John H Armstrong

Someone Please Tell Sarah Palin To Stop the Sniping

I really do not care about the political actions and ambitions of Sarah Palin. For one she never even finished a single term as governor of her state. Through an inexplicably strange choice made by John McCain (I wonder if he would do it again?) she came on the national stage with an amazing splash. She did fire up the far right for an election but the damage she did was also immeasurable if my political instincts have any sense in them. One thing is certain. She was and is a polarizing figure. The darling of certain media types on the right she is clearly loathed by the far left and she plays off this loathing routinely. Almost everyone has an opinion about her. I think I can safely make two predictions about her political future. First, she has about a 1% chance of being nominated for the presidency. Second, if nominated she has an even smaller chance of being elected. But then the GOP has no strong person out front right now so time will tell.

My concern about Sarah Palin is very different than concerns related to her political aspirations and silly videos. She is toxic and often badly misguided. A recent target of the relentless former-governor’s rhetoric was the prize-winning conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Krauthammer, seen often on Fox as a panelist, dared to suggest that Palin looked less than “presidential” while shooting caribou with Kate Goslin on her hit TLC reality show. Palin then told Bill O’Reilly, who is no liberal for sure, “Well, bless his heart, he’s probably used to those in the political beltway who perhaps aren’t out there workin’, but they’re talkin’ and there doin’ their ‘strategery,’ whereas I’m workin’ and havin’ a great time doin’ it.”

This might be humorous, if not ridiculous, but it is really much worse. First, Palin is actually working in the same way as Charles Krauthammer, by writing and talking and making media appearances. And she is doing quite well at it thank you. The biggest difference here is that Sarah Palin is earning far more than Charles Krauthammer! And yes Krauthammer would have to agree that he is a “high-falutin” guy with educational credentials Palin never dreamed of in her wildest moments. He studied at Oxford, earned an MD at Harvard Medical School, and is a paraplegic Canadian-raised son of struggling European immigrants. Rather than a product of the establishment, as the former governor of Alaska clearly is, Krauthammer made his way forward in this media industry on good sense and hard work.

Sarah Palin may be a best-selling author and interesting person. She might even be a swell person to hang with, though I’m not interested myself. One thing is for sure though: there is one major difference between her and Krauthammer, as Michael Medved noted: “Only in terms of intellectuality, not wealth or influence of celebrity status, could a Krauthammer qualify as an ‘elitist’ [more] than a Palin,”

My Top Five Films for 2010

The number of really superb films has declined in recent years. The last year in which there were a significant number of truly great films was probably 2007. But there were some good films this year, even perhaps a few great ones. I have not seen all the biggest films but I have seen all that I want to see and I’m thus prepared to share my Top Five List. (There are a few art house films I have not seen and will when they come out on disc and of course the great foreign films are not included since they are generally only available on disc, at least in my suburban part of Chicago.)

1. The King’s Speech

After the death of his father King George V (Michael Gambon) and the scandalous abdication of King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), Bertie (the superb Colin Firth), who has suffered from a debilitating speech impediment all his life, is suddenly crowned King George VI of England. With his country on the brink of World War II and in desperate need of a monarch who is (a powerful symbolic) leader, Bertie needs special help. With the assistance of his wife, Elizabeth (the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter), the future Queen Mother, arranges for her husband to see an eccentric speech therapist named Lionel Logue (played by the magnificent Geoffrey Rush). After a rough start, the two men delve into an unorthodox course of treatment that leads them to form an unbreakable bond. With the support of Logue, his family, his government and Winston Churchill (a not so impressive role by Timothy Spall), the King overcomes his stammer and delivers a radio-address that inspires his people and unites them for battle. Based on the true story of King George VI, The King’s Speech follows the Royal Monarch's quest to find his voice in a time of great peril. Whether you like British films, culture or the monarchy and the modern (non-significant) role it plays this is simply a superb film and a great story. Critics and movie-goers alike love it. There is good reason for this response.

2. The Social Network

A story about the founders of the social-networking website, Facebook, this movie will likely win major awards from the Academy. It won the most awards at the Golden Globes this week, though this is not always an indication for what the Academy will do. Don’t rule out The King’s Speech on this front.

There has been a great deal of hype about this movie, pro and con, but its compelling honesty creates its true entertainment value even as it limits its emotional impact in a moving way. (Read that sentence again as I mean precisely what I write.) It is really hard, after all, to make Mark Zuckerberg into a compelling human character who makes you want to conceive of anything remotely called greatness!

The film is, if all hype is put aside, the portrait of a genius jerk. The genius is billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, the main face behind Facebook. The bulk of the film has to do with two major lawsuits brought against Zuckerberg by others who say they were instrumental in the site's birth. Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg was a brilliant choice for lead actor. What make his character in the film, and what troubles Zuckerberg personally, is the condescending meanness and self-involvement of the character that he plays. The  Zuckerberg of the film is in a constant state of rage to conquer his own insecurities through crushing others. The man who created the largest social network tool in the world cannot network with people to save his life! The irony must not be lost.

Most readers know the story. Mark Zuckerberg is a computer genius at Harvard when he devises a site that lets people judge which of two girls is hotter by seeing their photos. The site receives so many hits that it crashes the college's computer system. From this first effort he is disciplined by the school but then allows twin brothers to talk him into a site that will allow Harvard students to keep in touch with one another. While this is going on Zuckerberg decides to start a somewhat similar type of site with the help of his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who will eventually run the business of their potential enterprise. The site was to be called thefacebook. Zuckerberg's creative genius is evident as he stumbles forward, figuring out what thefacebook should become. The network soon spreads to other campuses across the country. Zuckerberg and his partner then meet with computer entrepreneur hotshot Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). The money starts to pour in and the breakdowns in relationships everywhere follow. (It is not all darkness as the work environment of the company seems very inviting in certain ways.)

One critic noted: “The film has one central problem that's unavoidable. It's a movie about one of the most unlikable characters imaginable. That lack of complexity, along with any real sense of passion beyond the sheer surge for power, keeps The Social Network from truly catching fire. It's a really good film. It's not a great one.” I agree.

The film will give you insight into the history of Facebook and perhaps remind you of the limitations of all social networking in the process. It is worth seeing but I felt a little depressed in the end.

3. True Grit

In some ways this is my favorite movie of the year. The film is girded by strong performances from Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and teenage newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. I love almost everything done by Joel and Ethan Coen but I honestly never imagined anyone could take a classic older movie and improve it in such a big way. This has to be some of the Coens' most finely tuned, unaffected works ever. A very dear friend, and a fellow movie fan, assures me that True Grit is a worthy companion to the classic Charles Portis book. I plan to read the book soon on his recommendation.

Although True Grit does not deliver the typical Coen detached style, this film is every bit as idiosyncratic as the Coens' other (albeit much more subversive) Western award-winner, No Country for Old Men. I am assured this film sticks closer to the reported darkness of the novel than the John Wayne version did decades ago. As the young heroine Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is simply amazing. Mattie is determined to avenge the murder of her father by the cowardly drunkard Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). As her hired bounty hunter the infamous Rooster Cogburn (Jeff  Bridges) is so appropriate in the role he plays even if he is not the iconic John Wayne.

One leading film critic writes: “[True Grit] provides proof for the usefulness of remakes by great talent (if anything, the '69 original is now a better film that it can stand alongside this one), the Coens' True Grit also functions as an equally somber and hilarious criticism/correction of racism past. As a nearly-definitive cinematic representation, one doubts it will ever be contested.” Agreed. Don’t miss True Grit.

4. The Fighter

The Fighter is based on the true story of Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older brother Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale). Dicky was on his way to boxing super stardom after fighting Sugar Ray Leonard, whom he knocked down in a fight. But Dicky soon developed a drug addiction and threw it all away. Micky tries to make a name for himself in boxing with his brother training him and his mother managing him. The real story of this marvelous film is not about boxing but family, culture and coming to grips with life in the rough.

Films about boxing are common. A number of good ones come to mind, much more than for other sports when I think about it. But another boxing film was not what Hollywood wanted, which is why it took so long for The Fighter to get off the ground according to my research on this project. But The Fighter is one of the most powerful films about family relationships I’ve seen. It is situated in a part of white Boston that is every bit as unique as anything I knew growing up in the deep South. Wahlberg and Bale as brothers with a love-hate relationship give stellar performances throughout. It almost seems like this was the role they were both born to play together. Bale is especially powerful as a drug addict who lives in his past.

The supporting cast is just as strong as the two stars. Amy Adams plays Wahlberg’s girlfriend, a far cry from the polished, educated beautiful girls she’s previously portrayed, which proves the range of her acting ability. But, the real star here has to be Melissa Leo, who is the manic, loud, control-freak mother of eight kids. She ought to win an Oscar for best supporting actress.

The Fighter is a gem. It is a down to earth cinematic experience and a film that I was not prepared to like as much as I did.

5. Inception

Almost never does a summer film rate a Top Five for me but Inception was an exception, no pun intended. Inception suggests a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a single idea within one's mind can be the most dangerous weapon or the most valuable asset. You will never think about your dreams the same way again after you see Inception.

Someone has said: “Watching a movie in the theater is one of the ultimate shared experiences, described as an escape from real-world concerns by many—something like a dream, if you will.” Well, Inception lives up to that statement about community and dreams for sure. It is a richly textured brain-teaser featuring some of Hollywood’s top stars.

Before seeing Inception you need to know that you will lose yourself in the labyrinthine layers of storytelling. You're probably going to be confused. As one critic notes: “The film's characters are perplexed half the time.” You will be too.

The writer and director of Inception is the maker of The Dark Knight. While Inception has that film's epic feel from the beginning, this is actually Christopher Nolan's first solo original screenplay since the powerful film Memento. It echoes that film's exploration of how a person perceives what is real and what is not.

This is a science-fiction story. It centers around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a thief for hire whose gift is extracting people's dreams and stealing their ideas in their deep sleep. Going into someone's subconscious when their mind is at rest, as you might imagine, is a valuable skill set for corporate espionage. Sin lurks in everything and everyone in Inception.

This is tricky business for Dom since the practice has ripped apart his family and made him a fugitive from authorities. DeCaprio is not stunning but he plays the role well.

Nolan puts the audience off balance right from the beginning but in the process he draws you into ideas and imagination in a very powerful way. The central idea behind Inception is the process of implanting an idea in someone's mind. As if the concept of Inception is not already complex enough, the film takes you into a world where a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream becomes routine stuff as multiple realities grow dim and blurry.

One of the relatively easy ideas to comprehend in this film is the notion that ten seconds of real time equals about three minutes in our dreams world, which could equal about one hour in a dream-within-a-dream context if you follow me. If you can't wrap your mind around such a notion then join me in a “this was a really hard concept to fully grasp” response. If you want to fully process this film, and begin to figure out some of the truly oddest connections, you will want to see it several times I’m sure. I think it may well be worth the effort. It certainly kept me riveted throughout with no sense of a complete resolution at the end.

Inception has been described as “seriously wonky, and the confusion induced is part of the puzzle.” What we see in the dreams here can be difficult to interpret, just as our own dreams don't always make sense to us. But then I pay more attention to my dreams than most of my friends. (Does that mean I am “wonky” or just odd?) Example: Did you know that you never die in your dreams? You always wake up just before you die.

Visual treats abound in Inception. CGI is used well but real acting trumps most of the computer stuff over and over. Leonardo DiCaprio's role is the only one that allows any real depth of character despite the incredible length of the film, 148 minutes. Films like Inception leave your head reeling and stay with you for a long time.

Special Mention: Temple Grandin

Golden Globe-winning actress Claire Danes shines brightly in this fact-based story of an autistic woman who became an unlikely hero to America's cattle industry--and to autistic people everywhere. Based on the writings of the real Temple Grandin, this HBO Films production is an engaging portrait of a stigmatized, misunderstood young woman who learned to channel her unique gifts into a brilliant career as a scientist, author and groundbreaking animal advocate. Catherine O'Hara co-stars with Julia Ormond and the almost always compelling actor David Strathairn. Directed by Mick Jackson; the screenplay is by Christopher Monger and William Merritt Johnson. The film is based on the books Emergence by Temple Grandin and Margaret Scariano and Thinking in Pictures by Temple Grandin.

The movie gives a powerful message that people with special needs can be highly creative, extremely bright, and make substantial contributions. It also shows how having a supportive community of family, friends, and educators is instrumental in developing the strengths of autistic children and adults. Temple Grandin powerfully reveals how overcoming obstacles and standing up for yourself and your ideals in a positive and consistent way can result in significant achievement. This is a truly inspiring film. One friend, who is the parent of an autistic child, told me of how moved he was by seeing it. (He could not watch it all in one sitting because of the powerful emotions he felt.)

An Interview on Radio Free Acton

Acton Institute produces an audio blog called Radio Free Acton. When I was in Grand Rapids in December I spoke to Acton on Tap. After my presentation I was interviewed for this Acton online program. The link above takes you to this audio feature, which has two parts. You will have to listen to the first to get to my interview in the second part but if you are up for it check it out and listen. Acton has a lot of great material and I commend it to you as my readers.

The Bible in 90 Days: A Whole-Church Challenge

On January 1st I embarked upon a challenge given to the members and friends of the Lutheran Church of the Master in Carol Stream, IL. I signed up to share in, and also lead a small group of, The Bible in 90 Days. You read approximately 12 pages a day in this program. (Zondervan produces an NIV that is nicely laid out for you but you really do not need to buy one at all. Divide 90 into the pages in your own Bible and you have your plan! I am reading the NRSV for myself.)  It takes anywhere from 40 minutes to 90 minutes to get through the reading each day, depending on your speed and pace. You read from Genesis right through Revelation at the end of the canon, without any jumping around from here to there at all. Reading the Pentateuch in fifteen days was noticeably “big picture” for me personally. Anita and I discuss the reading most days and this has been fun as well.

The creator of this program is Ted Cooper, Jr. (photo left). Cooper began his own journey in reading through the Bible. more than six years ago, as an agnostic. Halfway through his reading plan he became a believer. (Read that again since he did not get to the New Testament before he became a believer!) Reading every word of the Bible is not the norm for most Christians. In fact, I doubt few have ever done it, even with all the versions that we possess. (We fight about versions and I am just excited people read and study the Word.) Something profound happens to you as you read. I am in 1 Samuel today and have a renewed sense of the whole story of Israel and the covenant of God like I haven’t had in years. And I’ve spent my personal and professional life studying Scripture.

There are videos designed to be shown each week when the small group meets. The OT teacher we are using is Dr. John Walton of Wheaton College. The NT discussion is led by Dr. Mark Strauss of Bethel Seminary in San Diego. These twenty minute presentations give overview information and help the readers grasp the “flow” of what they’ve read for that week. We have small group discussion (in groups of four) and some larger group stuff as well. The accountability of the group helps us all stay on track as well. The Essential Bible Companion (Zondervan), by Walton and Strauss, is a helpful background source that provides two pages on each book and helps the reader again see the “big picture” of what they are reading and discovering. There is a website on the program that you can search as well. 

I am prayerfully watching to see how the people of my local church are impacted by this process. I see a growing interest and hunger for the written Word already. I know my own life is being impacted and I expect I will use this method again when the program ends. It is very different from the One Year Bible programs and editions that abound. These are very good too but you do not get the “large chunks” quite like you do in The Bible in 90 Days. I recommend this plan to pastors, small group leaders and others who want to have people read the whole Bible together as a group experience.

A Week of Prayer for Christian Unity

January 18-25 has been a week of prayer for Christian unity for over a century. This blog will help you understand more about this week and how you can share in this important time for Christians around the globe.

On Delivering Reproof in Love

For as long as I can remember I have found that few Christians know how to deliver reproof to their brothers and sisters in a way that is effective and humane. We have turned “speaking the truth in love” into a virtual blank check to correct others at any time and in any form we think permissible.

Our reasoning seems simple enough. The Scripture speaks of loving reproof and the wounds of a friend. We then take these kinds of wisdom texts and immerse them in our personality and emotional life. Then we feel free to correct almost at will. Blogs have made this even easier. I tried to refer to something like this about six months ago and it was widely misunderstood.

I receive reproof routinely. I suppose this goes with the territory if you write publicly. The logic seems to be that a writer must be willing to take anything since they posted their comments online. I understand the argument but I simply do not agree with it. If a person is my friend I deal with them accordingly. If they are not then I treat them as I would want to be treated, in public or in private.

A friend recently commented on this problem by writing:

My sorrow over how some people respond to you has little to do with their opposition to your posts and your position---that's a different reaction altogether.

My sorrow is that persons who are supposed to have the heart of pastors, friends, brothers, etc. would approach anyone in an arrogant, ungracious, and unloving manner. I often think that when I see some of the reactions people give to one another in written form: "There's not an ounce of love to be detected in this!"

Honestly, if you thought your own son were making some bad choices, how you would approach him? I have had to repent of this mode of “setting people straight” a l-o-n-g time ago. In the process of growing up, I had to learn that ideological purity in any arena of disagreement should never trump love or relationship. The non-Christian world understands this better than many of us. How much more should the Christian community "get" this?      

I am struck by my friend’s words about the non-Christian world. I think one reason Christian’s react to each other as they do is because they have neither grown up emotionally nor understood that their role is not to be “setting people straight” all the time.              

"For one human being to love another: 
that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks,
the last test and proof, the work for which
all other work is but preparation."
     ~  Rainer Maria Rilke

Christians in Dangerous Places: The Call to Die for Christ

We in the West do everything within our power to keep ourselves out of harm’s way. We are routinely told the state is always seeking to protect us. In fact, we are ostensibly engaged in two wars to this end. Our leaders know that we are in some danger all the time and they remind us routinely that they are doing everything that they can to protect us. This is one of their roles according to Romans 13.

But I admit I am puzzled by how reactive we are about self-protection. In a class I taught last week we discussed Dietrich Bonhoeffer because I assigned the reading of Life Together, one of his best works. We asked, “What would be our reaction if our local church knew there was a distinct chance that a service might be disrupted by a terror attack or armed opponents?” We agreed that we would probably tell everyone to stay home that week. We would never want the whole church in harm’s way, ever. I understand this response but I also have a growing concern that we have little or no understanding corporately of the calling of Jesus to follow him to death when, or where, it becomes necessary. We left that part of the message out when we promised people a “feel good” relationship with Jesus and a happy fulfilled life with plenty to spare.

A student of mine related the story of a Columbian Christian who worked in dangerous areas. This worker, and the church, was warned about a possible attack on their church service. He answered: "Jesus told me to go. He never said I would come back. Isn't that the life of a Christian?"

I honestly doubt very few churches, or leaders, in America would give such counsel if the occasion arose to face possible threat on our gathering. I am not sure I would but it made me think a lot more about my life and what I am living and dying for each day. When Jesus called us to follow him, as Bonhoeffer aptly said, “He called us to come and die.”

Religion & Liberty: The Work of Acton Institute

About seven years ago I got to know the work of the Acton Institute by attending a conference aptly called: “Toward a Free and Virtue Society.” There were about 30 young adults at this event at a location in the Northeast and hosted by Acton. It was taught by Catholic and Protestant scholars on the subject of religion, economics and culture. I was allowed to sit outside the circle and listen to the teaching and interaction and then share fellowship with the scholars and students over meals and breaks. It was a wonderful firsthand encounter with a religious think tank that I have come to regard with high regard.

I encourage you to check out the Acton University event as well. This year it takes place June 14-17 in downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan. I will be teaching a seminar on “Protestant Social Ethics.” The speakers, fellowship, resources and event are all superb. I have attended twice before as a participant. I heartily encourage every one to attend, especially younger business entrepreneurs, graduate students and professionals.

Acton promotes a free society characterized by individual liberty and religious principles. Acton’s core principles include the following:

Integrating Judeo-Christian Truths with Free Market Principles

1. Dignity of the Person
2. Social Nature of the Person
3. Importance of Social Institutions
4. Human Action
5. Sin
6. Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government
7. Creation of Wealth
8. Economic Liberty
9. Economic Value
10. Priority of Culture

Dignity of the Person - The human person, created in the image of God, is individually unique, rational, the subject of moral agency, and a co-creator. Accordingly, he possesses intrinsic value and dignity, implying certain rights and duties both for himself and other persons. These truths about the dignity of the human person are known through revelation, but they are also discernible through reason.

Social Nature of the Person - Although persons find ultimate fulfillment only in communion with God, one essential aspect of the development of persons is our social nature and capacity to act for disinterested ends. The person is fulfilled by interacting with other persons and by participating in moral goods. There are voluntary relations of exchange, such as market transactions that realize economic value. These transactions may give rise to moral value as well. There are also voluntary relations of mutual dependence, such as promises, friendships, marriages, and the family, which are moral goods. These, too, may have other sorts of value, such as religious, economic, aesthetic, and so on.

Importance of Social Institutions - Since persons are by nature social, various human persons develop social institutions. The institutions of civil society, especially the family, are the primary sources of a society's moral culture. These social institutions are neither created by nor derive their legitimacy from the state. The state must respect their autonomy and provide the support necessary to ensure the free and orderly operation of all social institutions in their respective spheres.

Human Action - Human persons are by nature acting persons. Through human action, the person can actualize his potentiality by freely choosing the moral goods that fulfill his nature.

Sin: Although human beings in their created nature are good, in their current state, they are fallen and corrupted by sin. The reality of sin makes the state necessary to restrain evil. The ubiquity of sin, however, requires that the state be limited in its power and jurisdiction. The persistent reality of sin requires that we be skeptical of all utopian "solutions" to social ills such as poverty and injustice.

Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government - The government's primary responsibility is to promote the common good, that is, to maintain the rule of law, and to preserve basic duties and rights. The government's role is not to usurp free actions, but to minimize those conflicts that may arise when the free actions of persons and social institutions result in competing interests. The state should exercise this responsibility according to the principle of subsidiarity. This principle has two components. First, jurisdictionally broader institutions must refrain from usurping the proper functions that should be performed by the person and institutions more immediate to him. Second, jurisdictionally broader institutions should assist individual persons and institutions more immediate to the person only when the latter cannot fulfill their proper functions.

Creation of Wealth - Material impoverishment undermines the conditions that allow humans to flourish. The best means of reducing poverty is to protect private property rights through the rule of law. This allows people to enter into voluntary exchange circles in which to express their creative nature. Wealth is created when human beings creatively transform matter into resources. Because human beings can create wealth, economic exchange need not be a zero-sum game.

Economic Liberty - Liberty, in a positive sense, is achieved by fulfilling one's nature as a person by freely choosing to do what one ought. Economic liberty is a species of liberty so-stated. As such, the bearer of economic liberty not only has certain rights, but also duties. An economically free person, for example, must be free to enter the market voluntarily. Hence, those who have the power to interfere with the market are duty-bound to remove any artificial barrier to entry in the market, and also to protect private and shared property rights. But the economically free person will also bear the duty to others to participate in the market as a moral agent and in accordance with moral goods. Therefore, the law must guarantee private property rights and voluntary exchange.

Economic Value - In economic theory, economic value is subjective because its existence depends on it being felt by a subject. Economic value is the significance that a subject attaches to a thing whenever he perceives a causal connection between this thing and the satisfaction of a present, urgent want. The subject may be wrong in his value judgment by attributing value to a thing that will not or cannot satisfy his present, urgent want. The truth of economic value judgments is settled just in case that thing can satisfy the expected want. While this does not imply the realization of any other sort of value, something can have both subjective economic value and objective moral value.

Priority of Culture - Liberty flourishes in a society supported by a moral culture that embraces the truth about the transcendent origin and destiny of the human person. This moral culture leads to harmony and to the proper ordering of society. While the various institutions within the political, economic, and other spheres are important, the family is the primary inculcator of the moral culture in a society.

Some readers think my stance on political engagement is sometimes too liberal and others think I am too conservative. These labels are neither helpful nor accurate in far too many instances. This is why I do not embrace them in a partisan, political way. Sometimes I am in agreement with political opinion that is seen as liberal by some and more times than not I am in agreement with so-called conservative positions, but never in a manner that walks in lock-step with a political party or movement. I try to judge economic and social policies by principles, not by raw politics, labels and a great deal of emotionalism.

My stance underscores my growing appreciation for Acton. Acton seeks to teach Christians how to think more clearly about public policy and culture from a morally rigorous perspective. It does this in scores of contexts and by many means.

A few days ago, to give examples, I came across two verbal attacks against capitalism made by noted Christians that I often agree with on most subjects. The first comment came from my favorite missional theologian, the late Lesslie Newbigin. I was reading Newbigin for a course that I teach on missional-ecumenism. He refers in his theology to the twin evils of communism and capitalism. When he bothers to define capitalism it is done poorly and almost always from the perspective that capitalism inherently breeds greed. (I reject consumerism forthrightly but consumerism is inherently built on greed and lacks a commitment to wisdom and restraint as well.) I reject Newbigin’s premise on his point about capitalism, as much as I admire him on almost every other point he writes about. Acton Institute has helped me understand more clearly why Newbigin’s comment (it is hardly a reasonable argument) is so profoundly wrong.

A second attack on capitalism I came across last week was in reading an anthology of the work of the famous Catholic G. K. Chesterton. He made some equally terrible statements about capitalism and economics in general. Again, the reason in Chesterton’s case was an almost complete misunderstanding of the real idea of capitalism and how it works to bring about freedom and prosperity.

Acton publishes an excellent magazine that you can subscribe to without charge (see photo above at right). I urge you to get Religion and Liberty and to financially support Acton in the process. I was featured on the cover of the Summer/Fall 2010 issue, Volume 20, No. 3/4. You can check out my interview with Acton online. The whole issue is also available if you find the tab for the magazine.

A Conference on Faith & Sexuality

Yesterday I attended a local conference on faith & sexuality hosted by Dr. Tracy S. Malone, senior pastor of Gary United Methodist Church in Wheaton. Dr. Malone, and her congregation, invited four panelists to share in a civil, respectful and grace-filled conversation. Though the purpose of the event was to discuss sexuality more broadly the primary thrust, as you might guess, turned out to be a discussion on homosexuality. I am profoundly interested in the topic and believe all church leaders should be. I just told a doctoral class I taught last week in Ft. Lauderdale (Knox Theological Seminary) that this is the “greatest struggle” in the church in America in the first half of the twenty-first century. For most mainline churches this struggle is being resolved by embracing marriage between homosexuals, both in the church and the clergy. For most conservative churches the struggle is being resolved by embracing the language and responses of another era identified more directly with the power and language of American Christendom. The divide is growing and this debate has become a war in many cases. Friendships are being destroyed and people on both sides find it increasingly hard to listen and learn.

Gary Methodist urged people to come together and engage in an open and warm conversation. The goal was to listen; thereby reduce hostility in the midst “of this ongoing spiritual crisis.” To this end four panelists spoke at this event. Dr. Lynn Cohick, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, did a solid job of explaining the New Testament texts on homosexuality. Christopher Yuan, an instructor at Moody Bible Institute, gave one of the two most passionate addresses of the day. Chris, with his mom (who was also present), has written a new book that will be released in May. The title: Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God, a Broken Mother’s Search for Hope, is engaging in itself. I had the privilege to speak with Chris and will write on this site about his book near its release in early May.

Chris grew up in a well-educated, but atheistic home. He came out of the closet while in dental school in Louisville, Kentucky. He then made his way to Atlanta and became a major drug distributor in the gay subculture before he was arrested and spent serious time in prison. While in prison, with his converted mother seeking God’s grace for her son through prayer and fasting, Chris found a Gideon New Testament and began to read. He was eventually converted and then began to consider whether he could continue to practice his homosexuality. (He also had discovered that he was HIV-positive while in prison. He is featured on a documentary, “HOPE Positive: Surviving the Sentence of AIDS.”) Chris’s story moved me to the depths of my being. I intend to pursue a relationship with Chris as a brother after I met him yesterday.

The other two speakers were Dr. Douglas Sharp, who serves as Dean of the Academy at a Chicago-based organization called Protestants for the Common Good. Dr. Sharp is an American Baptist pastor and committed to integrating the social sciences with the disciplines of theology.

The most radical speaker on the panel was clearly Dr. Pamela Lightsey, the Vice President for Students Affairs and Dean of Students at Garrett-Evangelical Seminary (Methodist) in Evanston, IL. Dr. Lightsey was passionate in her commitments as well. She referenced herself as “a queer Womanist scholar.” (I admit I had not encountered such theology before this event!) She is an ordained elder in the Methodist Church and serves as co-chair of the Womanist Religious Studies Group for the American Academy of Religion (AAR). She openly spoke against the Methodist Church for not approving the ordination of homosexual ministers. The question for me is why the bishop of the Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church should not proceed with discipline against Dr. Lightsey for this stance but almost no such action is ever done by bishops in mainline churches. A major exception happened in the Reformed Church in America (RCA) several years ago when the trustees of one of the  seminaries removed the president of New Brunswick Theological Seminary for performing the marriage ceremony of his daughter to a woman. The denomination then stripped him of his ordination in an action by the general synod. The issue has not gone away but the church is on record for holding a clear and faithful stance regarding its own polity.

Queer theology (I am not making this up I assure you) challenges binary sexual ideologies which assert the impossibility of anything beyond male and female identity. Further, it openly refuses fixed categories in every area of life. She asked, “Is Old Testament knowledge really factual?” Her answer was delivered with passion and was very clear: “Queer theology says all knowledge is subjective so we should not read the OT as factual.” By implication I would argue the same must hold true for the New Testament and everything else the church has taught about Jesus and the gospel if she is consistent at all. Why? She said “all privileging of epistemology” should be rejected. Dr. Lightsey asserted up front that she would not argue about the Bible, either about specific texts or their meaning, factual or otherwise. At one point I thought her honesty told the whole story: “I’m not a biblical scholar, I’m a theologian!” I suppose the listener should take her seriously but without the Bible in any of her frame of reference then she is most definitely not a Christian theologian in any meaningful sense of the word. Toward the end of her major presentation she asked if any expression of sexuality should be called sin? She said pedophilia and necrophilia were sinful because here others were abused through the use of power. If your theology is radically self-referential then I do not understand how she can argue for any concept of sin at all. She plainly has no biblical definition of sin, or at least one any historical creed would recognize.

Christopher Yuan sought to frame the entire question by reference to God’s love and how that love transformed his own life. Quoting the American Psychological Association he said: “Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed, however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” Chris believes this to be true and thus does not argue about how one comes to such an orientation; i. e. are you born this way or are you socialized into this orientation? He says the answer is not relevant to Christian practice. I have agreed with this conclusion for many years.

Chris further stressed that he did not like any modifiers placed in front of his identity in Christ. He said, “I am a Christian, not a Chinese Christian, a gay Christian, a married Christian, a single Christian (Chris is single), a (fill in the blank) Christian.” Again, this is an important insight for missional church thinking and practice. We need to drop the labels and talk about being Christians. Chris concluded: “We don’t love God better by loving people. We love people better by loving God first.” Amen.

Egypt's Muslims Stand By Coptic Christians at a Mass

I wrote a post on January 7 about Muhammad and Muslims. I think it is important for us to realize that what we are fed by the media, especially the more conservative TV media and the numerous talkers on radio, is often imbalanced. It is definitely not gospel. We ought to see it for what it really is, opinion and often opinion of a militant sort.

Here is a wonderful story that could help us build bridges of peace. Not all Muslims are committed to violence and not all Muslims read the Koran in the way the radicals read it. To suggest otherwise is slanderous and dangerous. My central point is this: If Jesus calls us to be peacemakers should we not actually be known as real peacemakers in how we respond to the modern world? Check out this story you are very likely to have missed.

Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields" - Ahram Online.