Christian Situational Ethics and a Government's War

What hath Saint Francis of Assisi to do with Deitrich Bonhoeffer? I've been thinking about both gentlemen recently. First, who are they? Saint Francis was a devout Christian in the 12th-13th centuries who started a religious order within Catholicism called the Franciscans. Coming much later in history, Bonhoeffer was a devout German pastor and theologian mostly during the Third Reich in Hitler's Germany. And they handled similar (though not completely comparable) historical situations very differently.

First, St. Francis. During one of the Crusades, as a European army was sieging an Egyptian city, Saint Francis went to go speak directly to the Sultan of Egypt to try and talk to him earnestly about Jesus, to "convert" him as it were. It's important here to remark on one of the historical misunderstandings about the Crusades here. After the rise of Islam in the mid 700s, Islam spread often through war and forced converts, including the areas around Egypt and what today is now Israel. Why is that important? Because despite all the historical complexities, the Crusades were not simply a mis-spent religious war. The Crusades were not simply about Christian aggression, but about defense of indefensible people. No doubt, much of the Crusades were a mis-adventure and an unfortunate blight on Christian witness in the world. And that's where Assisi's model comes in. Despite some just causes for the war, we still applaud his peaceable attempt at resolution. He was embodying non-violence to try and make a difference in the world. And we love St. Francis for this. Even though his visit to the Sultan did not change his views, we respect St. Francis. We ought to.

And then we come to Bonhoeffer. But before we come to Bonhoeffer, let's note that many German and American pastors had chances to entertain an audience with Hitler prior to WWII, and tried to "convert" him and show him the error of the ways in how he was managing his government, with particular reference to the Jews. But because Hitler is Hitler, we view those pastors more as spineless. They didn't do anything about the problem, they just tried to change Hitler's mind. Bonhoeffer didn't. He always suspected Der Fuhrer, and eventually joined the Resistance movement in an assassination plot to kill Hitler. To Bonhoeffer, what was happening was so atrocious, so ungodly, that action and not mere words was needed. Indeed, Bonhoeffer even felt the call of God to join the assassination plot, even though his attempt failed and he was ultimately martyred for it, weeks before the war ended.

Somehow, we love St. Francis and Bonhoeffer for what they did. We admire them both, even though they went about the work of God, so to speak, in radically different ways.

More than anyone I know, I try to conceptualize principles for living, economics, politics, Christian involvement in the world. I love to come up with a set of principles that will tell me beforehand what I should do or believe in certain situations. But the more I read of history and of Christian saints, I'm convinced that the only true and right principle is to listen to God and to do what he asks. It might be completely different in different situations, but which of us has truly enough wisdom on our own to determine how God will use us? What principles could we live by that would give us the courage to do either what St. Francis did or what Bonhoeffer did?

Truly, we must listen to God, even as to how we involve ourselves in our culture and the major issues of our day.

Should Someone's God Really Control the Government?

As a Time magazine subscriber, I often read through gritted teeth. They are a cultural gatekeeper, perhaps still the most significant one in a culture fast losing its walls, and thus its need for gates. Even so, Time is a cultural gatekeeper and I am constantly surprised by the narrow view of the world that gets promoted by their commentary and feature pieces. Take two seemingly contradictory examples.

The first is from Kurt Anderson's closing commentary on the 9/11 commemoration. His point is that terrorism really didn't change all that much, and that's not all bad. Consider this paragraph:

Before 9/11, American prejudice against Muslims was negligible, so that is a real change. Yet given that al-Qaeda casts itself as an Islamic vanguard and its jihadists have continued trying to kill American civilians, it's surprising how relatively little anti-Muslim ugliness has been spewed. Last summer's Ground Zero — mosque controversy was sad and unnecessary, and the ongoing anti-Shari'a-law movement is nuts. But we've seen much, much worse — internments of Japanese Americans during the Second World War and of German Americans during the First.

Anderson's larger point is provocative, and I don't have much of a quibble with that. But do you notice what he did in the middle there? In a breath of a comment, he noted that anyone who opposes Shari'a law is a nut. At this point, I'm not even sure if Anderson has read Shari'a law. Does he know all of the things in there that are in direct opposition to our Bill of Rights? Things like cruel and unusual punishment, lack of due process or a speedy trial, or a lack of free speech. All of these are characteristic around the world where Shari'a law is consistently practiced. Allowing Shari'a law is not merely allowing someone to practice their religious beliefs, but an imposition on the American rule of law.



Which brings me to my second observation. Apparently, there are a lot of people out there worried about a sect of Evangelicals called Dominionists that want God and his law, from Moses, to be the law of the land (I apologize that the article is only for subscribers). First, I've grown up and lived my whole life in evangelical churches, and I know no one like this (which makes me wonder if the author of the article, Jon Meachem, even knows any evangelicals). Second, the entire "Dominionist" claim is a made-up one by certain segments of the media. No one calls him or herself a Dominionist, and only a very small, few people- that couldn't even be characterized as evangelicals- want biblical law writ large over the United States.

Do you now see the irony? Does the editorial staff at Time even realize it's egregious double-standard and bias? Shari'a law, based on actual worldwide evidence, is Islamic law written over and against and in direct opposition to the jurisprudence of the West. On the other hand, there's not really much evidence for the same phenomenon happening in Christianity in America, yet apparently that is more to be feared. And the print and television media often wonder why evangelical Christians feel a bias in their news and then rush to radio personalities? (As far as I'm concerned, a pox on all their houses. I care about truth and how it's reported, and I have little time for bias, untruth, or rabble-rousing.)

To set my own record straight, I think the U.S. Constitution and it's Bill of Rights is an appropriate statement of limited government (particularly the 1st and 9th amendments) and justice for our time and for all times. I don't think we need to change anything in fundamental governance structures, unless God descends upon the earth, righting all wrongs, and doing it Himself.

TSA and the Human Heart

In the last week, the TSA's new procedures have become the topic of hot national debate. I've read three articles in opposition to these new policies. Charles Krauthammer's column got a lot of attention because of the column's title (Don't Touch My Junk). George Will's column is more measured, but equally vitriolic (The T. S. of A). And lastly, on a popular Christian researcher's website, Ed Stetzer wrote Four Reasons Why You Should Resist the New Procedures.

In a representative democracy, the age old tension goes between the level of freedom and the level of security. The more security, the less freedom (think 1984). The more freedom, the less security (think Tale of Two Cities or any other book about the French Revolution). Somewhere in powerful democracies, the tension must be managed. 

The interesting aspect about this is that none of us are ever really guaranteed security and freedom. Despite the most just laws this planet has ever known, the US federal government cannot completely guarantee our safety (though it can make sure that itself won't be the cause of preventing freedom-- that's why I'm a conservative). The federal government cannot stop anyone from putting a bomb in a major urban area in a backpack and killing a few people. Israel is the most secure country on the planet and yet it endures small bombings like this regularly.

The only way we really have a safe society is by having safe citizens. The Bill of Rights protects me from no one except the government, in actuality. The Bill of Rights does not make sure that my roadway is safe from a suicide bomber tomorrow. The only real guarantee of safety I have is that if just law is embedded in people's hearts. If the first amendment is so ingrained into the American people, we'll demand a fair hearing no matter where we go. Law must be in the heart, for us to know real peace and freedom. 

And embedded deeply in the American heart is the Bill of Rights. Our citizens live it and breathe it. We have a free press, the most (though not always) fair trials in all the world, and the right to resist illegal searches and seizures. We have the right to not be punished cruelly and unusually. Take note of these laws: they are basically on the American heart.

And then go read Shari'a law. It is in direct opposition to our Bill of Rights. Cruel and unusual punishment is commanded. Free speech isn't guaranteed. There is no guarantee of freedom or security in a society that is ruled by Shari'a law- law that would be in the hearts of most. Law must be on the heart for real freedom and security to exist.

In other words, TSA could take naked pictures of us and it won't make much of a difference.

Burning the Quran

Everybody is weighing in on this Quran topic, and as it seems Islam-related news has been trendy as of late, I'll comment briefly on this. If you haven't noticed, I tend to use less words on more popular topics if it's covered better elsewhere, and I usually use more words to bring attention to a newsworthy thought that needs a Christian perspective. So here's the nuance of my argument about this pastor (who I understand might back out of his commitment to burn the Quran) who said he'd lead others in burning the Quran on 9-11:

Burning someone else's holy scripture is stupid, self-serving, and foolishly malignant.

That's it. If you want a view that's actually more nuanced, check out the Evangel blog on First Things.

Jewish, Islamic, and Christian Seminary Together

Update: I received an inquiry directly from the Claremont School, which is a very helpful email and cites what I hope is best for the school, below. Please read the comments section for clarificaiton and correction to this post.

I keep close tabs on Time magazine because I find it to be a cultural gatekeeper, one of those supposedly reputable bulwarks of good news. A week ago, they had an article entitled "Interfaith U.: A theology school's push to train pastors, rabbis, and imams under one roof."

An interfaith seminary is certainly a weird and new concept, and it's being pushed by Claremont School of Theology in California, a United Methodist Seminary. The seminary is also seeking to have Buddhist and Hindu partners. Clearly, this is a unique "innovation" of American religion.

If the seminary truly seeks to train each person seeking to lead in their faith, then it will require rigorous scholarship from all faiths. In other words, the best way this seminary could proceed is as if it's three seminaries under one roof. The worst way it could proceed, and the way I imagine it will proceed, is that each student will be required to rigorously study in the other faiths. This will result in people who aren't really trained to lead in their own faith, but they'll be appropriately sensitive to other faiths.

And over time, the school will probably become some amalgamation of all the faiths, which will develop a vague belief in a monotheistic god. In other words, the seminary will train people to believe what most Americans already believe anyway.

And to give some historical context, theological liberalism dies in America. Claremont is "innovating" because the school's enrollment is decreasing. The school's enrollment is decreasing because the seminary, as one representative seminary in a fairly liberal denomination of United Methodism, is liberal. Liberal theology dies in this country. Conservative theology thrives. That's why evangelicals are powerful political voices and liberal Christianity is a weak political voice. I could cite a dozen historical reasons why liberal theology doesn't survive, but there's a simple sociological reason: if all religions are basically the same, then why go to church?

And because Claremont seems beholden to even more liberal thought- the idea that all religions are basically the same- I suspect this will only quicken the decline of the actual Christian thought in the institution.

Hear me well: I think all people should study other faiths and always seek to listen and learn (that's partly why I'm so fierce on Islam, because I've actually read much of its scripture). But to do this in one institution seems to be a recipe for religious confusion and disaster. Seminaries should train people on their own faiths so that they can best lead people of those faiths. As a Christian pastor, I should not go to a seminary that trains me to be an Imam.