Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Risks We Take

One issue that has weighed heavily on my heart recently is that of accountability.
What do we require?
What is required of us?
In the priesthood of all believers we are all called to be representatives for Christ in the world.
So what does God require?

So often it seems as though we are unwilling to deal with the difficult tasks before us.
We try to push the problem off,
onto someone else,
further down the road,
away from where we are.
More often than not we use our religion as a crutch.
We use our churches as barricades,
walling ourselves in
and actively working to keep those who do not resemble us

Out.

The other day I was reading an article that described the business practices of the bulk goods store: Costco.
The purpose of the article was to talk about the stark difference in business practices between Costco and their largest competitor, Walmart.
Apparently, Costco has become known as a company that is significantly more friendly to its employees than most other big chains.
Their average pay is higher,
their health insurance plans are generally better,
and their average worker turn-over is significantly lower.
What surprised me about the article was what some analysts have begrudgingly said about their business practices:

It's better to be an employee than a shareholder.

Now I don't know who the analyst is that made that statement,
nor do I know their convictions or their faith.
So my thoughts about it are not directed at them.
However,
it does make me wonder what the Christian response should be.
What the response of the priesthood of all believers should be.

That one analysts's statement brings to mind a few others:
Proverbs 16:19
Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.
Psalm 84:10b
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.

This is the disconnect for me. Something about that analysts's statement doesn't sit right in the light of these texts. It doesn't fit.
The message coming from the biblical texts is one that subverts our understanding of what positions of honor or respect look like. These biblical texts subvert what we might think is owed to us.


James Cone, in his work "Risks of Faith" asks an important question:
"Whose Earth Is It, Anyway?"
His response is Psalm 24: "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it."
All of creation belongs to God.
That means that everything from the air we breath,
to the molten core of the planet,
to the germs that inhabit our bodies,
to the very next person we meet,
and even we belong to God.
Cone argues that we are held accountable by God in what we do with that.
Do we really listen to our sisters and brothers who look different from us?
Who think differently?
Who were brought up on the other side of town?
In my denomination there are people of many backgrounds,
from countries around the world.
And yet,
in the U.S. 93% of the church is white.
Do we really know our sisters and brothers who are different?
In talking about the Youth Lounge program at Broadway United Methodist Church in Chicago, Pastor Lois McCullen Parr describes what it's like to run a program that feeds and provides a "hang-out" space  in the church for 50-70 LGBTQ youth, many of who are without a home, two Saturdays a month.
When asked why other organizations aren't running the same program she says:

"The way we operate is, some people would say, risky. We don't have rules published at the door. We don't make people show us an ID or leave their bags anywhere. Some people would say: You're asking for trouble."-1 Windy City Times
But she also says that taking that risk is worth it because, "when you treat people with love and respect, they respond, and they rise to the occasion."-2 Windy City Times 


Rudy Rasmus outlines the Apostle Paul's understanding of accountability in his book "Touch."
He says there are three big points for Paul:
Attitude,
Activism,
And Authority.
Attitude is exemplified in Paul's instruction to be humble as modeled after the life of Jesus.
Humility is the surrendering of oneself in belonging to God.
Humility is coming to be committed to belonging to God.
Activism comes from the actual work of Jesus, in loving all that we encounter.
Activism is what we choose to do with our faith, how we live into our belonging to God.
Authority is what comes from the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit of God gives us the power that is necessary to be servants,
to care more for another than our own profit.

Rasmus says: "I warn people that following Christ might make their lives more complicated--at least for a while."(p.121)
There are risks to following Jesus,
because in doing so we render ourselves accountable to God and to all of creation.
When creation groans, we groan.
When we shut out others, we shut out ourselves.
When we put our profit margins above creation, we put wealth above God.
Following Christ is not easy because following Christ isn't about "me",
or what "I" want.
Following Christ is not easy because it doesn't fit neatly into a market or a government.
Following Christ requires taking risk,
being bold.
Following Christ is giving more than we've got,
receiving more than we can handle,
loving when we don't feel it,
hoping when we can't see it,
praying when there are no words,
and speaking truth even when it comes at a great personal cost.
What does God require of you?

Who will you actively love?
What pain will you heal?
How much will you surrender to follow Christ?


What risks will you take?



1 & 2. Erica Demarest. "Lakeview pastor talks 'love work' LGBTQ Youth Series from Windy City Times" Windy City Times 11 Nov. 2012

Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Things God is Terrible At (And Why That’s Good News for Us.): POTUS

My brother posted an interesting comment that he had read concerning the current political race in these United States. The poster had declared that the incumbent president was practicing love for "the (the U.S.) enemies" and that the poster prayed to God that the incumbent president would not see a second term. To which my brother noted was "invoking God to go against the teachings of Jesus."

That, I think, is very interesting.

A while back I had started (and admittedly did not finish) a series of posts call "The things that God is terrible at, and why that's good for us."

POTUS is one of those things that I think fits into that series.

While the owner of the subject comment was likely unaware of the implications of the scenario that they conjured up, they do raise an interesting point.

God/Jesus would be a terrible POTUS.

All of the things that we generally cherish in this country concerning our "rights" or "freedoms" or order of governance would come to question under the presidency of Jesus.

How would candidate Jesus fair when it comes to questions of international policy?
What about Iran?
or better yet, Al Qaida/Osama bin Laden?

Seems a policy that reflected "loving one's enemies" (Matthew 5:43-44) would the answer, but certainly not the one that would be popular among the U.S. populace.

What about Gun Control? Second Amendment rights?

Swords in Plowshares? (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
That leaves us a little defenseless, doesn't it candidate Jesus?

What about the judiciary system? or the death penalty?

You've been through that and aren't a fan eh? (Luke 23:34, Romans 2:1-4)

What about nationalism? Love for one's country?

The people of God are called to be unlike the other nations? To not have a system of governance or to have interests for self over God? (1 Samuel 8)

The reality is this, there is no candidate that appropriately reflects the teachings of Jesus/God in their governance or their life. There is no "Christian" candidate, in the sense that there is no Christ-like candidate.
So while the commentator's assertion about the POTUS would be radical and Christ-like, it just isn't true. Heck, the incumbent president ordered and celebrated the execution of one of "our" enemies.

But the most disturbing part about the conversation is the hypothetical implication: That followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah, the True Life, The King of Kings, would never elect Jesus for president because that guy would just be way too radical to follow.

Jesus would make a "terrible" president and, honestly, I'm okay with that.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Bad News Chicks

Folks I have some bad news. Buying fried chicken will not secure your right to freedom of speech. Now don't get me wrong, I do enjoy fried chicken, but the truth is that it just never tastes like freedom.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm wrong, and if I am (you actual constitutional scholars) please tell me.

August 1st was a great day to be the owner of Chick-fil-A.
People lined up around the building.
Some folks just wanted to know that a little of their hard earned money, that they used to get delicious chicken sandwiches, went toward ensuring some folks don't get married/enjoy certain rights. (hospital visitations, health benefits, tax breaks, children, etc)
Others held up a much more noble cause: defending freedom!
One customer was so enthusiastic in her support of freedom/chicken that she brought along her two teenage daughters:
"It was good for them to see (that) this is what it means to be an American, and we have free speech, and when we want to make a statement, we can make it," she said. -1. CNN


The problem is this: freedom of speech is a right afforded by the government to its citizens. When LGBT folks/supporters get upset at a chicken chain that is funding campaigns against their ability to marry and they then make their frustrations known (whether it be via social media, boycott, or other), their actions/words against the chicken chain are not a violation of the restaurant's, nor the CEO's freedom of speech.

I have read some articles claiming that LGBT protesters are actually against the CEO's beliefs. Maybe they're right, but I'm pretty sure that that argument is at least an unintentionally misleading claim, if not an outright straw-man argument.

Now, if mayors like Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino actually moved their threats of "banning" Chick-fil-A from political posturing to reality, then we have a legitimate freedom of speech claim, because they are the government. When the government starts telling you what you can and cannot say, we all have a problem.
(This is why the Supreme court upheld the right for the Westboro folks to do their hate thing.)
However, there are legitimate pieces of legislation that have come out in the last 12 or so years that we should be getting our free-speech-breeches in a twist about.

But this?

Chicken?

And here's the thing; increasing a company's profits will not deter the government from violating free speech, because free speech is not a corporate/private issue, it is a government issue. If any violations ever did take place, the appropriate action would be political, not corporate.
Coming out to support the beliefs of the CEO and the way that Chick-fil-A donates their money to anti-LGBT organizations, that actually makes sense (if you're into that sort of thing).

If the shining example of "American freedom" is our willingness to support corporations monetarily because of the organizations they donate to, outside of the realm of their business, then I am afraid that I really do not know what is going on.

Maybe I don't.

After all, the surge of supporters/customers/"freedom fighters" present on the 1st was not the result of any direct corporate scheme.

Rather it was the idea of Christian pastor Mike Huckabee.

I didn't realize that was part of the gig. Now I'm wondering which corporations would like me as their sponsor...


1. CNN Wire Staff. “Chick-fil-A restaurants become rallying points for supporters.” CNN 1 Aug. 2012, 1 Aug. 2012 <http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/chick-fil-a-appreciation/index.html?iref=allsearch>.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

An Unassuming Voice

We hear about the injury,
the accident,
the death.
Of a coworker,
a friend,
a loved one.

We hear the politician,
the preacher,
the anchor.

Decry the wrong,
the perversion,
the society at large.

And the words that come bubbling out of our mouths are:
Anger at the injustice that has come forth from evil itself,
Hate for the one's responsible,
Momentary sympathy for those who have been hurt,
Calls for an apology,
a change,
retaliation.

But the voice that is seldom heard is the one that is the least boastful,
least knowing,
least declaratory.

The voice seldom heard is nary any noise at all,
Not even a whimper.

The voice seldom heard is quiet, patient, and kind.

The voice seldom heard has hope in all things,
believes in all things,
and endures in all things.

The voice seldom heard makes no assumptions.
And so it does not make noise, but rather, silence.
It is only in silence that a still small voice can be heard.
An unassuming voice, whose name is love.