Archives For redemption

Repaso: February 15, 2013

February 15, 2013 — 1 Comment

juarez-guns

1. Swords into plowshares, Kalashnikovs into xylophones
While watching this short BBC clip about what’s become of 7000 guns seized by police in Ciudad Juarez (the infamous “Murder Capital of the World”) I couldn’t help but think of the words of the prophet Isaiah and the hope that one day, all things will be made new.

2. Remembering Richard Twiss
Many of us were saddened to hear the news that Native American author and theologian Richard Twiss passed away last weekend after suffering a heart attack. I really appreciated his reconciliation work, including his writing and speaking. A number of tributes to Richard have been written over the past week, including this one from the Out of Ur blog, this one from Sojourners, and this one in Charisma by my friend Mark Charles.

3. The redemption of hipsterdom
Paul Bowers – “a skinny-jeans-wearing, Pitchfork-reading, banjo-playing writer for an alt-weekly newspaper” – writes in Patrol:

A word to my generation: It’s fine to make jokes, but know that not everything is a joke. We talk about hipsters on the internet not only because we love to hate them, but also because looking at them is a good way of looking at our own values. Well, I’m here to report that there are good and honest hipsters in our midst. But you’ve probably never heard of them.

4. Keeping a holy Lent
Father Thomas McKenzie writes:

Keeping Lent is designed to make more room for the Holy Spirit in your life. Keeping Lent may or may not lead to feelings of joy, sorrow, happiness, or anger. You may or may not alienate a friend, have a spiritual experience, lose weight, or feel grouchy at work. Keeping Lent will not make you more holy or beloved in the eyes of God. Keeping Lent will not save you. Keep Lent anyway.

5. Obama, literature, and drones
Novelist and photographer Teju Cole (whose book Open City I reviewed last year), has written a troubling but important piece for the New Yorker about the drone program being executed by our “reader in chief”:

This ominous, discomfiting, illegal, and immoral use of weaponized drones against defenseless strangers is done for our sakes. But more and more we are seeing a gap between the intention behind the President’s clandestine brand of justice and the real-world effect of those killings. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words against the Vietnam War in 1967 remain resonant today: “What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them?” We do know what they think: many of them have the normal human reaction to grief and injustice, and some of them take that reaction to a vengeful and murderous extreme. In the Arabian peninsula, East Africa, and Pakistan, thanks to the policies of Obama and Biden, we are acquiring more of the angriest young enemies money can buy. As a New York Times report put it last year, “Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”

6. New York Biotopes

Repaso is intended as a thought-provoking compilation of news and commentary related to the intersections of faith, development, justice, and peace. As always, I welcome your thoughts on any of the links and ideas in this roundup!

[Photo credit: "This drumlike instrument is among those that Mexican sculptor Pedro Reyes creates from parts of seized weapons" via azstarnet.com]

In recent weeks I’ve been doing some reading and blogging related to worldview and the role it plays in shaping how we live as Christians in light of what God has done, is doing and will do in history. Michael Goheen really piqued my interest in this when I heard him speak here in Phoenix in early March. He described his theological and spiritual journey, including what he describes as an important shift from a theological system to a theological worldview (my notes from the talk are here). In last Monday’s post, Bryant Myers suggested “we are to see the world as created, fallen, and being redeemed, all at the same time.” And then on Thursday, Steven Garber in his book The Fabric of Faithfulness argued that if we are to weave together belief and behavior, it is essential to develop “a worldview sufficient for the challenges of the modern world.”

All these writers and thinkers have more or less the same thing in mind, I think, when they refer to worldview, but it’s also a term that carries all sorts of connotations for different people, so today I want to back up and take a look at what worldview means, drawing on the excellent little book Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Eerdmans). It was originally written in 1985 by Al Wolters, and then re-released twenty years later, with an afterword by Michael Goheen himself (there’s a lot of overlap between that afterword and what he had to say in his talk).

Wolters defines worldview as “the comprehensive framework of one’s basic beliefs about things,” a definition he then breaks down bit by bit (I won’t spell it out here, but each word is carefully chosen).

Like the others I referred to earlier, Wolters believes that a biblical worldview is best understood by the basic scriptural categories of creation, fall and redemption. He also contends that our worldview is to inform all of life; the Bible leaves no room for compartmentalizing certain parts of life into the mutually exclusive categories of sacred (church, spiritual practices, Bible study, etc) and secular (economics, politics, technology, etc). In other words,

The plea being made here for a biblical worldview is simply an appeal to the believer to take the Bible and its teaching seriously for the totality of our civilization right now and not to relegate it to some optional area called “religion.”

All of that is established in the first chapter, and then chapters two, three and four have to do with spelling out a fuller, deeper understanding of creation, fall and redemption, respectively. I hope you’ll read the book so you can see everything he has to say about the nuances of each of those three, but the biggest contribution Creation Regained makes is the chapter on discerning the difference between “structure” and “direction.” The terms may be confusing at first, but understood properly, the implications of that distinction are huge for our everyday lives.

I’ll try to sum it up in a paragraph. First, all things are created good (their “structure” is good), but all created things have been deformed by the Fall and sin (that is, they have been “misdirected”). As Christians, too often we recognize the directional distortion of something and discard it as sinful, but we fail to affirm its structural goodness, and miss the opportunity to see how, as a structurally good but misdirected part of creation, it can be redirected for purposes that please God and, in turn, serve the common good. With this distinction in mind, we can truly be “reformers” rather than either seeking to obliterate what’s tainted by sin on the one hand, or by fatalistically accepting the sin-tainted status quo on the other. In other words, distinguishing between structure and direction gives us an alternative to both “revolution” and “quietistic conservatism,” two approaches that leave much to be desired:

Our focus on structure rejects a sympathy for revolution, and our focus on direction condemns a quietistic conservatism… In sum we may say that whereas consecration leaves things internally untouched, and revolution annihilates things, reformation renews and sanctifies them. God calls us to cleanse and reform all the sectors of our lives.

That goes for our personal lives and our interpersonal relationships, but it also has huge implications for our life as citizens and as active participants in political, economic, and other systems. So, for an example applicable to the readers of this blog, when we’re faced with an ethical dilemma like alleged abuses of workers on the other side of the world tied to the practices of a corporation which we support through our purchases, we’re presented with an alternative to the two predictable and insufficient responses. It doesn’t do to ignore the abuses as inevitable, “necessary evils” in our complicated, interconnected world. And it doesn’t do to decry the corporation for being a corporation and part of the free market system. Rather, we seek to discern structure and direction. What about the corporation is structurally a good part of creation? What about the corporation has been misdirected by sin? And what might we as “reformers” (or what Gabe Lyons calls “restorers”) do to redirect and reform that corporation so that what is good about it can continue, and so that it can contribute to the flourishing of all, including those on the other end of the market equation?

That’s a whole new way of seeing the world, it seems to me, and a whole new way of living. It’s not cynical and detached, but it’s not playing to either side of the culture wars, either. It is, however, rooted in the big narrative arc of Scripture — creation, fall, redemption — which is also the narrative arc of history. It’s brimming with promise, isn’t it? It’s realistic and it’s hopeful. It has both roots and wings.

As Wolters says clearly, developing this sort of a worldview — learning to see the world and our lives through this kind of a biblical lens — doesn’t answer every question and solve every problem we will encounter. In community with other believers and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit we’re given the task of discerning the implications of biblical teaching for all these areas of life. We won’t do it perfectly all the time, but we can learn and grow. Most of all, developing a biblical worldview gives us a framework for understanding our lives in the world, and it gives us the right questions to ask:

To approach the phenomena of the world in terms of structure and direction is to look at reality through the corrective lens of Scripture, which everywhere speaks of a good creation and the drama of its reclamation by the Creator in Jesus Christ.

Do you find the themes of creation, fall and redemption — as well as the distinction between structure and direction — helpful for navigating the challenges of everyday life? Is there any part of this “worldview” you’d call into question?

These days I’m re-reading Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (Orbis) by Bryant Myers. I first read it a few years ago during grad school, and am now reading the new “revised and expanded edition” for an upcoming magazine review. It’s basically the Bible for transformational development, not counting the actual Bible itself.

I’ll have more to say about it soon, but for now I thought I’d share a particularly poignant paragraph from Walter Wink, who is quoted in the theology chapter, supporting Myers’ conviction that “we are to see the world as created, fallen, and being redeemed, all at the same time.” Here’s Wink:

God at one and the same time upholds a political or economic system, since some such system is required to support human life; condemns that system insofar as it is destructive to full human actualization; and presses for its transformation into a more human order. Conservatives stress the first, revolutionaries the second, reformers the third. The Christian is expected to hold together all three.

That comes from Wink’s Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (I’ve yet to read that one, but I found his little book Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way insightful and helpful when I read it and blogged about it last summer).

Because the world is created by God, is broken because of the fall, and is being redeemed through Jesus Christ, it’s important for development practitioners — and for all of us — to keep that three-fold creation-fall-redemption theme in mind as we do our work in the world.

It’s easy to just be a conservative or a revolutionary or a reformer; it’s tough to discern the proper place of each. But each impulse, each posture, has its place, and at times simultaneously. God help us to hold the three together.

One might call Q Ideas the “Christian version” of TED Talks, and there’s some merit to the comparison: both feature talks by compelling thought leaders from practically every sphere of society. But unlike other “Christian versions” of popular cultural artifacts, Q (“a learning community that mobilizes Christians to advance the common good in society”) features content that is fresh, original, and generally believable.

The guy behind Q Ideas is Gabe Lyons, considered by many a leading voice on the relationship between young Christians and U.S. culture. Five years ago, he co-wrote unChristian, a bestseller that took a look at the negative perceptions young Americans have of Christians. His second book is The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America (Doubleday).

One of the things I love about The Next Christians is that the book’s premise is based on the big story of the Bible: creation, fall, redemption and restoration. He lays that groundwork because, in his view, while Christians in recent decades in the U.S. have held on to the middle parts — fall (sin) and redemption (salvation) — they’ve downplayed or missed the profound, world-shaking significance of creation and restoration. Without properly recognizing that all creation was created good and that one day God will restore all things, our understanding of the Bible and of our lives as Christians is only a “half story.” The Christians he’s writing about are rediscovering the full story, and that’s an exciting thing.

As Lyons puts it, many Christians in recent years have been separatists, removing themselves from the world while critiquing culture and bemoaning its decadence. On the other hand, many others blend right in with the world around them, not offending their neighbors but not making any distinct contributions to culture either. Fortunately, Lyons writes, there’s a new kind of Christian who doesn’t fit neatly into any of these categories, and this is where the big story of the Bible comes back into play:

I call them restorers because they envision the world as it was meant to be and they work toward that vision. Restorers seek to mend earth’s brokenness. They recognize that the world will not be completely healed until Christ’s return, but they believe that the process begins now as we partner with God. Through sowing seeds of restoration, they believe others will see Christ through us and the Christian faith will reap a much larger harvest. (p. 47)

He then lays out several characteristics of these restorers who see the Christian faith as vital to thriving in every sphere of society, and he introduces us to a handful who embody each trait. I won’t fully summarize all the characteristics, but will quickly list them:

  • Provoked, not offended
  • Creators, not critics
  • Called, not employed
  • Grounded, not distracted
  • In Community, not alone
  • Countercultural, not “relevant”

Okay, right about now you may be thinking: Great, here’s another arrogant, young jerk who knows exactly what everyone before him has done wrong and is sure that his generation has finally got it all figured out. But I don’t think that’s his intent. He expresses hope that good things are happening among these “next Christians” (young and old alike), but he also writes humbly, in my view, careful not to flippantly disparage anybody.

He calls us all back to the gospel of Christ, and urges us to keep first things first and second things in their proper places. Social justice, creation care, entrepreneurship, the arts — so many of the wonderful things these “next Christians” are doing as restorers where they live and work — are second things. They’re hugely important, and they matter a great deal. But when they become first things they become distractions, or even idols. We need to keep first things first:

The first thing for the Christian is to recover the Gospel — to relearn and fall in love again with that historic, beautiful, redemptive, faithful, demanding, reconciling, all-powerful, restorative, atoning, grace-abounding, soul-quenching, spiritually fulfilling good news of God’s love… It is critical that this come first. (p. 192)

Will these “next Christians” go down in the history books as “restorers” as Lyons predicts? It’s hard to say. Certainly some will, just as some have throughout the history of the church. I do think a new thing is happening among this generation of Christians, and it excites me. But Lyons is absolutely right that if restorers aren’t rooted in the gospel, it’s nothing but a passing fad, and the worst stereotypes may only be further reinforced. This generation is certainly marked by its declared intent to change the world; I hope we’ll also be marked by a humble faith.

Do you see these changes taking place where you live, work and worship? Are you skeptical about these “next Christians”or hopeful?

What does it mean to be a good Christian citizen?

If we’re honest, it’s not a question many of us think that much about. We know whether we lean to the right or the left politically, whether we favor limited government or not, and we may feel strongly about a number of hot-button issues. But have we considered how our theology and our understanding of Scripture ought to shape the ways in which we practice citizenship? Have we thought theologically about citizenship?

Being a good Christian citizen means a lot more than going to the voting booth once every four years and forwarding emails to relatives in the time in between. But an election year is as good a time as any to give some thought to citizenship and what it might mean for us to be good Christian citizens.

Stephen Monsma, author of Healing for a Broken World: Christian Perspectives on Public Policy (Crossway) and former member of the Michigan state House and Senate, believes we need to start with the big story of the Bible. “Thinking about creation, sin and redemption,” he writes, “are crucial to right thinking about today’s public-policy issues.”

Creation. Sin. Redemption. Not where we usually start when thinking about public policy, is it?

Starting in Genesis, we see that when God created the world and put Adam and Eve in the garden, they experienced shalom. “Shalom,” Monsma writes, “is the peace one finds among people who delight in living, working, and achieving together.” That’s God’s design for life on earth. Obviously, that’s not life as we know it. Humanity disregarded God’s intentions and rebelled against him in sin. We see the collateral damage around us every day. But God didn’t give up on us. In Christ, he has brought about redemption —  restoring humanity’s relationship to God, and enabling us to be reconciled to each other and to the world in which we live. Shalom is a real possibility again. It won’t be fully realized until Christ returns and brings about the new heavens and the new earth, but there are bits and pieces of it everywhere, even in the places we’d least suspect.

Even in government.

Drawing on Abraham Kuyper’s “sphere sovereignty” teaching that there’s an important purpose in God’s design for every sphere of society, including family, church, state, business, art and academia, Monsma shows that despite what some Christians and pundits may lead us to believe, government does have an important role to play in the flourishing — yes, the shalom — of society.

In the first section of the book, Monsma lays out the biblical principles that are needed as a foundation before considering specific application in public policy terms. Building on the creation-sin-redemption motif, he argues that “acting as Christ’s agents of redemption in the political realm” we’re to support what is just. The Bible is clear in its condemnations of injustice, whether at the hands of his people, at the hands of unbelieving citizens, and at the hands of the government. Doing justice and working against injustice is a crucial part of what Christian citizens are to do in their own lives as they’re able, and they are right to ask the same of governing authorities. This is directly tied to the principle of solidarity, “the conviction that Christians cannot simply sit idly by when their fellow human beings are suffering and in need.”

While Monsma affirms the positive role the state can and must play, he also clearly understands its limits, and sees “civil society” (social institutions and organizations) playing a crucial part as well. Indeed, as Monsma says, some of the best work the government does to contribute to human flourishing is in partnership with nonprofits and social service providers, including many faith-based ones.

The second half of the book tackles specific issues: church and state; abortion and euthanasia; poverty; creation care; human rights; poverty in Africa; and war and terrorism. While Monsma wisely refrains from making pronouncements about the particular positions all Christians ought to take on each of these complex issues, he does explore them in detail and in light of the creation-sin-redemption story of the Bible, and carefully considering the implications of those central principles of justice and solidarity.

Thinking theologically about citizenship is an essential, ongoing process that will equip us to better participate in politics and civil society — not just once every four years, but as a regular part of following Christ and living in light of the implications of the good news, “far as the curse is found.”

Thinking theologically about citizenship should also give us a measure of humility, as we recognize the sheer complexity of the issues, and as we realize we’re not innocent bystanders in the undoing of shalom. May that humility serve us well as we in turn seek to love our neighbors as Christian citizens.

How might the biblical story of creation, sin and redemption change the way you consider citizenship and public policy? Are the principles of justice and solidarity central to your understanding of citizenship and public policy? If not, what principles are foundational for you, and how do they relate to the Christian story?

[Photo credit: latimes.com - a swearing in ceremony for 18,000 new U.S. citizens in Los Angeles in 2008.]