The Clash of Hope and History

Most of us are incorrigible optimists. And I don’t just mean the happy, bubbly people who could see the bright side of a sewer trench. Most of us, no matter our temperament, have a sense that the world will ultimately be good. We may not have all our future plans clearly mapped out, and we may be in the midst of struggles right now, but the majority of us have an inarticulate but definite sense that in the future the world is somehow going to be made right. In a word, we hope.

But hope is a curious thing in this world so filled with seemingly hopeless tragedies. We suffer directly as we or our family members grapple with pain and terminal disease. We witness the immense suffering of others in seeing Tsunamis wiping out entire cities and house fires taking the lives of children. And yet we still hold on to the belief that everything will be all right? But even if we could make every city natural-disaster proof, every house fireproof, and every disease curable, we would still eventually grow feeble and die, and that doesn’t meet anyone’s definition of all right. So where does hope come from?

It’s as if we live amidst the constant clash of two worlds: The world of hopeful desire on the inside of us, and the world of hopeless facts on the outside. The question is, which of these two worlds is the real world? Thoroughly cynical people (who, interestingly, usually still try to live as if there’s a future to hope for) accuse Christians of being childish and willfully ignorant. They say we live in a dream--that there’s no real difference between our belief in Heaven and a child’s belief in the Easter Bunny. Each of these beliefs, they say, is just a castle built in the air, with no objective facts to ground it. We’re said to be “escapists” who retreat to our inner fantasies about God and Heaven because we don’t have the good sense and fortitude to face the world as it truly is.

And it’s at just this point that confetti explodes over us Christians. The resurrection of Jesus was precisely the moment when the world of hope entered into the world of history: “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” (Hebrews 2:14-15)

At Easter, and all through the year, we want to proclaim to all the stiff-lipped “sensible” people who base everything they believe on the hard facts of history, that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead is indeed one of those hard facts! It really happened, and because it really happened “...we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” (Romans 5:3-5)

In the words of, John Mark Mcmillan, “Jesus laid Death in his grave” and in so doing, He broke hopelessness and gave us the hope that does not disappoint.

Controversy and Inconsistency

Last week controversy erupted over an e-book sold on Amazon by Phillip Greaves, a 42 year old man from Pueblo, CO. The book's title is The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct.

There was such a public outcry, (including a big threat to boycott Amazon) that the book was pulled and is no longer available.

Just the thought of such a book makes me nauseous; I feel queasy just typing it. But the whole story raises some important questions:

In a society that is so open and affirming to people who consider themselves G, L, B or T, I find it interesting that most people are still quick to oppose those whose "orientation" is P. Don't misunderstand me. I'm glad that the vast majority of people decry pedophilia for the evil perversion it is. I just wonder what standard of decency people are appealing to when they do so, and how that standard applies to other types of sexual behavior. I know the first response is that pedophilia is severely damaging to children (which, of course, it is), though there are some advocates who argue that it isn't, and that it is only an "orientation" which is on equal footing with others which are more socially acceptable. I even read a quote from a gay rights activist once in which she referred not to pedophiles, but to those of a "trans-generational orientation," and argued that those who have that orientation are discriminated against just as homosexuals used to be.

All this makes me think of a quote from N.T. Wright:

"Having decreed that almost all sexual activity is good and right and commendable, we are all the more shrill about the one remaining taboo, pedophilia. It is as though all the moral indignation which ought to be spread more evenly and thoughtfully across many other spheres of activity has all been funneled on to this one crime. Child abuse is of course stomach-turninlgy disgusting, but I believe we should beware of the unthinking morlaism which is so eager to condemn it simply because we hate the thought of it rather than on properly thought-out grounds. 'Morality' like that can be, and often is, manipulated. Lashing out at something you simply know by intuition is wrong may be better than tolerating it. But it is hardly the way to build a stable moral society." (Evil and the Justice of God pg. 27)

Like Wright, I see a big inconsistency in opposing one type of sexual immorality and affirming all others. There has to be a higher standard of sexual behavior than the arbitrary criteria of that which takes place among "consenting adults." (as does adultery).

Certainly this is a discussion-worthy topic if ever there was one?

Mike

More thoughts on OT Violence

(I want to cite a long quote and wasn't sure if there'd be room in the comment section)

There's a well-thought-out article on OT violence from a Christian philosopher named Paul Copan. I posted it on my website: thoughtsifter.com. (Just click the "Violence in the OT" tab at the top). Here's a quote form that article I found interesting:

“All that breathes.” I observed in my previous essay that the lan- guage of total obliteration (“all that breathes”) is an ANE rhetorical device, an exaggeration commonly associated with warfare. For example, in Deuteronomy 2:34 (“we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.”) and 3:6

(“. . . utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city”), we come upon what is a standard expression of military bravado in ANE warfare. In 7:2–5, alongside Yahweh’s command to “destroy” the Canaanites is the assumption they would not be obliterated—hence the warnings not to

make political alliances or intermarry with them. That is, we have stock ANE phrases referring to a crushing defeat and utter obliteration in my earlier article, but this is what Goldingay calls “monumental hyperbole.”

Also, I think the Craleys hit on something that is key. We have to consider the radical difference in what we could call mental or cultural climate. We have almost no idea what it was like to live in such a radically different culture so many thousands of years ago. It's my understanding that, in ancient near eastern culture, warfare was often inseparably tied to religion. In many cases victory in war was taken as a sign of the superiority of a nation's God. This was the cultural climate within which God was communicating to people. This doesn't remove all the difficulty of the issue, but the more we consider different factors like this, the more we see how much more complex a thing it is to discern than it sometimes seems upon an initial reading.

Also, Gregory Boyd has a great chapter on this in his book Letters from a Skeptic. One of his main points there is that we should always work from the known to the unknown when trying to understand hard passages like these. We know that Jesus is the full revelation of God, so what ever else God is, his character cannot be contrary to what we see in Jesus. We may not be able to understand God's commands of violence in the OT, but we have more than sufficient grounds for believing God can be trusted in light of what we know in Jesus.

God-Ordained Violence in the OT

Pastor Jim's Monday night Old Testament study discussed the issue of God's commands to kill (apparently entire) gentile populations in certain areas like Jericho, as we read about in the book of Joshua.

Like a lot of people, I have always thought of this as one of the most difficult parts of the Bible to wrestle with, and I was wondering what types of questions came up in the Monday night group, and if any who weren't in that group have some thoughts about this as well.

I had a few thoughts about this, but will wait until a later post.

Any thoughts?

Christians and Retirement Accounts

I made the comment in today's (Sunday, Oct. 10) sermon that, in light of Jesus' teaching on the rich fool in Luke 12, if someone is more than, say, ten or fifteen years from retirement age, and has enough money in savings to live comfortably if he were to stop working today, that person is probably not following Christ to the fullest.

Of course we must be responsible and save and manage money wisely to see that our families are taken care of. What I mean is a large sum of money saved back in order to secure a comfortable lifestyle once one retires from working.

A clarifying question would be, if a person has this large a sum of money sitting in an account (a decade or two before retirement)--what would be the difference between that person and the rich fool in Luke 12?

MM

The NFL and Moral Depravity

A few years ago a big story in the world of sports was the dog-fighting scandal centering on Michael Vick, who was then a star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons and now the Philadelphia Eagles.



I wrote something about this on the personal blog I was keeping at the time, and the issue came up recently in a book study group at Bethany, so I thought I'd post the story again. It's three years old, but still very relevant:

________________________

By now most people have heard about the legal troubles of Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick, who is charged with involvement in illegal dogfighting. He is in some serious, potentially career-damaging trouble and has become a punching bag for many public commentators. Apparently dog fighting is one of the most intolerable sins for many in pop culture.

But what really strikes me is the disparity between the Vick scandal and a recent news story about another famous NFL quarterback, Tom Brady, three-time Superbowl champion for the New England Patriots. Brady's story, which seems to be anything but scandalous to those reporting it, is that he got his girlfriend, Bridget Moynahan, pregnant, but then the couple broke up. As it turns out, nine months wasn't too short a time for Brady to find a new girlfriend, whom he's now with while the old one is giving birth to his first child.

Here's the link to an article on Brady's story in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/08/23/its_a_boy_for_bridget_moynahan_and_tom_brady/

Of course what Michael Vick did was bad, but if there is any such thing as chastity--if there is any standard of sexual decency and any value in a man and woman actually trying to live as husband and wife to the child they give birth to, then what Brady did was worse. I'm not saying either of these men should be demonized for their mistakes (though many have not hesitated to demonize Vick). I just can't understand why dog fighting is seen as such a perverse thing while fathering a child from philandering is smiled upon?

MM

Morals of the White Witch

One of my quirks is a curiosity about the real life moral characters of actors who play significant roles in movies I like. I have this naive but stubborn assumption that if an actor or actress plays a part in a morally moving story, that the person must, at least to some extent, endorse the lessons in the story and be shaped by them. How could any of the main actors in The Passion of The Christ not have been deeply changed by that story? How could anyone who played in Hotel Rwanda ever be tempted to be racist? How could Sandra Bullock or Tim McGraw fail to see the profound importance of family and sacrificial giving after playing in Blindside?

But this is, of course, a dumb and consistently false assumption. A good case in point is the Actress Tilda Swinton, who plays the part of the White Witch in the film versions of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. If ever there were a series of fiction stories that convey the eternal importance of real virtue, of good sense, honor, and purity, and most of all of Christ, it is The Chronicles of Narnia. Though the movies (especially Prince Caspian) didn’t do full justice to the original books, it’s still hard to understand how anyone could play a main role in these stories and yet, on a personal level, reject the most basic ideas the author’s life was built upon. But Miss Swinton does this with gusto. She lives in Scotland with John Byrne, the father of her children (one of whom is ironically named Honor). And travels with and sometimes lives with her partner/boyfriend Andro Kopp. Though living in the same house, Swinton and her children’s father are not married, but are said to be good friends, even though the he is aware of her relationship with the boyfriend.

I saw her on Charlie Rose recently, and she seems to be an energetic, optimistic, happy person. Apparently a lifestyle of open marriage “works” for Ms. Swanton. And this raises an important question for Christians. What do we have to say to those of a libertarian mindset who suggest that if a certain behavior or lifestyle makes someone happy--even though the behavior has traditionally been understood to be perverse and immoral--we should live and let live and simply appreciate the fact of another’s happiness, as long as that happiness doesn’t infringe on someone else’s well being?

MM