Invitation or call?

Have you noticed that "invitational" is the current buzzword in some Christian circles? It describes a way of relating to the other such that the inviter would like the invited to do or listen to something. It seems to be a correction to un-Christlike ways of relating which involve some form of (verbal but sometimes physical) coercion. For instance: "Accept Jesus as your personal savior if you want to avoid the eternal damnation which you are certainly headed toward if you don't do it right now!" Hopefully, people will see a problem with that way of relating (evangelizing).

Enter the new(er) buzzword: "I invite you to hear my story of what Jesus means to me." This sounds much nicer than the above fiat. But I would argue that something is missing. It seems too watered down. If I get an invitation to a Columbus Day party, I might respond "Hey! That sounds like a blast! I'll bring a dead Indian!" or more likely "Meh. I'll be busy watching re-runs of The Sopranos that night." The invitation gets tossed without a second thought; no biggie, no consequences.

Is that what the call to follow Jesus is? Merely an invitation, or is there more? I think that what we are calling the other to accept ought to be clear. Give them a chance to grasp what it is they might be rejecting and what kind of world is created when the call of Jesus is rejected (weeping and gnashing of teeth?).

I think that "call" is the better word anyway. We can look at Jesus' way of calling his disciples as our example. Invitational? Yes, but also quite urgent and serious - "Follow me and you'll end up fishing for people" and eventually "Take up your cross and follow me."
Read more...

A Constantinian Shift at Goshen College?

The Mennonite posted an article which I submitted to them on their web site. They chose the title "John Howard Yoder's 'irresponsibility'?" even though only 1/3 of the article deals directly with Yoder. There is so much more to be discussed surrounding this issue. I hope one that gets some exposure is the "worship" aspect. What I mean is this: The act of facing the flag during the anthem and placing the right hand over the heart ought to be seen as an act of worship. What other acts do we do or postures do we assume that are totally "non-rational"? When God is worshiped, people will stand for scripture reading, bow their heads, close their eyes, lift their hands, cross themselves, etc. These are all "toward God." I submit that something similar is happening when the anthem is played and people face the flag and place their hands over their hearts (according to the law). Is this not worship "toward the nation"?
Read more...

Problematizing Pluralism: Some Incomplete Questions

I've been thinking about religious pluralism lately. Patrick's last post helped provoke that. It seems to be a "chic" way of being spiritual in this culture. In fact, religious pluralism might be the ultimate form of political, social, and religious "correctness" that exists. But I have some questions that seek to critique and raise some problems for it.

1. What is it's goal?
I think one of the probable reasons that folks begin embracing pluralism is that it promises to bring peace between potentially hostile religious factions. If for instance Christians give up their claim to the ultimate uniqueness and truth of God, Jesus, and the Spirit, a significant offense to other religious traditions is erased. Conversations can take place without the threat of evangelization. Differences that might be uncomfortable are papered over. Recall the old adage: "Don't talk about religion and politics." Is this the only (or best) way to avoid violence?

Another answer would say that the goal is to "celebrate diversity." It's really an imperative that needs a definition. Is any diversity good? And is the fact that Christians and Muslims have a serious disagreement about Jesus something to make us sing "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy"? (Perhaps a deep, theological conversation ought to take place where arguments can be made and responded to.) Is this the only (or best) way to avoid hatred?

2. How much pluralism is enough? What about those religions/traditions which we have not encountered yet?
In pluralism's quest to embrace a "wider wisdom" and avoid sectarianism, will it ever reach the point of embracing enough? What if a religious tradition exists somewhere that we don't know about? What if we misunderstand the ones we think we know something about? It also seems that there will always be more out there that we might want to embrace but which we will never be able to know.

3. How does one decide what to reject?
What criteria does one use to accept or reject a practice or tenet of another religion? Can Christian moral reasoning be used to critique the caste system or must the Hindu justification of it stand? Or is there a higher reasoning? If so, where and what is it? Also, what of ideologies that, according to many sociologists, function as religions. Must Marxism be brought into the fold?

4. Does it have a history or text which can describe it? Is there any empirical evidence of its truthfulness?
If pluralism aspires to a higher truth, what signs of this higher truth exist? Is there an ancient promise, text, or revelation which describes its shape and goal?

5. Is there an explanation for the differing threads of pluralist tradition?
B'hai, Buddhist, Unitarian-Universalist, a myriad of other groups... Will the real pluralism please stand up? If these groups are truly pluralist, they should have merged by now. Or maybe there is a "higher, higher truth" above each one of their particular "higher truths."

6. Can it avoid being "evangelical"?
If the avoidance of proselytizing one's beliefs is a goal of pluralism, then it fails miserably on that account. Much has been written and spoken in an effort to show the truth of pluralism. Some of it fervently and passionately so, making it sound like the new "good news.". Doesn't this constitute evangelizing?
Read more...

Greg Boyd Says Mennonites Should "Cherish Their Treasure"

Greg Boyd has a good blog post here on a topic that some Mennonites and also non-Mennonites have been musing over. The question he asks is, Why are so many Mennonites embracing either the political left or (even more so) the political right when their tradition calls them to embody the politics of God's kingdom? Read it.
Read more...

Band Concert or Religious Service?

I went to a band concert a few weeks ago. The Massanutten Brass Band played on the lawn at James Madison University. They were awesome. They played some good tunes, and they were good at it. My son and I loved the "Imperial March" from Star Wars, and all of it was top notch. But this post is not intended to be a review of the concert so much as a critique of the culture that the band concert took place in. Of course, they opened with "The Star-Spangled Banner" (that was the opening prayer). Most civic events do. And, of course, some people in attendance sang along and a few even placed their hands over their hearts. Many of the songs were patriotic marches with one or two Christian hymns sprinkled in as a perfunctory nod to the role Christianity plays in our culture - as a support to the greater, overriding ideology of America.

It would appear that America is a highly religious nation, but its dominant religion is not biblical
Christianity. Its dominant religion is America. In the concert, the overwhelming theme was the greatness of America. The hymns were brought almost as a sub-theme.

It's interesting to think about the heated debates about the appropriateness of religion (or maybe faith is the current buzzword) in politics. I'm thinking that that discussion completely misses the elephant in the room that I've been talking about - Americanism. People kill for it, people die for it, they sing its praises, they want it to rescue them from terror or poverty, they give large chunks of their lives to serve it. Liberals and conservatives alike. Christian and anti-Christian alike.

America is its own god. Now where's my John Philip Sousa record?

Read more...