fragments and reflections
Uncategorized
Former President Bill Clinton’s Use and Misuse of “Theology”
A few weeks back, former President Bill Clinton said that the present political environment is poisonous. The Republicans and the Democrats have gone beyond ideology into a kind of political theology.Clinton said, “If we can break out of theology and get back to evidence and experience and the aspirations of ordinary people, I think we can have bipartisan cooperation.”
I appreciate Clinton’s naming of “theology” and his introducing of the concept into public discourse. However, his understanding of “theology” is incorrect. He understands “theology” as those beliefs and commitments for which there is no evidence. And he thinks that “theology” is a more extreme position beyond “ideology,” a relentless commitment to one’s own position. Contrary to Clinton’s view, each ideology is also based on beliefs and commitments for which there is no complete ground of evidence. Thus, some faith commitment is necessary for every ideology. Moreover, each ideology is itself a particular theology, addressing perspectives on justice, power and life. Each ideology flows from a particular understanding of “god,” and each ideology legitimizes and sanctions itself by appealing to its “god.”
Clinton’s observations and recommendations are themselves based on Clinton’s own theology.Clinton insists that we “look at the job numbers, look at the vested numbers, look at the growth numbers, look at the productivity numbers, look at the numbers.” Using these numbers requires a certain selection and a certain interpretation, and it portrays and sustains a certain theology. Clinton says, “It cannot be possible that either the Democrats or the Republicans are always wrong. It cannot be possible that a hundred percent of us are proceeding in bad faith.” Notice the bald theological language that Clinton uses: “faith.” The basis for discerning and determining what is right implies a “faith.”
Clinton urges us to move away from our theologies. This really is impossible. Politicians promote a certain view of society that reflects a particular view of “god” – even when the promoters claim to be secular or a-theistic. People cannot become less theological. Political views (just like social, economic, health policies, etc.) are always begging the question: which “god?” or whose “theology?” In a realm of lies, doublespeak and demagoguery, we should be calling for politicians and public personalities to be more theological. If theologies (i.e. ideologies, social visions, economic polices, etc) are clarified, policy objectives can be affirmed or disapproved in relation to the declared theologies. Deriving policy objectives from theology also creates space for negotiation, where policy objectives may be compromised without having to compromise one’s theology. And in democratic societies that include many diverse and contradicting theologies, compromise is essential.
In trying to have a gracious reading of Clinton’s view, I think that he is not really calling us to be less theological. Rather, he is inviting each party to become less entrenched in their own particular ideologies and to have the courage and willingness to consider the view of the other. Unfortunately, most political “gods” are jealous of their adherents and don’t allow them to consider others. As Christians, however, we can offer a unique perspective based on our theology that claims to know truth and to love those completely other than ourselves. In the sphere of larger society, we can call for candid speech and truth-telling, while naming and condemning discourse that is deceptive. And we can attempt to understand the perspectives of others and to build society together, even where there is disagreement. At this point, we can appropriate Clinton’s suggestion to identify what is right in those different than ourselves.
Watching the Grass Grow
Last September, our community took a number of new kids into our Community Center activities. Since we were away for the past months, I’m only now getting to know them, mainly by playing or working together.
A few weeks ago, I and our Moldova servant team were flattening a section of the garden and raking out the rocks so we could plant grass. Before we started to plan the grass seed, Alin, one of our new boys, arrived from school. He asked if he could help, so I picked up rocks and flattened the dirt. Then I gave him the sack of seed and taught him how to spread it evenly over the dirt and then pack it in. Then I showed him how to water it and told him that he was responsible for the plot. Even when I wasn’t at the Center, Alin remembered to water.
One day as Alin was watering and weeding, he told me that he also helps his elderly neighbor with his garden. He said that his neighbor is too old to dig or to carry big loads, so he helps him out. I was impressed because lots of kids need lots of motivation to work. And I know that this is a way that some of our kids, who have very little, are able to earn a little pocket money. So, I asked Alin how much he gets paid for doing chores for his neighbor. Alin was surprised. He said that he doesn’t do it for money but to help his neighbor. He said, “My neighbor doesn’t have a dime to buy bread. Do you want me to take his last dime? Isn’t it better to help him because he needs it rather than for money?”
After being away from the Center for a week at our community retreat, I greeted Alin at our gate as he came from school and took him up to see the plot where he had planted and watered. His face lit up when he saw the green grass sprouting up.
Promotion without Self-Promotion
We’ve had a sad experience in the last few months with two of our kids, a brother and a sister, Florin and Eleni, with whom we have been in close relationship since they were 2 and 4 years old. They have been in and out of two foster care families and ended up in the city’s Center for Minors. This is a rough environment in which dozens of kids from troubled contexts are shuffled in and out. Visiting the Center you feel like you’re in an out-of-control romper room. And this is where our two kids lived for the past five months. They’ve tried to do their homework in the midst of the noise. They’ve felt unsafe in the presence of some of the older kids and even some of the staff.
Yet, when Vali, our program director, went to first visit the kids in the Center for Minors, the director met Vali and congratulated her for our ministry. Although the director had never been to our Community Center and had never heard of our organization previously, she saw the impact of our work in the lives of our kids – even in this troubled environment.
We found out that Eleni couldn’t stand the disorder, so she started to implement the methods that we practice as the Community Center, like connecting discipline to positive and negative consequences. She had such an effect on the kids that the director from the Center for Minors wants us to partner with us and asked us to come and train their staff.
When we started our community in Romania in the late ‘90s, we discussed our ideas for building relationships in the city and helping others learn about who we were. We decided that we would resist self-promotion and would promote, rather, good, committed, long-term, relational service to Jesus among the vulnerable. Although it has taken a long time, we are starting to become known, not for our name and not for our logo, but for and through our practice.
Correcting Our Capitalist Reading of the Talents
My friend Jonathan Starkey has drawn this diagram based on Ched Myers and Eric DeBode’s interpretation of Jesus’ parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30.
While interpreters from capitalist economies have invariably interpreted the absentee lord as God, the talents as good investments, and the reward as heaven, Myers and DeBode show how the hero of the story for Jesus’ listeners was the “evil and lazy” slave, who chose not to participate in an exploitive economic system.
Oțelul Galați Enters the Champions League
Last night we returned from the mountains to find the streets of Galați filling up with football fans. Oțelul (Steelers) played Timișoara and by beating them 2-1, they became champions of the Romania league – the first time a team from the Moldova region has ever won the title. With the victory Oțelul enters the Champions League.
The 13,500 capacity stadium stands next to our apartment. Each time Oțelul scored, the screams resounded through our apartment and down the city streets. When the time ran out, the fans covered the field, and then the poured out into the streets. Tens of thousands marched and shouted and celebrated into the night.
Reflections on the Lausanne Congress in Cape Town
In October of last year, I had the opportunity to participate in the Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in Cape Town. It truly was an historic event. Organizers tried to gather a proportionate representation of the global evangelical church. 4,000 participants from 198 nations participated in the Congress.
The focus of the Lausanne movement is: the Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World. Sadly, for much of those involved in the movement, the “whole church” has only meant “evangelical church,” the “whole gospel” has predominantly meant “personal salvation,” and the “whole world” has primarily meant “individuals.” This Congress in Cape Town seemed to address these issues and took steps in correcting the direction of the movement.
Although women were underrepresented as a proportion of the global church membership, the 30% present probably represents the ratio of those in formal leadership in evangelical churches. The organizers also did a good job in gathering participants from the Majority World. In 2004 I participated on a Lausanne forum in Pattaya, Thailand in which a disproportionate number of the “representatives” were white, western male. The diversity that was sought for this Congress in Cape Town was obvious.
But the Congress did not only seek gender and ethnic diversity. There was also a wide range of theological convictions. Although the differences sometimes seemed to clash as they competed for the dominant agenda (like “unreached peoples” or “children”), it is a testimony to the Lausanne movement as well as to the participants that they could come together to worship, to pray, and to discuss the church’s vocation in the world. I was also impressed that the organizers invited non-evangelical Christians to participate as “observers.” There was a delegation from the Vatican and representatives from the Orthodox and Coptic Churches. In my conversations with some of these observers, their feedback was predominantly positive.
Personally, I felt unworthy to be in a place with so many amazing people. I sat around the table with a woman leader from Egypt, a pastor from Sudan, a professor from Brazil, a township worker from South Africa, a pastor from Mozambique, and a youth leader from India. I was also able to meet authors that I had read and respected, like Ron Sider, Rene Padilla, Dewi Hughes and Peter Kuzmic. I felt unworthy to be in the same place as these.
The themes of the Congress that were presented each day were: Truth, Reconciliation, World Faiths, Priorities, Integrity and Partnership. I will post some of these presentations in future blog posts.
The theological focus group also presented the Cape Town Commitments. At the first Lausanne Congress in 1974, they produced the Lausanne Covenant. At the second Congress in 1989, they produced the Manila Manifesto. Both of these documents focused on the Great Commission: Go into all the world making disciples of all nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The Cape Town Commitments takes its starting point from the Great Commandment: Love the Lord your God will all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. It is a necessary compliment to the earlier statements of faith and a beautiful document.
One evening Rene Padilla was given a few minutes to address the Congress. He succinctly identified three points in which the evangelical church has been neglectful and that it must address: confronted by mass conversion and mega-church growth, Padilla called for radical discipleship; in the face of globalization and poverty, he called for a gospel that addressed the physical and psychological as well as spiritual needs; and in the face of ecological destruction, Padilla called on the church to care for creation. Although brief, Padilla’s astute vision gives necessary direction to the future of the Lausanne movement.
Let me tell you what some of the highlights were for me. Just being part of the global conversation was a gift. To be able to hear the perspectives, concerns and challenges of sisters and brothers from across the globe was something I don’t think I would have received had I not been there. In the middle of the week, participants had a day off. I was able to participate in a Peace Pilgrimage in which we were led through Cape Town by Peter Storey, a pastor who worked with Desmond Tutu in resisting Apartheid. It was inspiring to see the church’s resistance from within the oppression and to listen to Pastor Storey weep as he told of God’s protection and guidance through those years. Sadly, the Lausanne Congress in Cape Town failed to address the reality the church’s complicity with and resistance towards Apartheid, but a statement was eventually produced and circulated amongst the participants for their signatures. On the final evening of the Congress, there was no plenary speaker but simply a beautiful liturgy, which culminated with communion. I was fortunate to receive the blessing, the broken bread and the wine from Rene Padilla’s hand. This spoke more than anyone’s words could.
Icoană și idol
Un comentariu bun despre diferența între idol și icoană:
Visitors
fragments and reflections 