John H Armstrong

New Blog Site Soon

Over the course of the next 24-72 hours a mentor/coach is finishing the design for my new blog site. It will be on a WordPress platform hosted by a different server than the one I have used for over seven years. Please check back in a few days and let me know what you think when this site is launched. I will be doing a series of blog posts on the extremely important new book, Bad Relgion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, Ross Douthat (Free Press: New York, 2012) over the next several weeks. I really hope that you will read these posts and interact with me as you do. I believe this is one of the most important books for missional-ecumenists I have read. 

A Strange Encounter with Evil in Phoenix

Last Sunday evening in Phoenix I was enjoying a lovely dinner with Jeff and Patti Gokee, along with their two sons, Ben (11) and Cooper (8). A man unexpectedly came up to our table to verbally assault Jeff and me for what we had been conversing about with Ben and Cooper. It was surreal, shocking. I confess that I have never had a total stranger approach me in a restaurant with curses and insults during dinner. The place grew silent as people watched in amazement. Jeff and I both thought it was a joke until the man began to call us names and assault us angrily with everything he had but his fists. 

To understand this verbal assault you must know that Ben (11) wanted to discuss some pressing theological concerns with me and his dad has encouraged him to ask at dinner. His questions were about his brother Cooper (8), who has been in a battle with leukemia for several months now. (You could easily tell that Cooper has been undergoing some serious medical issues by his physical appearance which is the result of chemo treatment.) Ben asked, “Did God give my brother this cancer?” I answered, “No, God does not send us evil diseases. He did not give this cancer to Cooper.” But Ben said, “If he is God then didn’t he allow this cancer since he could have stopped it?” I answered, “Yes, Ben this true.” I said that God had originally given us nothing but good but that creation was now touched by sin and evil because of the fall. The fall was allowed because God loved us and wanted us to love him back without constraint. But as a result of allowing sin God had planned to use evil like cancer for his glory and our good. He would reveal his love to us even in the darkness of human pain and cancer. I added that God is good, always good, but for some reason he sometimes allows evil to touch us for reasons that we can not explain. I concluded that someday we would see why he had allowed this evil to touch Cooper but this might not be clear at all until we are safely home with Christ and his people in the new heavens and new earth. 

Jeff added a story about a man he had met in the morning where he had preached in Prescott, Arizona. This man had been in a battle with leukemia that began six years ago. He should not have survived but he is still alive. Jeff told how the man had been sleepless for days and was in intense pain in the hospital. One evening he asked God to comfort him and he felt as if someone can into his room and touched him and put him to sleep. Ten hours later, to the amazement of all the health care folks, he awoke refreshed. Over time he was proven to have been healed. We told Ben and Cooper that we believed it was right to pray against this evil and to intensely desire for God to touch Cooper’s body with healing. 

During this conversation this still unidentified man came by our table and began to shout at us with intense anger. He told us that we were feeding lies to these young boys and we should be ashamed. He used several profanity laced sentences to tell me I was a preacher and I was in this line of work to make money. He added that I should be exposed as a complete fraud. As I said, it was a stunning moment. The whole place was watching. I tried to say something to the man as he walked away but he would not listen. I said, “Sir, I hope you feel better for sharing your honest concern. I would love to talk to you.” He turned and called me a name again and pointed at me and yelled, “You just ought to be ashamed!”

What do you do? What can you say? 

First, we calmly talked about what happened. We concluded that the man must have had a very bad experience with Christians, and ministers in particular, and that he was deeply hurt and angry person. We felt deep sympathy for him and prayed for him. We also felt that something more than a human spirit had been present at our table. I am not one to “see” the demonic everywhere but when I see evil so brutally exposed I usually recognize it. Jeff and I have both seen the demonic openly in India and we both felt we had seen it again in Phoenix. 

Second, we talked to the boys about what happened and how to respond. We asked them what they felt and why. We also told Ben and Cooper that they should always feel free to ask questions and talk about anything that troubled them about God and faith. We said that keeping these hard questions inside can lead to the reaction that we had just seen in the restaurant. I think we saw evil turned to good. Christ was honored and glorified. 

Now, five days later I am still amazed at what happened last Sunday evening. It was one of the most remarkable encounters in a public setting that I’ve ever had in America. As we were leaving the restaurant the waiter came over and said, “God bless you!” Some people just say that but he said it with deep feeling. I believe he, and others, were watching to see what we did and how we handled it. By God’s grace I think we bore witness to the love of God. I still pray for this man and ask God to forgive him and heal him. I believe he has no idea how deeply he has been hurt. His pain is real. So is the pain of many, many people who have had a bad experience with Christians who talk about God. May we all be filled with pity and compassion for the lost and angry people we meet in our journey through this world. 

 

"Take Me Out to the Ball Game"

My passion for baseball is almost legendary. I enjoy a relaxing day at the ballpark about as much as anything I can do for pure fun. I miss baseball after the World Series in October every year, just like clockwork. I long for Spring and the crack of the bat around March 1. Sometimes we even plan a five-day Florida trip just to see Spring Training. 

Since 1957 I have been a Braves fan, first in Milwaukee and now in Atlanta. I live and die with my Boys of Summer and thus I love the Braves! I have seen them win two World Series Championships in my lifetime (1957 and 2005). They should have won two more, in 1958 and 2006 but both times the Yankees rallied to beat them in seven games. I stuck with them when they were perennial losers and since I came to Chicago in 1969 I have tried to see them play each summer, usually at Wrigley Field and once and awhile, because of modern interleague play, at U. S. Cellular Field (White Sox). Last week was the Braves one and only visit to the Windy City. I saw two games. One on Tuesday evening, May 8, and another on Wednesday afternoon, May 9. The Braves won the first game 3-1 and lost the second 1-0. I saw Chipper Jones in his last Wrigley Field at bat. (He is retiring at season's end and a sure fire Hall of Famer!) It was a great moment. As he trotted back to the visitor's dugout some Cubs fans rose and cheered knowing the significance of the moment, saying good-bye to a great star. I was moved and thrilled. Of course there were several thousand Braves fans who really cheered. (In contrast, the fans in St. Louis last weekend gave him a standing ovation over-and-over but I will not go off about Cubs fans here!)

All in all you really can't beat fun at the ball park, even at Wrigley Field as a fan who roots for the visiting Braves!

But my baseball passion was just beginning to get warmed up. On Saturday I flew to Phoenix and saw the Diamondbacks play Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon, losing twice to the San Francisco Giants. I had great seats, courtesy of a Christian brother who directs sales for the team, thus I saw the game from a vantage point that I could never afford. I even got to enjoy food in a private club under the stadium (behind home plate) with a small group of friends. The whole experience was immensely fun. 

On Sunday I shared the afternoon with three young single men who are devoted Christians. We shared about life, marriage, faith and baseball. We stayed until long after the game was over and then I walked two blocks back to where I have stayed in a lovely private urban condo this week in Phoenix. 

Tuesday evening I spoke to PhoenixONE, a gathering of 20s and 30s from scores of churches scattered across the valley. I shared about the new ACT 3 Cohort group that we will begin in Phoenix this fall. Hey, I'm not totally dumb. If I plan this right I can do what I enjoy, namely teach young leaders, and also see more baseball. I admit this to be true so let the naysayers do their worst. I love making disciples and when I can do it around sharing fun at the ball park it is so cool. 

Reasons That This Is a Great Time to Be Alive: Should We Be Optimistic?

I am frankly amazed, and sometimes amused, at the pervasive pessimism of so many. Christians, of all people, have an abundance of reasons to be hopeful, even optimistic. I refer, of course, to the biblical reasons that are at the core of our faith.

But there are other reasons as well. These reasons are not religious in nature but just pure common sense. I am so wearied of the pessimism and constant refrain that "America is so bad now and things have never been worse." Really? Are you kidding me?

The April issue of Reader's Digest included an adapted article by Matt Ridley with the title, "Cheer Up: 17 Reasons It's a Great Time to Be Alive." Though the world is gripped by a global economic crisis and afflicted with poverty, disease and war Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist, believes that there has never been a better time in history to be alive. Is Ridley brilliant or bonkers? You decide.

He offers some of the following reasons for optimism:

1. We're better off right now. Compared with fifty years ago the average human now earns nearly three times more (adjusted for inflation) money, buries two thirds fewer children and can expect to live one third longer. It is hard, says Ridley, to find any region of the world that is worse off now than it was fifty years ago. 

2. Urban living is a good thing. City dwellers take up less space, use less energy, and have less impact on natural eco-systems than rural dwellers. Over half the people on the planet live in cities and occupy less than 3% of the land mass of the globe. 

3. Poverty is nose-diving. Yes, the rich are getting richer but the poor are doing much better. Between 1980 and 2000, the poor doubled their consumption. The Chinese are ten times richer and live 25 years longer than only 50 years ago. Nigerians are twice as rich and live nine more years. And the percentage of the world's people living in absolute poverty has dropped by over half. The UN says poverty has dropped more in the past 50 years than the previous 500! That is astounding. 

4. The important stuff all costs less. We are richer, healthier, taller, cleverer, longer-lived, and freer than we've ever been in the four most basic human needs: food, clothing, fuel and shelter. Ridley provides numerous examples.

5. The environment is better off than you think. In the US rivers, lakes and seas, plus our air, is getting cleaner all the time. A car emits less pollution traveling at full speed today than a parked car did in leaks alone in 1970. 

6. Shopping fuels innovation. Even allowing for the millions who do live in abject poverty on planet earth our own generation has access to more calories, watts, horsepower, gigabytes, square feet, air miles, food per acre, miles per gallon, and money than any generation who lived before us. And the more we specialize the exchange, the better off we'll become. Free markets are making the globe better. 

7. Global trade enriches out lives. The global economic situation, in real life, is improving the world and how we live in it. Again, freedom is having a huge impact. 

8. The good old days weren't. Some argue that tranquility, simplicity, sociability and spirituality have been lost in the modern world. This is, says Ridley, "rose-tinted nostalgia and is generally confined to the wealthiest people. The biggest-ever experiment in back-to-the-land hippie lifestyle is now known as the Dark Ages."

9. Oil is not running out. Storms are not getting worse and great ideas just keep coming. We can solve our problems and this current depression is not nearly as depressing as some of us have made it. (This is not a denial of your personal hardship if you qualify!)

Ridley says that for 200 hundred years the pessimists have had the headlines. There is an immense "vested interest in pessimism." Why? No charity ever raised money by saying things are getting better. (I have to think about this one since I am the president of a non-profit Christian mission. On what basis do I appeal for your support? I believe my vision is filled with incredible optimism, which is one reason baby-boomers, on the whole, do not support it. I believe we can train the next generation to understand the mission of Jesus better than I ever understood it and the impact of this new way will be huge!) 

Ridley believes that the media brow beats us into pessimism by routinely reminding us of all the "bad news." Yes, there is bad news for sure. But there is much to say for this idea of rational optimism. Having said that optimism is warranted, Christians should soberly remind their rationally optimistic friends that life is improving on the earth but there is more to real life than enjoying a better and longer life in this present age. We can teach this good news without becoming pessimists. What do you think?

Why It's Important to Oppose Anti-Sharia Movements in America

Since 9-11 many Americans have reacted strongly against Muslims and Islamic laws. Some see the presence of Muslims as a threat to our nation. Others are more open but are still guided by a great deal of fear when it comes to Muslim practice. Many conservative commentators stir up a general, and often ill-defined, negative reaction to Islamic culture. The truth is that this is a culture they neither understand nor care to understand with any degree of empathy. Christians can, and should, do much better. If for no other reason we have clear statements from our Lord about loving our neighbors, even our enemies. Though this does not mean that we should be anything less than vigilant with regard to radical Islamic movements and people (for reasons of security) it also does not mean that we should oppose Islamic movements, people or their laws. It is this last idea (Muslim laws) that I write about today.

Make no mistake about this–there is a strong anti-Sharia movement in the United States. This movement had led to 22 state legislatures having either passed or considered bills to prohibit judges from considering Sharia law, or any foreign laws, in their decision making. But since 2011 numerous bills have either died or been withdrawn in states. This prompted Omar Sacirbey, of Religion News Service, to suggest that the anti-Sharia movement may have "lost its momentum." I hope so. 

Take Oklahoma as one example. In 2011 voters passed an amendment to the state constitution that prohibited judges from considering foreign laws, including all religious laws, in their decision making. Two federal courts have since ruled that this amendment is unconstitutional, forcing lawmakers to revise the law. A new bill passed the state House in 2011 but the Senate Rules Committee did not hear the bill until recently and the Rules Committee voted it down 9-6. In Minnesota and New Jersey anti-Muslim bills were withdrawn after various expressions of protest. One Republican legislator in New Jersey, Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, said that her bill was never meant to be an anti-Sharia law bill, bur rather an "anti-foreign law" measure. She withdrew it on March 12 saying, "After sitting down with members of the Muslim community, and taking into consideration everything they'd been through in the last few weeks, I didn't want to create any more tension." It pays to sit down and listen. 

In New Jersey Muslims rallied against a surveillance program specifically aimed at Muslim businesses and community centers in Newark. They also spoke out against actions of the NYPD. In both cases their voices were heard and steps were taken to correct abuses. 

One online newsletter recently reported that similar bills have recently died in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi and New Mexico. A few could be revived next year but the trends are moving in the other direction for now. Only four states have actually passed such bills: Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and South Dakota. At this moment anti-foreign law bills are alive in 12 states altogether. So the movement is anything but dead. 

A recent poll shows that the number of Americans who believe Muslims want to impose Sharia on all Americans is now only 14%, down from 30% in the same poll last September (Public Research Institute). 

Why should anti-Sharia laws be opposed in America?

1. They are plainly discriminatory against Muslims. Our nation has rightly eschewed such forms of religious discrimination, especially over the last fifty years. 

2. This movement, and the passage of anti-Sharia laws, could adversely affect other religious groups such as Jews and Catholics, both of whom have religious laws that have been used by judges for many years to decide family or property disputes.

3. These anti-Sharia laws discourage businesses by invalidating foreign laws altogether.

These bills target Muslim communities at a time of deep national tension about the proper role of Islam in America. Muslim laws are seen by some as a menace to American freedoms. Behind these responses you can often find a veiled expression of xenophobia as well as a bad legal precedent that violates the practice and religious beliefs of minorities. In the light of what I wrote yesterday about our courts I believe that it will only be time until the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to such a state law. I think it is likely that they would strike down such a law as a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

Opposing anti-Sharia laws is important to a healthy democracy and to the proper understanding of the role of church and state in America. Informed Christians should promote the defeat of this kind of legislation on the grounds of religious freedom, a freedom that if threatened in one area can be threatened in another at some future point. We need to remain vigilant about our religious rights. This includes the rights of our Muslim neighbors. At its core this is what makes America unique from France, Germany and most other nations in the West. We do not promote religion through the state nor do we use the state to hinder religious practice so long as the rights of others are not violated. 

 

The Will of the Majority, the Rights of the Minority and the Bill of Rights

In my college days I took one of the toughest undergraduate classes offered at Wheaton College. It was a course on constitutional law taught by a rigorous and demanding professor who knew the history of the debates very well. The class was a challenge and getting a decent grade was really hard work. But I believe that course may have done as much to shape my view of America as any single college course I ever took. More than forty years later I remain grateful for this class. It has helped me understand America in a way that I think far too few Christians get, especially in the heat of modern debates over political opinions, left or right. 

I learned then, and have seen since, that debates about the interpretation of the Bill of Rights are common in modern American political and social debate. Ever since I can remember we have debated judicial activism. Whether from the political left or the political right our national tradition of ensuring religious liberty for all stems from the protections of the First Amendment. Our courts, especially our Supreme Court, must vigorously enforce the religion clauses in ways that are often counter-majoritarian if we are to ensure the proper separation of church and state. The will of the majority does not apply to court decisions if the courts are doing their job as intended by the founders.

President Obama, in the wake of the Supreme Court hearing debate over his signature legislative accomplishment on mandatory health care, recently made strong remarks about the problem of “unelected judges” opposing the will of elected legislators. The president taught constitutional law for ten years and knows better. The right of the judiciary to declare specific acts of legislation unconstitutional goes back to the famous Marbury vs. Madison (1803) decision in which Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the concept of judicial review and thus declared the judiciary to be the final arbiter in determining what the law is. 

The President clarified his statement the day after making it by saying he had in mind the 2010 Affordable Care Act case, not the responsibility for judicial review. He knows the necessity of judicial review and admitted he was speaking only about this one case. But regardless of your view of Obamacare, love it or hate it, the president’s statement raises a great question about several basic concerns in our democracy that both liberals and conservatives do not often understand well. 

For example, how do we handle the will of the majority and legally support the rights of the minority? J. Brent Walker puts this succinctly, in Report from the Capital (Vol. 67, No. 4), when he says, “How do we resolve the tension between a fundamentally majoritarian Constitution with an essentially counter-majoritarian Bill of Rights?” 

Most of our elections and policy decisions are rooted in the will of the majority expressed through a peaceful democratic process. But, as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been withdrawn from the “vicissitudes of political controversy” and “depend on the outcome of no elections.” We rightly fear totalitarianism in this country but we forget that “pure majoritarianism” can also wreak havoc on our freedoms as well. The majority is not always right and there are times and situations in which the majority must be legally challenged. This is why judges have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority, even if the majority is led by the president and/or an overwhelming election result. (This is also why federal and Supreme Court judges are not subject to elections!)

Again, the political left and right both tend to forget this vital point based on a case by case context. What was odd about the president’s statement was that it reflected a strong reaction against the Court from the left. 

This understanding of the Bill of Rights is what should guide the Court in all decisions but this is especially true with regard to cases about religion. The Court has the task of enforcing the religion clauses in the First Amendment. In recent history no other part of the law has been more frequently undermined by Christians in particular. Believing that Christianity is the “majority faith” and that the nation was founded on Christian principles people on the right tend to argue that the Court is repeatedly thwarting the will of the majority about the role of the church and religion in our society. For this reason the majority of cases that end up before the Supreme Court these days are related to the free exercise clause. 

When majoritarian values push a case before the Supreme Court the decision, which sometimes does not go for the majority view, is sometimes struck down. This raises the cry of “judicial activism” thus we hear again debates about the courts making laws and the courts being out of control. For the duration of my lifetime, since the end of World War II, the conservative movement has actively opposed “judicial activism.” While there are times when lower courts have been guilty of this charge the Supreme Court seems to have gotten this just about right, at least in most cases. 

Think, for example, about major decisions that were extremely controversial; striking down school-sponsored prayer, upholding abortion rights, protecting unpopular forms of speech and flag burning. These have fostered “judicial activism” feelings on the right. But recent opposition has come from the left who remind us that the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have struck down 46 federal laws over two decades compared with fewer than 130 in the first two centuries of the Supreme Court. (Read that again!)

What is the lesson here? J. Brent Walker rightly concludes: “The lesson we should all learn is to be careful, those on the left and on the right, about charges of judicial activism. No, the Court should not strike down laws of Congress and other legislatures lightly and without much study and discretion. However, when elected branches pass or enforce laws that transgress constitutional rights, including protection for minority rights, the courts must act to take up their mandate to correct the error.” 

No one complains about judicial activism when the Court’s decision agrees with their own. Someone once quipped, “When the Court makes a decision that you like, it’s applauded as judicial statesmanship. If you don’t like it, it is called judicial activism.”

I am thankful for our third branch of government, the one we know the least about and also the one we complain about routinely. The nine justices do not judge every case perfectly, which is of course impossible. They have made decisions that I do not like. But they have more often than not protected us from allowing the will of the majority to trample on the rights of the minority, a right that is vital to the well-being and peace of this nation. With three branches of government there are ways to challenge Court decisions but they require a slow and (seemingly) tortured process. It is this very process that helps protect our way of life from tyranny and majority domination. This makes America rather unique among modern nations, a uniqueness that I have deeply treasured ever since I took constitutional law in college. 

 

 

The Stain That Stays: How Should We Respond to the Sexual Misconduct of Pastors/Leaders?

What should happen to pastors who fall into sexual misconduct? Should they return, repentant, to their pulpits/leadership within weeks or months - or should they return at all?

Around the world sexual misconduct is defeating ministers and destroying ministries. As the numbers of fallen leaders grow it is crucial to know what should happen to them - for their good and for the good of the Church. Does the Bible and church history give us any help with these kinds of questions?

In the 1990s, when sexual misconduct among some rather well-known evangelical pastors in America reached major proportions, I began to question the practices of various churches and organizations in how they handled a major moral problem. I also studied abundant evidence that suggested this problem was massive in scale and scope. Very few were interested then but the evidence I gave then has only grown more obvious over time. We have a crisis and few want to talk about it. I remain curious as to why this is true. 

I am persuaded, more than a decade after writing The Stain That Stays, that this book is more needed now than it was then (the first edition appeared in 1995). I seek to provide a biblical, historical, theological and ethical framework for dealing with morally fallen leaders. I make some rather bold suggestions about a correct response. I do not think I would change more than a paragraph or two if I wrote this book in 2012. Sadly, it is needed more than ever. 

Though this book is extremely valuable for elders/deacons (church leaders) who are required to deal with the issue in hard times the real value is that all leaders read and study it in advance of a failure. When it first appeared several seminaries used it to train future leaders. Sadly, I see no class on pastoral theology or practice that even deals with this problem now. Is it me or is this still a major problem that we wish would go away? We seem to have little or no conviction about dealing with it before or after the breakdown. 

For the record, mainline churches deal with this problem better, and more easily, than evangelical and extremely conservative churches. I have some theories about why this is so but I would love to hear what you think. Copies are available from Amazon at $17.99. I encourage leadership groups to study it. I would love to help you if you ask.