A Tale of Two Presidents: What is Hate Speech, What is Not

A Tale of Two Presidents: What is Hate and What is Not
by, Charles W. Christian

 Recently Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A stated that he “affirms the biblical view of marriage,” and therefore does not support homosexual marriage.  He said this in the context of being asked about his Christian faith, for which he is well-known.  He is a longtime supporter of Christian non-profit causes.  Immediately many interpreted this as an attack upon the rights of others (at best) and as hate speech at worst. 

Also recently, Barack Obama, the president of the United States, stated that he did not affirm the idea that small business owners in America built their business without some help, including the help of government sponsored legislation, government regulated protections, and non-governmental help of family and friends and forerunners.  This was immediately attacked as a kind of hate speech against small business owners (at best) and as a downright attack upon entrepreneurs (at worst). 

My contention is that neither of the above mentioned men was engaged in “hate speech”, nor was either speech an attack upon any group.  Hateful attacks are so prevalent in our media driven culture today that it is easy to misquote, mischaracterize, and misinterpret public statements by any leader, especially if that leader does not agree with one’s own particular views.  In the case of the Evangelical Christian president of Chick-Fil-A, whose political leanings are toward the Right, the Left (mostly what I would call the “Far Left”) branded him as a promoter of hate.  In the case of the President of the United States, who speaks mostly from the political Left, the Right (mostly the “Far Right”) immediately branded him as an attacker of small businesses everywhere and a “hater” of those who flourish through “individual achievement.” 

Ironically, it is the attackers of these two men who have spewed the only hatred here. 

In both cases, their politics-driven attackers have misquoted and/or have mischaracterized the intentions of both men in the statements they gave.  The president of Chick-Fil-A was answering a simple question about his faith and what implications he saw in regard to his faith in the context of a current political hot button issue.  The president of the United States was speaking at a campaign rally in the context of addressing the historic reality that America’s approach to matters of business has never been thoroughly individualistic, although it has rewarded individual achievement. 

Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s president, was correct that historically Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, have not supported the idea that marriage can be homosexual or same-gendered.  Obviously, there are Christians who believe that homosexual marriage would be acceptable, but his particular background has a history of being in opposition to such a proposal.  This is because the Church has historically viewed the term “marriage” as a theological term, even a sacrament (a “holy act” ordained by God with specific parameters, much like baptism or communion).  Therefore, it would be unthinkable to many Christians, not just Evangelicals, to change the definition of “marriage” into anything but what is observed in Scripture and in Christian liturgical tradition (a man and a woman monogamously committed).  There are Christians, even Evangelical Christians, who do not have a problem with the concept of civil unions (unions recognized by the government as contractually binding between couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual), but even many of those within this group of Christians would hesitate to give it the name “marriage,” since that is seen as a theological/biblical term.  The president of Chick-Fil-A was simply echoing this fact in his own response, and affirming that his own opinions are in agreement with those of much of traditional Christianity.  In addition, his affirmation was not done in a hateful or condemning manner, and therefore does not meet any of the qualifications of what could reasonably called “hate speech.”

President Obama’s assertion was intentionally taken out of context (“You did not build that”).  Taking someone’s words out of context in this manner is in itself a hateful act at worst and thoughtless at best.  The “you did not build that” portion of the speech, if one listens to only 30 more seconds of his address before and after that quote, is in the context of things like highways, the internet, and regulations that have historically assisted small businesses – and large ones – in the history of American enterprise.  In fact, one can find Republican assertions that echo the same sentiments best summed up in the old phrase, “We all stand on the shoulders of others.”  While this phrase was taken out of context and “spun” to be an attack on small businesses during this highly charged political season, it is actually an affirmation that has been echoed by many small business owners on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum.  Therefore, it was not “hate speech” at all, nor was it an attack on small businesses.  Rather, it was an attempt to say that even his own party, which has not historically garnered wide support by small business owners, is worthy of such support.  Now, small business owners and others may not agree that the president or his party is worthy of such support, but that does not entitle anyone to intentionally misquote the intention of another.  Ironically, those who have intentionally twisted the words and intent of the president, just like those who have intentionally twisted the words of the Chick-Fil-A president, are engaging in the type of hatred and attack that both sides of the political aisle should condemn.

Of course, in addition to those who have twisted the words of both presidents discussed above, there are plenty examples of hate speech and unfair attacks.  They come from both sides of the political aisle.  Sometimes we choose to believe these lies and distortions because they come from a side of the aisle that we are rooting for, or that we more closely identify with in our ideology.  However, as people of the Truth, we should remember that lies or lies, whether they are riding an elephant or a donkey!

  

The Rich Young Ruler Today

The Rich Young Ruler Today
by, Charles W. Christian

Eugene Peterson, in his book called Practice Resurrection, notes that theological conceptions of ministry that he grew up learning in 75 years in church life and 50 years of ordained ministry have been replaced in many parts of the American church.  The theological concepts drummed into him in his small church in Montana and in the church he planted in and pastored for nearly 30 years in Maryland have been replaced by business models and marketing techniques.  The concept of “growing up in Christ,” which Peterson notes is a strong theme throughout the New Testament and especially in the letters of Paul, has been replaced with placating the masses in order to simply increase weekly attendance and giving.  Our emphasis in the Evangelical denominations (like the denomination I serve in) has placed a strong emphasis upon birth (becoming a “new Christian” or “new Nazarene,” etc.) and very little emphasis upon the biblical phrase “growing up in Christ,” or “becoming” a Christian, as Paul emphasizes. 

This emphasis has not only led to strong disconnections between churchgoers and their history and theology, but it has also led to frustration on all levels of ministries.  Denominational leaders complain on the loss of denominational loyalty, while rewarding local churches in their denominations that de-emphasize theological depth at the expense of getting people in the seats to count on their reports.  Local pastors leap furiously from one new trend and program to another without any compass, because numerical growth at any cost is substituted for an authentic discipleship that, in the famous words of twentieth century pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is actually costly (one of Bonhoeffer’s most famous book, written shortly before his death at the hands of the Nazis, is called The Cost of Discipleship).   By buying into a “marketing” approach to growth instead of costly discipleship model, many churches in America have a skewed view of what it means to sacrifice.  Our values have become aligned with those of the very world that Jesus died to transform.

This brings us to the story of the rich young ruler, an encounter discussed in the Gospels between Jesus and a young man who has come to Jesus seeking answers regarding eternal life. 

In the story, recounted in Luke 18 (it also appears in Matthew and Mark’s Gospel), a religious leader who seems to have some wealth and influence, asks Jesus, “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”  Of course, any teacher/preacher would be thrilled to have someone, especially someone of this young man’s influence, to become a “seeker”, one who is seeking a relationship with God.  Jesus, though, in Luke 18:19, refuses to give into flattery (He says, “Why do you call me ‘good’?  Only God is truly good?”).  This is Jesus’s way both of asking the young man what his views of Jesus are and of reminding the young man that Jesus’s answer will not be one based upon flattery or simple ear-ticking! 

As the story moves forward, the young man assures Jesus that he knows and has kept the commandments, yet still seems dissatisfied.  So, Jesus says, “there is one thing you lack.”  He then looks at the young man and tells him that he must sell all he has, give the money to the poor, come and follow Jesus, and then he will have the life he really seeks.

Jesus’s answer immediately shocked both the young man and Jesus’s own disciples!  It shocked the young man, whose face suddenly became downcast, likely because it seemed to cross lines that he did not see a need to cross (“for he had much wealth,” the text tells us).  He was seeking a theological/religious answer, not a “business” answer.  One look at both Jesus and him would make it quite obvious which of the two had better “business sense.”  Yet this poor itinerant preacher (Jesus) has the audacity to give business advice to the young wealthy business man!  The disciples are shocked, too (“How can anyone be saved, then?” they ask). 

Perhaps they were thinking, “Jesus, if you are going to keep challenging these rich people and running them off, we will never have the resources we need to get this ministry off the ground!”  Why did Jesus have to be so strict?  Why could he have not settled for 10% and calling it good?  Why couldn’t Jesus appoint this rich young man as His chief administrator, treasurer, advisory board member, or even new construction committee chairperson?  This would seem like a great “fit” for such an obviously talented and ambitious young businessman who is actually seeking out the Church!  It’s not like they had to go looking for him, after all.  He (the rich man) was seeking out Jesus.  Should not the poor budding congregation of only 13 (Jesus plus the 12) be allowed to get a boost in attendance in giving by gratefully accepting this talented, influential, and wealthy ally?

Jesus cared to much for the young man to mislead him.  He cared too much about the young man to simply allow him to fit another event on his calendar or to pick up another charity.  The young man wanted – and needed – a new life: a new way to live, which would by necessity include a whole new way of looking at his possessions.  This really does not fit in to any good marketing plans of today or apparently of yesterday!  However, it is the true message of the Gospel: come and exchange what you have – the bad and the good – for what Jesus has, which is better in the long run.  Then you will really live: have the “eternal life,” which begins not at death, but the moment we say “yes” to Jesus Christ. 

Maybe, then, instead of putting the rich rulers young or old into positions of influence in the church simply because they are in such positions outside the church, we should first give them the opportunity to allow Jesus to present them with a life in which Jesus is truly their priority. By this we do not necessarily mean that all those who are wealthy or powerful in the world’s eyes have no place in the Kingdom of God.  Jesus Himself does not say this.  However, Jesus is clearly stating that His concerns have less to do with worldly power, cunning, or marketing than with setting one’s priorities upon the things of God and then allowing every other priority to fall into line after that.  Re-learning this will likely produce churches that may have to rely less on appeasement and marketing strategies than upon Jesus.  But, it’s His church anyway, so why not try it His way?

Jesus and Healthcare

Jesus and Healthcare
by, Charles W. Christian

Like many Americans, I have been reading and listening to seemingly endless analyses regarding the recent Supreme Court healthcare decision.  This decision upheld so called “Obamacare”, or mandated universal healthcare, as constitutional, mainly because its enforcement instrument (its “penalty” for not being covered as of 2014) was officially viewed as a “tax.”  Therefore, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts – a Conservative appointee of former President George W. Bush – the enforcement of universal healthcare for individuals ( the “individual mandate”) was constitutional because Congress has the power of taxation. 

Of course, both the political Left and Right have strong opinions regarding this ruling.  Some are saying it is a step toward – or maybe even full-blown – Socialism.  Others say that it is simply a preventative act that will help fix a broken healthcare system and assist millions of Americans in receiving preventative and emergency help they would not have had under the current system.  While it is certain that both sides will continue to make their points rather loudly and consistently during this election season, I have become more interested in what Christians are saying.

Would Jesus Have Voted “Yes” on Obamacare?

As expected, there are elements of Christianity that are solidly behind their favorite political parties no matter what.  This seems to remain true of the Supreme Court itself (except for Roberts, every one of them voted along party lines).  It is probably true of many Americans, so that the court is simply a reflection of the strong partisan divide in our nation.  However, like the Court, there are some surprises.  Some mainline denominational leaders, who these days tend to be more identified with the political left in American politics, are publicly saying that the individual mandate and the tax penalty that can be assessed for failure to comply are a case where we “substituting Caesar for God” (noting Jesus’ admonition to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is God’s”).  According to CNN’s religion blog from last week, a prominent Lutheran minister has declared that this mandate goes too far by blurring the lines between what the Church is called to do and what the government is called to do: it is simply writing a check that does not deal with the deeper issue of health needs in our nation. 
On the other hand, there are Evangelical leaders (who these days tend toward the political right in American politics) who are saying that this approach to healthcare does not conflict with Jesus’ approach.  Jesus Himself, they point out, practiced universal healthcare (he went around healing people).  Also, since the American system of government, unlike the government of Rome in Jesus’ time, is representative, then government has a role in “doing good” on behalf of the people it represents.  In other words, they argue, when the government does this kind of “good” (i.e., providing greater access to healthcare), it is an extension of “We the People” doing good, and this “good” that government has been declared by the Supreme Court as having the right to do is in line with the kind of “good” that Jesus did. 

The Messy Part

The messy part of this whole exchange comes from the fact that there are always people on the fringes.  There will be people who will benefit from this legislation – perhaps over 30 million, including millions of children.  As a Christian, I believe we are to celebrate this kind of benefit, even if we believe that there are better ways to achieve this goal.  However, there will be those who are not impoverished, yet are not able to afford healthcare and will pay the tax penalties, probably adding to their already heavy economic burden.  It is those people on these fringes that Christians should give special attention to, as well, since overlooked voices seem to be of special interest to Jesus in his earthly ministry.  There is also the temptation of charitable people, even charitable Christian people, to sort of check off their list of things to do the health needs of their neighbors and community.  After all, if the government is “handling it,” why should the church?  Hopefully in regard to this question, we will be reminded of the many ways that we as the Church are still sorely needed in avenues like job placement/training, orphan care, food distribution, and disaster relief.  All of these have benefitted greatly from Christians reaching out in love, even though there are also government agencies that provide these same services.  Healthcare will be no different in that regard, despite the positives that may well be derived from this new law. 

As Jesus reminded, “The poor will always be with you.”  He did not say this as a way of being cynical or of giving up (as people have often interpreted this passage).  Rather, Jesus said this as a way of reminding all of us that it takes more than good intentions on behalf of the Church and new programs on behalf of the State to reach out and be instruments of healing to those in need.  I believe there is indeed a place for the Church and the State to work together in helping people in need, especially in a system such as the one we have in America.  There is plenty of room to disagree, as we will continue to do, about just how these entities should work together, but it seems clear that they both have a role to play in the days ahead.  As the Church, we are not to neglect those in need, even if an entity outside the Church (like the government) believes they “have a plan.”  Our work continues regardless.  The Left and the Right, Christians and non-Christians, would do well to keep this part in mind.

Academic Faith: What to Expect When Studying Religion in College

Academic Faith: What to Expect When Studying Religion in College
by,  Charles W. Christian

Introduction: I Am NOT in Sunday School Anymore

I remember sitting there asking myself: “Is this professor attacking the things that have become most precious to me?”  It was my first week in an introductory course, “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”  It was not a Nazarene school, but a school in an affiliated group, although the professor made no avert Christian claims and certainly had no Evangelical leanings.  In fact, at times he seemed almost combative in regard to the approach to faith and Scriptures I had been immersed in through my Sunday School upbringing.  Because the professor’s Ph.D. was in Christian history, much of the course focus was upon introducing students to biblical interpretation and to the history of the Christian faith.  However, the terms introduced and the approach of the professor put me on the defensive, since this was not the approach to the Christian faith I had been exposed to in small Christian congregation.     

I eventually received an “A” in the course, and I kept in closer contact with this particular professor than I would with any other in my undergraduate experience.  I grew to respect him, even though he and I disagreed on virtually every key matter of theology and biblical interpretation.  Yet, he seemed to leave room for disagreement and frankly seemed to be pleased that a student in a large introductory course of this sort would spend extra time “defending” a point of view at all.  This course was my introduction to studying the Bible and the Christian faith academically, and it challenged and even attacked nearly everything I held dear about my faith.  The professor did teach me many things, and thankfully he did not seem disagreements.  I found myself even more devoted to my faith despite after the course, despite sometimes feeling that my faith was being attacked in the course.  The truth is that he was not attacking me or my faith.  He was exposing me to terms and perspectives both in and out of my own faith that were to give me a bigger picture than I had ever had.  Though I would not expect a person of faith in a private Christian university strongly tied to a denomination to be as skeptical as my first year religion professor (the university I attended was Christian in name only with no direct faith ties touted in their undergraduate religion programs), I have come to discover that for any first year student of the formal study of religion, regardless of the faith environment of the university, key adjustments have to be made.

 What Goes Around. . .

                                                                       
My nearly 20 years of vocational ministry has also included nearly 14 years of adjunct teaching in college, university, and even seminary settings.  Much of my adjunct teaching with undergraduate students has been introducing first year students to the basics of the Christian faith.  I relish these opportunities not only because of the chance to introduce students to the academic aspects of learning about their faith, but also because of the pastoral opportunities to guide students and parents through the journey of examining the Christian faith in a different way than they may be accustomed to. 

Often as I work with first year students, either as an adjunct professor or as a pastor discussing their academic journey with them, I try to recall that feeling of being overwhelmed I had when looking at the Christian faith academically for the first time.  Unlike my first religion professor, I do have strong traditional faith claims in my own life, and I make no secret of my devotion to Jesus Christ and to traditional Christianity.  Like my first religion professor, though, I find myself challenging many presuppositions of first year students – including devoted Nazarene young men and women – as we explore the Bible and the Christian faith in ways they are not accustomed to in their church and Sunday school experiences.   

Like many pastors, I have fielded concerns and even complaints from parents and students regarding religious studies courses from undergraduate Christian colleges, including (and most often, given that I am a Nazarene pastor) Nazarene colleges.  The conversation usually includes phrases like, “What are they [meaning university religion professors] teaching our kids?”  Or, “Did you know that my child came home and said that Moses really didn’t write Deuteronomy?”  Or even, “Do we really believe this?”

Like my first religion professor, I relish the idea of expanding the thinking of my students.  But as a Christian pastor, my hope is that students who are challenged in their views are also at the same time compelled to draw closer to the mysterious and loving God who is revealed through Jesus Christ.  For students, parents, pastors, and professors, the balance needed to adequately complete an academic course of study of the Bible, theology, or Christian history, is often hard to come by.  Since most academic theories regarding the structure of the Bible or the development of the Christian faith are not covered in detail in most churches, it is not surprising that initial exposure to these “new” things – which, in the realm of academics are not really all that new – can create tension and even shock among faithful church members and their students. 

Christian parents who are investing tremendous sums of money in the education of their children want to feel confident that their children are getting a well-rounded education that is also theologically sound.  However, since most parents are not trained biblical scholars or theologians, the language and theories that the discipline of religious studies introduce to their children may be foreign.  It is the same dynamic that occurs when students whose parents are not lawyers or doctors are introduced to new theoretical concepts in the fields of law or medicine.  However, among Christian students and parents, there is often a strong familiarity with the Bible that has been gained through a lifetime of attending Bible studies and serving God.  This can make the newness of the academic study of Christianity seem threatening. 

As a Christian, a pastor, a trained academic theologian, and a parent, I want the children under my care (including my own children as they grow) to be open to hearing voices other than my own and to be unafraid when being introduced to ideas that challenge their own perspectives.  Having said that, it is also important to me that my children and the children whom I pastor are guided as gently as possible through times of introduction to new ideas – especially to ideas that may effect their faith – by teachers (like my own first religion teacher) who are not only well trained but are also thoughtful and even, dare I say, pastoral.

So, as we send our growing children off to encounter the challenge living out their faith while learning about their faith in new ways, here are some things to keep in mind.

1. Recognize that academic theology has its own language.  Like every profession, whether it be library sciences or plumbing, the academic study of the Bible and of theology involves a unique language.  And although this language sometimes trickles into church life (usually from pastors fresh from seminary), it is a specialized language with specific meanings that are often different from popular meanings.  Terms like “humanism”, “myth”, and “biblical criticism”, for instance, have very different meanings in formal academic theology than they do in popular perception.  When professors and their students use these terms, parents and church leaders often panic.  However, closer examination of terms like these can calm fears quickly.  Unfortunately, students who are exposed to these kinds of terms for the first time use them in much the same way a three year old might use a chainsaw!  Also, there are professors who use the shock value of such terms to keep students engaged, often without helping the students “unpack” and place into proper context the new terms and concepts they are learning.  Parents and other concerned church members can save themselves some anxiety by investing in a pocket dictionary of theological terms, or better yet, by finding a used copy of textbooks and materials utilized in the courses.  As with any discipline, familiarizing ourselves with the language can alleviate fears. 

2. Recognize that academic studies in religion have a slightly different (yet related) agenda than other approaches to the Bible.  Academic study of theology is designed to introduce students to a specific language and to specific tools that will assist them in evaluating not only their own faith, but also interpretations of the Christian faith throughout history.  Whereas in church life our desire is to specifically guide individuals into the life of the Church, in the classroom students are asked to compare a wide stream of Christian (and non-Christian) views in regard to the Bible, theology, and ethics.  In most denominational schools (like those in the Church of the Nazarene), there are specific doctrinal approaches that inform the overall teaching in the religion departments. However, the scope and sheer volume of materials presented go beyond the scope and mission of most Sunday Schools, sermons, or small groups.  However, in most cases it is not unreasonable to expect denominational schools like those in the Church of the Nazarene to better equip the men and women who pass through their doors to be better informed and equipped church members, whether or not they are there to train for vocational ministry.  In this way, then, we see that denominational religious studies departments can (and in most cases should) emphasize a personal transformational element in the context of religious studies, since, as the old saying goes, theology is to be the “handmaiden [servant] of the Church.”  Expecting a denominational school to help students develop a love for the church, its traditions, its Scripture, and its mission in the world is a reasonable expectation.  It is also reasonable for religious studies departments to expect the freedom to teach in ways that are beyond the scope of a local church, Bible study, or Sunday school.  With this kind of mutual respect, the local church and its affiliated programs of higher education can develop a partnership that benefits the church, the university, the student, and the mission of Christ in the world.

3. Recognize that challenges and changes in regard to faith are normal and even healthy.  College is a time of great transitions – among the greatest transitional periods in all of life.  So, it is normal for university students to examine and re-examine the “faith handed down” to them by their family and church.  It is easy to blame university professors – especially religion professors – for faith struggles that are a normal part of a student’s development.  However, classroom interactions about the Bible and faith are often just a part – even a small part – of a student’s adjustment process in a university environment.  Greater personal freedom,  interaction with a wider range of peers, along with more intense exposure to subjects ranging from art to science to political ideologies, can contribute to changing interpretations of their Christian faith.  While it is true that on many Christian campuses there are religion professors or other Christian leaders who  “fan the flames” in regard to a deeper examination of Christianity, there are usually more factors than a Bible course that are contributing to questions of faith.  Often it is when students are allowed to process all of these factors together that the healthiest kinds of growth and communication take place, and parents and local churches can play a supportive and instructional role in this process. 

Handling Concerns in a Christian College Setting

Even if we do come to a realization that a university professor's role in Christian formation is different, though related, to the roles of pastors, Sunday School teachers, and parents, there are still instances when what is being taught in a denominational school can and should be questioned.  Through the years I have observed (and even experienced from the teaching end) that when it comes to confronting serious questions regarding course content, church leaders and members often neglect basic Christian principles in doing so.  Biblical models of handling conflict like those spelled out by Jesus in Matthew 18 are often ignored when it comes to confronting classroom concerns.  This is probably because it is difficult to know where to begin when one has an issue with a professor.  Parents and even pastors may be intimidated by the degrees or name recognition of a professor, and the fear that results from this intimidation can cause emotions to run high.  Too often, the university president or a university trustee member (often a district superintendent or other church leader) is immediately contacted, and this person may not be in the best position to handle the issue directly or with adequate information. 

So, when addressing an academic concern, in the spirit of Matthew 18, the following procedure is recommended:

1. Talk to the professor directly.  This seems simple, yet it is often neglected.  I can recall times when I have heard about student questions or concerns from administrators who are often embarrassed that they are the ones having to bring the concerns to me. If high ranking administrators (trustees, presidents, etc.) have no firsthand knowledge of the incident being reported to them, it becomes difficult for them to make the best informed decisions.  If the professor is consulted first, he or she can at least try and explain the approach taken and assist the student or parent in addressing the solution.  Unfortunately, the matter is not always resolved at this level, and so another step is needed.

2. The department chair or academic dean.  Department chairs and academic deans usually have the most direct connection with what is happening academically in the departments they oversee.  Most often they are the ones who have some part (usually a large part) in the curriculum and textbook approval process, and it is likely that they were even part of the interview and hiring process of the professor in question.  If a satisfactory solution is not reached by confronting the professor one on one, the academic leadership of the department is the next best step, since they are charged with balancing the academic integrity of the university with the connection to the denomination and to students themselves. 

3. A Provost or Academic Vice-President.  These officials often report directly to the president and trustees of the university regarding all academic matters from accreditation to hiring to department structure.  The provost, for example, is usually the “chief academic officer” of a university.  Most often a concerned parent or church leader will not have to venture beyond a department chair or dean, but if needed, these officials can often either give a clear explanation or implement necessary changes needed in any approach to the curriculum or subject matter being taught.

4. President and Trustees.  As a last resort, a meaningful conversation with the president and/or a member of the trustees of a university can be scheduled.  Again, these should be rare if the other procedures are followed, and a meeting with one or more of these officials should involve a detailed outline of conversations and responses from professors, departments chairs, deans, and any other academic officials.  In smaller Christian universities like those in the Church of the Nazarene, presidents and other senior administrators of the university pride themselves on accessibility to students and parents, but this does not mean that proper communication procedures should be overlooked, especially if the goal of such questions involves clarifying approaches to matters of Christian faith.

Conclusion

Looking back, that first religion professor did me a great service.  He did not convince me to abandon my faith, nor was he trying to.  He did challenge many of my presuppositions and was used by God to help change some of the approaches that I now see were unhealthy, ill-informed, or short-sighted.  He also gave me more zeal to take seriously the core convictions of my faith, partly because I knew that I would actually have to defend what I believe at times with more than just hearsay from Sunday School teachers, pastors, or parents.  Years later, when I was in my first pastorate, I remember a visit with this same former professor in which he told me that he remembered me in his courses and remembered feeling like he had to be thoroughly prepared before coming to class, since I and a few other committed believers would likely challenge him, and he did not want to be unprepared!  This was a great compliment and an encouraging affirmation in my own faith.  Education is not simply indoctrination, and I as a pastor and as a parent do not expect Christian professors to simply parrot my way of thinking about the Bible and Christian theology to students from my congregation.  As a part-time professor, I am becoming more and more comfortable with my role of challenging students to question long held conceptions about matters of faith, even though I desire for them to be well-equipped to be Christian leaders – regardless of their vocational calling – for their generation.  If we can properly dialogue about such matters and assist one another in the calling God has given us in the congregation and in the classroom, we can see a healthier relationship between the church and the academy.  Doing this will help us train students who can really make a difference in the church and in the world.

We're Probably Dying, But It's OK

We’re Probably Dying, but It’s OK
by, Charles W. Christian

Dying Denominations

As a pastor, I get lots of literature about the church.  Not just my church or denomination, but about the global church.  I also get lots of statistical reports.  The  reports lately point to a trend in my own denomination as well as in many others: more people are leaving than are coming in.  Some are shifting to other denominations, which “pads” their numbers regarding incoming people.  Others are shifting to the denomination I am in from other denominations, meaning that our numbers may be a bit padded in regard to newcomers.  Most denominations, including my own, show as many or more people leaving than coming in, and regardless of how padded the incoming numbers are, the outgoing numbers are clear!

Denominations have expert sociologists and strategists that speculate why these numbers reflect such a dismal downturn.  I have read many of their reports, both outside and inside my own denomination.  Among the reasons for decline seen across the board are the following: aging Baby Boomers, failed attempts at “entertaining” and “marketing to” various age groups by certain trends in church growth, decline in the sense of community among North American churches, lack of depth in regard to connecting to the “roots of the faith” (which causes spiritual and then physical drift), and the rise of technological distractions.  These things, accompanied with the downturn in economic growth, has resulted in a more mobile nation that averages far less time in a single place than ever before.  This makes it difficult for churches to connect and likewise difficult for people to connect for a long period of time with places of worship.  Even when there is a connection, the economic downturn has affected giving, which causes overall instability in the staffing and planning of local congregations. 

Even on a denominational level, as noted expert and denominational leader in the National Baptist Convention George Bullard recently wrote, many denominations’ attempts to restructure or even downsize, while important, are often viewed as all that is needed (i.e., merely a financial solution) and are substituting this for other kinds of vitality.

What To Do?

In the sea of options of “what to do,” I simply toss the following two pebbles.

First, admit that death is part of renewal.  We are Christians, after all, and we follow a Savior who, as our Creeds remind us, truly died, but was also truly risen.  As the 20^th Century theologian Karl Barth reminds us: Without a true death there can be no true resurrection (see his classic work, Dogmatics in Outline).  Instead of explaining how the numbers “really are not that bad,” perhaps we should say, “Alright, we are in a phase where we seem to be dying, so we need a true resurrection.”  In this way, instead of creating debates about whether or not we are dying, we can form prayer-focused teams of people seeking God’s direction and seeking innovative leadership in moving from death to resurrected life.

Secondly, stop simply trying new programs.  The Church in North America has literally been programmed to death!  This is because we have made a consistent habit of jumping on innovative sounding ideas and riding them until the next popular innovative idea comes along.  We have been very much like the family in financial distress who burns through one credit card after another in the hopes of achieving a dream that will never come.  Like them, most denominations are sacrificing a sound future for short-term “big gains” on their pastoral, district, or international reports.  This has led (and will continue to lead, in my opinion) to long-term decline and even death. 

We must rediscover what millions of people in our younger generation – the generation we say we are trying to “reach” – is trying to tell us: give us authentic Christianity and do not be afraid of it!  We must recapture the depths of our theology, creeds, and history as Christians without trying to simply be “trendy.”  Along with this, we must not be afraid to hear voices inviting us to push once-comfortable denominational boundaries.  Some things need to die, other things need to renew.  Thankfully, we are, according to Jesus, designed and built with the remedy for ultimate death (see Matthew 16:18).  The resurrected Christ has empowered those who will dare to follow Him - and not just follow the trends and shortcuts - into resurrection.  We may find that when we arrive at these new places of exploration, both God and the Church have already been there ahead of us!

Tell Me - and SHOW Me - the Truth

Tell Me – and SHOW Me - the Truth
by, Charles W. Christian

"I am the way, the truth, and the life." - Jesus in John 14:6

Have you ever had bad experiences regarding the truth?  I have.  I have witnessed struggles among my brothers and sisters in Christ regarding telling the truth.  I have been lied to.  And, I have lied. 

My bad experiences have not come from the truth itself, although the truth can be uncomfortable at times.  Jesus spoke of knowing the truth so that the truth could set us free (John 8:32).  Of course, Jesus was not simply speaking of a set of principles or even a group of “facts.”  He was speaking of Himself: when we know Jesus, we know the Truth that is foundational to all that is right, good, loving, and true.  Part of this implies that knowing Jesus and taking Him seriously in our lives guides us in becoming people who speak and live the truth.  That last part – living and “doing” the truth – is actually a phrase found in the Bible.  So “truth” is something we speak (we tell the truth) and something we do (live out the truth).  How do we know what that is?  The answer: Jesus.  We know how to consistently tell the truth by following and imitating Jesus.  We know how to consistently live the truth by following and imitating Jesus.  God, through the Holy Spirit, gives us the opportunities and abilities needed to do this as we grow.

The Challenge

The challenge in regard to speaking and living the truth is that it is quite simply easier to substitute truth for a lie.  Again, I am not simply talking about believing a set of false principles over true principles, although this can be part of the equation.  It goes much deeper than that.  We are in a world that makes it easy to speak and live untruthfully.  It is sometimes even encouraged.  We are told we should have it our way and take control.  These become reasons we invoke for setting aside Christlike priorities, saying whatever is convenient for the moment, and treating people as simply a means to our own ends.  In short, it is contrary to all that is of Christ and is therefore a life of lies. 

This has plagued humankind from its beginnings, of course.  It is, to put it bluntly, a key element of our own story that needs repair.    

The Solution

However, our story does not end with our self-deception.  The same God who is truth truthfully proclaims Himself to be our redeemer.  God, by the power of the Holy Spirit and through the person and work of Jesus Christ, comes to set our lives right.  He comes to help us move from living a lie (the lie, for instance, that says our way is the best way) to embracing and living out the Truth (that the ways of Jesus are the ways of authentic living and truth).  In years of encountering Christians in the church and in academics, I have seen wonderful examples of men and women whose top priority is to live in a Christlike way: to exchange the convenient ways and even popular ways of going about their lives for seeking to live in a way that maximizes the love of Jesus Christ in their lives.  Sadly, I have seen those who approach even the life of faith as “just business,” and people who see other people as simply a “means to an end.”  This severely cripples their witness and the impact of the Church. 

What is the Truth?

As a battered and bloody Jesus was standing trial before the Roman governor Pilate in first century Jerusalem,  Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?”  Jesus responded to Pilate by telling Pilate that truth is found not in a set a principles, but in the person and work of Jesus Himself, since Jesus is about the primary purposes of God.  Likewise, we as Christians answer the same question by ultimately pointing to Jesus Christ: His ways and His goals.

For Jesus, people were more important than things.  This is Truth.  For Jesus, telling the truth meant doing so in love.  Separating honesty from genuine compassion and concern is not the whole truth, according to Jesus.  Furthermore, purporting to be loving without being genuinely honest was also not the whole truth.  For Jesus, the redemptive purposes of God outranked the world’s definition of priorities, success, and even wisdom.  This is Truth.  For Jesus, God’s desire for His Kingdom and purposes to spread throughout the earth in genuine redemption of all creation was the only real definition of “success.”  This is Truth.  He is Truth.  He is the Way.  He is Life.

He Comes First With Grace: The REAL Way of the Master

He Comes First With Grace: The REAL Way of the Master
by Charles W. Christian

Lately there is a trend in regard to evangelism training. It has been made very popular, especially on university campuses, by two well-known exponents of the approach. One is a famous Hollywood actor who had a dramatic conversion experience to Christianity. The other is an Australian evangelist who never had any formal theological/biblical training, but is well read and had made a career of “street preaching” in many parts of the world, including the U.S. Somehow these two teamed up, and through their TBN television broadcasts and creative internet websites they have spawned an approach to sharing the Christian faith to others in a rather confrontational manner.

Before I go further, let me say clearly that I am happy when anyone is trying to share the Christian faith and give glory to God, whether it be on a street corner, a cornfield, or a football field. I am often reminded of Jesus’s own words to his disciples who were concerned about the approaches to sharing about Jesus that were already emerging in Jesus’s own lifetime: “Whoever is not against us is for us.” So, I want to be clear that for all the good that the ministry of these two confrontational evangelical figures do, I am happy and thankful. However, I have some concerns about this latest trend, because I am always concerned about trends and fads in American Christianity. We often mass produce trends to the point where they become ineffective, and we rarely stop long enough to assess the biblical basis for these trends we are reproducing.

The approach of these two men is as follows:
 Confront people – usually total strangers – about whether or not they have ever committed a particular sin. Example: “Have you ever stolen?” “Have you ever lusted?”, etc.
 If they answer in the affirmative (eventually they will find a sin the person has committed), then point out that this one sin makes them a “sinner”. Example: If you have stolen one thing, then you are a thief. If you have told a lie, then you are a liar.
 Point out that God, who is holy and perfect, can have nothing to do with their sin, and that one sin puts them on a direct path toward hell, which is eternal pain and torment forever.
 Tell them that Jesus, who was completely innocent of all sin, died to take their punishment for the sins they committed, and if they believe and trust in Jesus, they will be at peace with God and never have to worry about hell and torment again.
 Answer any objections or questions by continuing to remind them of their sins, using the Ten Commandments as the prime example of the sins that separate them from God.
 Invite them to trust in the substitutionary work of Jesus to forgive them from their sins, restore them to good standing in the sight of God, and assure them that when they die they will go to heaven.

This is the basic approach of these two men, which they have branded the “Way of the Master” (Jesus). They are convinced that this one method is the way (the ONLY way, according to them) that Jesus Himself used to bring converts into Christianity, and it is the only way to make genuine converts to Christianity.

Now, while there are elements of the above examples with which I agree (for instance, I do believe that we all sin and that we need Jesus to intervene on our behalf and provide forgiveness and restore us to a right relationship with God), I am reluctant to baptize this method as the “only way” for genuine conversion to happen. Furthermore, based upon the Bible’s own words and most of Jesus’s own interactions, I question whether or not simply scaring someone out of hell and into heaven with guilt and shame tactics really produces passionate lifelong disciples of Jesus Christ.

Isn’t Christianity about more than just a “get out of hell free” card? Doesn’t Jesus have more ways to approach people than simply saying, “Here are the Ten Commandments, did you keep them?” In fact, is there anywhere in the whole Bible where Jesus actually confronts someone this way? The answer to that last question is no! I will quickly share two places where Jesus does NOT use the method he is “credited” with by these two men, although this method has allowed them to share books and DVDs in vast quantities.

In John 4, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at the well. In the course of the conversation with her, Jesus does point out that she has had more than one husband, but that is hardly a confrontation with the Ten Commandments, as much as it is a revealing to her that He knows her better than she thinks. Indeed, all through the conversation, Jesus has known her and has known things about her background, yet he did not turn away from her. He offered her eternal life “up front”, not after shaming her into a corner, but before she even knew that he had an inside track on her situation. Her response, after Jesus then reveals himself to be the Messiah that she and others had been waiting for was to drop her water jar, run into the city proclaiming, “Come and see this man who knew everything about me” (John 4:29). The implications here are quite different from the “way” of evangelism proposed by the two men I have mentioned. The Samaritan woman’s response is basically, “Come and see this man who knew who I was and what I had done, and unlike the rest of you, he spent time with me and talked with me!” This does not sound like a God who is unapproachable due to sin. This is instead a God who comes to us in the midst of our sin and loves us right up front!

Another encounter, recorded in Luke 19, finds Jesus walking down a crowded street and a despised tax collector named Zaccheus climbing a tree in order to get a better glimpse of him (Zaccheus was, as the song goes, a “wee little man” who had trouble seeing Jesus in the crowd). Jesus and the crowd approach the tree, and you can see in the text the anticipation of the crowd. They cannot wait for the Messiah to confront this traitor – this one who collects taxes for the Roman government and keeps extra for himself. If Jesus used the “Way of the Master,” he would surely confront Jesus with his thievery, would peg him as a traitor, and would corner him into a public repentance right there on the spot. The crowd could hardly wait. Then, something very different happened. Jesus calls out, “Zaccheus, come down!” Here it comes. Here is where Jesus confronts Zaccheus with the “law” and corners him into repentance, right? No! Let’s let Jesus finish his sentence (Luke 19:5): “Zaccheus, come down. For I must stay at your house today!” Really? That is it? Jesus is not only speaks kindly to this man, but he is also going to spend the whole day fellowshipping with this unclean traitor? According to the so-called “Way of the Master,” Jesus is watering down the Gospel (in 19:6 we see a similar response from the crowd who is witnessing this exchange!). However, Jesus, the focus of the Gospel, is demonstrating a better way. Here is how we know. Zaccheus responds with genuine repentance (Luke 19:8). He gives half of his goods to the poor right away. He then publicly commits to restoring FOUR TIMES the amount he has taken from anyone under false pretenses. All of this without one mention of the Ten Commandments?

This kind of genuine repentance comes not in response to fear or shame, but in response to genuine love and grace. It seems the Bible knows better the way of the Master when it says it is the “kindness of God that leads to repentance” (Romans 2:4).

Of course, in a very self-centered generation such as ours, there are times when clear reminders of our sinfulness are appropriate and even effective in helping people see their need for a Savior. However, the Bible seems to indicate that when one is confronted with this revolutionary kind of love and grace seen in God through Jesus Christ, our sins become obvious (see also Isaiah 6), and our desire for God’s love and for a godly life become magnified. This is the consistent way of our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.