God did it October 5, 2007
Posted by Zack in Georgia , trackback
This conference is basically one sermon after another, all day—preachers preaching to preachers. They’re fascinating and entertaining.
But I keep laughing at places in the sermons here where no one else laughs. The preachers are saying really funny things—things which they mean to be funny, but things that are so profound, and so challenging to the “churched,” that the crowd softly gasps instead of laughing. Good preachers are great at using humor to get people to listen. And you can feel the minds opening and changing here.
That’s what these pastors and church leaders came for. It’s usually true of why people go to church too, as it turns out. I know that’s the opposite of the stereotype—you thought people were going to church to be reassured of their world view, right? But it’s true.
A pastor named Erwin McManus is on now, and a lot of those gasps are taking place.
He’s challenging this audience of 11,000 on all sorts of things. Here’s one. It’s become a universal habit among Christians to verbally attribute everything good that they do and everything good that happens to God. I’ve given this a lot of thought because it’s so unusual to me, being still pretty “unchurched,” as I am.
On the one hand, “giving it to God” can be a wonderful thing. It makes Christians who believe it very humble—no matter how big their accomplishments, it wasn’t them. Moreover, it sometimes gives them great strength and confidence, because they believe (so long as they’re doing good works) that God is working through them. But best of all, it makes them accountable, in their personal judgements to God. And since these sorts of Christians believe that God just wants them to love and serve others, it’s a win win for everyone.
But on the other hand, it can cause Christians to absolve themselves from getting involved in bigger-picture social change. It’s common to believe that if “I just do God’s will”—by helping at the homeless shelter, adopting, giving away 10% of one’s income, etc.—then God will work the rest out. (Interestingly, this theology of social change has been adopted by a lot of the left too, but without God in the equation.)
So, Erwin has just taken on that whole notion in a pretty edgy and confrontational way. He began by reading from Ecclesiastes 1, where Solomon laments, that “everything is meaningless” and that there is nothing new under the sun—with the implication: just stop trying to change the world. Erwin is talking to a stadium in which probably 99% read the Bible “literally.” The concept of Biblical “inerrancy” is a complex issue that I’ll deal with in the future, and I don’t want to over simplify it here. But Erwin starts out by shouting, “Solomon was wrong!” And he backs it up with about 10 Bible verses—many in the voice of God and Jesus—that contradict Solomon’s bar on history-making.
That’s when one of those jokes came up, when I laughed and others gasped. He hollered, “God must’ve forgot to read Ecclesiastes 1!” It was funny. But, really, no one laughed. They were too busy thinking about it. Same thing happened over and over through Shane’s sermon—and almost every one that’s happened here.
And really, that’s why these folks are coming here.
After telling some stories of history-making beautiful moments made possible by Christ-like behavior by humans, Erwin closed with this:
Tag: Catalyst conferenceIf God could step into human history, and take on flesh and blood—then I have a feeling that the best thing we can do is to accept that we are human, and to step into history ourself and start making those beautiful moments.
Comments»
Revolution in Jesusland: building bridges between progressives and born-agains
Zack Exley, one of the smartest progressive online activists I know, has been maintaining a blog called “Revolution in Jesusland,” about the evangelical resurgence, with an emphasis on bridging the gap between progressive activists and evangelicals. …
It constantly amazes me how humble fundamentalists can be about human achievement — and how arrogant with regard to their own knowledge of a higher power that by their own belief the human mind cannot comprehend.
It’s good to know there are other people like me out there who love Jesus with everything we’ve got, and are finding out that the stuff he said and the way Christians today conduct themselves really don’t have much to do with each other. We even have a name… “Progressive Evangelical”. I took a political quiz yesterday to identify my closest matched presidential candidate and it turned out to be Kucinich. Don’t tell my dad!
Catalyst: The Facts
This year’s Catalyst conference was the biggest ever. Over 11,000 church leaders gathered to hear from the likes of Rick Warren, Francis Chan, Andy Stanley and more. I didn’t think I’d go on with session by session notes — partially because I didn…
Sorry if this is a bit OT. But I have to respond to Phil.
I don’t think it’s really odd that a person who was a Christian would feel they have a lot in common with Dennis Kucinich. (Even if by some fluke I know your dad, Phil, I won’t tell him!)
On the surface, political progressives sometimes seem more in line with Christian values than political conservatives in the U.S. The progressives are all about “be good stewards of the environment” and “help those who can’t help themselves.” Sounds good to a Christian!
The only difficulty is that progressives think these noble agenda items must be implemented using government force. Jesus said, “Feed the poor.” Progressives say, “Take part of your neighbor’s paycheck from him by force and use it to feed the poor.” This, to me, twists Jesus’ message. Jesus didn’t enforce morality through fear of punishment; he went for life-change and moral behavior followed as a result.
(The down-side of Jesus’ approach: Some people refuse to change their hearts, and as a result, the poor don’t get fed. But when this happens, should we abandon Jesus’ methods and go for the top-down, enforceable approach? Or should we redouble our efforts to encourage heart-change?)
But of course, you can say the same thing about conservatives. The progressives have a strong streak of sexual and cultural libertinism in them: “Anybody should do anybody and nobody should get in their face about it.” Doesn’t sound very Christian. Conservatives would apparently use government force to limit sexual misbehavior, obscenity, and the like. Since these are not good Christian behavior, it sounds reasonable to say Conservatives are more Christlike.
But, once again, Jesus didn’t threaten people into being good. He loved them until their hearts changed and they sought to be good in response. So, maybe Conservatives, like Progressives, are also pursuing Jesus’ goals using Satan’s methods?
Of course, government force isn’t always “Satan’s methods”; imprisoning a rapist is a clear moral good. But the rapist initiated the use of force; society can respond morally. Only a pacifist thinks it’s immoral to respond to an evil initiation of force. (And they’d have trouble explaining why Jesus didn’t instruct Roman soldiers to resign their commissions!)
But both sides are guilty of saying they want to pursue morally good results, but doing so in un-Christlike ways. God wants heart-change (with grateful obedience resulting); government is about social order and rights-protection by force of law (and the state if the heart is neither here nor there). The two intersect, but infrequently. So I think most folks are ready to get over the idea that God is a Republican. Or a Democrat.
Dear R.C.,
You commented that you see some forms of progressive tax spending as being counter to your interpretation of how Christians should approach helping people by healing the sick and feeding the poor:
““help those who can’t help themselves.” Sounds good to a Christian!
The only difficulty is that progressives think these noble agenda items must be implemented using government force. Jesus said, “Feed the poor.” Progressives say, “Take part of your neighbor’s paycheck from him by force and use it to feed the poor.” This, to me, twists Jesus’ message.”
OK. I can see why you wouldn’t vote for Progressive social welfare programs. However, not all people see taxes as being coercive if a majority of people support such spending AND the programs are a cost effective expenditure. For example, suppose we spend 5 tax dollars on feeding the poor and it saves us 10 tax dollars that would have had to be spent on prisons, health care costs for tuberculosis among taxpayers, etc. I would much prefer to pay higher taxes if it actually resulted in raising the real after-tax income of all taxpayers, than to save tax dollars, but end up spending a bunch of money on privatized social costs by having to purchase burglar alarms, video surveillance systems, and higher health care costs because we have created a large reservoir of infectious diseases that then become more resistant to antibiotics and spread to me and my family. My father died of methycillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus that he picked up in a hospital and persisted even after several series of treatments with antibiotics. He worked for a living and was a combat veteran of World War II, to boot. He earned every dollar that was spent by taxpayers to provide him with part of his health care. I would really prefer to pay 10 percent higher prices for chicken, beef, and pork caused by reserving antibiotics for sick PEOPLE, and 10 percent higher taxes to have working people who have been stricken by misfortune (as can happen to any of us) provided health care for the eradication of such things as MRSA, and free condoms to reduce the transmission of AIDS, than to have to pay the price of all the hospital costs for the treatment my father needed, and which ultimately failed to save years of his life in good health.
My main point is that the government by majority according to Constitutional standards which allow taxation for progressive programs is De Jure the Caesar to which Jesus said we should render unto that which is Caesar’s, like the Roman taxes which paid for construction of roads, aqueducts, and military security to protect the occupants of the empire from invasion.
So, I can understand your not voting for the programs if you still see them as being coercive of your neighbors, and freely stating your opinion as the First Amendment protects. What I can’t understand is why you condemn Christians and non-Christians who have voted to provide cost-effective safety net programs as being servants of Satan. I have always thought that it was incumbent on me personally to, independently and soberly and with charity, determine what I am willing to pay taxes for and to vote accordingly. I’m not alone. And the history since 1980 indicates that the conservative policies have allowed the economy to be put at risk because we have been unwilling to use proven cost-effective taxation and protective regulation to provide a nation where we don’t have to worry about people of power and privilege poisoning us with pollution from their unregulated factories and industries, and coercing others into accepting unfairly low wages and an unfairly distributed tax burden which resulted during Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations in only the upper tiers of economic status having real gains in purchasing power, while during the Clinton administration, everyone got richer (though the rich still got richer faster than everybody else). I see the coercive redistribution of income as being far more inequitable during conservative government than under progressive government. And I can’t fathom why anyone can construe the conservative policies as following “The Way, The Truth, and The Life” and believing that what Jesus said was the right thing to do, including healing the sick and feeding the poor.
Please let me know if there is some critical flaw in my logic, because I do want to deal justly with my fellow citizens with the mercy and loving kindness that we are told is due from us to all our neighbors, including those strangers from other lands and customs who live among us. Just as Jesus pointed out that a Samaritan who, despite being an idolater, would treat us with kindness when we are in misfortune is beyond question our neighbor, whom we are required to treat with the same respect and justice as those born among us.
I was also taught to use the same measure of charity and kindness that I would wish to be treated with when I have misfortune, after I have worked to make my nation more prosperous.
With My Regards and Wishes for Your Health and Prosperity,
Larry Host
Sacramento, California, USA