Thoughts on Divided by Faith

I just finished reading a vastly insightful book by sociology professors Michael O Emerson (Rice) and Christian Smith (UNC). Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America, though a bit dry at times, has much to say to the Evangelical American church today.

Most of us white Evangelicals really don't realize how much building cross-racial friendships (as good as that is) is not the key to racial equality in America. There truly are structural issues involved that must be dealt with, and it is the church's place to deal with such problems on a macro-level. No, it is not enough to just love people on as individuals and attempt to be color blind. There are societal structures that must be dealt with before equality (economically, educationally, socially) can be acheived, and the Bible calls the People of Faith to address such concerns.

But this book may also be helpful for many African-Americans in providing what's needed to understand why Caucasians process race and racialization the way they do--in such individualized fashion.

For those of us not too up on our history, chapter two may be of some of the highest value in the whole book as it helps readers gain a bigger picture of how we got to where we're at in America.

But here's what caught me more than anything else in this book. It's what really has me thinking now. What really interests me is how the church is called to respond. How am I as a pastor to lead people to transformation and reconciliation? How do I instigate change?

I have not yet read the follow-up book, United by Faith, so I am still without its contribution. But this book definitely left a high call on the need to foster integrated churches. Divided actually argues that to continue embracing racially homogeneous (i.e. comfortable) congregations is to keep the Black-White gap strong. And if you're nervous at this kind of argument, that is all the more reason why you need to read this book. Their case is cage-rattling for many of us white boys out here. But, again, that's why we need to read it.

Like I said, I'm still processing what I am supposed to do as a prophetic voice--what my role is in this, so I don't have much on answers for you. But I invite you to pick up the book, read it for yourself, and let me know your thoughts. Then we can all walk this thing together.

Living Sacrifice

Last night I was challenged with some words from a journal entry. Isn't it incredible how often hard-hitting quotes are discovered in other people's journals? Anyway, this one was found in Phil's journal. Most of you reading this, I would guess, are well aware of Phil Penner and his recent death (otherwise, I do invite you to look back a couple posts). This quote was read last night at Encounter, our evening worship gathering. Here it is:

"Living is a chance to follow Jesus...
Suffering is a chance to know him better...
And dying is a chance to see him."

The trouble with these quotes is that they sound so familiar and appear so easy to say. Almost too easy. They sound good and really spiritual. We've seen stuff like this before in other people's journals--you know, famous missionaries and whatnot. We read them, and we're like, "Yeah, that's so true." And how many of us have memorized Philippians 1:20, "For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain." How many times have I seen such words scratched accross the cover of someone's notebook? How many times have I seen Phil 1:20 on someone's Facebook under their favorite quotes? We love these kinds of words. It's like we find a spiritual high in such words (and with good reason) that propels us to live more fully for Christ.

But here's what hits me right now:

That Phil Penner actually lived those words.

That Phil didn't just write about living, suffering, and dying to know Christ. He didn't just put it on his Facebook and call it a day. No, he actually lived it. And this isn't just because he went to a hostile Muslim nation to tell people about Jesus. It's because even while he was here in the States, he devoted every expense of energy and breath of air toward demonstrating the love of Christ to other people. He didn't waste his time on the things I do. He didn't get caught up in the selfish ambitions that I do. No, from every possible angle, it seems that he had no other desire but to give himself fully to the Lord and his work. Though his missionary work is not why he was fully given, it is possibly the natural result of such surrender. In everything Phil did, the truth of his journal entry is evident: "Living is a chance to follow Jesus... surrender is a chance to know him better... and dying is a chance to see him."

The truth is, though I do believe we may be able to serve God just as fully anywhere on the globe, I know we use this fact as an excuse to not go to those certain areas that are dangerous and uncomfortable. Though not all of us are called to a hostile Muslim nation where Christianity is illegal, all of us are indeed called to be willing. The problem is that most of us are not.

I find further challenge in this. As a pastor in the US, I am confident of my calling here. As I look at my skills, gifts, and abilities, I see no more effective place for me to minister than in metropolitan America. At the same time, I do believe that I am willing to go anywhere. I used to want to to oversees work. While working on my BA, I gave serious thought to ministering long-term in Europe. After a ten-day mission to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, I gave some consideration to doing full-time work there. And I have often thought about how I would love to do translation work with Wycliffe or something. Yet at the end of the day, I come down to the fact that I would simply be more effective here. That what I have to offer would go further here at home.

Where, incidentally, it just happens to be a lot more comfortable.

So part of me wonders from time to time if I really am gifted most fully for ministry in America. Of if subconsciously that's just where I want to minister. How willing am I really? How much am I truly surrendered? I do honestly feel like I am genuine in my willingness to go anywhere. I feel sincere and confident as I assess where God's calling rests on my life. But I also feel like we in the States all too easily allow ourselves to assume God's desire for our comfort. We all too quickly buy into the trickery that God's will for our lives is one of success and safety. I think these are questions we all need to ask ourselves. Each of us must war with what we assume God's plans for our lives are. Every one of us must come to grips with the fact that suffering is sometimes a tool of God and not always his enemy.

Phil knew this and as he laid awake at night realizing that his work in Southeast Asia could result in torture and death... or in falling victim to foreign illness, he still followed his understanding that life, suffering, and death are all valuable in how they show us Jesus. So Phil gave up any personal ambition and handed them in for a deeper intimacy with his Lord. Did this desire result in a premature departure from this earth? Most certainly yes, it did. But it also allowed him to "see Jesus" earlier than we have.

May each of us fight the temptations of comfort and security with the perfume of knowing Christ more fully. May the sweetness of such insight tease our nostrils and may we lay aside our earthly cares for heavenly ones. May we follow more fully in the light of a bright Savior. And as we think of Phil and his example, may the Apostle Paul's words come to mind, "Be imitators of me as I am of Christ" (1Cor. 11:1).

The Name Game

Today as Sen. Barack Obama prepared to make what was billed by his campaign as a major address on patriotism, I once more found on a discussion board the baseless name-bashing that has continually crept its way into political discussion. I find it absolutely infuriating. I'm talking about the rant that I've heard too many times to count over the past year--that Barack Hussein Obama's name is evidence of his hidden anti-American, militant Muslim identity.

Disclaimer: Let me assure readers that what I am about to say is not an endorsement of any political party or candidate. It is rather an appeal for reasoned dialogue rather than ruthless bashing via senseless logic.

The argument, though it may be found in several variations, typically goes something like this. Obama's last name is basically the same as Osama bin Laden's first name, simply changing the second letter. It would then seem that there must be some religious or ideological connection between Obama the American senator and bin Laden, the Islamic terrorist leader. This reasoning is further affirmed by Obama's middle name Hussein, which just happens to be the exact same name as the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, also a known Muslim. And the name Barack, well that doesn't sound very friendly either. So off the argument goes to verify the shady nature of Obama's name. Put this together with the fact that Obama's father was African and that the senator did not spend all his growing-up years in the States, and we round out a good start to the argument circling that Obama is secretly an anti-American, militant Muslim gearing up to overtake this "Christian"nation. To put the argument in the exact words of those who make it, here is the exact quote I read this morning by a man who calls himself Manolete:

"Obama Osama will say whatever he has to say to overtake the government of the United States of America, so that he and his radical extremists and black supremacists associates can destroy the american values and our way of living.
"Obama, Osama, Osama, Obama,.....there is only one word difference between them.....who is the real Obama?"

Part of me realizes this is such an outlandish argument that there is no point in dignifying it enough to give a response. Does any intelligent person actually put weight in such nonsense? But like the husband who fights with his wife by throwing cheap shots at every opportunity, I have heard this fear-based tactic used more times than I can keep track of. It keeps coming up. And what concerns me further is that I have heard people I know bring it up in conversation. To take it two steps even closer, these are people in my church and in my family. So reluctantly I pick the issue up and ask us to cut right to the chase.

If we are looking to Barack Hussein Obama's name for a clue to his true identity, we must consider his first name ... first. This is especially true since it is a name not just inherited in the same manner any of us got stuck with our last names, be they Johnson, Bekius, Oladipo, or Chavez. Rather his first name is the one his parents chose to define him more than any other. That name is Barack. I'm curious if any of us (especially the Christians in the room) have read our Bibles enough for this name to ring home. Why? Because it's one of those good biblical names--you know, the kind you name your kids after, in hopes that one day their life and character would reflect that of the biblical character.

The truth about Barack is this. He is a biblical hero. Barack the son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali lived in the first half of the Twelfth Century BCE, as found in the book of Judges 4-5. When Jabin the Canaanite king and Sisera, the commander of his army posed a dangerous threat to Israel's existence, Deborah asked Barack to lead the army against their enemies. Though reluctant, he said yes. And at the end of the day, Barack is memorialized in Hebrews 11 as one of the great examples of Jewish (and subsequently Christian) faith. Only 16 individuals are mentioned here by name. Right there with Moses, David, Abraham, and Samuel, Barack is lifted up to be imitated as one of great faith. On a side note: the fact that in most of our English translations, his name reads as "Barak" without the C is incidental since Judges was written in the Hebrew language and can be effectively translated "Baraq," "Barack," or "Barak."

So what am I trying to say here? Am I positing that this is the reason Obama's parents named him Barack? That he was raised reading the Bible and being molded in the faith of his Jewish and Christian ancestors? No. I'm not saying this at all. In fact, it seems pretty clear that this is definitely not what happened. I'm simply showing that, first of all, Barack is a great name that brings with it a legacy of faithful living. And secondly, I am demonstrating that just as we can derive Muslim influences from Obama's name, so we can also derive Jewish and Christian ones.

But my real goal more than anything else is to show us the folly of demanding that a person's character, motives, and actions fall in line with their name. Especially in today's world, people are given names for a wide variety of reasons. My birthname, first and middle, is Andrew Joe. My parents simply called me Andy. The "meaning" of Andrew is "strong, manly, brave," but I'm pretty sure that people who know me would not characterize me by these terms. But even if they did, they are not the reason why I was named as I was. When she was pregnant, my mom had a crush on a singer named Andy Gibb, but this is not the source of my name either. Truth be told, she just liked the name Andy (and even considered keeping AndyJoe together as testimony to the Redneck in my line). My parents named me Andrew Joe simply because they liked the sound of it. It didn't mean anything.

And so it is with Barack Obama. Let's stop playing games with his names. If he says he's not Muslim, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. And if the origin of his last name scares you a little, keep in mind the origin of his first. But besides all this, let's keep the debate to issues of substance. To issues that matter. To issues of leadership ability and of policy, be it economy, the Iraq war, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, education, environment, energy, etc. Whether from the Left or the Right, let's keep the debate going, but let's keep it going in a productive direction.

That way I could actually use this blog for something useful.

why?

So I guess I have to write something, but even as I'm typing here, I'm not sure what. Every day since Monday when Phil died, I have thought about writing but haven't been able to. What do I write? What do I say? How do I put into words all that I am thinking, feeling, needing? Where do I begin? Peralisis takes captive my ability to communicate. And few words have made their way past my lips over the course of this week. And for those who may be reading this, but have no idea what I'm talking about, I refer you to Phil and Esther's blog eslip.blogspot.com to read about Phil and Esther's ministry and events leading up to his recent death.

Tonight was Phil's American funeral here in Chicago. There were tons of people there who I haven't seen in forever, including a handful of individuals I went to college with and are now serving in God's kingdom across the globe. It was good seeing them again.

I guess the biggest thing I'm wrestling with in all of this is in God's reasoning for letting Phil die. Phil, as a result of this world's brokenness, contracted a rapidly spreading bacterial infection. Righteous women and men throughout the earth prayed for his healing. And God chose to say no to their prayers and let him die. Why? God's Word says that such prayers are "powerful and effective" (James 5:16). Where was their effect on Monday?

On top of the frustration of unanswered prayers is Phil's unique situation. It has seemed that his entire life and especially recent years have lead directly to his ministry in Southeast Asia. Years of preperation went into his future work there. He and Esther and Anna arrived and barely got started. He finished language school and so soon after went to get certified to teach English, and the weekend he finishes his certification, he dies. For what? It all just seems so futile. So pointless. Was less than two years going through training more valuable than potential decades of ministry here in the States? Was that brief time worth Anna growing up without her Daddy? And Esther without the love of her life? And because I do believe God is in control over all of this, I come back to the purpose of it all... But I can't find one. I just don't understand.

And yet I do believe that such a purpose must exist. God is intentional. And he is in the midst of carrying out a great and global plan. I do believe that Phil's untimely and illogical death somehow (in large or in small) fits into that plan. It's my own feeble inability to make personal sense of it that is so excrusiating.

But I think tonight maybe I saw some of this purpose. At the funeral there was much talk of how Phil's life has motivated, impacted, spurred on the lives of others. Countless more than I ever realized. I knew Phil was loved, but what I found tonight goes far beyond what I ever imagined. Someone tonight (I forget who) quoted an Asian saying that for every soldier that goes down, a thousand more rise up. Normally I would relegate this as optimism at its best in the midst of a grieving community. But at tonight's gathering, I really saw light of this reality. I saw people being challenged by Phil's incredible commitment. I found people who were challenged to live more like Phil as he lived like the Lord Jesus.

I must admit in my weak human state that I really don't know how God will use this past week to impact his worldwide work. I pray that he will use it in astronomical ways that could not have been done apart from his passing. I pray that my life may be challenged in new ways as a result of it. And from all the processing it has forced me to do, I think this impact is evident. I do believe God is at work, and I believe there is real hope in the brokenness of this thing we call life. I believe that Phil stands as an example of what great things God can accomplish in this world. Even if those great things take paths unexpected along the way.

Phil will always be missed. But if there is one thing we can learn from his life, it is the reality of God's faithfulness. Even when we don't understand it.

In an Absence of Comic Relief

I remember watching this movie as a child, but I don't recall the name. I think it was one of those made-for-tv movies. In it was a somewhat classic image of the power-wielding, abusive husband. He was also religious. Christian. I think maybe a pastor. The story's focus was on this abusive family situation. A major component was this husband's spouting of Scripture verses and biblical themes. His beatings were peppered with calls to obedience and commands of submission. As expected (justly), this pastor husband was painted as beastly and even delusional. There was no humanizing of this monster. Not a moment of comic relief.

Without surprise, the tormented wife was not religious. And in some respects, if my recall of childhood movie watching serves me faithful, religion was positioned as responsible for the abuse. Clearly this man was misrepresenting the long cherished words of Scripture. He was perverting the words toward his own gain. Yet the movie welled up in me the feeling that the Bible's possession of pervertable commands demanded its partial responsibility. Verses with such dark clouds over them deserve some of the blame. Regardless of context, the verses still said what they said.

I have thought on this movie and similar stories throughout the years since. As a student of the Bible, what it has to say about the relationships between women and men have given me more than my fair share of trouble. And for some of these passages, I still wrestle with how exactly it all works out.

But for one of these passages, indeed the one that speaks the most to the marriage relationship, it would do us all some good to set our assumptions aside and actually look at what the text says. In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle Paul takes a significant portion of space to explain what it looks like as the Spirit of God fills believers with "submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ" (5:21, ESV). He shows readers what this looks like in three types of relationships (commonly known as a "house code"), and the first of these is marital. So we're all on the same page, I have the entire text here:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33)

Now I could go on for quite a while in several different directions on the beauty and nuances of the apostle's words here. But what I simply want to demonstrate at this point is how our assumptions mislead us to misapply what is actually being said.

Certain key words and phrases often catch our eye. "Wives, submit." "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church." "Wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Let me here begin by pointing out that all of these commands are directed toward the wife-half of the teaching. In other words, the teaching is split in half, with the first directed toward what wives are supposed to do and second toward what husbands are supposed to do. All (as in every single occurrence) of the times Paul talks about wives submitting are in the wife-half of the teaching.

Now, it's true that the women are given a difficult task here, especially if we are careful to not inappropriately water down the words Paul uses. However, I keep in mind that according to 5:21, we are all to submit to one another in the community of faith. I also kind of feel that if God is calling wives to some particular focus in a relationship, that may be more between him and them, as opposed to my responsibility to monitor their following.

I think as husbands (for myself and any others) the need is much more pressing that we make sure we are fulfilling our half of Paul's teaching. But this is where I have seen far too many (maybe even all) expositions on this passage get terribly side-tracked. When we talk about the husband's "role" in marriage, we look at what the wife-half says about husbands rather than what the husband-half says about husbands.

Did you catch that? It seems most rational to me that if we want to see what husbands are supposed to do, we should concentrate on what it says husbands should do. The problem is that traditionally we look more at what the wives' calling says about husbands.

I am issuing a call that we look to what 5:25-33 says husbands should do. It is almost as if men need not even look to verses 22-24, since it is between God and the women anyway.

So what does it say men are to do? How are men to live our their biblical role as husbands? Lord over their wives? Ensure their "headship?" Call wives to submission? Demand obedience? No. No. No. No on every count. Men are never told to demand anything of their wives. They are never told to make sure they do anything. The husband-role is NOT to make sure their wives fulfill theirs. And they are certainly not called to be any sort of lord or master or boss or ruler.

"But they are called to be as Christ over the church," the objection cries out! See, this is where our self-made, culture-forming assumptions haze over the truth of Paul's words. It is true, the husband's role as "head" of his wife is explained as Christ's role as head of the church. However (this is where you lean forward and listen closely), Paul does not say, "Husbands, lead your wives, as Christ leads the church and reigns sovereignly over her on his throne." No this is not throneship imagery. As truly as Christ does reign in that way, it is not the imagery Paul uses to explain the husband's role.

Instead (you're still leaning forward) Paul uses imagery of complete self-sacrifice. Of the highest and truest form of self-denial. He writes, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," i.e. on the cross. That's it. The rest of the verses explain this kind of sacrifice and how a man's self-denial serves as a picture of Jesus' love for humanity. The marriage relationship is designed to be a picture of the Gospel. Nothing about ruling or lording. No imagery of domination. No one saying, "I'm the king of this castle," or "It's my way or the highway." It would do us all good to repeat: Men are NEVER told to make sure their wives do anything!

When Jesus was on his way to the cross, he did not assert his authority. He did not straighten his pose and pronounce his headship. When they attacked him (verbally and physically) he did not retaliate. He stood silent. Silent. When they stole his dignity, he said nothing of roles and responsibilities. When they marched him to his own death, he went. He let them kill him. And this death spoke of his love more than any other act in all of history. This is Gospel.

And this is the imagery the apostle uses to describe how men are to relate to their wives. This is the husband's role. We have much to learn. Much indeed. What would it look like if husbands did not retaliate when attacked? What if they did not feel the need to reassert their headship when he felt their dignity torn away? What if, when husbands felt attacked (verbally or even physically) they simply stood silent? What would that look like? What if husbands, in an attempt to form biblically sound marriages, sacrificed their authority, power, respect, and even their decision-making "rights"? This is to say nothing of truly selfish desires, preferences, and comforts. What if all of these treasured and masculine attributes were laid on the alter of love? I'm not sure I've ever seen such a marriage, but I think it may communicate the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the most powerful way. I think it may bring a message that speaks the Gospel.

So this is my calling. As husbands this is what we are called to embrace. It surely involves much more watching over ourselves than watching over our wives. And maybe, just maybe, wives would find it easier to fulfill whatever marital obligations Paul brings them, if they know and trust and feel that we are fulfilling ours. So I issue an invitation to all men, but especially those who profess a love for Jesus, to follow him in the most fundamental and critical way. To love our wives till it hurts. To love them like Jesus loves us. I issue a call to put our assumptions away and live as Paul has called us. To forget the throne. And to pick up a cross.