Thinking Clearly, or not, about Football, War and Bell Towers

(Blogger note:  This blog has fallen into a period of inactivity lately.  Last semester was a particularly heavy semester for me and something had to give.  That something was the blog.  But I’m going to try to get it up and running again.)

It is hard to think clearly when one feels threatened, angry or anxious.  Some of the stupidest things I’ve said in my life have come in the midst of Notre Dame football games. Consider, also, what war does to our thinking.

During the Civil War, it was common to find sermons like that from a northern evangelical minister who proclaimed that the conflict was between “the rebellion of a proud, luxurious, lascivious, unprincipled, murderous Absalom, against his noble, unsuspecting, too affectionate and over-indulgent father, David.”  For their side, southern ministers preached messages such as, “the fall of Sumter…was a signal gun from the battlements of heaven, announcing from God to every Southern State this cause is mine.”  Yep.  Ministers were pretty clear about what God was up to, weren’t they?

Germans.  A threat to the American home since the 3rd century.

Germans. A threat to the American home since the 3rd century.

During World War I, Americans did not simply shun German culture by changing the names of “frankfurters” to “liberty sausages” or towns (like mine) from “New Berlin” to “North Canton.”  War anxiety also led Americans into darker behaviors.  A German immigrant in St. Louis was lynched.  The US government depicted the Germans (these people who had produced Beethoven, Kant, and Einstein, to name a few) as barbaric “Huns” who were out to destroy civilization. Americans also eliminated German language instruction from thousands of schools because, apparently, if kids learn to speak German they’ll develop an irresistible urge to invade Belgium.

Of course, we all know that during World War II Americans became so anxious and fearful of Japanese-Americans that they were placed in internment camps.  As a governmental official in California explained in justifying this policy, “the very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.”  Right.  And the fact that Ecuador has not invaded us to date is disturbing confirmation that they will.

We need to understand this about ourselves.  Anxiety, fear and anger lead us to think in muddled ways that then lead to damaging behavior.

This is just as true today, when we feel anxiety, fear and anger over the recent terrorist attacks in Paris.  Radical Islamists pose a real threat, of course.  But just as Americans made sweeping stereotypes of enemies in the Civil War, WWI and WWII that led to unjust actions, we need to remember that we can do the same.

That is why I bring up the comments of fellow evangelical, Franklin Graham.  Now, Graham does great work with Samaritan’s Purse and elsewhere, but I’m concerned about recent proclamation he has made.

They grew from a dispute at Duke University, when the institution decided to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer from the campus bell tower.  There is a valid issue about whether or not it was wise or good for an occasionally Christian chapel at a formerly Christian university to do this. A healthy discussion could be given on that, but that is not what I am concerned about here.

Franklin Graham said this: “As Christianity is being excluded from the public square and followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their Sharia Islamic law, Duke is promoting this in the name of religious pluralism.”

Here is the problem:  Graham lumped millions upon millions of Muslims into one category of “raping, butchering and beheading.”  The overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world (and in the United States) are not radical extremists.  Most Muslims believe, theologically, that these terrorists are not true Muslims and that Osama bin Laden is in hell right now.  It is true that most segments of Islam have a problem with the modern idea of religious freedom, and that is worth discussing.  But to lump all Muslims together with terrorist groups because these groups claim to speak for Allah is the same as lumping all white Christians together with the Ku Klux Klan because they claimed to be defending the Bible and burn crosses in people’s yards.

This calls for clearer thinking and a more humble approach to this difficult and complicated situation.  I understand that many Americans do not understand Islam very well, meaning it is easy to draw hasty conclusions from news bites and media stereotypes.  It’s a problem for many Americans and many Christians.  I’m saddened that Graham has fallen into this line of thinking.

Graham, I’m guessing, feels threatened from two directions.  Like many evangelicals, he probably feels threatened by those who would like to sweep the public square of any religious references or who would like to try to relativize all religions in such a way as to depict them as essentially the same.  Those are valid points.  Like many people in the US, Europe and the Middle East, he probably also feels threatened by the horrendous actions of the extremist Islamic terrorist groups.  That is a valid threat as well.

The really difficult part?  Christians are commanded, by the grace of God, to love those they disagree with and those they consider their enemies.  Prejudicial stereotyping comes from the anxious and sinful parts of our nature (a nature I share as well) not from the grace that has been given to us.

Realize also that I am not saying Islam and Christianity are the same.  I would like to see Muslims come to Christ, just as I would like to see all people in the world come to a deep, full union with Christ.  But the practice of lumping all Muslims together as terrorists is not only a really, really bad way to evangelize, it makes the work of evangelicals working with Muslims much more difficult.  Unfortunately, statements like those made by Franklin Graham work against the evangelistic goals that his father represented in his life.

So, let us start by asking God to give us the grace to love better.  The first step in loving somebody who is unfamiliar to us is to try to get to understand them better, which includes trying to see matters from their shoes.  The Muslims I know about in northeast Ohio feel threatened and besieged and misunderstood in the aftermath of every terrorist attack that hits the news.  Evangelicals ought to know what it feels like to be misrepresented in the media.  From there, we might be able to better figure out what to do about such a complicated issue as Islamic prayers in the Duke bell tower.

Is this News to You? The New York Times has a Blind Spot with Religion.

In the last couple of weeks, pro-democracy protests have been surging through Hong Kong.  Evangelical Christians are playing a significant role in the organization and leadership of the Umbrella Movement leading the protests.

Yet, in its extensive coverage of these developments, the New York Times doesn’t  discuss religion.

Are you surprised by this?

I am not.

An example:  The Times ran a front page story last week (October 2) about Joshua Wong, who is leading the pro-democracy student protests.  The paper ran the headline, “At 17, Leading Protests That Rattle Hong Kong.”  Several pages later the story continued with a second headline, “Student at Forefront of Hong Kong Democracy Movement is Unlikely Agitator.”

Joshua Wong

Joshua Wong

What makes him unlikely?  Well, he is young.  We find out that Wong started protests of government curriculum in his school three years ago.  And we learn that he represents an idealistic culture of protest.  We also learn that his university entrance exam scores were middling.

What else is unlikely?  It would be unlikely for the Times to recognize that Joshua Wong has been shaped by evangelical Christianity.  The article did mention that Wong’s parents were “Protestants who kindled a concern for social justice,” but that is the only mention of religion in any of the articles the Times reported.

It is not just Wong.  A disproportionate number of protesters in Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement are Christian.  The same goes for the Scholarism movement that Wong founded several years ago.  Two of the three leaders of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement are Christian.   And interestingly, some of the criticism of the movement, as well, comes from Christian leaders.  One of the most vocal critics in Hong Kong is an Anglican bishop.  The Times does not mention any of this.

I’m not surprised because, as I mentioned in my last post, the Times has a blind spot when it comes to religion.  Now, I should mention that I subscribe to The New York Times.  It’s a good way for me to get relatively deep coverage of world events.  That is, the coverage is good unless religion (particularly Christianity) is a significant factor in the story.  It appears to me that the people in power at that newspaper just don’t understand religion or have a good sense for how it could motivate modern people, particularly in public ways.

The Times is not alone in that regard.  A lot of the news media has a blind spot when it comes to religion, Christianity and evangelicalism.  Much of the rest of our news media is just like the Times in this regard.  That is one reason why many American Christians argue that there is a liberal bias in the media.

But the problem of blind spots is not just with “liberal media.”  The “conservative media” has its own blind spots.  (See Bill O’Reilly on race, for instance).

The problem with blind spots is us.  By “us” I mean those individuals who breathe and think and have desires, a demographic that covers a remarkably high percentage of people.

I have blind spots.  So do you.  We don’t know what they are, because we are “blind” to them.  Get it?

Every now and then, our eyes are opened, at least a little bit.  That was the point of my embarrassing story about my exchange with the post-modern feminist on my dissertation committee.  You might recall that she asked rather pointedly how I could claim to provide a solid analysis of the evangelical missionary movement and not consider women, since women made up a majority of missionaries.

I wonder, then, what would happen if were able to ask the editors of The New York Times how they could claim to be investigating the causes of this pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and not consider the role Christianity plays, since Christians make up a good deal of the leadership?  Of course, people like me don’t have the ear of the Times editors.  And even when our blind spots are pointed out, we often don’t truly believe that they exist.  So we don’t see them.  I doubt I could convince the Times editors that they have a blind spot.

But the point here is not to tweak the noses of The New York Times.  (Well, OK, I have to confess that I do actually want to tweak the noses of The New York Times.)

My point is that we need to realize that all of us have blind spots and we need to be aware that they exist, even if we don’t know what, exactly, they are.

Religious Ignorance in a Religious Society

A paradox:  the United States is the most religious of all industrialized (and thus, highly-educated) societies in the world.  But Americans, on the whole, are very ignorant about religion. For those of you who are interested, I wrote about this on another website.

Mahmoud Whatshisname, the President of that nation “somewhere over in Islam.” What do I mean by this? You’ll just have to follow the link to the Church History site to find out.

I was asked to post a blog on the American Society of Church History site.   I decided to ask my fellow academics if there is something that can be done about the ignorance of religion (and Christianity) in American society.  It’s a blog directed toward scholars, but non-academics might be interested, as well.  You can find it here.

 

 

A High Church Prayer of the Day for Low Church Readers

Today I present a formal prayer for all of you out there who are informal in your spiritual life. In fact, this day, December 28, 2012, seems to be a good day to consider how church tradition can aid spiritual life.

Let me explain.

Most evangelicals (though not all) are what we sometimes refer to as “non-liturgical” or “low church.”  This means, among other things, that they are more informal in their worship practices, avoid “rituals,” and do not follow the historic church calendar (with the exception of recognizing Christmas and Easter in some way).  This stems from practices advanced by some Protestants during the Reformation who believed that high church traditions and rituals encouraged a works-based theology and made worship something based on outward actions rather than inward matters of the heart.  Calvinists, Pietists, Mennonites, and Quakers moved in this low church direction while Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians tended to maintain liturgical forms of worship.  (Evangelicalism was born from a blend of Calvinist, Pietist and Methodist impulses).

But let me, as a member of a non-liturgical church (Evangelical Friends) put in a word for the high church tradition.  First, we should remember that while it is true that liturgical practices can become empty routines, the same can be said for low church spirituality.  Second, there are riches to be found in the traditions of Christianity.  Following a church calendar, for instance, can focus our attention on biblical passages that we might otherwise pass over rather quickly.  And reciting formal prayers, written by those schooled in solid theology, can help us articulate matters that we have difficulty expressing on our own.

That brings us to today.  Those Christians who follow a high church calendar mark December 28 as a day to remember the children of Bethlehem whom Herod killed in his deranged passion to eliminate Jesus Christ.  In light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, it seems especially fitting that we reflect on this event from Matthew 2.

To my recollection, I have only come across one evangelical church that has incorporated this event into their Christmas season.  This church was the Kijabe African Inland Church in Kenya, which included Herod’s slaughter in the Christmas play that their children performed.  That sight of Kikuyu Christian children acting out a slaughter of the boys in Bethlehem suddenly struck me as odd, not because they had included it in their Christmas play, but because I had never seen any other Bible-believing evangelicals in the United States include it.  For whatever reason, most American evangelicals would rather avoid this story at Christmas.  It is, after all, a painful story to recount in a season that we associate with joy, peace and happiness.  And it is difficult to know how to incorporate tragedies such as this in a context of worship.

And here is where church tradition helps us.  By turning our attention to a passage that we are inclined to skip over, and by articulating a prayer that is difficult to express on our own, we can participate in the work of the Kingdom of God in a way that we might otherwise miss.

Even though the birth of Christ brings peace on earth, we still live in a deeply fallen world.  Sometimes, as the Newtown tragedy and Herod’s rage demonstrates, those two realities appear shockingly close together.  So, as we pray for the families in Connecticut who are enduring a very difficult Christmas season, let us also consider the difficulties that beset this world and the source of hope for its redemption.

The version of the following traditional prayer comes from a devotional work by Phyllis Tickle entitled The Divine Hours:  Prayers for Autumn and Wintertime:

We remember today, O God, the slaughter of the holy innocents of Bethlehem by King Herod.  Receive, we pray, into the arms of your mercy all innocent victims; and by your great might frustrate the designs of evil tyrants and establish your rule of justice, love, and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and resigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen. 

The Real St. Nicholas Had Guts

Cheery Christmas message for the day:   the real St. Nicholas might actually intimidate and unsettle most of us.  I don’t mean intimidate and unsettle in the way many of us were when we were five years old and found ourselves in an department store sitting on the lap of a strange man in a red suit with a fake cotton beard who was asking us questions about toys.  Yes, that was kind of intimidating and unsettling to many young ones.  I mean intimidate and unsettle in a way that shakes us into asking hard questions about what it means to be a person of deep Christian faith.  Intimidated and unsettled in a good way.

 

Jolly old St. Nicholas….?

Peter Enns calls St. Nicholas a beast.  I won’t tell you more here, because his  post is so good you need to read it for yourself.  You should check out what he has to say about St. Nick and ask yourself if maybe it might be helpful to get shaken a bit this Christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bloggers Who Direct You to Other Blogs that Blog about Books by the Blogger Who Directed You to that Blog

Uh, that would be me, in this blog.

I keep forgetting that one of the things that happens on blogs is that the blogger gets to promote his/her own book.

Over at the “Hermeneutic Circle,” Jared Burkholder of Grace College interviewed me about An Unpredicatable Gospel.  You can check out the interview here and here.

And you should take a peruse through Jared’s blog as well.

 

 

 

http://www.hermeneuticcircle.com/2012/10/jay-case-on-evangelicals-and-world.html