The centrality of marginality to Christian theology and life

This month at the theology reading group, we are discussing Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology by Jung Young Lee.

How do we make sense of our life experience in terms of theology? How do we make sense of theology in terms of our life experience? Given our humanity (finitude and egoism), it is impossible to completely separate our theology and our experience. Will they enrich or distort one another? Previously, I have written about the challenges of contextual theology.

Jung Young Lee was born in North Korea in 1935, escaped to South Korea during the Korean War, and immigrated to the USA as an undergraduate student. He then worked as a librarian, obtained a Ph.D., taught in a secular university, became a minister in the United Methodist Church, was active in its Korean-American congregations, and became a Professor of Systematic Theology at Drew University. Over the years, he experienced racism, prejudice, and stereotyping as an Asian-American.  Not feeling he belonged in the USA, he returned to South Korea at one point with the intention of staying. However, he discovered that he felt he no longer belonged there either.

Lee makes sense of his life through three lenses: historical, sociological, and theological. He recounts the historical experience of immigrants to the USA from Japan, Korea, and China, beginning in the nineteenth century. It is a sad and disturbing history of exploitation, discrimination, and humiliation. He discusses the sociological concept of marginality that was introduced to describe the "integration" of immigrants into the American "melting pot." He contests some of these definitions as they are developed by those in the centre and assume that being on the margins is bad and that the marginalised should move towards the centre. The centre is characterised by a concern with "wealth, power, and glory." (page 31)

"Immigration is the most vivid and profound symbol of marginality for us." (page 110).

Lee claims that "Theology is autobiographical so I reflect on my praxis and context." (page 33).

Lee discusses how marginality is central to the Biblical narrative. The Tower of Babel "was the symbol of centralisation" (p. 110). 

Lee suggests that in Old Testament narratives there are three acts (p,111). 

1. God's call to be a marginal people

2. Faith

3. "The promise which includes  receiving land, becoming a powerful nation, and making a great name (Genesis 12:1-9)."

"These three acts are inseparable. The first and third acts seem to contradict one another, but they are connected in the second act. The order of these acts cannot be reversed.... Tragedies in the history of Judaism and Christianity were due to the reversal this order... The coexistence of both marginality (the first act) and centrality (the third act) is possible in faith (the second act), the connecting principle..."

There is a dialectic. It is both/and rather than either/or.

God called Moses from his marginal status to lead the Israelite slaves out of Egypt. They wandered in the wilderness for forty years. Jesus was born in a stable, the son of a teenage unwed woman, and grew up in Galilee. In the wilderness, he resisted the temptation to embrace "wealth, power, and honour." He was scorned by the centre: the local religious and political leaders. The focus of his ministry was on the marginalised: the poor, sick, ritually unclean, hungry, lame, beggars, prostitutes, and tax collectors.  Jesus' death on the cross was the ultimate symbol of marginalisation. His disciples were not drawn from the social, political, or religious elites.

Humility, service, and love are the dominant characteristics Jesus said his followers should have. The early church did this and lived on the margins. Yet, following Constantine and the rise of Christendom, the church embraced centrality and scorned marginality. It was characterised by wealth, honour, and power. Today, the church, in all its diverse forms, still aspires to centrality. It is hierarchical, bureaucratic, and exclusive. Dogma does not recognise multiple shades of grey. (p. 125) "Centralism is the cardinal sin that destroys the authentic church." (p.142)

Lee presents a radical alternative vision for the church, including for seminaries. He argues that cell groups should be the core structural element of the church. Structures should be characterised by flexibility, local autonomy, and informality.

I have sympathy for his proposals, but sometimes I find he is idealistic and overly optimistic. Some of his proposals may work for a marginalised community such as Korean-Americans (who tend to be disciplined, well-organised, and highly educated). However, for groups of people such as the homeless and those with addictions or traumatic backgrounds, it is extremely challenging for them to develop structures and leaders. Such challenges are helpfully described in an earlier post by my wife, Robin.

On a personal level, I found the book challenging and discomforting. I am a child of the centre, in terms of family background, race, education, wealth, social status, and profession. Most of my life, I have been involved in churches and ministries that value and focus on centrality and marginality. This has not involved a blatant seeking after wealth, power, and honour. It has been much more subtle and subconscious, reflecting the surrounding culture and background of the participants and leaders. Too often I have been attracted to the centre and seduced by it. Only over the last fifteen years, I have a moved to a more marginal outlook and focus, stimulated by experiences in the Majority World. Yet the pull back to the centre is there day after day, particularly towards comfort, safety, and predictability.

The orientation and main messages of the book are largely not new to me. Nevertheless, it is a message I need to keep hearing. Lee's description of the immigrant experience, both his own and his historical predecessors, increased my imagination and empathy towards the immigrants I interact with. He gives seven characteristics of the experience of marginality: rejection, humiliation, alienation, loneliness, nothingness, allness, and a vision of new life.

Visualising the church in first century Rome

 I watched the movie, Paul, Apostle of Christ, on Netflix. Here are a few things that I found helpful about the movie. Overall, it provided me with a clearer picture of what it may have been like to be a follower of Jesus in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero. 

The Gospel was for "losers": the poor, oppressed, orphans, weak, powerless, children, widows, cripples, and dying. They were held in contempt by the Roman rulers, who were arrogant, ruthless, proud, heartless, pagan, and lovers of money and power. Being a Christian meant living in community, serving the marginalised, being willing to suffer, renouncing violence, and every day facing the possibility of a violent death.

There is a wonderful scene where Paul has a discussion with Mauritius, the Roman soldier who is the prison prefect. Mauritius cannot understand why Paul is a respected and influential leader of the Christians, is willing to suffer, does not gain financially from his ministry, and believes in truth.

The beauty and paradoxes of the power of God

How powerful is God? What is the nature of God's power? How is the power of God similar and different to the power of humans?

This month in the theology reading group we are discussing The Power of God and the gods of Power by Daniel L. Migliore. A helpful summary of the book is here.

The book is marked by clarity, insight, and humility. Migliore engages with the Bible and theologians (mostly Protestant) from various eras and perspectives. It is distinctly Trinitarian, is wary of abstractions, and teases out practical implications to churches and individuals. 

Here are a few of the things that stood out to me.

Human agency reflects that everyone, regardless of their situation, has some power and this is an important part of their humanity. It is diminished when we are now allowed to express it, feel we can't or don't. (pages 2-7).

God's power is radically different from the human will to power, e.g., to dominate others. God reveals his strength (power) "most awesomely in the humility of a servant Lord." (p. 15).

As for any concept, it is important to consider what images and metaphors we associate with it.

The Greek gods were each associated with an irresistible power: sex, wine, war, and destruction, ... They promote the myth that we are helpless while in the grip of their power. This myth undermines our agency and the associated human dignity. (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13). (p. 9) 

In American culture, the images of power include sheer almightiness (God is like Superman), captive power (God is a divine butler at our beck and call), and ineptness or indifference. (p. 20)

If we misconceive divine power we will misconceive and misuse human power. (p. 32)

The activity of the Trinity defines who God is and the nature of the power that God exercises: creative, suffering, and transformative love. (p. 57)

Scholastic theology has a fraught legacy as its metaphysical approach to understanding God is relatively independence from the Biblical witness. It framed God's power in abstract terms and as absolute (omnipotent), immutable, and impassible. (pp. 62-65).

There is an interesting transition in the history of Christian art, where before Constantine Jesus was portrayed as a shepherd and later as a king. (p. 67)

In considering what role power should play in the church there has been and continues to be a false dichotomy. The first choice is accepting the reality of power in any human institution, exercising it strongly, sometimes to the point of accepting abuses of power as just and unfortunate reality. The second choice is to eschew any sorts of structures that will involve members exercising power over others. These two choices were embodied in the Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, respectively.

The power of the triune God is seen in actions as Creator, Redeemer, and Transformer.

The life of the church is to be a living witness to the nature of the power of God. This is reflected in participants are not passive observers, servant leadership, and not being self-focussed. The church should not to be coercive, including in evangelism. (p.68)

Unfortunately, widespread reports over the past decade of abuse: sexual, spiritual, and financial, reflect how much the church has failed. This is relevant to the book we will discuss next month, When Narcissism Comes to Church.

On theodicy, "suffering is the greatest mystery of human life." (p. 83)

"God freely suffers for the salvation of others - that is the deepest message of Scripture regarding human suffering." (p. 85).

 "Suffering is not primarily a theoretical problem but an agonising reality of life." (p. 87).

"Homogeneity in the Christian community is therefore a contradiction of the gospel of God's omnipotent love, which frees us to accept as brothers and sisters those considered strangers and enemies. A community that calls itself Christian and is complacent about its economic, racial, and cultural insularity is a community without the power of the Spirit..

Some church leaders advocate an outreach program for congregations that would focus on people most similar to their present members. But evangelism that deliberately aims at homogeneity for the sake of church growth is a display of spiritual weakness rather than real spiritual strength. ... (p. 106)"

The final chapter considers the practical implications of the Christian theology of the power of God for the dialogue between Christians and Muslims. This is one of the most helpful and constructive discussions I have encountered about the ground and nature of such dialogue. Mutual respect means acknowledging both common ground and real differences. Both Muslims and Christians affirm the unity of God and are against idolatry and immorality. Their central difference concerns fundamentally different perspectives on the power of God. Christians affirm the "weakness" of God profoundly manifest in both the incarnation and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Jesus and postmodern political life

What does Jesus have to do with politics, whether at the local or the global level? How do Christians live and witness in a pluralistic and fractured multi-cultural society?

This month at the theology reading group we are discussing
Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in An Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies by Tom Wright and Michael F. Bird

The relationship between Christianity and politics is a complex issue with theological, historical, cultural, and social dimensions. I appreciate that Wright and Bird do not gloss over the complexity of the issue and yet write in an accessible, balanced, and winsome manner. I found the book easy to read and enjoyable. Overall, I found it encouraging and challenging.

On the other hand, I should point out that after I wrote most of this post I read a critical but appreciative review of the book by John Nugent at Englewood Review. He considers that Wright and Bird are too uncritical about Christendom, and that they view things too much through the lens of the creation mandate (Genesis 1:26).

The section, Building for the Kingdom (p.83ff) is inspiring. God builds God's Kingdom. But he invites us to participate in this work.  "we do well to distinguish between the final manifestation of the kingdom and the present anticipations of it." In other words, it is now but not yet.  Christians are to build for the Kingdom. This includes engagement at all levels of society, motivating small and large acts. Wright draws on 1 Corinthians 15:58

So, my dear family, be firmly fixed, unshakeable, always full to overflowing with the Lord's work. In the Lord, as you know, the work your doing will not be worthless."

He explains the significance of this in the following inspiring passage:

what we do matters because it carries over into the final new creation....

We are - strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself - accomplishing something which will become, in due course, part of God's new world.

If that is true, then, every act of love, gratitude and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely disabled child to read or to walk... all spirit-led teaching, every deed that spreads the Gospel... - all of this will finds its way, through the resurrecting power of God, into the new creation that God will one day make.

 The work we do in the present to build for the kingdom gains its full significance from the eventual consummation of the kingdom in the time appointed by God. Applied to the mission of the Church, this means that we must erect in the present the signs of that kingdom, providing a preview of what everything will look like when God is ‘all in all’, when his kingdom has come and his will is done ‘on earth as in heaven’. When the people of the new creation behold its wonder and beauty, it should strike them with an acute sense of déjà vu, as if to remind them of a prayer they once heard prayed, an act of mercy they saw performed, a song that they had once sung that now echoes all around them, a sermon about Jesus that they now see spring to life, a cry for justice that is now answered, and a love that was even better than what they were told. We build for the kingdom, because what we do for the King carries forward into his royal realm.

Consistent, with the above passage, Wright and Bird have a broad view of what Christian witness is. It is not just words but also actions.

What about worldly governments, good and bad? The consider Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. Rulers have been delegated by God to administer justice and so they are accountable to God. Just because a ruler's authority has been given to them by God does not give them carte blanche to do as they please or an obligation to their Christian subjects to blindly affirm and obey them. As rulers are accountable to God it is appropriate and responsible for Christians to remind them of this, particularly when they are agents of injustice. Furthermore, there is room for civil disobedience and in exceptional cases perhaps even violent resistance. (page 42-3)

The sacred versus secular divide is a false dichotomy, including in politics, where it plays out in church-state relations. This dichotomy may express itself in two extremes: theocracy (where the state enforces the orthodoxy of one religious community, as in Oliver Cromwell or in Iran) and autocrative secularism where the state is used to eliminate any public expression of religion (e.g., in the former Soviet Union and China).

Christianity is not primarily about "going to heaven" but "heaven coming to earth" (with now but not yet caveats).

(pages 61, 65, 66)

Another false dichotomy to avoid is the Kingdom of God versus the Cross of Christ. In extreme this puts social justice in opposition to evangelism, and the Gospels in tension with the Pauline Epistles. Wright discusses how when he was Bishop of Durham he oversaw churches that had a sole emphasis on one or the other.

(page 78ff)

“What is clearly not in mind is that preaching the cross to the ‘lost’ would happen in one church while acts of mercy for the poor would happen in another church. Advancing the kingdom means promoting the gospel from Jesus and about Jesus. Kingdom-work is continuing to do the very same things that Jesus himself did among individuals in need, challenging self-assured religious types, offering mercy to the downtrodden and forgotten, warning of judgement, exhorting faith in God’s generous forgiveness, and speaking words of truth in the halls of political power.”

Against Christian Nationalism (p.129ff)

“Christian nationalism is impoverished as it seeks a kingdom without a cross. It pursues a victory without mercy. It acclaims God’s love of power rather than the power of God’s love. We must remember that Jesus refused those who wanted to ‘make him king’ by force just as much as he refused to become king by calling upon ‘twelve legions of angels’. Jesus needs no army, arms or armoured cavalry to bring about the kingdom of God. As such, we should resist Christian nationalism as giving a Christian facade to nakedly political, ethnocentric and impious ventures.”

Against Civic Totalism (p.136 ff)

Under the guise of being "progressive" a state seeks "to regulate the individual's beliefs, convictions, conscience and religion". This has a strong "culture war" dimension and I feel that sometimes this threat is overblown by some politically "conservative" Christians.

A strong case is made for liberal democracy as the best form of governance, albeit the best among bad options.

“we wish to prosecute the thesis that in a world with a human propensity for evil, greed and injustice, liberal democracy stands as the least worst option for human governance. Liberal democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a just society, but it can be an enabling condition for a just society.”

Eight benefits of liberal democracy are given. One is "Economic opportunity and equality."  There is substantial evidence for this, as argued in the best book that I read in 2019.

Following John Inazu, the authors advocate for "confident pluralism".

“Confident pluralism has a very simple premise, namely, that people have the right to be different, to think differently, to live differently, to worship differently, without fear of reprisal. Confident pluralism operates with the idea that politics has instrumental rather than ultimate value. In other words, politics is a means, not an end. No state, no political party, no leader is God-like, or can demand blind devotion. Any attempt by political actors to create social homogeneity by compelling conformity, by bullying minorities or by punishing dissent, whether in religion or in policy, is anti-liberal and undemocratic. "

What is missing from the book?

Any discussion of the problem of smartphones and social media. Today, they completely shape popular political debate, making it superficial, divisive, and polarising. There are several important dimensions to this. Christians are addicted to their phones and this undermines discipleship, contemplative practices, and incarnational ministry. Tech companies are now "powers" for evil that need to be grappled with.

There is a good emphasis on the multi-cultural nature of the church. In this context, it should be acknowledged that the global church is now centred outside the West. In the West the largest and fastest growing church are not white but immigrants. I would like to hear their voice on these topics. My limited experience is that many of these voices are less sympathetic to liberal democracy.

One book from an African perspective is The Church and Politics by Bernard Boyo.

John Nugent points out the book also lacks any engagement with alternative visions of political theology, such as due to Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas, or John Yoder, who are more wary of the church engaging with worldly powers. Admittedly, they might have made a longer book. In fairness, page 34 does mention Hauerwas's critique of Christendom.

The Undeceptions podcast has a good episode where John Dickson interviews Tom Wright about the book.

The Doge Leonardo Donà Worshiping the Virgin and Child. by Marco Vecellio (1545–1611) The Doge's Palace in Venice

For me this captures the ambiguity of Christendom. Who is worshiping who? 

Power, science, and the academy

Power is the ability to influence what people think, how they feel, and how they act. Power can be direct or indirect, explicit or implicit. Like money and technology, power in itself is morally neutral. Power can be harnessed for good or for evil. Power can be used to protect the weak and to enact justice. It can also be used by the strong to cause untold suffering and injustice.

How does the concept of power play out in science and in the academy? Science and universities are human institutions. Hence, their activities and organisation inevitably involve the exercise of power. Power affects what people believe is true, the narratives they live by, how the social context shapes academia, and whether the strong triumph over the weak. Below I discuss the power of ideas, the power of narratives, how economic power shapes the academy today, and the paradox of the power of the powerless. The latter gives hope in a situation in which it is easy to despair.

Power of ideas

Universities are primarily about thinking. Teaching an academic discipline is ultimately about training students to think in a particular way about a subject, whether physics, sociology, or theology. Research is concerned with thinking about a topic, gathering data, analysing the data, and formulating concepts and theories that make sense of the data.

Ideas are powerful, for better or worse. Ideas can enable us to synthesise and understand vast amounts of information. Academic disciplines begin with new ideas and accelerate when these ideas provide an understanding of a dimension of reality. For example, genetic information is encoded in the biomolecule DNA. 

On the other hand, disciplines stagnate and may become dangerous, when ideas become ideology. Then, an idea becomes an assumption that should never be questioned and is claimed to have universal applicability and validity. For example, Freud's view that the subconscious is shaped by repressed sexual desires and this determines behaviour. Ideology can frame discussions about economics, from both left-wing and right-wing perspectives. Free markets are efficient and produce the best outcomes for everyone. Or, the only way to produce a fair and just society is for the state to control capital and the means of production.

Power of narratives

Stories are powerful. They capture our imagination and frame what we believe is true, what is possible, and how we should live. Individuals, families, institutions, and nations all have narratives that they live by. 

Here are three powerful narratives involving science. These three narratives are interrelated.

a. Over the past two thousand years, Christianity has consistently been opposed to scientific progress. 

Promotion of this narrative began about 150 years ago with the publication of an influential book by John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874). This was followed by Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

The book is still in print and available on Amazon. The publishers blurb for the 1993 edition states:

“The struggle of science over outmoded medieval concepts is still emerging. Even a century after its publication, White's great work has much to teach us about the dangerous effects of religious doctrinalism on education and moral growth.” (1993 edition)

Scholars of science and religion today accept that this narrative (known as the conflict thesis) is false. See for example, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Edited by Ronald L. Numbers. In contrast, it is accepted that Christianity did not hinder but facilitated the rise of modern science.

Nevertheless, this narrative is still promoted by prominent public intellectuals, such as the New Atheists, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

b. Science makes possible certainty in all areas of knowledge. It is the ultimate authority on what is true.

This idea began with Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and continued with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827). Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the first philosopher of modern science and a founder of sociology (social physics). He was the founder of positivism, claiming that societies progress through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. These correspond to eras of primitive (Christendom), Enlightenment, and modern science. 

This narrative of increasing certainty through a universal scientific method achieved power and legitimacy due to the successes of Newtonian mechanics. It gave an accurate quantitative description of the motion of the planets and cannonballs. It even predicted the existence of a new planet, Neptune, in 1846.

This narrative led to pressure for the biological, social, and human sciences to be more like the physical sciences and use statistical and quantitative methods. It has led to a marginalisation of the humanities in universities. It promoted liberal theology and doubts about traditional Christian doctrines and the modern relevance of the Bible. 

This narrative promotes the idea that science is the ultimate authority concerning what is true and important. In a desire to seek greater legitimacy in the modern world, attempts are made by apologists for major religions that their ancient texts are actually scientific and even predicted modern scientific discoveries.

c. Progress. Increasing scientific knowledge results in greater human flourishing and less human suffering.

A current proponent of this narrative is the Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker in his book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Below is the publishers blurb.

Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.

This narrative promotes the idea that all social problems have scientific and technical solutions and that any limits on scientific research and the development of new technologies will be bad for humanity. 

The problem with all of the three narratives above is that they are not true. Yet they are appealing and powerful as they promote particular political and philosophical agendas.

Economic power shapes the academy today

All institutions are located in a historical, social, political, and economic context. Today that context is dominated by economic ideology, which has labels such as globalisation and neoliberalism. This ideology promotes the idea that "free" markets produce the best outcomes for all. Briefly, this means that decisions should be made in terms of economics. Students are consumers, faculty are human resources, and universities are businesses. Resources (capital, infrastructure, personnel, influence) are allocated based on what will generate the most income for an institution. The goal of scientific research is to generate technology that will promote economic growth. Researchers are competing with one another to obtain resources. Research is to be managed like a factory production line with well-defined timelines, measurable outcomes, and techniques. Everything has to be efficient.

This all leads to the marginalisation of the humanities and curiosity-driven scientific research. Awe, wonder, collegiality, doubt, and play are cute irrelevancies.

Universities are dominated by money, management, marketing, and metrics.

Like the culture, life in a university is dominated by the relentless pressure of individualism, immediacy, functionalism, and secularism.

This is a dramatic shift from the seven core values that shaped medieval universities, one of which was the notion of "scientific and scholarly knowledge as a public good transcending any economic advantage it might bring".

Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard University, has documented the problem of commercialisation in his book, Universities in the Marketplace, published in 2003.

There are multiple problems with letting economic ideology control universities and science. First, it is inhumane, diminishing the value of people and knowledge, reducing both to economic commodities. Second, it promotes economic inequality and injustices. Universities have become another means for the rich and powerful to increase their wealth and power. Third, this approach will fail to produce the putative desired outcomes of graduates who contribute to society through their creativity, expertise, and service or to produce new scientific knowledge that leads to technologies that benefit humanity. Countless examples of discoveries in science resulted from pure curiosity and had no clear practical application. However, some [but far from all] of these discoveries eventually led to unanticipated industrial applications in computing, communication, materials, or medicine.

The paradox of the power of the powerless

In the long run, the mighty do not triumph. The proud are humbled. All empires fall. This is because of the judgement of God. It is also because they cannot accept the way that the world really is and live by lies. Ultimately, they come up against reality and truth. God has made people and the world in a certain way and to function in a certain way. For those who do not accept this eventually their world unravels. This does not just apply to those with military, political, or economic might. Intellectual rulers (Freud, Marx, Plato, Dawkins) also have clay feet that eventually crumble. Intellectual fashions pass.

I find inspiration in the story of the early church. Their triumph over the mighty Roman Empire has been documented beautifully by Rodney Stark in a fascinating book he published in 1996, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries 

Other inspirations for counter-cultural resistance are provided by Walter Brueggemann in The Prophetic Imagination and by Vaclav Havel, in Power to the Powerless.

This might capture our imagination as to the way forward. I believe it is to form counter-cultural informal academic communities that live by the truth.

This post is part one the session that I will be leading in a Seminar course on Power that my fellow "holy" scribbler is giving this week at Asian Theological Seminary in Manila.

Initiatives to alleviate poverty that empower

 Robin and I are giving a talk this evening at The Village Academy on "When Helping Hurts.." based on the book by the same name.

Here are the slides.

The battle for succession: from King David's sons to 21st-century American evangelicalism

 At church we have just started a sermon and study series on the book of 1 Kings in the Old Testament. To get the big picture of a book of the Bible I find it helpful to watch (several times) a short video produced by The Bible Project and to print out the associated poster.

1 Kings begins with intrigue and scheming as there is a battle between two of David's sons, Adonijah and Solomon, and their associated entourages, to receive the blessing of their ailing father to be King. The Bible gives a "warts and all" description of these flawed humans who often act in morally dubious ways, while claiming they are doing what YHWH wants. The ends justify the means. Naked selfish ambition will go to extreme ends to gain and maintain power. It is all about money, sex, and power. This is not just ancient Israel, but also the world we live in today. 

The endless scheming and drama resonate with the popular TV series, Succession, which I have not watched. But, it is not just in the modern pagan world of global corporations that one sees such dramas. I thought of a recent article in Vanity Fair. The article features two sons who succeeded their fathers to lead large Christian organisations in the USA, and now draw annual salaries of about $1 M per year.

INSIDE JERRY FALWELL JR.’S UNLIKELY RISE AND PRECIPITOUS FALL AT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

Jerry Falwell Jr. was the Trump-anointing dark prince of the Christian right. Then a sex scandal rocked his marriage and ended his lucrative stewardship of the evangelical education empire founded by his father. In a series of exclusive interviews, Falwell—accompanied by his wife, Becki—describes the events that led to his ouster, their fallout, and why he’s finally ready to admit he never had much use for his father’s church anyway.

The article contains the following anecdote.

Jerry also suspected that Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, used the scandal to expand the Graham family’s influence over Liberty. Franklin Graham’s son Will was named vice chairman of Liberty’s board... Jerry said Franklin Graham had also once told him that he wanted to start a Billy Graham University, but it didn’t get off the ground. In September 2020, Jerry and Franklin got into an argument over who should get credit for Liberty’s success. “I said, ‘My dad built the foundation, but I built the house. And Franklin got furious. He said, ‘You didn’t build it!’ You should have heard the jealousy in Franklin’s voice,” Jerry recalled. According to Jerry, Franklin Graham told him his future in the Christian world is over. “He said, ‘You’ll never be anything in evangelical circles again.’ ” Graham, through a spokesperson, declined to comment.

Money, sex, and power. Just like in 1 Kings. Jesus, God's anointed eternal King is so different. So should his servants be.

Christendom was not very Christian

Tom Holland presents a fascinating story of how in the past two thousand years Christianity shaped Western society in his recent book Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind. This month in the theology reading group, we are discussing the second section, Christendom, which covers 754 to 1420 AD.

The first section, Antiquity, traces how Christ's death on the cross, full of suffering and humiliation, shaped what Christians believed and how they lived. This was radical and counter-cultural, and paradoxically increased the power and influence of the church. 

However, reviewing the rise of Christendom there is no room for Christians to feel pride or triumphalism. Rather, we should feel shame and embarrassment at the failure of church leaders and members, particularly in relation to power, wealth, violence, division, pride, and self-righteousness. Church leaders were quick to align themselves with rich and powerful rulers and support violence, often from unruly mobs, as a means to expand their territorial influence and to deal with perceived heresy.

These areas are intertwined and represent clear violations of the teachings of Jesus and Paul. It is worth considering each of these in turn. I quote a few representative texts but claim that these are central themes of the whole New Testament.

Power 

In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus warns the disciples.

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Henry Nouwen comments

One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave in to the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are [Philippians 2:5-11]. 

Wealth 

You cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24). Caring for the poor and needy is the same as caring for Jesus (Matthew 25). Paul warns Timothy about false teachers (1 Timothy 6:3-10).

Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Violence

Genesis 6 describes how God was grieved that the earth was full of violence. In Matthew 6 Jesus says "turn the other cheek" and

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Do not respond to evil with evil (Romans 12:17-21).

Division

Jesus' followers are to aim to live in peace with one another. Their unity is to be a sign that Jesus is from God.

Pride and self-righteousness

Followers of Jesus are not to be the "first to cast the stone" or to look at the speck of sawdust in their brother's eye when there is a plank in their own. Surely, this does not just relate to lifestyle but also to hairsplitting about doctrine.

On that note, it is easy to pass judgement on these past leaders and church members who joined violent mobs. Why didn't they read their Bibles? Well, it was not quite so simple. Many were illiterate. Even if they were there was no mass publication. There was no Bible in their own language. The church liturgy was in Latin.

An intriguing example of the moral complexities church leaders faced was the relationship between the priest Alcuin and Charlemagne, the King of the Franks who became the Roman emperor. The example of King David was used by Charlemagne when in 782 he ordered the beheading of 4500 prisoners in a single day. He became a sponsor, friend, and student of Alcuin, who was able to convince the warrior king to stop his practice of forcing pagans to convert at sword point. Alcuin pointed out "faith rises from the will not an act of compulsion.''.

This period of church history was not all bad. There were rays of hope. Alcuin laid foundations for literacy and education, that fully blossomed into the first universities, Bologna and Paris. The notion of equality of all humans before God led to that of human rights and equality before the law. There was also the seeds of modern science being sown in universities.

Although in the Western world today church leaders are rarely involved in physical violence, that does not mean that there is not verbal and relational violence, both at the individual and corporate level. Furthermore, the allure of power, money, pride, and self-righteousness seems rampant. May we repent and sit at Jesus' feet and be challenged to live as he wishes us to live.

Who is the Kingdom of God for?

I recently re-read the Gospel of Luke. One striking thing is how much Jesus talks about money, power, humility and self-righteousness. Jesus saves his harshest words for those who claim to be religious. Jesus gives many pictures of what the Kingdom of God is like. Here I just want to look at the parable of the great banquet. Some earlier thoughts on the parable are here.

Luke 14

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, ‘Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.’

16 Jesus replied: ‘A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, “Come, for everything is now ready.”

18 ‘But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, “I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.”

19 ‘Another said, “I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.”

20 ‘Still another said, “I have just got married, so I can’t come.”

21 ‘The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, “Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.”

22 ‘“Sir,” the servant said, “what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.”

23 ‘Then the master told his servant, “Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.”’

The first three people invited to the banquet are committed to and distracted by the ``good life'' of this world: wealth, possessions, business, career, comfort, romance, security, ... The kingdom of God is not important to them and it is clear they will be excluded.
In contrast, the weak and marginalised (the poor, crippled, blind, lame, ... ) are invited to and come to the banquet. 

All of this is consistent is with many other passages in Luke, such as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which suggest that it is very hard for the wealthy, the successful, the self-reliant, and the powerful to enter the Kingdom. In contrast, God seems to have a preference for those on the margins. Church history seems to bear this out. As countries (communities) become more prosperous they are less open to the Kingdom, particularly this bit about engaging with the marginalised. In contrast, communities that are oppressed and desperate, often welcome the good news of Jesus.

This raises questions about priorities for mission. Should upper middle class churches and organisations focus on communities just like them or instead focus much of their substantial resources (human, financial, professional expertise, ... ) to engage with marginalised communities, learn from them, and build mutually beneficial relationships.

Start with emphathy

When I encounter new ideas and new social movements my first reaction is analysis and critique. This probably stems from being an intellectual, being male, and being a reflective personality. When I was newly married I went out for lunch with an older married friend and he gave me one piece of advice about relating to my wife, ``sympathy before solutions".  This eventually became a catch cry in our family. However, I think this idea has much broader implications, particularly in living as a Christian.

For all their faults, it is striking and challenging that Job's friends actually sat and wept with him for days before they presented their "solutions" to the suffering of Job. They entered his pain.
When Jesus saw the crowds, "he had compassion on them because they were harassed and helpless.'' He did not immediately lecture them about their "poor life choices" or their "wrong theology". There are countless scriptural examples from the Old Testament prophets to the letter of James that rebuke God's people for not listening to the cries of the oppressed.

Everyone has a story. Everyone's life has produced a rich raft of experiences, with a diverse mix of joy, pain, disappointment, struggle, ... These experiences shape their world view and response to their circumstances.
Many of my experiences are probably quite different. In particular, although my life has not been devoid of pain or struggles, I have had a privileged existence as a wealthy white male living in one of the most privileged countries in the world. I really don't know what it is like to be a Dalit, to live in a slum, to be an African-American living in the southern USA, to be a refugee, to live under military dictatorship in a poor Latin American country, to be a Muslim in Australia, to be a woman who has been sexually assaulted, ...

So when I encounter issues such as liberation theology, #metoo, economic inequality, racism, immigration, ... a challenging starting point is to listen and try and put myself in the shoes of those who cry out. What is their experience? What is their pain? How does that affect their perspective?
That does not mean I have to agree with absolutely every single detail of their agenda, their perspective, their claims, their politics, their theology, their methods, ....

In discussing the idea of "double listening" John Stott says

For the voices of our contemporaries may take the form of shrill and strident protest. They are now querulous, now appealing, now aggressive in tone. They are also the anguished cries of those who are suffering, and the pain, doubt, anger, alienation and even despair of those who are estranged from God. I am not suggesting that we should listen to God and to our fellow human beings in the same way or with the same degree of deference. We listen to the Word with humble reverence, anxious to understand it, and resolved to believe and obey what we come to understand. We listen to the world with critical alertness, anxious to understand it too, and resolved not necessarily to believe and obey it, but to sympathise with it and to seek grace to discover how the gospel relates to it. . . .

The Contemporary Christian: An urgent plea for double listening, page  28.

Government regulation can be important for free markets

Free markets can be a wonderful thing, creating prosperity and a better life for many. Consequently, there are some who oppose any sort of government regulation of business. However, if you visit a country where there is no such regulation (or laws are not enforced) one inevitably sees corruption, monopolies, exploitation of workers, pollution, and environmental destruction.
The grand challenge is to find a balance.

In this TED talk, MargretheVestager, makes a compelling case for why regulation, particularly of large corporations is important. Part of the issue is that many of these companies are actually not committed to free markets but rather to protecting their market share.
I found it interesting that she started with a Biblical view of human nature, referring to Genesis, and also emphasised values such as trust and community.

Where does the love of money lead?

My family recently enjoyed watching The Big Short, which retells the true story of investors who made a lot of money betting (shorting) on the collapse of the USA housing market in 2008.

Like other movies and newspaper headlines (e.g. Panama papers or Rupert Murdoch) what often strikes me is how greedy and insatiable some people are. Almost everyone would like to have a million dollars. Some would like a few millions. But some want hundreds of millions, even billions, .... What are you going to do with it? In the end it must be a psychological problem. It is not really about the money but an obsession and the adrenaline rush of making the money ....

This clip captures some of the essence of the movie.

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

1 Timothy 6

The offence of the egalitarian God

Jesus was a radical. He was the friend of the weak and social outcasts. He taught that "first will be last and the last will be first" and how a poor beggar such as Lazarus could be heaven while a rich man would not (Luke 16:19-31).
This is quite offensive to those who believe (whether consciously or sub-consciously) that society should be ordered in a certain way and that ordering reflects the status of people before God.
But, the radical message of the New Testament is not new. This is also found in the Old Testament.
Consider Hannah's Song of Praise in 1 Samuel 2 

The Lord makes poor and makes rich;
 he brings low and he exalts.
He raises up the poor from the dust;
 he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
 and inherit a seat of honor.

Social and economic inequality undermines democracy

B.R. Ambedkar was largely responsible for writing the Constitution of India. He gave the following sober warning which seems even more relevant today, particularly in Western democracies.

“On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.  

How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.” 

I first encountered this quotation on a large poster placed on a building wall at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi.

Christians should be downwardly mobile

"The compassionate life is the life of downward mobility! In a society in which upward mobility is the norm, downward mobility is not only discouraged but even considered unwise, unhealthy, or downright stupid. Who will freely choose a low-paying job when a high-paying job is being offered? Who will choose poverty when wealth is within reach? Who will choose the hidden place when there is a place in the limelight? Who will choose to be with one person in great need when many people could be helped during the same time? Who will choose to withdraw to a place of solitude and prayer when there are so many urgent demands from all sides? 

My whole life I have been surrounded by well-meaning encouragement to go 'higher up,' and the most-used argument was : 'You can do so much good there, for so many people.' But these voices calling me to upward mobility are completely absent from the Gospel. Jesus says: 'Anyone who loves his life loses it; anyone who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life (John 12:25). He also says: 'Unless you become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). Finally he says: "You know that among the gentiles the rulers lord it over them, and great men make their authority felt; among you this is not to happen. No; anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:25-28). 

This is the way of downward mobility, the descending way of Jesus. It is the way toward the poor, the suffering, the marginal, the prisoners, the refugees, the lonely, the hungry, the dying, the tortured, the homeless--toward all who ask for compassion. What do they have to offer? Not success, popularity, or power, but the joy and peace of the children of God."

Henri Nouwen, Here and Now, pp. 138-139