The Kingdom of God and severe reactions

It’s a bit of an odd world when, in the past few weeks, we’ve had some deep American need to “defend free speech” by going to see a very stupid movie about North Korea.

And now, it’s everyone claiming, “I am Charlie Hebdo” in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris on a satirical newspaper. We’re defending the right to “free speech,” which was all about offending Islam and other major religions.

David Brooks quickly reminds us that “free speech” may be a great idea for a French magazine, but it wouldn’t exist on most college campuses in America.

Islamic fundamentalists have severe reactions as well. Kill opposition. It’s a new Middle Ages the world has been plunged into: “I’m right. You’re wrong. Therefore, you must die.”

The Kingdom of God MUST be different. In every way.

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:21)

Christianity will continue to be ridiculed, just as Islam will be poked at. We must be different. We don’t firebomb newspaper offices or kill writers.

At the same time it is the harsh realization that Christians will suffer far more than just a stupid cartoon. It’s the crisis going on throughout the Middle East and some parts of Africa. They are simply killed and cleared out of villages.

It’s also important to note that we don’t overcome threats, real or perceived, by going to stupid movies or supporting poor speech. Free speech allows for poor speech, but that doesn’t mean you call free speech “good” speech. Satirists have a place in society, but as David Brooks points out, they don’t all get to sit at the “adult table.” Rejoice in free speech, but that doesn’t mean it’s “good” speech.

In the Kingdom of God, move toward “good” speech. Move toward blessing. 

It is a more difficult way that must be empowered by the Spirit… but as believers in Christ, THAT is our call.

The disgusting attributes of “party line”

David Brooks hits this one out of the ballpark.

I find more people involved in politics who REALLY say, “Well, if (name the other party) wasn’t in control, we could get more done.” (All while their political ads tout their ability to “cross party lines.”)

Even in the church, it’s easier to define who we are by party affiliation, or hard line political ideologies, than our belief in Christ.

It’s not Catholics marrying Lutherans that upset families anymore:

In a Bloomberg View column last month, Sunstein pointed to polling data that captured the same phenomenon. In 1960, roughly 5 percent of Republicans and Democrats said they’d be “displeased” if their child married someone from the other party. By 2010, 49 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats said they would mind.

We don’t have moral discussions anymore. We have political party line discussions:

The broad social phenomenon is that as personal life is being de-moralized, political life is being hyper-moralized. People are less judgmental about different lifestyles, but they are more judgmental about policy labels.

Lately I’ve had this type of stuff thrown at me. For all the work I do to reach out to people, I still get ideologies thrown at me, NOT for how I’ve acted toward someone, but for what they think I believe (without even approaching the subject). They went with the identities and labels they had in their head, and IN SPITE of how I had always treated them, decided to treat me worse because of the arguments in their own head.

It has reached a point where it’s political talking heads who have “moral” discussion which are nothing more than bumper sticker ads for their party lines.

…straight moral discussion has atrophied. There used to be public theologians and philosophers who discussed moral issues directly. That kind of public intellectual is no longer prominent, so moral discussion is now done under the guise of policy disagreement, often by political talk-show hosts.

It really has reached the point where I have not cared one bit about this election cycle. I’ll still vote because it has been ingrained in me to do a civic duty. I encourage people in my church to vote. But more than that, I encourage people in my church to think. And to think prophetically. 

One party will not own me. And here is where I am theologically on this right now. (Check with me next year for a theological update.) Tying ourselves to one political party (and it doesn’t matter WHAT PARTY) doesn’t make us prophetic as a believer. It makes us pathetic. 

God help us to live larger than a party system!

Gettysburg — Why They Fought

Another excellent piece by David Brooks in The New York Times today. It is a reflection on the difference in soldiers from the Civil War to today. The language, the letters, the thoughts, are so completely different. We look so small today in comparison.

In our current era, as the saying goes, we take that which is lower to be more real. We generally believe that soldiers under the gritty harshness of war are not thinking about high ideals like gallantry. They are just trying to get through the day or protect their buddies. Since World War I, as Hemingway famously put it, abstract words like “honor” and “glory” and “courage” often seem obscene and pretentious. Studies of letters sent home by soldiers in World War II suggest that grand ideas were remote from their daily concerns.

But Civil War soldiers were different. In his 1997 book “For Cause and Comrades,” James M. McPherson looked at the private letters Civil War soldiers sent to their loved ones. As McPherson noted, they ring with “patriotism, ideology, concepts of duty, honor, manhood and community.”

The mentality of the soldier in the Civil War era was not only different, but their language was different. Nothing was short. No “text” language. And they were not afraid of their feelings.

One of the most famous letters was written not at Gettysburg but on July 14, 1861, on the eve of the First Battle of Bull Run. It was written by Sullivan Ballou, an officer from Rhode Island. Ballou had lost his own parents when he was young and, having known “the bitter fruit of orphanage myself,” he declared himself loath to die in battle and leave his small children fatherless.

“My love for you is deathless,” he wrote to his wife. “It seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.”

It’s not just love of country that impels him, but a feeling of indebtedness to the past: “I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing — perfectly willing — to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.”

Truly a different era. Our era of special interest politics looks pathetically small to the thoughts of these young men in these letters.

Language Shifts Indicate Cultural Shifts

David Brooks has a column today reflecting on language shifts over the last 50 years. His observations are interesting. 
Usage of humility words like “modesty” and “humbleness” dropped by 52 percent. Usage of compassion words like “kindness” and “helpfulness” dropped by 56 percent. Meanwhile, usage of words associated with the ability to deliver, like “discipline” and “dependability” rose over the century, as did the usage of words associated with fairness. 
And this:
On the general subject of demoralization, he finds a long decline of usage in terms like “faith,” “wisdom,” “ought,” “evil” and “prudence,” and a sharp rise in what you might call social science terms like “subjectivity,” “normative,” “psychology” and “information.” 
Brooks has some interesting conclusions on this matter:
Over the past half-century, society has become more individualistic. As it has become more individualistic, it has also become less morally aware, because social and moral fabrics are inextricably linked. The atomization and demoralization of society have led to certain forms of social breakdown, which government has tried to address, sometimes successfully and often impotently.
Those are his observations, and certainly can be argued. True or not in the culture, those are things that should be of concern in the Church. Cultures shift and moral awareness does shift and even fade. This is a place where the Church should be different. The sad news to me is that we are often as unaware as the culture.  We too often seem to be drifting along. 
Brooks makes some conclusions as to what this means for conservatives and liberals in politics. That may all be well and good as well, but the conclusions for the Church need to be considered as well. In my opinion, we SHOULD be doing better.  

The Oppressed and Spree Killers

The shootings in Aurora, CO, shock us once again. It is absolutely horrifying that someone plans that much detail just to kill as many people as possible. We will keep asking “Why” and the “why” may never come.

We will have conversations about gun control and violence and so many more things. Well, we won’t actually have any real conversations on those things… but we’ll fake it for a few weeks.

David Brooks in his column today tackles these types of conversations. Then, he aims deeper. He’s good at that. There are things I don’t agree with him on in this column (which is rare for me), but his main point is very… um… convicting. The need is for every one of us to pay attention to people around us. Not only pay attention, but respond to other people.

I think of Aurora, CO, and other spree killings. The response of people who knew the killer is almost always the same: They were quiet. They kept to themselves. They seemed pleasant.

We are reading the Gospel of Mark this week in our church as part of our “Eat This Book” project. There are two episodes that stand out as I think about the Aurora shootings and how we react. Both of them deal with men who were demon possessed. One was in the synagogue (Mark 1:21-28) and the other was the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:1-20). These stories always intrigue me… and they always convict me.

In the synagogue is a man who had been tormented by demons for who knows how long and no one had done anything about it until Jesus showed up. They had tolerated the man. He probably wasn’t as demonstrative as the Gadarene demoniac. You know… he was quiet. He kept to himself. He was pretty introverted. He was quirky.

Something like that.

The Gadarene demoniac was another story altogether. Yet, the people were more afraid after Jesus healed him. They wanted Jesus out of their territory. They recognized something more powerful was in their presence and they preferred the crazy man they could contain somewhat to the Savior who was not going to be controlled by them at all.

The conviction in my own heart out of these stories, especially in the first story is that someone who was tormented was among “the people of God” and they did nothing. It was only when Jesus walked in that things “got out of hand,” but then the man was healed.

Brooks’ point at the end of his column is something we need to hear as the Church today. Pay attention to people. That means it’s not about us! That means we find out what is going on in the lives of others and respond to their presence in our lives.

In other words… we ARE our brothers’ keeper.

And that makes us uncomfortable.

I will bet money everyone who knew of James Holmes was just fine with him being quiet, keeping to himself, and being a little quirky. It meant it required nothing of them. It meant they could go on with their lives while he went on with his life.

I know that’s how I feel too much of the time. I have to confess my own laziness here. There are times when I need to be stretched. I need to reach out to someone. I need to have them tell me their story. But I want to be alone, or I want to keep moving on in my own life. I am too content to simply pray for them quickly as  I think of them while I’m driving. The answer may be that I need to pick up the phone and call them. I may need to spend a few minutes listening to their story.

It’s not to stop a spree killer. It’s to let someone know that Someone is watching over them. Someone knows they are there. They matter.

If we will just pay attention, we may save someone from the silent torment they face every day. It won’t make headlines. It won’t be a great Facebook posting. It will simply matter in the Kingdom of God.

The Dangers of Thinking of Ourselves as Basically “Good”

There is hardly a David Brooks column I wouldn’t recommend. He is one of the most even handed columnists I can find anywhere. His column today, however, is simply exceptional. He usually is worth reading, so I would say if you have a chance to read a column of his, do so.

With today’s column, I would say, “READ IT!”

“READ IT, and pass it on! READ IT, pass it on, digest it, and pass it on again!”

He tackles the issue of being basically good in our own eyes. The basic thought begins with what we know: pretty much everyone cheats, but only a little. The illustrations are very poignant. He hits too close to home for me!

How many times have I thought about saying I looked a little better on something. Not by much. Just a little.

I can remember a few years ago watching a teenager I was buying for ask for a cup for water in a fast food restaurant, then go over to the soda machine and just start pouring out any soda their little heart desired. I went back to the counter and paid for a cup and brought it back to them.

“Why?” was the question. “They can afford it. It’s just soda.”

We basically think we’re good, and if we cheat, we cheat just a little. I may have hit a “9” on that hole on the golf course, but the temptation is to say “8.” (Hey, guys! I know you’re reading this, so notice I said temptation.)

…most of us think we are pretty wonderful. We can cheat a little and still keep that “good person” identity. Most people won’t cheat so much that it makes it harder to feel good about themselves.

We try to measure our “goodness.” The problem there is we don’t have an “official scale.” When we try to morally justify our goodness, the scale keeps sliding. I teach an Old Testament survey class. One assignment I give them for the semester is to read the Old Testament and give me a list of what books they completed at the end of the semester. I leave them to their own honesty and talk to them about integrity. The reality? If they didn’t read the entire Old Testament rarely will they put down that they read the entire Old Testament. However, I have no doubt that if they read 25 books, they might put down 27 books they read. I truly believe some are dead honest and put the actual number as well. We’re “good,” but that scale keeps sliding.

Your moral standards will gradually slip as you become more and more comfortable with your own rationalizations. So step back. Break your patterns and begin anew. This is what Yom Kippur and confessionals are for.

Brooks’ contention is that we should quit shooting for “goodness.” We should aim for “rectitude.”

Our mistake in our current culture, and unfortunately among Christians, is we are settling for “good enough.” We are settling for mediocrity.

The Rage Against Religion While Thinking You Are Spiritual

David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists. He hits it out of the ballpark again on THIS COLUMN.

He took the viral video of the guy raging against religion and got into the why, and then the results of the video. Challenged with the exact words of the video, the young man actually realized he needed to learn to say some things differently.

Brooks goes on to demonstrate how it’s not a problem to have “angst” in our world. It’s just what to do after that angst is our problem.

For generations we’ve been told to think for ourselves, but all we know how to do is say what we don’t like.

For generations people have been told: Think for yourself; come up with your own independent worldview. Unless your name is Nietzsche, that’s probably a bad idea. Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview.

Brooks’ remedy is rather interesting:

The paradox of reform movements is that, if you want to defy authority, you probably shouldn’t think entirely for yourself. You should attach yourself to a counter-tradition and school of thought that has been developed over the centuries and that seems true.

The old leftists had dialectical materialism and the Marxist view of history. Libertarians have Hayek and von Mises. Various spiritual movements have drawn from Transcendentalism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Thomism, Augustine, Tolstoy, or the Catholic social teaching that inspired Dorothy Day.

Passion is great. Just give it some place to land. Rigorously examine what is out there. What have the ancients taught us? Where is a path we can find?

I am deeply thankful that even in my time of angst I found the ancient paths still leading to Christ. Over the years I have been so thankful to keep exploring those paths and found the richness of who he is, and realized that within “religion” there is a design that helps to truly follow Christ. It gets expressed in so many ways, and most of them awkward in one way or another. But following those paths has given me the beauty of Christ.

I don’t fly solo very well.