SLAMMED á la LUTHER

For more insults, see here.

The Myth of Tolerance & the Truth of Neighborly Love

For quite sometime I have held the opinion that all this talk of "tolerance" is really just a lazy excuse to continue adrift in our self-centered "iWorld" where nobody has to really know, appreciate, or care for anyone else besides themselves. Consequently, I continue to believe that Jesus' call to "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the most profound of all human ethics. I have yet to come across any kind of tolerance as radical and effective as the Judeo-Christian ethic of neighborly love. For it is only in this ethic that we look upon the diverse crowd of those to be 'tolerated' and name them our Neighbor. I recently came across this in Dallas Willard's book Knowing Christ Today.

"Several years ago the scientist and intellectual historian Jacob Bronowski produced a television series and a book called The Ascent of Man." In the eleventh episode and chapter, he dealt with the great harm done by those who think they know. Supposedly, the harm is done just because they think they know. At the end of the episode he strides out into the ash pond at Auschwitz, squats down, and scoops up a handful of mud. 

'This,' he says,' is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of the gods.'

....  Bronowski certainly regarded himself as expressing moral, though perhaps not religious, knowledge - as not just making a "leap of faith" - when he presses for the elimination of 'absolute' knowledge. Certainly he is not expressing a conclusion of any science known to humankind. And it is fair to ask how one can stand against arrogance and intolerance and persecution except on the basis of knowledge. Is that now what he is doing - resting his case on what he knows? What else is possible? He certainly did not think he was just expressing his own personal belief or commitment. 

And is it not true that the brightest examples of people who stand against arrogance and intolerance are, for the most part, those who stand on the basis of what they take to be religious and moral knowledge? Wasn't that true of most of those who did oppose Hitler and his ash pond? And, just for the record, those who did not oppose Hitler usually blamed it, precisely, on lack of knowledge: "We did not know this was being done!

Also, it is not obvious, to say the least, that those who have abandoned religious and moral knowledge are more tolerant and less inclined to arrogance and cruelty than those who adhere to it. Human beings routinely assume superiority on many gorudns other than possession of knowledge. The sad truth is that people can be just as arrogant from belief, commitment, various associations, or simple egotism as from claimed knowledge. 

Do we actually find more humility and tolerance, with respect to things that really matter to them, in those who reject the possibility of religious knowledge than in those who accept religious knowledge? What are the empirical facts here, and where are the studies that establish them? Let's be scientific about that.

Tolerance is not indifference, but a generous regard and even provision for those who differ from us on points we deeply care about. To support tolerance - which is not the same as lacking intolerance - more is required than just a lack of certainty concerning differences at issue. We must also care about people.

Genuine tolerance itself must be based upon assured knowledge of what is real and what is right. And it always is. It is not a 'leap of faith.' Tolerance is not the lack of something, but the expression of a positive vision of what is good and right, a vision taken to be solidly grounded in the knowledge of how things really are.

It has often been considered knowledge that all human beings are equally loved by God, and the call to to tolerance was based on that. It was this type of vision, regarded as knowledge, that led to the abolition of slavery and legal segregation, for example. Such a vision, held as knowledge of how things really are, undergirds the possibility of a neighbor love that comes from the heart and reaches across all human differences."

- Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today

Neighboring Churches... ?

If I type "church" into a Google Map the results are plentiful.  In fact, just around the corner from where I live there are two churches literally side by side (see photos below). 

This modern phenomenon always causes me to wonder: what would Jesus have said if Jews in his day built two synagogues side by side? What would Paul have said if two Jewish Christian communities existed side by side yet never talked to one another?

Joan of Arc RC Church

Joan of Arc in foreground right; Redeemer Lutheran Church in background left

Can the Church Answer Questions About Science?

Yesterday I posted a piece from Dallas Willard's book Knowing Christ Today in which he condemns the audacious claims made by hardline naturalists. In short, Willard contends that the hard sciences are unable to provide certain conclusions to matters outside their realm of study. While I agree with Willard and welcome the warranted critique of the sacred cow of epistemology (science), I think that it is of the utmost importance that we condemn the church for doing the exact same thing. In other words, we must reflect upon where the church and/or Christian institutions draw conclusions to matters that are outside of their own domain.*

This is a point that Willard seems to neglect. He writes, "The discrediting of the church as a moral teacher and guide was accentuated by the advances of knowledge that came with the development of science and with the increased knowledge of the past and of other parts of the earth. These advances threatened the authority of the church at a more fundamental level. As widely interpreted, they called into question the basic documents - especially the Bible - and the founding events and personalities of Christian traditions and institutions. The initial result of all this was, as we have noted, the rejection of Jesus Christ and of his core ethical teachings." (Willard, 74-75)

How is it that "advances of knowledge" and "development of science" became a threat to the Christian tradition?  Is it not because Christian institutions themselves had overstepped the "province of their responsibilities" (Willard's term) when it came to certain matters, for example, the sciences? The only reason that the Copernican Revolution "threatened the authority of the church" is because the church had arrogantly drawn conclusions from an ancient text that is not the least bit concerned with what qualifies as modern science. Hence, it was not merely Enlightenment advances but also the church's epistemic overreaching (and stubbornness) that contributed to its decline.

Can the church answer questions about science? Absolutely. But not without participating in the domain of modern science with other scientists. When Christians draw conclusions about science solely from Scripture they are overreaching the domain of Scripture's own responsibilities. To paraphrase Willard, Scripture as Scripture is not even about such issues. 

So rather than only calling out hardline naturalists for their overzealous conclusions about God or ultimate purpose, let us also call out Christians for their overzealous conclusions about the hard sciences.

*Ultimately, nothing is outside the domain of the church in theory. The church is concerned with the whole of life and reality to the extent that we might possibly come to know it. This clearly includes the hard sciences and all other fields of possible study. However, this endeavor requires the utmost caution and responsibility to pursue knowledge unceasingly. It cannot be done lazily and without study; for this leads to the overreaching of our domain.

Can Biology Answer Questions of Cosmology & Ethics?

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. ... There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either." 

- Dr. William B. Provine, professor of Biological Science at Cornell University, in Origins Research 16 (1), p.9

"Logically viewed, this statement is simply laughable. Nowhere within the published, peer-reviewed literature of biology - even evolutionary biology - do any of the statements of which the professor is 'absolutely certain' appear as valid conclusions of sound research. One trembles to think that an expert in the field would not know this or else would feel free to disregard it. Biology as a field of research and knowledge is not even about such issues. It simply does not deal with them. They do not fall within the province of its responsibilities. Yet it is very common to hear such declamations about the state of the universe offered up in lectures and writings by specialists in certain areas who have a missionary zeal for their personal causes."

- Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today, p.5

 [Provine quote included in Willard text]

The Answer to Poverty: Democrats or Republicans?

It's no secret that both Democrats and Republicans disagree about how to help those who suffer from the cycle of poverty. Each party has their respective ideology and method for solving the issue. So which one is better? I say neither.

I was recently talking with a friend of mine who used an illustration to simplify the difference between the Dems and the GOP.  Imagine, he said, you have a group of people who are impoverished and in need of food; the Dems answer is to provide food for those people via the government, while the GOP's answer is to have the government hold out the food like a prize and motivate those in need to work for it. The former approach meets the immediate need while the latter supposedly meets the long term need.

Oversimplified as it is, this illustration reveals something fascinating about the current political brain: nobody is thinking in terms of kenosis. Neither Democrat or Republic - or the average American - is ever thinking about the option of downward mobility in order to bring healing to the poor. The possible solutions offered in our political dialogue nearly always presuppose the maintenance of the status quo, which especially includes our economic status. Put simply, most Americans - especially politicians - want to bring about a solution to poverty that does not require any sacrifice on their own part (aside, perhaps, from the casual monetary donation).  How could anyone imagine downward mobility? We live to accumulate, increase wealth, and climb the social ladder!

But anyone who confesses to follow Jesus must ask the question: Can poverty be healed without sacrifice? Can poverty be resolved if I am unwilling to become poor myself?  I wrestle with this question as I read of Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-22. Jesus invites the man to join the kingdom movement by selling his things and giving to the poor, but the man is unable to downgrade his economic status and therefore unable to enter into the movement that has good news for the poor. And then there is the new community at Pentecost who relinquished economic status and private property and instead embraced downward mobility and a community of sharing. 

In Shane Claiborne's cogent confessional The Irresistible Revolution, he exhorts readers to follow Jesus into community with the poor: 

"Far from saying in defeat that we should not worry about the poor, since they will always be among us, Jesus is pointing the church to her true identity - she is to live close to those who suffer. The poor will always be among us, because the empire will always produce poor people and they will find a home in the church, a citizenship in the kingdom of God, where the 'hungry are filled with good things and the rich sent away empty'." (160)

Instead of programs that give to the poor from a distance or incentives offered from the upper echelons, Jesus invites his followers to go and live among the poor. Claiborne continues: 

"[When] the church becomes a distribution center, a place where the poor come to get stuff and the rich come to dump stuff [then...] no radical new community is formed. And Jesus did not set up a program but modeled a way of living that incarnated the reign of God, a community in which people are reconciled and our debts are forgiven just as we forgive our debtors (all economic words). That reign did not spread through organizational establishments or structural systems. It spread like disease - through touch, through breath, through life. It spread through people infected by love." (159)

The current political dialogue is evidence that we do not yet understand Jesus' invitation to "downward mobility." We live in a disoriented world where private property and economic status equals security and happiness. However, we must remember that Jesus is offering nothing less than abundant life and the riches of the kingdom of God. After seeing the rich young man walk away Jesus explains to his followers that no one who has left behind family or possessions will not find 100 times that in the family of God. "As we abandon our possessions and biological families, we trust that others too are abandoning their possessions and families, and that there will be an abundance that begins now and lasts for eternity." (Claiborne, 176) If you don't buy this ideology, then I challenge you to read Claiborne's book and read about how the poor take care of one another in the kingdom of God (I'll personally mail you my own copy - but have only one).

While Democrat and Republican politicians continue to argue back and forth about how to help the poor while maintaining socio-economic borders, none seem willing to go the way of Jesus and "downgrade" to be with the poor. Thus, I am neither fooled nor enticed to believe that they offer any real solution to the issues surrounding poverty in our country. The answer, I believe, is what Jesus modeled and invited us to follow: become poor, live with the poor, and share together in the kingdom of God.

I can already hear the objectors screaming, "That will never work!" So allow me to say two things. Firstly, go on screaming; and debating; and so on. I'm not trying to figure out what will "work." I'm trying to figure out what's true. I'm trying to figure out how to follow Jesus because God has promised that in Christ the reality of the entire cosmos finds its true order, its true hope, its true love, its true life. 

Secondly, imagine what it might look like if all the people who professed to follow Jesus followed him into life with the poor. Many may scream "That will never work," but imagine if Christians actually dedicated their life to figuring out what it means to live with the poor.

For a more politically engaging resource, see this awesome treatise "Can My Vote Be Biblical?" from Evangelicals for Social Action.

-JMW

*ADDENDUM*

While this post is more of a polemic against the anti-kenotic approaches to resolving poverty, I realize that I may have also made "downward mobility" sound a bit too easy. It's not easy. It is not as if we can all quit our jobs or sell our possessions and begin living among the poor - whatever that really even means and looks like in our day. Therefore, I'd like to simply offer a few ideas about how to begin moving toward life with the poor in your respective communities.

1. Look for the food.  Most communities have localized food banks or organized dinners for those who need food. Find out about these things. Go and spend some time at a food bank on a saturday morning; talk with the people there; maybe you'll find ways to share your services and make friends.

Find a church that hosts a meal for the marginalized and attend it. All you have to do is show up - and that's the hardest part. Just go! And don't go to stand behind the table and serve (unless they really need servers!). Sit down and share a meal together. Break down the hierarchies and divisions. Be with others. It's free and it's easy. I've met some amazing people this way.

2. Volunteer your self. In addition to food programs, there are always after-school programs and organizations that reach out to marginalized youth (think YMCA or Big Brothers Big Sisters). Find a program that allows you to be with others. And if you can't find one, start one. Drop in to a Drop-In Center and play cards.

3. Explore your community. Maybe walk instead of drive. Maybe go to areas you don't usually go. Maybe spend some time on the street or in a park. Try that coffee shop that is implicitly only for the street folk (instead of the trendy café). Talk to a person who begs for money; ask if you can buy them a meal or share a cup of coffee. And so on.

4. Practice hospitality. John Caputo says that hospitality is not when we have our friends for dinner. Hospitality is when we welcome in the stranger and those who are in need. This is much easier said than done; and it is indeed a danger to invite strangers into your home. Perhaps a good place to begin is by inviting people to participate in your church community.

5. Fast from materialism. Learn to live more simply and give more generously. Fast from unnecessary luxuries when you can. Forego the brand new sneakers that cost and absurd $80. Try shopping at used clothing stores and discover the blessing of recycled materials. 

6. Rethink your future goals.  When you think about where you want to be in 5 years, think about how you might be closer to living with the poor and marginalized.

This is not easy and I'm still trying to figure this out myself. If you've got ideas, please share.