The Christian Imagination

Very interesting post and comments at Faith and Theology: why churches should stop performing weddings. One of his main points is how we sometimes elevate romantic love and marriage to an idolatrous level, and he has some potent quotes from Bonhoeffer.

If we begin to refuse church participation in wedding ceremonies, perhaps the way will be opened for a renewed sacramental understanding of marriage. The church refuses to recognise the marital relationship – or, for that matter, “the family” – as the fundamental social unit. Instead, the Christian community recognises the body of Christ as the fundamental social order of the new creation. And within this new society, within this economy of friendship and hospitality and self-giving, the church also bears witness to particular instantiations of Christian friendship, to specially gifted loci of generosity and hospitality and self-giving love.

This, of course, goes against a fair amount of popular evangelical teaching on the nuclear family. I suggest reading the whole post and some of the comments to better understand what’s being said. I think he raises some good questions, and the dialogue that results is very interesting.

I really liked this comment from Kristie:

One thing I might venture to suggest for those who are having a difficult time grasping the point here is to sit down and really talk with the single people in your churches. Not necessarily with the college students or even the twentysomethings, but those who are 30 or 40 or 50 and still unmarried. Ask them how they perceive their singleness to impact their inclusion in the church body. Are they treated in accordance with Ben’s paraphrase, “For in Christ Jesus, neither marriage nor singleness is anything; what counts is a new creation”? Or are they marginalized and made to feel less than human? I believe that they are often marginalized, and this is because (I think) the church has indeed bought into society’s idolatry of romance (and marriage and “family values” for that matter) and doesn’t quite know what to do with those who are “alone” in this sense, except pity them or perhaps play matchmaker for them. I love reading Bonhoeffer on this point – he actually seems to take Christ’s redefinition of the family seriously: “Who are my mother and my brothers?…Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Ben is absolutely correct—the body of Christ is fundamental social order of the new creation, and so it ought to be of the church here and now in anticipation of the new creation. All other relationships must be understood in appropriate relation to this supreme reality.

I so relate to that. I like my church, and feel I have a place there, though I do wonder at times where I fit in as a 30-something single. Most of my friends are A) single college students or B) married couples, because, well, that’s primarily who is part of our church and coffee house, and my heart resonates with so many of these people. I don’t relate best to people in my ’season of life,’ but to people who have the same passions and interests and questions. It’s just hard to get away from the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) pressure put on me by society, and sometimes by church culture, of what my life is supposed to look like, when I should be married, and all that, especially when I would like to be married, with all the self-denial and growth that comes with it. But you know, I have a good life, and there’s plenty I am doing and can do for the kingdom, and my life will be worthwhile, whether I ever get married or not. So it’s refreshing for me to read post’s like the one above to be reminded that God’s kingdom is not always like what some church cultures say it is.

As long as wer’re talking politics, I thought I would repost what I wrote on another blog back in December 2006. Rumsfeld is no longer in the picture, but his legacy lives on. Oh, and I just realized their website is no longer there, so my links to source material are no longer valid. I may have the source documents around, or feel free to do a search for the Project for a New American Century.

I was just reading a post from Jim Wallis’ blog. I found the following quote really interesting.

And don’t start in about Saddam. I was against him when Washington treated him like a pal—guess who was the liason to the Butcher of Baghdad: Donald Rumsfeld. We helped Saddam in his war with Iran and even helped him target his use of WMD’s against Iranians.

Rumsfeld, along with Dick Cheney, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, and Steve Forbes are part of a neo-conservative think tank called The Project for a New American Century. Back in 2000, they published a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The report is not without merit, but it does draw some controversial concluions. Here are a few quotes:

About the US enforcing global security, not just US security (later called a Pax America):

At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this “American peace.”

How this security is meant to favor US interests:

The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity.

The following quote is from the NAC report Iraq: Setting the Record Straight. Do you know who said it?

What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction….Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use this arsenal.

That’s right. Bill Clinton. The NAC details all the reasons why they feel the Iraq war was justified. If you’d like to read a 100 page detailed explanation from the source, there it is.

This letter, written by the NAC to Bill Clinton in 1998 is rather eye-opening. They talk with a sense of urgency about the threat of Saddam, WMDs, and removing Saddam from power.

This article by Duane Shank of Sojourners (a Christian organization) explains in more detail.

So there you have it. We helped Saddam build his empire. The man who helped bring him down helped build him up, Mr. Rumsfeld. The NAC, including Chaney and Rumsfeld were largely responsible for the George W. Bush Administration’s foreign policy. The NAC wanted Saddam out of power, period, back in 1998. Their 2000 report reinforced that Saddam was a threat. This report also talks about maintaining a Pax Americana and policing the world, with US interests at the forefront. Thus, any talk linking Iraq to Al Qaeda as a justification is just that, a justification for what they already intended to do.

Yes, Saddam was a threat, but it’s hard to take talk about freeing the Iraqi people seriously when we don’t apply our ‘ethic’ consistently. Genocide is going on in Sudan, and we are doing what? China commits human rights violations (as do others), and we use economics as leverage. For the record, I do not think the Iraq invasion was just. When we strike first (a pre-emptive war) and there are significant civilian casualties, that breaks two just war principles. Do a search for ‘Just War’ in Google and see what you come up with.

Has the US ever done anything wrong? Is there any legitimate reason why anyone in the world would hate us? Yes and yes. The US has done a lot of good in the world too. We are loved and hated, rationally and irrationally. I embrace my country. I am an American. We have done great things as a country and made mistakes, and sometimes do things that are questionable (CIA anyone?). I was reading Thomas Merton once and he was talking about the lunacy of the Superpowers focus on Nuclear Weapons and destruction. Is something as powerful as a nuke ever justified? Is modern war even just? Two examples that I have a hard time with the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Bombing of Dresden. The Japanese cities were more significant militarily than Dresden. Still, all were civilian population centers. Dresden is still questionable. It is argued that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war sooner and saved lives in the long run. If true, that is really disturbing to me. In the battle of us versus them, is it as simple as pragmatically deciding that our lives are worth more than theirs, and therefore, any means necessarily to win is acceptable, even if it means destroying thousands or millions of lives, even innocent lives? As a Christian, I just have a hard time with that, as it just doesn’t line up with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It’s a complex world though, where people have layered motives for their actions, and where everybody is not as good as we’d like to believe. There are people who do evil things, and who will not stop doing evil things unless they are threatened with violence, and so we use violence. We seem to be rather uncomfortable though with the notion that there can be evil in our own hearts. We don’t like to think that we can possibly do anything wrong.

While violence is part of the world we live in, as a Christian, I believe in a higher ideal. Too often I think we take the easy way out, the way of the world, the pragmatic solution. Non-violent peacemaking isn’t always the best solution, but you know, if we took it seriously, and if we used it more often, I wholeheartedly believe it would be more effective. What’s that you say? It doesn’t work? It’s not reality? I beg to differ. Read A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violent Conflict

I’ve been reading through Taking it to the Streets this year. It’s a great book about how to live out faith as an artist, and gives some awesome examples of artists being incarnational on the streets of their city.

One story I found very cool is that of John Bjerklie, who started attending a Bible study targeting the homeless of New York City. He was invited to lead the Bible study through art, which he had done for five years at the time the book was written.

One of the things that I always did that helped me in my growth as an artist was I would read the Bible and I’d try to draw. So with the homeless people, we read the Bible and try to draw, I mean it’s about as basic as it gets. We would say, “What’s the picture that comes to your mind?” And then we’d sit down and we’d try to draw it, and it was just mind-blowing what would come out. (Corbitt & Nix-Early, 133)

That is amazing on so many levels, and profound in its simplicity. He also put together a Christmas calendar yearly featuring drawings from the Bible study members. All profits went to meet the needs of the homless group members.

Corbitt, J. Nathan & Nix-Early, Vivian. Taking it to the Streets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 2003.

I’ve been challenged of late. I have been a part of a startup Internet business since 2004. It’s been a great growth experience, but it’s disturbing at times to realize just how easy it is to view life on a contractual, economic exchange level. I do, after all, have to take care of myself, and my family and close friends need attention to. I also can only do so much and truly know so many people. However…

I pass all sorts of people every day, and I rarely desire to stop and chat. I spend lots of time at our coffee house, and there, all sorts of people come in. And when working, it’s so easy to take a moment for the beautiful, the intelligent, the together, the friendly. Meeting new people, especially those who are different, can take work, can take energy. And you wonder, I wonder, if it’s worth it at times. It’s been said, for instance, that it’s a better investment of time to help someone who wants to succeed rather than spend time trying to raise someone who doesn’t have much desire to a higher level.

And yet, when I read the Bible, over and over, it talks about God’s concern for the poor, oppressed, widows, and orphans, those in need. I read verses like 1 John 4:17, “If any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?”

The thing is, I am all about loving the poor and loving my enemy, but when that person walks in, in the flesh, as a real person, it’s easier not too. And thats what we’re about, isn’t it: what’s convenient? So I spend time with people in many ways like me, trying to be liked, trying to contribute, and forget there are people ‘out there’ that I’ve forgotten how to relate to, if I ever knew. I feel the should and ought, but not the love. I forget that saying the right words and getting a result are secondary to an act of love, however pitiful an attempt, because love never fails.

Then I read the verse above again, and wonder who’s more in need, the one in need of goods, or the one who needs to love? In God’s kingdom, there’s no condition placed on love that says it is an investment, that it needs to be worth it, or any other terms that betray just how materialistic our mindsets are. No, the command is to love. It leads me to wonder who’s more impoverished. It reminds me that I am just as much in need, and it’s partially because I have so few practical needs that I miss the needs in my soul. Maybe it’s not so much about helping ‘those people’ as it is about extending myself and giving what I have…and learning, being taught, by the person who a moment ago I thought was less than me…not that I’d ever admit that. Maybe that person is there to teach me how to love.

Then I see a life change. It’s humbling and encouraging. A reminder to not give up on others…or myself.