to eternity. But didn't Jesus do more than scalp us some tickets?

The answer is yes (obviously), but do we really know what this answer means? It has gotten too easy for us to see Jesus' salvation only as a ticket to heaven. Not something that affects our lives now. But Jesus' salvation is not just something for then, it's something for now. And it's not just a salvation for humanity from sin. It's a salvation for creation. To restore the whole works back to God. McLaren isn't the first I've read on the topic. Robert Webber (I think it's two "b"s) makes a strong case for "Christ's Victory" and its implications for life in his book Ancient Future Faith. So let's move past asking questions and onto discussing realities.

How does Jesus' salvation impact our lives right now? What does it mean for not only sin, but poverty, injustice, and environmental issues? How do we relate our faith not only to a future event but to a present reality? How are we to live now, not just so we can live then but so we can actually LIVE now? What does Jesus' salvation do for us in this moment?

Why am I a Christian?

I went to a "Youth Pastor's" lunch the other day even though I wouldn't consider myself a youth pastor. Somehow I received an email about the happening and in it were the words "free meal." How could I resist? Anyhow I thought it would be a good time of discussion, and it was.

To go along with the free meal was a free book. And because I was there so early (sometimes I've just got nothing better to do) I got first choice. I looked over a couple of Doug Fields books (one of the modern day gods of youth ministry), scanned past some Mike Yaconelli (another great man of youth ministry, one I actually highly respect); but nothing seemed to catch my eye. Then I moved some off the top of a pile and found something appealing. It was a book called "a Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren. I have heard of McLaren many times. His name seems to be ever so connected to the "emergent" movement. But I have never read him. This was my chance. So I took it (the book that is).

As I started to read I appreciated his style and discourse. His direction wasn't bad either. But before he could take me there, he stumped me with a very simple question. Why am I a Christian? He asks it of himself; but I was taken back by its implications for me. Why am I a Christian? And as I started thinking on this idea it took me deeper still. If I am a Christian, does that better or worsen the chance that others would want to be one?

This question isn't directly "grey" but it does have grey answers. Each one of us has reasons why he or she is or isn't a Christian. Some of our reasons are actually reasons; others are just excuses. McLaren has challenged me again to analyze my own reasons and test them not only for strength but also authenticity. Because if my reasons are left wanting will not my witness be also?

So, why are you a Christian? Why are you not a Christian? And how are your reasons/excuses influencing others around you?

...

Act with Action

First off let me say sorry for the lengthy period between posts. It's been Christmas season here at the Noble household and with both family events and me being in retail (my day job) my time has been precious. However it's a thoughtful Christmas gift from my wife that brings me the inspiration for this next post. So tip the egg nogg to Heather.

I was reading an interview with Bono in Rolling Stone and was once again struck with inspiration from this professing Christian Rock Star/Political Activist. His direction clear and his actions speak loudly. He is pushing world hunger up the stairs. Making it an obstacle for all of us, not just those caught in it's traps. Bringing it out of the closet and making it the emblem on his chest. To him ending world hunger is obviously the chief aim of every well fed human.

In November I was also bombarded with the need to do something for the poor and oppressed. I attended a conference where a passionate young woman called us to socio-economic action. She noted how Christians do the worst job at helping those in need, both next to them and around the world. She even pushed the envelope in saying that, given the situation of AIDS in Africa, every Christian family should adopt. Radical yet inspiring things.

For these people this issue is black and white. There is no grey. They have clear ideas of the way things should be and proceed toward them. They look at the world with different eyes than most of us. They see the needs and stop at nothing to fill them. They are inspirational, often confrontational, yet always seemingly successful (or they wouldn't get the press). We know what they do, we hear their stories of success, we see people whose lives have been changed by them; but what do we do? What do I do? Now that you have me caring so much how put me to work? But no. There is no arena to play out these new rules. There is no field to practice on. Their is no court to better our skills. There is only drive, but no destination.

How do we treat issues like this? Here we have a reverse problem present. The answer is black and white but the means is grey. What is most effective? In the case of poverty and hunger: how do we stop it? What is our best approach? What can I do right now in my own city/neighborhood? These questions plague me. I feel so much compassion inside but have no outlet. And I'm not looking for a quick fix: working at a soup kitchen or handing out sandwiches (not that these are meaningless, they are still needed services). I'm looking for a way to integrate my love for people into my everyday life. Don't just call me to act... Give me an action!

Alcohol-ism

We've denounced racism, forgotten about sexism, but now there is a new kid on the block: alcohol-ism. Now, I am not referring to alcoholism as it describes the addiction to and misuse of alcohol. I am talking about Christians dividing themselves on the issue of alcohol, firing prejudicial shots back and forth. Alcohol-ism may be the next ism that the church must overcome in order to maintain its relevance within society.

Alcohol is one of those very touchy issues in the faith of Christ followers. We seem to be unable to navigate this grey area. And as we consult the Bible looking for black and white answers they allude us. Here are some examples:

- - alcohol in the negative - -

Noah's drunkenness and Canan's Curse

Lot and his Daughters

The Vow of the Nazirite

Beer Brawler

Don't join and Drink too much

Kings shouldn't drink

Don's get Drunk on Wine

Not with Drunkenness

+ + alcohol in the positive + +

Reference to Joy

Wine Gladdens our Hearts

Filled to the Brim

Love of Wine brings Riches

Jesus turns Water into Wine

Wine as Rolaids

The Lord's Supper

Please do not think this list exhaustive. Wine and drinking alcohol is all throughout the Bible. It's part of Jewish culture. But does that mean it should be part of our culture? Part of our expression of Christianity? This is the question. And placing ourselves so strongly on one side or the other causes us to commit alcohol-ism.

So what should we do? How should we treat alcohol so that we are true to scripture and approbate to culture. We can find some help from Romans 14. Here Paul gives direction as to how those with "strong" faith should interact with those with "weak" faith. What is interesting is that those who accept disputable issues are considered to have "strong" faith; and those who reject them have "weak" faith.

Who are we? Where are we at? Is our faith strong or weak? Are we causing our weaker fathed brothers and sisters to stumble? How are we going to respond to the issue of alcohol without committing alcohol-ism?

your thoughts ? ? ?

The Power of the Dark Side

I'm sitting here watching the latest Star Wars release, Episode III. Though I do prefer the originals, this episode does have something to contribute to our discussion of "the grey." In it Annikan, who was once our famed hero, goes through his transformation into Darth Vader (sorry if I ruined it for you). For Annikan/Vader the transition is quick and definable. Though he struggles with himself he moves from one side to the other. He must make a choice. The choice is quite clearly black or white. Will he move to the dark side, or will he remain true to the Jeti? You know the answer.

I saw some of myself in Annikan's story. So many times I find myself making decisions that are black or white. My opinion on issues may be grey but my actions mustn't be. In each moment, each time I am confronted with a choice, I must choose black or white. This is what complicates the grey areas even more; and thus, purposes the existence of this blog.

For example: in terms of politics, Christianity does not require party allegiance (or at least it shouldn't). One Christian can vote Liberal, another Conservative, and still another NDP. In fact, one Christian can vote for all three parties in his/her lifetime and not place his/her faith in jeopardy. Though the issue of politics is grey, the voting process if very black and white. One cannot place a grey vote; one is forced to choose. Just like Annikan. Just like me.

But when will I choose white and when will I choose black? That is the question. We can discuss how grey an issue is until we are blue (or grey) in the face; but we still must choose black and white when we live it out. If we feel politics are grey we must still vote one way or another. If we see alcohol as grey we must still decide when and when not to drink. Etc, etc, etc. And the real, down-to-earth, practical, and grass-roots question becomes: When is a grey issue black and when is it white?

Absolutely Relative

I was cleaning up my office about a month back and found a book that I had borrowed from a friend for research purposes. The book was entitled Right from Wrong by Josh McDowel and Bob Hostetler (this is how the names appear on the book; which makes me question, though I may be wrong, McDowel's involvement in the actual writing other than printing his name on the cover). There was a section concerning "Absolute Truth" that caught my eye. As I started to read, I found out quickly that "Many of our youth [you could likely insert people in general] simply do not understand or accept absolute truth," (p. 17). I was shocked; appalled at this injustice. Why the nerve of those people. How dare they not fall in line with McDowel's opinions. How dare they challenge the beliefs of the conservative right. Blasphemy.

Hopefully you have read past my sarcasm. In fact, though McDowel made it out to be a surprise, I was entirely un-shocked with his assessment. Of course no one believes in absolute truth. It's part of Canadian culture; the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Einstein's theory has become fact. Didn't you get the memo Josh.

But seriously, this issue of truth and whether it swings absolutely or relatively seems to expand further than the realm of philosophy. In essence, it is the reason for this blog in the first place; and thus, appropriate as its first posting. We must believe in both absolute and relative truth (if at least our only absolute truth is that "all truth is relative"). The difficult thing is discovering which is absolute and which is relative; which is black/white and which is grey. The problem is compounded when people like McDowel (don't get me wrong, I know he means well) bring Christianity into the mess. People like this seem to start arguing for religion (though they may never admit it): a system of rules in which all things are either right or wrong. They make Christianity a culture, when it should always remain a faith. Once it becomes a culture it is trapped into a specific time and setting. Thus going against its very nature.

If we understand Christianity to be a faith not a culture, then we must take a whole different approach to discerning "right from wrong." We must not only include the "absolutes" or principles learned from scripture as it is communicated through ancient culture; but also consider principles learned from current culture. Matching these two worlds and "navigating the grey" is the responsibility of every person. This is why God has given us the church; our journeying partners.