I thought about headlining my post, "It's the Uncertainty, Stupid," but in the present environment I worried that such might be considered uncharitable, even though I am only using the final word rhetorically. Those old enough to remember old political slogans will realize my play on one if they choose to do so.
Nonetheless, this lament continues my writing on the way that the church, at least as I witness its pronouncements by online representatives, focuses on the wrong things. I see lots of attention being given to whether or not to wear masks (mostly decided one way or the other based on poor reasoning), social distancing, and when and how to re-open services.
It is hard to find much attention being given to various uncertainties general to life but magnified during this crisis such as illness, the loss of loved ones, isolation from friends, fear of economic privation due to job loss, and hopelessness about the future -- and where is a sovereign God in all of this.
I am not saying that the first set of subjects are unimportant -- quite the contrary -- but those are subjects driven mostly by forces outside the church -- by the world. The second set of subjects are priorities of Scripture, which is full of texts to be expounded and applied. Each furnishes the opportunity to provide contextualized hope as it is found only in the Gospel. In so doing, the church would be providing a unique perspective, rather than one parroted with Bible verses.
So, why are so many Christian leaders obsessed with masks and distancing while virtually ignoring death, sickness, and hopelessness? The provocative answer is that the present crisis has opened the curtain to show an unseemly worldliness that dominates the church. The crisis sheds light on a great need for repentance and reform among God's people.
The term "worldliness" is biblical, yet in cultural terms hopelessly old fashioned. Many of us will associate the word with a past age of complaints about card playing and dancing and liquor. Be that as it may, this present worldliness is far more deep seated yet easily ignored and therefore pernicious. Our worldliness means that churches and Christians that claim allegiance to biblical authority set priorities based on agendas from outside of Scripture based on social and political concerns tangential to the biblical witness, though we have the capacity to find creative ways to pretend that they are biblical. Rather than recognizing that Scripture should drive our concerns, we instead use it to rubber stamp whatever social and political views we happen to hold.
The result is a failure to minister to the great needs of the day to which Scripture speaks -- needs related to the discipleship of our church members and to the evangelization of our communities and that recognize that by His death Christ put death to death. While I have focused on the COVID crisis, similar laments could be stated regarding the present dilemma regarding racial issues, about which many Christians have much to say about "cultural Marxism" ind "critical race theory," subjects about which frankly they don't seem to know much beyond sloganeering, and relatively little to say about the imago dei in man, which could form the basis for deep Christian reflection for how to move forward. The present crises have provided an opportunity for the church to bring the Gospel to bear on deep human concerns. To date, the church has largely failed in that endeavor. We need to repent.
Friday, August 28, 2020
Tuesday, August 25, 2020
"As a Dying Man to Dying Men"
Some readers will be old enough to remember when it was said that a community or national crisis would bring people back to church. Eventually, levels of attendance would revert to the mean, but at least for a while those who attended only sporadically if at all attend church looking for answers to address their deepest fears.
Of course, that could not happen during the present pandemic because churches, along with other entities that hold mass gatherings, either have been required to close their doors or restrict attendance. However, the financial crisis of a decade ago also did not result in an upswing in church attendance, and it may be that old maxims no longer hold true. If that is the case, one might wonder why. It would seem that most of those who do not already attend church in the United States no longer think of the church as a place to find answers to life's deepest problems. If that is the case, it might be said that the present crisis has served to verify that they are right.
Rightly understood, a pandemic might seem like just the sort of crisis into which the church could speak with comfort, authority, and deep value. It has been said that the purpose of a minister -- and of a church -- is to prepare people to die, but accepting that as true, one must also recognize that the subject is one that most Americans would just as soon avoid. In fact, churches on the vanguard of what passes for relevance in our day are more interested in offering advice for improving life than they are in addressing the more ultimate concerns of sin and death.
The spread of a disease without a known cure but with unpredictable morbidity and vast levels of mortality has forced people to think about that which during normal times they prefer to ignore. Add to illness and death the other disruptions created by the present crisis -- social isolation, financial uncertainty, and so on -- and one sees that it is no wonder that many are filled with fear. Things that once seemed stable and predictable are now wobbly.
Thus, people have been brought to the place where the church could help, if only it would.
I have not surveyed churches on how they have responded, but what I have witnessed online -- to the extent that provides a window into the soul of American Christianity -- has not been encouraging. It is understandable that churches have lamented the loss of the ability to gather, but we have seen too little creative activity in terms of finding ways to minister to both Christians and non Christians in our communities. Thus, many church communities have experienced only subtraction -- the loss of gathered worship but without any effort at offering temporary ways to connect people and needs during this time.
Even worse, many churches have ignored the crisis as an opportunity to show love toward the fearful and hurting and have addressed the crisis primarily in the sorts of political categories that are tangential to Christian faith. While conclusions regarding wearing masks at worship are matters where Christians may differ, it is rather disheartening to see moral reasoning that devolves into navel gazing fixated on personal autonomy and unconcerned with either the Great Commission or the Great Commandment -- or even the Good Samaritan. Now, I see that some ministers are desperately pleading for people to return, when even church members might find themselves conflicted about rejoining a congregation where the leadership has demonstrated that they do not care for the wellbeing of the most vulnerable -- the elderly, the cancer patient, the diabetic, or the overweight. It is correct that every believer has the obligation of church attendance, but it is sad to see the obstacle of having realized that the local congregation doesn't care enough to help one feel safe, particularly given the slight nature of the needed sacrifice in the big scheme of things.
The church had an opportunity to urge upon congregants to ignore the predictable political categories and find ways to care for people. In many ways, the church has failed. May God drive us to repentance, that we might speak to our communities, in the words of Baxter, "as a dying man to dying men.
Of course, that could not happen during the present pandemic because churches, along with other entities that hold mass gatherings, either have been required to close their doors or restrict attendance. However, the financial crisis of a decade ago also did not result in an upswing in church attendance, and it may be that old maxims no longer hold true. If that is the case, one might wonder why. It would seem that most of those who do not already attend church in the United States no longer think of the church as a place to find answers to life's deepest problems. If that is the case, it might be said that the present crisis has served to verify that they are right.
Rightly understood, a pandemic might seem like just the sort of crisis into which the church could speak with comfort, authority, and deep value. It has been said that the purpose of a minister -- and of a church -- is to prepare people to die, but accepting that as true, one must also recognize that the subject is one that most Americans would just as soon avoid. In fact, churches on the vanguard of what passes for relevance in our day are more interested in offering advice for improving life than they are in addressing the more ultimate concerns of sin and death.
The spread of a disease without a known cure but with unpredictable morbidity and vast levels of mortality has forced people to think about that which during normal times they prefer to ignore. Add to illness and death the other disruptions created by the present crisis -- social isolation, financial uncertainty, and so on -- and one sees that it is no wonder that many are filled with fear. Things that once seemed stable and predictable are now wobbly.
Thus, people have been brought to the place where the church could help, if only it would.
I have not surveyed churches on how they have responded, but what I have witnessed online -- to the extent that provides a window into the soul of American Christianity -- has not been encouraging. It is understandable that churches have lamented the loss of the ability to gather, but we have seen too little creative activity in terms of finding ways to minister to both Christians and non Christians in our communities. Thus, many church communities have experienced only subtraction -- the loss of gathered worship but without any effort at offering temporary ways to connect people and needs during this time.
Even worse, many churches have ignored the crisis as an opportunity to show love toward the fearful and hurting and have addressed the crisis primarily in the sorts of political categories that are tangential to Christian faith. While conclusions regarding wearing masks at worship are matters where Christians may differ, it is rather disheartening to see moral reasoning that devolves into navel gazing fixated on personal autonomy and unconcerned with either the Great Commission or the Great Commandment -- or even the Good Samaritan. Now, I see that some ministers are desperately pleading for people to return, when even church members might find themselves conflicted about rejoining a congregation where the leadership has demonstrated that they do not care for the wellbeing of the most vulnerable -- the elderly, the cancer patient, the diabetic, or the overweight. It is correct that every believer has the obligation of church attendance, but it is sad to see the obstacle of having realized that the local congregation doesn't care enough to help one feel safe, particularly given the slight nature of the needed sacrifice in the big scheme of things.
The church had an opportunity to urge upon congregants to ignore the predictable political categories and find ways to care for people. In many ways, the church has failed. May God drive us to repentance, that we might speak to our communities, in the words of Baxter, "as a dying man to dying men.
Friday, August 14, 2020
What is conservatism? What is science?
This is a different sort of post than the ones that I generally compose for this site. Typically, I avoid political topics, or topics that may be regarded as political. This is not because I am uninterested in politics -- the job that pays my bills requires that I be interested -- but it is because for the church, both those segments of it that lean to the right and that lean to the left, I regard politics as a temptation drawing their attention away from matters of first importance about the inbreaking of a kingdom not of this world to secondary matters about which they frequently opine without any real knowledge, expertise, or ability to influence.
Nonetheless, I see many religious leaders, in the name of their religious convictions, promoting what they refer to as a sort of political conservatism. I am going to take the risk here of adding to my criticism of pulpit politics an accompanying criticism that what many call conservatism is not particularly conservative.
Of course, there are many streams of conservatism that have flowed through the course of history. I have waded in varieties of those streams over the course of my life before ultimately landing in that which seems to have the best pedigree, which is the understanding that conservatism, as Russell Kirk put it, is not an ideology so much as it is a sentiment, a sentiment that there are things about the past that are worth preserving, that human nature is not ultimately malleable, and that improvement in some area is likely to have mal effects elsewhere. This sort of conservatism differs from progressivism, various forms of liberalism, and conservative libertarianism in various ways. For one thing, those views make their beginning point their ideologies and tend toward various forms of utopianism that typically end in disappointment, sometimes tragically. Conservatism, rightly understood, does not begin with ideology, but with the real world. Conservatism is not utopian because it views human nature as incapable of attaining it in this world (or ever, for those who do not believe in an after life). Conservatism is not opposed to change, but tends toward skepticism and concerns about unintended consequences.
This sort of conservatism stands in sharp contrast to family values (a hopelessly relativistic term) conservatives or social conservatives, who tend toward utopianism, even positing spiritual revival, based on using political power to achieve desired results. It is odd to see self-described conservatives advocating centralized power in ends justifying means arguments.
How does this relate to the other part of my title: science? Like many of the ministers who feel free to comment on and advocate regarding scientific matters, I have no expertise in this field. Nonetheless, I make some effort at reading widely and make my living working around people with strong scientific interests. The conservative British historian Paul Johnson began his history of the 20th century, Modern Times, with an account of Albert Einstein's statements surrounding findings he expected regarding red light shift during a solar eclipse. In advance of an eclipse, Einstein made the extraordinary statement that if the red light shift phenomenon was not observed that his theory of general relativity "would have to be abandoned." That, to his credit, was falsifiability on steroids.
What if those with ideological commitments nowadays would put themselves on the line in the same way? You may recall that back in early and mid July, after states had begun the effort at reopening their economies, that the number of COVID infections had begun to increase, but the number of deaths had remained low. I had multiple conversations about this with skeptical friends. I am no Einstein, but I hope I have learned from history. I told many people the following: Death is lagging indicator. It takes a couple of weeks after changes to see the impact on cases. Additional time is needed before seeing the impact on hospitalization and ICU usage. After that, we start to see an uptick in deaths. I told many people that we would see an increase in deaths (raw number, not rate because many of those infected were younger and healthier) by the first of August. If that did not happen, my concerns could be dismissed.
How I wish I were wrong, but I was not! But I haven't found that my conversation partners have been in any rush to acknowledge that they needed to change their minds about how to respond.
Reasonable people do not use racial terms to refer to this as a Chinese infection, but there may be some merit in thinking of the American response as a form of Chinese water torture. Instead of acting decisively in the face of unusual but real circumstances, Americans have responded based on ideology and political predilection. The result has been the ongoing, insanity inducing drip of social and economic tragedy.
In the face of this, many well meaning people have declared beliefs and made statements about this pandemic without having any knowledge or expertise in pandemics, infectious disease, or even economics. Ok, we know what opinions are like. However, in an age where social media platforms give anyone with sufficient hubris the delusion of expertise, how about putting yourself on the line. Make a clear prediction without wiggle room. If you are wrong, own it.
I realize such thoughts are subversive of modernity. So be it, says this conservative.
Nonetheless, I see many religious leaders, in the name of their religious convictions, promoting what they refer to as a sort of political conservatism. I am going to take the risk here of adding to my criticism of pulpit politics an accompanying criticism that what many call conservatism is not particularly conservative.
Of course, there are many streams of conservatism that have flowed through the course of history. I have waded in varieties of those streams over the course of my life before ultimately landing in that which seems to have the best pedigree, which is the understanding that conservatism, as Russell Kirk put it, is not an ideology so much as it is a sentiment, a sentiment that there are things about the past that are worth preserving, that human nature is not ultimately malleable, and that improvement in some area is likely to have mal effects elsewhere. This sort of conservatism differs from progressivism, various forms of liberalism, and conservative libertarianism in various ways. For one thing, those views make their beginning point their ideologies and tend toward various forms of utopianism that typically end in disappointment, sometimes tragically. Conservatism, rightly understood, does not begin with ideology, but with the real world. Conservatism is not utopian because it views human nature as incapable of attaining it in this world (or ever, for those who do not believe in an after life). Conservatism is not opposed to change, but tends toward skepticism and concerns about unintended consequences.
This sort of conservatism stands in sharp contrast to family values (a hopelessly relativistic term) conservatives or social conservatives, who tend toward utopianism, even positing spiritual revival, based on using political power to achieve desired results. It is odd to see self-described conservatives advocating centralized power in ends justifying means arguments.
How does this relate to the other part of my title: science? Like many of the ministers who feel free to comment on and advocate regarding scientific matters, I have no expertise in this field. Nonetheless, I make some effort at reading widely and make my living working around people with strong scientific interests. The conservative British historian Paul Johnson began his history of the 20th century, Modern Times, with an account of Albert Einstein's statements surrounding findings he expected regarding red light shift during a solar eclipse. In advance of an eclipse, Einstein made the extraordinary statement that if the red light shift phenomenon was not observed that his theory of general relativity "would have to be abandoned." That, to his credit, was falsifiability on steroids.
What if those with ideological commitments nowadays would put themselves on the line in the same way? You may recall that back in early and mid July, after states had begun the effort at reopening their economies, that the number of COVID infections had begun to increase, but the number of deaths had remained low. I had multiple conversations about this with skeptical friends. I am no Einstein, but I hope I have learned from history. I told many people the following: Death is lagging indicator. It takes a couple of weeks after changes to see the impact on cases. Additional time is needed before seeing the impact on hospitalization and ICU usage. After that, we start to see an uptick in deaths. I told many people that we would see an increase in deaths (raw number, not rate because many of those infected were younger and healthier) by the first of August. If that did not happen, my concerns could be dismissed.
How I wish I were wrong, but I was not! But I haven't found that my conversation partners have been in any rush to acknowledge that they needed to change their minds about how to respond.
Reasonable people do not use racial terms to refer to this as a Chinese infection, but there may be some merit in thinking of the American response as a form of Chinese water torture. Instead of acting decisively in the face of unusual but real circumstances, Americans have responded based on ideology and political predilection. The result has been the ongoing, insanity inducing drip of social and economic tragedy.
In the face of this, many well meaning people have declared beliefs and made statements about this pandemic without having any knowledge or expertise in pandemics, infectious disease, or even economics. Ok, we know what opinions are like. However, in an age where social media platforms give anyone with sufficient hubris the delusion of expertise, how about putting yourself on the line. Make a clear prediction without wiggle room. If you are wrong, own it.
I realize such thoughts are subversive of modernity. So be it, says this conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)