How should churches relate to the world?

My family enjoyed watching the movie, The Two Popes. It focuses on a speculative history of the personal relationship between the two most recent popes, Benedict and Francis. It highlights their contrasting backgrounds (Germany vs. Argentina, Rich world vs. Majority world), theologies (traditional and conservative vs. less traditional and flexible), lifestyles (ostentatious vs. simple), and leadership styles (aloof vs. personable), ...
In spite of these significant differences, they are able to build a personal relationship built on mutual respect, appreciation, and companionship.


I found the following four things about the movie most striking and valuable.

First, there is a strong message of how personal failure and regret can be redeemed by the grace and mercy of Christ, following the confession of sin.

Second, the Western world is so different from the Majority World. The West is characterised by prosperity, political stability, peace, secularism, and declining churches. In contrast, the Majority World is characterised by poverty, political instability, violence, spirituality, and growing churches. This is powerfully portrayed by flashbacks that Pope Francis has about his past, particularly the violent repression that occurred during the military dictatorship in Argentina in the 1970s. Here I beg to differ with A.O. Scott, the New York Times critic who said

If “The Two Popes” had consisted entirely of two old men talking, it might have been a masterpiece. But the conversation is interrupted by flashbacks that chronicle Bergoglio’s early life, as a young scientist called to the priesthood and as head of the Jesuit order in Argentina during the military dictatorship of the 1970s.

Third, the humanity of both men and their relationship is moving, and even endearing. This occurs in spite of their differences, which begin with harsh words for each other.

Finally, the movie captures many of the tragic failures of the churches through history, both Catholic and Protestant: seduction by wealth, power, and pomp; worship of church leaders by their members, anachronisms (talking in Latin!), sexual abuse of children, covering up scandals, being more concerned about public image than integrity, ....

Highly recommended!

Counting: the sin of metrics, from King David to modern socieity

One of many strange stories in the Bible is the following from 2 Samuel 24.

Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.’

2 So the king said to Joab and the army commanders with him, ‘Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enrol the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.’

3 But Joab replied to the king, ‘May the Lord your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?’

4 The king’s word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king to enrol the fighting men of Israel.

....

8 After they had gone through the entire land, they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.

9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: in Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.

10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.’

There are many questions associated with this one. But, a basic one is: why was it sinful to count the fighting men. I presume it is because this reflected David trusting in the strength of his army and not that of the LORD. Such trust goes against what a young David said before he fought Goliath (1 Samuel 17:47)

All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's,..

Is there something in this passage that is relevant today. Partly with tongue in check, I wonder if it is relevant to the obsession of society today with counting (metrics) to measure performance, particularly in workplaces and sadly often in churches. In this vein, Mike Higton, a theology professor at Durham University, has an article,  The Research Assessment Exercise as sin.

The dangers of unrestrained global corporate power

Here are the closing words of the book, The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire by William Dalrymple.

The East India Company remains today history’s most ominous warning about the potential for the abuse of corporate power - and the insidious means by which the interests of shareholders can seemingly become those of the state. For, as recent American adventures in Iraq have shown, our world is far from post-imperial, and quite probably will never be.
Empire is transforming itself into forms of global power that use campaign contributions and commercial lobbying, multinational finance systems and global markets, corporate influence and the predictive data harvesting of the new surveillance -capitalism rather than - or sometimes alongside - overt
military conquest, occupation or economic domination to affect its ends.
Four hundred and twenty years after its founding, the story of the East India Company has never been more current.

Helpful summaries of the books are a New York Times op-ed piece by Dalrymple and an interview in an Indian newspaper.

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.

War is Hell. 7.

I enjoyed watching the movie, Tolkien. It represents the early life of the famous fantasy writer. The main elements of the story are his difficult childhood as an orphan, the close bonds he formed with a group of high school friends with a common interest in creating literature, the trauma and tragedy of his experience in the trenches of World War I, his romance with his wife-to-be, and how these all shaped his creative imagination.

For me, the over-riding impression was ``war is hell.'' All Tolkien's friends die in the war, except one who is never the same again. Tolkien only survives because he is evacuated due to illness.



Arguably an important part of Tolkien's education and personal formation was that his school provided the opportunity for him to be part of a small group of friends with a common passion and vision. This highlights several overlooked aspects of most educational institutions, particularly in this neoliberal age, where the focus almost exclusively on measurable outcomes such as test scores, graduation rates, and starting salaries of graduates.

Sometimes the most significant part of education is the informal, not the formal aspects.

Real learning happens in the context of relationships, of students with one another, and with a teacher.

Western culture and thinking are individualistic. Consequently, most leading educational institutions claim to create significant individuals. However, perhaps a goal should also be to create significant informal communities or life-long bonds between students. I really like the book, Five Minds for the Future and am currently re-reading it. However, it is striking to me that the total emphasis is on individuals.

Token justice

Every now and then I read just a sentence or two that has a big impact on me. About a year ago I read the following.

The danger of any educational institution rooted in progressive values but dependent on big money is the default to political correctness as a substitute for a broader liberalism — the promotion of economic equity. You cannot rail against an unfair tax system when you rely on those who benefit from it, but you can patrol offensive speech and innuendo in the name of moral compassion; you can reward unease and grievance as rectitude.

This quote is taken from a New York Times article
Someone Went Too Far at Friends Seminary, but Who?
It describes a bizarre controversy at a wealthy prestigious high school in New York City. A quirky Jewish mathematics teacher was fired because as a joke he made a Nazi salute when trying to illustrate obtuse angles.

For context, the school was started by the Quakers (Friends). Annual tuition is US$41K.

Generally, the trajectory seems common with institutions that are founded by Christians with a distinctly Christian vision and ethos. This leads to ``success'' that then attracts the wealthy and powerful who use the institution to advance their own interests.  Even more broadly, this evolution is common in institutions.

Wealth, judgement, and unbelief

I just finished reading through the Gospel of Luke. The part that I found the most confronting was the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that Jesus told and is recorded in Luke 16. The richness of parable is indicated by the fact that I have already written five different posts that feature the parable.

19 ‘There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 ‘The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

25 ‘But Abraham replied, “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”

27 ‘He answered, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”

29 ‘Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.”

30 ‘“No, father Abraham,” he said, “but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.”

31 ‘He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’

[The image is from here].

So what is the main point of this parable? Or are there many points? Generally, I don't buy the idea that every parable has one unique interpretation, meaning, and application. Some of the absolute brilliance of the parables of Jesus is that they are so multi-faceted and so confronting.

 Here are some possible options:

A. Divine ``Karma.'' The final judgement corrects for inequalities on earth. Those who live luxurious lives and are insensitive to the poor go to hell. The poor and suffering go to heaven. This shows ``God's preferential option for the poor.''

B. The Gospel is contained in the Old Testament. It provides adequate information for people to repent and be saved.

C. Some people will not repent even if they see or hear the testimony of the risen Christ.

D. People are only saved by faith in Christ alone. There is no salvation by works. Lazarus repented and had faith in Jesus. The rich man did not.

I think all of these have an element of truth, but are oversimplifications, and I feel rob the story of some of its power.

As always, any biblical passage needs to be interpreted in context. For example, what do passages before and after this one say? How does this passage fit into the whole Bible? What is the literary genre?

It is striking to me, just how much this passage is embedded in discussions about how wealth is an obstacle to the entering the Kingdom of God.

The Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24) teaches that the Kingdom of God is for the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. It is not for those who are distracted by business and their possessions.

The Parable of the Lost (Prodigal) Son (Luke 15:11-32) describes how the younger son demanded his inheritance and then ``squandered his wealth on wild living.'' But, he did come to his senses and repent.

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-15). Jesus provocatively commends the dishonesty of the manager. He then says

11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? ... 13 ‘No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.’ 14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 

The parable also highlights how ``trivial'' wealth is in God's eyes. This is also shown by

After the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus comes Jesus interaction with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-30)

‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ 23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

Luke 19 describes how Zaccheus, a corrupt tax collector, repents and gives half of his money away to the poor.

So what do Moses and the Prophets warn about wealth and helping the needy?
They have countless warnings to Israel that they need to care for the poor, the widows, orphans, and the oppressed. If they do not they will experience God's judgement.

Psalm 49 is just one example of a clear statement concerning the dangers of wealth.

16 Do not be overawed when others grow rich,
    when the splendour of their houses increases;
17 for they will take nothing with them when they die,
    their splendour will not descend with them.
18 Though while they live they count themselves blessed –
    and people praise you when you prosper –
19 they will join those who have gone before them,
    who will never again see the light of life.

The letter of James has hard-hitting passages about how real faith leads to caring for the poor and needy and not supporting unjust economic structures (Chapter 5). Chapter 2 says:

4 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

Those of us who are financially in the top 1-10 percent globally should be deeply troubled by this Jesus teaching and not dilute its power by trying to force it into some simple theology of salvation.