Loving Our Enemies

I have a confession. Not long after 9/11, I was walking to the bus stop to take the express bus to Midtown Manhattan. Waiting there were two young men from the Pakistan/Afghanistan region. They were smiling and wearing backpacks as they waited for the bus, and I 'profiled' them. In a moment of fear I stepped away and decided to be late to my meeting and take the next bus. Some reading this may empathize and assume that my reaction was justified. Others will see the guilt behind my stereotyping and panic response. Either way, for me in that moment the reality of having enemies that would travel half way across the planet just to kill someone like me seemed very real -- even if I was wrong about those two men.

There are surely people who want to kill us. They want to hurt us because of the passport we carry, or they may despise us for our ethnicity. Many have real disdain for those in the opposite political party. Some people really do hate Christians -- though as good liberals they won't use the word "hate." And yes, some who claim to be Christians actually hate them right back -- maybe even hated them first. Recently a Nazi walked into a Sikh temple and opened fire. Because it happened to a Sikh temple it may still seem rather foreign or detached for some, but what if it was a Baptist church in Dallas? It's happened before.

In 70 AD, Jerusalem was under siege by the Roman Army and virtually destroyed. Some forty years before that in what appears to be a collusion of powers, they hung Jesus of Nazareth on a cross to die, and it was not uncommon to hang dozens from crosses on the side of a road where all who could see the penalty for questioning Pax Romana. Within decades of Jesus' first teaching The Sermon on the Mount, followers of Christ would be thrown into prison, burned alive, beheaded, and face lions in arenas. Yet, it was into this environment of power and violence that Jesus says "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

We have enemies. They may not even know our name, but they want to hurt us or at least what we represent. Maybe against one's religion or against one's ethnicity or against one's nationality or perhaps out of utter irrational madness, but for whatever reason, the hate burns. Share the Good News boldly; there will be opposition. Live a quiet life, and there will still be someone who simply hates something about you. We have enemies. Yet, Jesus says AGAPE them. Love them. Pray for them. This one command is a world-changer.

When we refuse to love our enemies, it is no small matter. We are plainly in rebellion against Jesus the Lord. In a moment of defiance, we are choosing to be a son of this world rather than an imitator of Christ. This doesn't mean that we don't feel the pain, even the anger, or the longing for a redeemed world, but Jesus, who took up a cross, does call us to a different response. We speak differently, act differently, and even learn with the help of His Spirit to think differently. Our response to evil makes all the difference in the world. We could talk about Ghandi, a Hindu, who learned the principles of peaceful resistance from reading the Sermon on the Mount. We could talk about Martin Luther King Jr. or about the reconciliation efforts of Nelson Mandela or about John Perkins, nearly murdered in a Mississippi jail in the '60's and his ministry partnership, a former Klan member. Stories such as these turn our world upside down.

Still, it is the stories of countless millions obeying Christ that creates the tidle wave of counter-cultural love. The greatest revolution the world has ever known has been the daily obedience of Christ-followers to submit to the command to "Love our enemies." And obeying Jesus changes everything. When we respond to the evil in our world with the Way of the cross, we are filled with the power that ultimately defeats evil. Conversely, when our response mirrors that of the world, evil is further empowered and armed to swell in its destructive force. When we refuse to love our enemies, I can't help but think that we are indeed refusing Jesus himself. Can we really do anything else and still call ourselves Christians?

Worldviews In Conflict

We are living in the midst of worldviews in tension. It explains any number of very real issues facing the church, especially in Western society. For much of Western secular society, the climax of human history is the Enlightenment. This is when human history surged forward and our journey into ever greater human accomplishment began reaching extraordinary heights. Reason emerged, and the pathway to a secularized society began. And indeed, many great accomplishments have come from this period, and human reason is a God-given gift. Despite the holocaust, world wars, nuclear weapons, and various other atrocities, we also have seen diseases cured, human rights championed around the globe, and amazing quality of life advancements enjoyed by hundreds of millions (though certainly not by all).

For many, the underlying framework for understanding human reality is rooted in seeing our story through the lens of the Enlightenment as the climax of our story. The (Western) arrival at Reason marks the centerpiece of our existence, but more than that it shapes the way we understand our existence. That is, progressive achievement and human knowledge supersedes -- and often displaces -- revelatory encounter. Our epistemological worldview becomes rooted in human progress as our authority. However, for followers of Christ, the Western Englightenment is not the grand summit of human history. As we are "transformed by the renewing of our minds", our worldview experiences (or perhaps should experience) a major shift. It is not, I certainly should say, a rejection of such helpful tools as scientific method nor a wholesale adoption of fundamentalist principles and the problems that come that. However, such a reorientation is indeed a completely different framework for understanding human history, standards of morality, and existential truth.

Followers of the Way have embraced a different way of seeing reality. Our shift in allegiance is accompanied by an exchange of lenses -- a shift in interpretative frameworks. Simply put, we believe that the incarnation, passion, and victory of Jesus is the climax of human history. Jesus -- not the Enlightenment -- is the centerpiece of our story and provides the framework for interpreting what is real. Giving our allegiance to Jesus is so much more than a personal spiritual moment but is indeed paramount to entering a new narrative of human experience. The great summit of human history is not the Enlightenment nor the progressive achievements that have followed. Rather, at the core of our confession is that the defining moment of history is the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Incidentally, at a time (and for the last two centuries) that the Bible has been increasingly marginalized, this highlights why the Scriptures are our source of authority for faith, morality, and our understanding of what is true. Jesus himself embodies divine revelation, and the nearest witnesses of that revelation speak with the greatest authority about what was indeed revealed through his incarnation. The writers of the New Testament shared a proximity with Jesus -- who stands at the climax of human history as the Incarnated Word -- that no one else in human history may claim. While some were actual eye witnesses of Jesus, others were companions and contemporaries of these eye witnesses. Everyone is within a generation of God's clearest revelation of truth embodied in the crucified Messiah. These early witnesses shared a cultural, geographic, temporal, and spatial proximity to Jesus, and so they set the stage for a worldview rooted in the life and proclamation of the Resurrected Messiah. Along similar lines, Jesus models a way of reading the Bible as he interacts with Hebrew Scriptures in light of particular contemporary challenges in His first century context. It's worth saying that embracing Scripture's authority doesn't equal a license for reading it badly. Nevertheless, the witness and instructions passed down from those with greatest proximity to Jesus the Word provide our essential framework for discerning morality, ethics, and essential truths. Our center for understanding human experience and our existential hope is in Jesus and His Resurrection.

Today, at least in Western nations, these two worldviews are in conflict. Post-Enlightenment worldviews who inherently root their understanding of reality in human progress, often perceive that modern Reason trumps claims made by Christian scriptures. Many Christian believers have internalized the conflict because they believe the story of the Resurrection, but yet they are tied to a different (ie., post-Enlightenment) meta-narrative. Such an internal conflict stirs no small amount of dissonance. Furthermore, many secularists fail to recognize the extent to which much of our generally accepted ethics are rooted to varying degrees in the Christian story. Of course, the modern meta-narrative continues to be challenged as humanity graduates from slaughtering thousands with spears and swords to killing millions with bullets and bombs.

As followers of Jesus, we are called into a different story. As a result, our framework or worldview for interpreting truth, evaluating Biblical texts, and guiding our morality is rooted in the revealed Word, the apex of human existence. When we place our faith in Jesus, we are doing more than simply adopting another set of religious practices. We step into the narrative that shapes an alternative worldview, and so we share in telling an alternative story.

Christians Really Should Be Independents

I'm a political junkie. I enjoy following politics the way some folks follow race horses. However, as a follower of Christ in America, I am increasingly convinced that the proper affiliation for a Christian is independent. Amy Black, a professor of political science at Wheaton College, was asked in an interview whether she thought Jesus would be a Democrat or Republican. Her response? Basically, "Neither. God's Kingdom is a monarchy." This, for me, highlights one of the major hurdles that we face as Christians in the United States. Most of my brothers and sisters in Christ identify strongly as either Democrat or Republican. Yet, I can't help but think that the Gospel calls us to transcend these partisan categories. I'm not saying that we should abstain from civic responsibility or public action. As Black also pointed out in the same interview, that by evangelical believers aligning themselves without compromise to one party, the other party can simply ignore them completely. That's not even good political leveraging to say the least, but I think more is going on here. Could it be that the American church has been overtaken by nationalism to such an extent that our worldviews are more shaped by our political affiliations than by the Gospel? We can describe both parties fairly well both by their policies and also by the attitudes that characterize the public discourse of one party or the other. If my worldview is being shaped by the Christian Scriptures and if that Word is my criteria for evaluating the moral and political stances of each party, I am frankly dumbfounded by any other position than being an independent. As a Christian, I am certainly opposed to abortion, and believe fighting for the extension of the adoption tax credit is a worthy fight to join. I am inclined to prefer less government involvement in affairs that might affect my religious liberty, and as a matter of precedent I think it is a good idea to defend other's religious liberty as well even if I am simultaneously laboring to win them to belief in Christ. Efforts to preserve healthy family structures is good, and as a homeschool family, I find myself aligned in some ways with libertarian conservatives. Yet, I can't find trickle-down economics in the Bible. Instead, I read of Jubilee and the injustice of charging usury (interest). Conservatives are often on the right side of a "social issue" when it comes to sexual ethics; however, at the same time they often demonstrate hateful, spiteful attitudes that bear no resemblance to Jesus when He is interacting with the same sort of crowd. On the other hand, as a Christian, I cannot endorse or affirm any expression of anti-immigrant sentiment. When Christians demonstrate spiteful attitudes towards immigrants, I often wonder what Bible they're reading. I feel that taking initiative at healthcare reform is a just and right issue. Even if the solutions for how to do it are debatable, taking the initiative is admirable. I live among hard working families in the poorest urban county in the nation. Whether struggling Hispanic families in Texas or poor White families in Appalachia, taking the initiative to help economically-challenged families is good and should be applauded by Christians. Yet, liberal ideologies often represent an arrogance that Scripture repeatedly warns about, and there is no shortage of hypocrisy on this side of the political aisle. This side does its share of scapegoating, and if conservatives are guilty of trying to uphold a cultural Christendom, then liberals are guilty of representing the good, the bad, and the ugly of post-Christendom. Even if I believe the so called "culture wars" are a waste of time and only hurts the church's credibility in the long run, I can't in good conscience stand with some of the key liberal ideologies simply because I must allow my worldview to be swept up in the the teachings of the Apostles rather than the ideologies of either democrat or republican. Since each major political party has divided these issues between them, which one is more righteous? They both represent some ideas that might seem more in line with the Gospel. They both also represent some ideas that are diametrically opposed to the social ethics of the Gospel. I firmly believe that most faithful political positioning for a follower of Christ is to be independent of both parties but also to be willing to work with others -- despite affiliations -- for the shalom of the city. If our highest allegiance is to Christ our Lord, then our civic duty is going to transcend partisan loyalties, and we will regain our vision that has been so often clouded by our nationalist tendencies. In reality, Christians are monarchists too. "Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

Post-Christendom is Now

Over the last couple of months the church in NYC has felt the rise of Post-Christendom in very tangible ways. A court decision that was years in the making has resulted in more than 65 churches begin evicted from renting space in public school buildings during after-hours, typically on Sundays. As the news of the legal turn made it's way through the proverbial grapevine, officials with NYC Housing Authority independently decided that the decision must apply to them too and proceeded to evict churches from renting space in Housing Authority buildings. (Ironically, these are often churches sacrificially giving a degree of counseling, mentoring, and life skills to the poorest communities that the city is typically too over-burdened to realistically provide.)

Churches, evangelical politicians, and Christian leaders across the city are uniting and organizing to protest. As a matter of democracy, there are significant nuances to this case that ought to be a concern to others even beyond the Christian community just as a civic matter. However, for the church as a theological community, I have to take pause and ask, "What sort of response does God want us to have?" Is this a moment to stand against the rising tide of post-Christendom and defy it's seemingly inevitable progress? It may be, and in our immediate rush to fight for our rights, I also hope that don't we miss grasping the subversive nature of the Gospel when it's forced to the margins. How is God calling His people to respond? I think it is an important question to ponder. Is this a moment when the church scrambles for space and protests its evictions, or is it a moment like so many times in history (for example, the early church in the Roman Empire or the Chinese church of the 20th century) when the church goes "underground" only to grow in its influence and societal impact through a newly recovered missionary identity. Could it be a moment to step into the dissonance and re-think how we do church in order to better reflect our new Post-Christendom missionary context?

Of course, this is not the only real-life metaphor of Post-Christendom emerging in place of America's once cultural Christendom. The highly controversial and wildly popular decisions for gay marriage is another example. (Before saying another word, it's important to note that it is quite a complicated example as a civic matter in a democracy as well, but I'm focusing on the theological-historical reality.) During the Hellenistic period, the evidence of primary sources (several of which I've read in recent months) points to a range of homosexual relationships and behaviors, including literature and songs celebrating gay marriages. Of course the Christian community held out an alternative view of sexuality (Yes at one point in history heterosexual covenant monogamy was the alternative lifestyle!) Following the rise of Christendom, the Christian sex ethic prevailed at least as a public standard, and many sexual practices were largely suppressed -- while improprieties quietly continued. After centuries of a cultural Christendom, Western society is returning to a much wider range of sexual philosophies and practices, and it is a shock to the system of many Christian communities who continue to hold on to Biblical authority. However, I think the real shock isn't bumping up against immorality of one sort or another (that's always been there under surface of Christendom's power), but it's the realty of no longer having control.

How does the church respond to the rise of Post-Christendom? Do we engage in the political process in order to influence policy? Maybe, but if so, we are wise to differentiate the difference between Christianity and Christendom as we engage a pluralistic society. (The stories of Christendom -- both past and present -- have plenty of examples that don't reflect what is actually Christian, in the Biblical sense.) Do we re-organize church communities to contextualize for Post-Christendom society? Do we find a prophetic voice that better represents a witness from the margins? Can the church in the West regain it's identity as a missionary community in a land where they are not in control? Or, as some might argue, does the church fight tooth and nail to retain a place of power in public policy?

The church in the West faces tremendous challenges. In truth, I don't know the right answers to all these questions. Ultimately, I do hope that we ask the right questions, and I hope that we are faithful to how the Lord leads us, especially when it requires courage to enter a country as exiles to be salt and light in a land that we no longer know.

Christians & Occupy Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been on my mind lately. After all, this phenomenon has found its center, not unlike other global events, in Lower Manhattan. I understand the reasons why many conservative Christians, whom I love and respect, might be skeptical of such a protest. However, I want to offer a pause for reflection.

Some might suggest that this protest is just the left wing response to the Tea Party. There may be some truth to that, but I think something more is going on in the world right now -- though it is hard to say exactly what the outcome will be -- than the scuffles between Democrats & Republicans. Christians who share the same theological convictions still face a pragmatic debate about involving small government or big government in the issues we face. That's a legitimate pragmatic argument in a democracy even between those of shared convictions. However, there seems to be more going on here. For instance, the Tea Party solidified as a movement that appears to stand for lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, and tackling debt. They mobilized quickly and efficiently and aimed at shaping government policy. However, Occupy Wall Street has made its center a political demonstration at the steps of private commerce. Many of the participants may indeed cast their votes to liberal candidates, but there is a fundamental difference between this group and related movements.... at least so far. First, unlike anything we've seen for a long time (or ever?), there is a sense of global solidarity shared by many of these people movements right now. Whether for good or for ill, it is a reality. They are aiming their demonstration towards the private sector which, at least for now, has a way of transcending the big government vs. small government debate. In addition, there are some general values on economic justice -- without getting into role of government -- shared with the Christian Scriptures.

Some Christians might be skeptical because of those participating in Occupy Wall Street that are just so left wing that such a movement is a bit scary. I'm turned off by some of these more extreme elements as well, but I was also turned off by some of the racism, xenophobia, scapegoating, and such imagery seen in the earliest Tea Party rallies. To characterize all of Occupy Wall Street with the left-wing fringe is about as fair as saying all Tea Party members are racist. Both would be unfair. I've listened to both sets of demonstrations carefully and there are both good people and crazies in both groups. And before writing off Occupy Wall Street as just strange, we may want to remember some of the protests of men like Ezekiel. That was strange indeed.

We might remember Jesus walking into the temple courts and targeting the money changers and those selling doves -- typically the sacrifice of the poor. It wouldn't have disrupted the actual sales & exchanges for more than a few hours, but it was a prophetic statement. We often assert that Jesus was upset about the mixing of economics and religion, but that seems to be a uniquely modern Western assertion. His quoting Jeremiah, as well as the particular businesses that were challenged by Him, leads me to believe that he was confronting corrupt economic practices such as unjust scales or usury (charging interest). Or consider the celebration of Jubilee. It was put in place to cancel debts every 50 years and was equivalent to hitting the economic reset button every half century. Implications? If practiced faithfully, this would have dissolved the possibility of a fattening ruling class at the expense of the rest of the nation.

We could go on & on about Biblical protests in the face of economic injustices, and after the 1980's Saving & Loan scandals, Enron, Bernie Madoff, and the 2008 Recession, it makes sense that Christians would represent a prophetic voice confronting economic injustice and speaking for those crushed by it. Everyone might not agree with the voting record of the folks camping at Wall Street or the strategy for tackling injustice, and we may still debate size and role of government. However, the prophetic role of such a protest can't be ignored if we are to take the economic message of the Bible seriously.

So how do Christians approach the phenomenon of Occupy Wall Street? Some may join them and make some new liberal friends! One of our church members went down and joined up with the Occupy Wall Street Chaplains. Some may speak and work in other circles on behalf of the poor. One of our other church members, a theologian, has worked on NYC's wage equality campaign. We may pray for those being crushed by powerful economic forces and lend a hand whenever possible. Though nearly everyone is stretched, we see generosity demonstrated by followers of Christ in a thousand small ways on a regular basis. And if a believer happens to be a conservative wall street broker who would consider this protest antithetical to your vocation, Jesus also says, "Love your enemies." Perhaps you might consider finding a Wall Street protester and buying them a cup of coffee.

Three Important Questions

I regularly get to interact with people from across a continuum of spiritual development -- from unbelief to new belief to obedient discipleship, and many points in between. While I can become intellectually & spiritually exhausted at times, every single relationship is truly a privilege. I have a host of teachers.

In recent months I've contemplated a lot upon the journey that many experience from complete unbelief to belief in Christ, and I've felt sadness for those who's journey is unlikely to lead to belief which leads to faith which leads to hope. The more I've thought about it, three key questions keep coming to mind, and each of these questions have implications.

*1* Is there a God or, more succinctly, a Creator?
Countless arguments have been made for God's very existence. Centuries ago, philosophers argued in favor of a prime mover. In other words, who or what set all this in motion? Someone, they argue, had to turn the universe on. Today, Christian physicists have marveled at contemporary theories for the universe indeed having a beginning, and scientists like Francis Collins argue that our hunger for transcendence is embedded in our DNA. That is, as hunger is linked to food and as sex is linked to intercourse this hunger for divinity must have an eventual point of connection at the other side of the human urge as well. Even if debatable, these are intelligent arguments. Simply put, is there God?

*2* If we conclude that it is more than likely that a Creator must exist, then another question looms in our imaginations. How does God reveal himself to his creation? If we are created being and if there is a Creator, then we are most fully human when we encounter this Creator. When we seek God, we are also in search of our own humanity because when God reveals himself, he is revealing the source of our very being.

*3* Did Jesus raise from the dead? This is unlikely to be the first question that pops into someone's head emerging from unbelief. However, it is a question that we must make a decision about. If he did raise from the dead, the most obvious explanation is to validate the claims of Jesus. If he raised from the dead and validated his identity with God as a result, then to know Jesus is to encounter the fullest revelation of God accessible to us, and the early witnesses of the fact are informants of a profound revelation of God. Much discussion for nearly 2000 years has gone into Jesus' resurrection, and N.T. Wright has written a convincing 900 page text on the topic during the last decade.

Is there a Creator? If so, we are created beings and would do well to yield to the Creator. How has he revealed himself? Understanding his revelation is a realization of what is most real about our world if he is indeed at the source of its existence. Did Jesus raise from the dead? If so, Jesus very identity seems to be validated, and that's a pretty big endorsement.

Incarnation & Scripture

In a post-Christendom age Christ-followers face the uncomfortable task of having to explain the authoritative importance of the Biblical text. "Because the Bible says so..." carries little weight among those who don't believe the Bible to start with, and yet, as followers of Jesus we claim the Bible as our authoritative guide. For those who already presuppose the authority of the Biblical text, the need to re-establish the Bible's position can truly be a frustrating endeavor. The gap in worldview with others is quite real. Nonetheless, it is a necessary pursuit. But where do we begin?

Interestingly enough, I first began contemplating the nature of the Christian Scriptures while involved in dialog with Muslims. I was trying to sort things out in my head when a Christian scholar pointed out to me that we often get the comparison backwards. We want to compare book to book, but theologically speaking, that is not an accurate comparison. He explained, the Quran is to the Jesus as Muhammad is to the Bible. In other words, Jesus is the revelation, and the Bible is the written witness of God's revelation. (In an Islamic worldview, the Quran is the revelation while Mohammad is the witness of that revelation.) I'm indebted to him for this insight, and it launched me into contemplating the nature of Christian Scripture. It launched me into a deeper appreciation of the importance of the doctrine of incarnation and just how central that theological tenet is indeed.

Jesus is the embodiment of God's revelation. That is, the Creator revealing Himself to His creation. God reveals Himself to human witnesses. Those witnesses pass on the stories of God to others and on through generations, and some of these early witnesses write down what they saw and heard. Jesus is the pinnacle of God's revealed self, so the writings that have proximity to that Revelation embodied in Christ speak the most authoritatively to us. Does God speak today? I believe He does, but we measure what we perceive to be God's revealed action today by the stories and teachings of those that have the most proximity to God's primary revelation to humanity. New Testament writers, within one or two generations of Jesus, have passed onto us the measure & standard of our belief and practice.

It's not that God can't or doesn't make Himself known now. It's not that everything He did before Jesus gets thrown out. Just the opposite. We simply begin with Jesus at the center and work our way outward. Jesus is the central and primary revelation of God. This is nuanced, of course, in that Jesus endorses the Scripture that came before Him -- while yet re-interpreting portions of it -- and He set in motion of movement that would go beyond his physical presence. As we continue His work, we discern contemporary action or doctrine based on that central revelatory manifestation in Christ. We understand Christ in His historical setting as well, and in His historical setting He helps us understand how to apply the Hebrew Scriptures in contemporary settings as aliens and exiles. We read the New Testament letters as authoritative case studies laid out by contemporaries (or perhaps near contemporaries in some cases) of Christ. We receive Paul, a gift to the church, and discover Christ in the world of first century Jewish scholarship being worked out practically in the ethics of the first multicultural church networks in the cities of Pax Romana.

We, free church believers, sometimes appear obsessed with the first century or so of Christianity. We are insistent on the authority of the New Testament text. Indeed, if we embrace the reality of Jesus as the apex of God's revelation, then the witness closest to that center is vital to us. And if we recognize the implications of incarnation (faith in action in culture), then we also seek diligently to understand Jesus in His historical cultural setting. And as we discover Jesus interacting with the theological ideas of his time, we discover the importance of the Scriptures before Him but equally recognize how easily misguided we can become in their interpretation. We take all of this and open ourselves up to be shaped and changed by it for the work of redemption in our contemporary world. The real questions to wrestle with are those centered around the reality of Jesus. If Jesus is revelation through incarnation, the Biblical witness becomes exceedingly important to us and indeed does speak authoritatively. To continue this refining work of living into that story so that it lives through us today with the help of Jesus' Spirit in us, that is the challenge worth living for.