Right Texts, Wrong Prayers? On the Prayers at the Inauguaration

Tags

Franklin Graham's prayer, inauguration prayer, Rabbi Marvin Hier's prayer, Trump inauguration

Well, well, well, the day we’ve all anticipated has finally arrived. As expected, as one of my non-Christian friends remarked, it has turned into a church service. As expected, there’s plenty to ponder in the ceremony. I’m only going to ponder on the thin slice of that event, the scriptural quotation of the rabbi Marvin Hier and the Christian leader Franklin Graham. The reason why I pick on these two isn’t because I hate them. Far from it. I love them enough to provide some corrections to their scriptural quotation to save them from divine wrath. I’m only half kidding. My concern of course is the claim by many evangelicals that Trump could be the “most Christian” of all presidents. If he’s the most Christian, at least he should surround himself with people who know the sacred scripture of the faith. Apparently, the evidence points the opposite direction.

Rabbi Hier quoted from Psalm 137. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion…” If you prefer the musical version, here’s one by Boney M. The problem is this. Jewish refugees and exiles wrote the psalm when they were captured by the Babylonians. Trump has already made it very clear that he doesn’t want any “illegal immigrants”, those who seek asylum in the US. His followers by and large are anti-refugees, especially those refugees from Muslim war-torn countries. For the rabbi to pray the prayer of the refugees is an insult to the suffering of his own people. The Psalm also calls a curse upon those who created the refugee crisis (and that goes for both sides of the political divide).

It ends with these harrowing imprecations,

“Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.”

Are we really ready for that prayer? Are we ready to call that curse upon anyone who caused those crisis (including our own foreign policy makers)? PERHAPS, the rabbi inadvertently prayed this prayer appropriately for this occasion. Who knows? What irony!

Then comes Franklin Graham. He quotes from 1 Timothy 2.1-6, “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.”

Now, there’s nothing wrong with praying for kings and those in authority. I believe in that as a Christian. However, I think Graham has failed to notice that the context for that prayer is for a church service. In 1 Timothy 2.8, the author wrote, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.” The raised hands were the gesture of prayer in first-century church services. Did Graham notice that he really isn’t in a church service? By conducting himself in this way, he gives the impression that the inauguration is a church service. He may think that it’s quite a great marketing (i.e. evangelism) for the church, but I assure every reader that all my unbeliever friends are outright turned off by this pseudo-church service. Evangelical Christianity has mastered the art of lousy marketing. 

Well, as is fitting for this day, I’m going to add my own quote. I saw this quote from my buddy Doug Jantz. When Israel conducted its first unofficial election back in the time of David, they elected to have Saul to be their king, and that election turned out to be a disaster. This is most fitting for evangelicals who put their trust in politicians (on both sides, but especially those who say that Trump is God’s man), kings and king makers. Listen to the prophet Samuel from 1 Samuel 8.10-12, 18.

“Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots…And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day’.”

Let that sink in!

 

Advertisements

Post-Election Sticks and Stones: Lessons on Words after the Trump Election

Tags

James 3, Trump

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Nonsense.

“The tongue is also a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.” James 3.6. Good sense.

 

It’s just been a few days after Trump’s close victory in the US election. The reactions range from jubilance to outrage. The reasons for such reactions are many and complex. I’m only going to deal with the aspect related to the above quotes. One immediate impact is racially targeted crimes, aka hate crimes. Already, more than 200 racist incidents have been reported (not counting unreported ones, of course). Such incidents have shown that racism has always been there in the underbelly of America, but so many are shocked because they never saw that underbelly. Some are still in denial.

Most elections in recent years have an edge of nastiness and mud slinging, but the Trump campaign was trademarked with xenophobic and racist rhetoric. I heard one friend say, “It’s just rhetoric” because it seems Trump has reneged on many if not most of his promises. Is it just rhetoric though? Even if it is, is it true that “words will never hurt me.”

Evident from all the racist incidents, words do indeed transform rhetoric into sticks and stones. Trump had provided the vehicle to deliver bold racism that racist whites formerly couldn’t put into words. In one situation, a class of students chanted “build that wall” (in reference to Trump’s promised wall against Mexicans crossing the border) to their Mexican classmates. Others make jokes about deporting immigrants obviously in reference to Trump’s promise to boot illegal immigrants. These are just words though. Grow thicker skin, they say. But skin can only grow so thick when punches start raining. Apparently, some of these incidents aren’t merely verbal. My friend, a white female, was at the bar chatting with a man who supported Trump. When he found out that she didn’t vote for Trump, he got belligerent. Argument ensued followed by the man trying to assault her. Lucky she learned self defense and put him down. This is in “enlightened” and liberal California. As we recall, Trump is also the same person who longed for the good old days when he can punch someone who didn’t agree with him. Can we place the entire blame on Trump for these people’s action? No, these people are individual who should be responsible for their action. BUT we should place the blame on Trump’s rhetoric for providing the vehicle for these people verbal and physical abuse. Some misinformed people argue that we simply can’t blame Trump for all these incidents. Such an argument is simplistic and unbiblical. Trump’s rhetoric has to take part of the blame.

What some Christians fail to grasp in this election cycle is the biblical truth about words. They’ve subscribed to the false understanding of “words are just words.” Words are NOT just words. The congregation of James was in some dispute, and unqualified people had been using words to cause further chaos. This gave the reason for James to write these words. It seems that our country is in some chaos. Some say that the chaos has always been there, and those incidents have always been there. I doubt if their claim is right. More than 200 racist incidents reported in half a week isn’t just made up my media to get ratings. It’s abnormal. I think Christians need to take what James said seriously. I think we’ve laughed off a lot of Trump’s antics in this election (please don’t bring in Hillary in at this point. I’m just referring to Trump here) because we frankly have a careless view on words. James admonished us to take words seriously.

If James described the tongue as a wild fire, then Trump’s careless words have set our country burning on both sides (yes, I’m aware that some people have beaten up Trump supporters and caused destruction of properties too). If Christian citizens do not hold their own words and their leaders’ words accountable, the result will be unimaginable.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will be the cause of those broken bone (or a national forest fire). Words aren’t just words!

 

Obligation to What? Christian Approach to the Political Process

Tags

Hong Kong election, presidential debate

“Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…”

Galatians 1.3 (NIV)

I’ve been writing sections of a book discussing Paul and his political views. I can’t help seeing the relevance to both the US (my home) and Hong Kong (where I often work).

At home, the evangelicals have finally stood behind Donald Trump out of their fear and disdain for Hillary. I’m going to lay aside whether Hillary is a fit candidate or not and discuss purely the many evangelical Christian responses. The typical response I see on social media has a very simple logic that goes something like this. You’re obligated to vote for Trump if you’re a true Christian because the alternative is evil. The logic speaks to a popular utilitarian mentality. It’s basically saying that since we live in a flawed system, we have to choose a route that “works for us.” In this alternate universe of evangelicalism, obligation is either to a candidate or a political process.

The ten seats of the Hong Kong legislative election is also part of the political discussion. These ten seats are for the Christian leaders and they’re essentially picked by drawing lot. Many are clamoring for those seats from the large denominations. Some would go as far as saying that participation in this fraud democracy is at least better than not participating. Again, the obligation is for self-serving utilitarian reasons.

When Paul spoke of Jesus as the Lord, he placed all believers under the obligation to Jesus. By making the candidate or the political process the thing to which we feel obligated, we have essentially made them our gods. In Paul’s world, “obligation” is something people owed to a superior overlord. The ultimate obligation of a believer isn’t to a human being or a process. What if none of this works?

There’s a real possibility that our best effort will fall flat. It’s happened in history repeatedly. What then? I’d say that in our case, we have replaced our integrity and faithfulness with utilitarianism, our self interest, our agenda and our heroes. Obligating ourselves to candidates who blatantly hold anti-Christian values isn’t faithful. Obligating ourselves to a political lie that pretends to be a democratically elected process is even less faithful. If we strip away all our utilitarianism, our self interest, our agenda and even the heroes we worship (be it Trump, Hillary or Bernie), what do we have left? I don’t think we will have integrity and faithfulness left. When we replace God with a process or an idol, we’re in a dangerous place. So what if we succeed? Without integrity and faithfulness, our success is nothing other than rubbish.

Lately, in many church circles, there’s been a call for a new kind of Reformation. In fact, I just saw this morning someone was talking about that in HK. Before we can reform anything, perhaps we need to reform ourselves, our lost conscience and our idolatry. When it comes to politics, Christians tend to put their hope in politicians and the political process rather than God. Perhaps that’s our biggest problem at the present time. The only person we’re obligated to is Jesus Christ. Otherwise, “Jesus is Lord” is a mere cliche.

Colin Kaepernick Exposes Our Greatest Problem

Tags

Colin Kaepernick, Colin Kaepernick protest

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you…”

Matthew 7.1-2 (NIV translation)

This verse is part of the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus that is often misquoted because people tend to quote “Do not judge” and then leave out the rest of it.

This week, the media once again focus on Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco quarterback who was a huge star under Jim Harbaugh but whose stardom had dimmed starting last season. During the pre-season, he had sat during the national anthem. He continues to sit at the season opener and will probably sit as long as we keep watching him.

I’m not going to deal with whether I agree with his form of protest in this blog. I at least agree with him that we do have a racial problem in this country that seems to be only obvious for people color (whether brown, black, red or yellow) that isn’t always obvious to some white people. I’m not here to talk about that either. I’ve already dealt with that issue in a different post regarding the Christian context. I’ll only deal with one objection that people often brought up: hypocrisy. The argument usually goes something like this (or in similar logic): Colin K makes millions; it’s hypocrisy for him to just talk about this issue because he hardly knows anything about being oppressed.

The argument redefines hypocrisy in that hypocrisy, in the biblical sense, doesn’t mean ignorance. It doesn’t mean that just because a person has less knowledge about poverty or oppression, he can’t speak on it. Hypocrisy in the biblical sense literally means “to play act” in the Greek language in which the Bible was written. In other words, being hypocritical means to merely talk about someone else without action that matches the righteousness of the criticism. In other words, if I’m morally upright, then I can talk about morality. If I build a good marriage, I can speak on marriage and so on.

So, Colin Kaepernick has already explained in numerous occasions on what he’s concerned about. I don’t need to rehash the issues. Whatever you think of Colin Kaepernick, he isn’t a hypocrite. Quite often, people frame their criticism on  hypocrisy against those who only chase issues but do nothing about them.  Usually, the argument goes something like this. Why doesn’t the black community policed itself? Why doesn’t a critic do something positive about the black community problem instead of talking about it? Herein lies the problem. Colin Kaepernick is doing something about that.

Besides using his influence to raise money for children’s charity, he now vows to donate almost 1/10 of his salary to causes that will rectify the present concern. Now, people are getting petty and start to question what causes he’s donating to. The big plus from this however is that the San Francisco Forty Niners will also donate the same amount to causes that work towards racial issues. So, Colin Kaepernick isn’t a hypocrite. He’s doing this not only as a cost to his own business sponsorship but also to his own pocketbook.

So, before anyone wants to point finger at hypocrisy, I only have one thing to ask. Have you donated 1/10 of what you make to a cause you believe in? If not, Colin Kaepernick, in one fell swoop, just made hypocrites of a whole lot of his critics. Whatever we label Colin Kaepernick, we can’t call him a hypocrites.

I don’t think most critics exercise the same stringent criteria on themselves as on Colin Kaepernick. Jesus was right. Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you…

 

PS. In case you wonder, we do donate more than 1/10 of our household income to causes we believe in, both here and abroad. I don’t make millions like Colin Kaepernick, but I’m trying to do my part.

The Multicultural Church is an American Fairy Tale!

“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarians, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

Colossians 3.11 (NIV)

 

I was reading the blog of a new Facebook friend Dave Owen the other day. Dave is the president of Pacific Islands University. He was reviewing John Piper’s book Bloodline in which Piper talks about the multicultural church and so on. The context of course is the American (especially Protestant) church.

I’m going to cut to the chase and ask some simple questions. When people think of the American church in the global church, whom do they think of? John Piper, Franklin Graham, Bill Hybels? Yes, that’s the galacticos of American evangelicalism.

Notice the list of names I give are all white middle class church leaders. Now, there’s nothing wrong with white middle class church leaders. But if we want to look at our impact globally, then our intent have been lost in our impact because most people (American or not) think of the American church as the white church. In light of recent election and all the debates about racial divide and white privilege, that’s precisely the kind of impact we have globally. Oh, I know at least one or two readers (at least) will say, “Oh, you’re Asian. You have Francis Chan.” Right! Whether Francis Chan represents me is quite another topic. I certainly don’t “have” Francis Chan. I don’t own Francis Chan. While I appreciate what he says in some of his talks and books, I dare say that Francis Chan isn’t the global face of American Christianity. He isn’t the first name that comes up. His is the afterthought if that afterthought even occurs. His is the name people spit out when someone claims that American Christianity is so white. You can think of your own favorite minority Christian leader for that purpose. That appeal is by exception and not by average. Exceptions are exceptions. Exceptions aren’t the norm.

In reality, our church is the product of our society. Our church isn’t so sanctified FROM society as much as we like to think it is. Think about the photo I posted on there. I know I have an international readership. If you’re non-American, would the first thought that occurred in your mind is that this is a picture of an all-American kid? I bet not. If you’re American, some of you probably have at least entertained the thought of, “I wonder what country this kid’s from?” No, “all-American” wouldn’t be the first thing that popped into most of your minds, if you’re honest with yourself. Let me clue you in. That’s my all-American Sinopolitan (google that word) older kid and his car, posing on the driveway of my all-American colonial house (Georgian style, to be exact). Yep! The photo is very all-American. He was born in the USA (in the multicultural Bay Area), lived in UK and Hong Kong. He speaks perfect English, accented French and Mandarin. He gets all A’s all the time in any class that requires writing simply because his English is brilliant and vocabulary rich. If he were white, one would consider him to be privileged (since he’s multilingual, lived all over the world, dresses like a fashion model, and works for AMERICAN Eagle) upper crest, but he isn’t. Instead, people probably wonder if he immigrated from Asia somewhere. That’s OUR America. That’s OUR church. In America, the church is the spitting image of society.

What can we do as Christians if we want to move towards multicultural church leadership? I would say the solution is simple but not easily executed. Those in power have to deliberately train up and staff the leadership of their churches to be multicultural. When we look at John Piper’s church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, the staffing isn’t really full of the people of color. In fact, the staff is mostly white men. If you don’t believe me, check out their website. When the picture the global church sees is mostly white male, John Piper can talk and write until his face is purple that he values the biblical value of multiculturalism, it won’t amount to the worth of the stuff in the rubbish bin.

Before anyone accuses me of doing church Affirmative Action style, let me be quite clear about what I’m trying to say. The accusers against Affirmative Action usually say that it pushes unqualified people of color into opportunities that should be reserved for more qualified white people. Some may even go as far as saying that the Affirmative Action laws have cast doubts on truly qualified minorities simply because of other unqualified individuals filling positions. These assumptions aren’t application for the church. The days of unqualified leaders are long past. There’re as many good minority church leaders who can preach and write. In fact, many of them are more capable just to compete with less capable whites and still don’t get the leadership jobs. I rarely see white pastors actively seek out or train up people of color to succeed them. Without leadership from people of color, how would people of color be incorporated in our largely segregated white churches?

I’m not saying that people of color necessarily want to or need to (oh, please!) occupy those position of high profile. Many of us are just content to work within our own ethnic groups (e.g. black churches, Asian churches, Hispanic churches etc.). But let’s not write about diversity without any proven action and pretend that the American white church is diverse and that the image we present to the world is that of diversity. To me, as an Asian American, constituents of American evangelical Christianity simply don’t detect the absurdity of their faith: a white church leader who staffs his church with mostly white leaders writing about diversity. What rich irony! The image of the American church comes from the skin color of leadership, not from books written about diversity by people who don’t practice diversity. My friend Dave Owen states bluntly, “It is pretty hard to have diverse disciples without diverse leaders.”

Rescuing Daniel from His Hijackers: On Christian Participation in a Corrupt Political System

“…But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food …” Daniel 1.8

Recent discussions on occupying the seats of the HK fraudulent election heats up again in the theological circles. Soon or later, someone will appeal to Daniel to justify Christian participation in politics. I’m not against participation, but the appeal to Daniel ought to be much more cautious than a rhetorical tactic. The appeal to Daniel (and many other biblical characters) is a popular tact to justify Christian involvement in politics, even in corrupt political systems.

Usually the argument goes something like this. Daniel is the typology of Christian participation in a corrupt political system. If Daniel can do it, why can’t I? Now, I’m no expert on HK politics, as I follow it as an amateur. However, I do know a thing or two about the Bible. Having spoken in Baltimore last year on the first half of Daniel and last weekend on the second half of Daniel, I think I ought to reflect on the appeal to Daniel in the HK election or any Christian participation in politics. I’ll only look at Daniel as a character in the book of Daniel. Anyone who wants to argue about authorship can go read some commentaries on Daniel. What exactly about Daniel that allows us to appeal to him as a typology for Christian participation in politics? Let me name just two criteria to make the matter simple.

The first appealing criteria about Daniel’s participation is intelligence. In order to navigate that system, Daniel had intelligence in abundance. The Bible says that he was without physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand and qualified to serve in the king’s palace (Dan. 1.4). What that meant was that he was an obvious genius and a physical specimen. He was near perfect. The Babylonians had superiority over Israel in every sense back in those days, whether in culture or military might. For the Babylonians to recognize these qualities, Daniel and his friends must have been quite outstanding, not just in an ordinary sense but in the sense of even greater than their superior captors. Yet, they didn’t stop at being intelligent. In a society where illiteracy was high, their mere ability to read literature set them apart from fellow Israelites, but they had further education to be informed by the language and literature of Babylon (Dan. 1.4). Thus, they had both nature and nurture on their side. What did learning the language and literature of Babylon do? The learning enabled Daniel and his friends to administer properly in their future leadership roles in serving the king. As far as whether we have people in the theological circle that would resemble Daniel’s education and intelligence, I’m not qualified to judge. Now, if we look at the situation in HK theological circles and those involved in the debate, there aren’t many who have had real government experience other than my colleague Dr. Freeman Huen. Whether you agree with him or not (certainly, he and I can disagree on some fine points for sure), he has walked the walk. For the most part, as far as I know, the rest are just like Donald Trump talking about longevity in business success or marriage. It’s mostly just fantastic balderdash and a good mix of hot humid air. I’m not talking about elitism here. I’m talking about competence.

The second appealing trait about Daniel’s participation is integrity. Daniel continued to take great risks even as he was serving the king. In fact, he would be safer not to serve the king and be an ordinary captive. We often notice the heroic exploits and piety of Daniel, but his prophetic office is where we can clearly see integrity. In Dan. 4, Daniel was forced to interpret a dream that was unfavorable to the king. In fact, it was a message of doom against the dignity of the king. In the Ancient Near East, the king’s honor was something a nation preserved. It was a supreme crime to offend the king’s honor. Daniel could’ve sugar-coated the interpretation about the king’s demise in Dan. 4, but he didn’t. He spoke plainly against the king without knowing what the final outcome would be. He even told the king he would eat grass. Next time you think you’re Daniel, ask yourself whether you have the courage to tell Xi Jingping to eat grass! Report back! As if that wasn’t courageous enough, we mustn’t fail to notice that roughly half of Daniel (Dan 7-12) was devoted to pronouncing doom against the Medo-Persian Empire where Daniel also served its kings. That fact alone shows that Daniel was a man who wasn’t afraid to speak the truth without having to measure the consequences of his prophecy. It’s already quite evident in HK politics that MANY “Christian politicians” haven’t only failed their duties but further succeeding in sugar-coating the lies from Beijing. Their participation is the very opposite of Daniel’s. They were eager to please the government or to participate in the governmental power structure. Their record is mostly abysmal, highlighted by the dire failure of Donald Tsang, a self-proclaimed Catholic. The theological circle is no different really. I’ve even heard a former principal of a major seminary who supported the pro-China speed rail spending (while the money could be spent on bettering the quality of life for the poor) previously now speaking on the destruction of crosses on mainland churches and blaming the churches for not dialoguing with government. How does any of this demonstrate the integrity of Daniel? If anything, these sad examples are the poverty in integrity. In the administration of Xi Jinping, Daniel would be imprisoned, tortured and put to death. In short, we don’t have people who have enough integrity to speak the truth forcefully without worrying about 1) personal interests 2) institutional interests (i.e., “mission” to China, especially to China’s wealthy and powerful elite). No, I can safely say that we don’t have a Daniel who’s qualified to serve the king now. Intelligence without integrity can do more harm than good.

Part of our job as church leaders, theologians and biblical scholars is to help the church and society where we are, but if we can’t fulfill that task, at least don’t hurt the people. So, before you dare to appeal to Daniel’s example, ask yourself whether you’re the kind of person like Daniel. I dare say that there aren’t too many people even in the history of humankind that’s like Daniel, let alone the corrupt circle of HK politics (and church denominations). The worst case scenario is the US. Here in the US, we have every candidate claiming piety towards the Christian God more than the next. I’m not against Christian involvement in politics (a successful example would be Abraham Kuyper), but I’m against the careless appeal to the Bible even when the appeal clearly doesn’t respect the text, culture and message of the Bible. Before you hijack the Bible for your own ambition or publicity, go read your Bible first!

As I said countless times, the problem isn’t the biblical text. The problem comes from foolish interpreters.

 

 

Trumping Two Corinthians: Right Text, Wrong Outrage

Tags

2 Corinthians 3.17, Donald Trump at Liberty

The Donald made the news again. Surprise! This time he made news in Liberty University. The report happily states that a Liberty University student corrected Trump when he claimed, “We’re going to protect Christianity. I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct. Two Corinthians, 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame … is that the one you like?”  There’re plenty in blog sphere and in the audience who so gladly and smugly note that it’s “SECOND” Corinthians not “TWO” Corinthians. After all, there’re more than TWO Corinthians. They were may Corinthians in Corinth.

 

The pitiful thing about this episode is not so much about what Trump said because we’ve come to expect outrage. I’m not even shocked to learn that another conservative Christian college has chosen to align itself to the most extreme right of the political spectrum. I’ve come to expect it. I’m even less shocked that he was giving a speech on Martin Luther King Jr. Day when many respectable educational institutions take the day off while Liberty conducts classes. Liberty, after all, has never been about “political correctness” anyway. What I find most pitiful is that a college that’s supposed to teach about the Bible has students who only focus on the “Two versus Second” instead of Trump’s clear misquotation of 2 Corinthians 3.17, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom.” (NET)

 

The verse has nothing to do with freedom. Paul was talking about the glory of the new ministry in Christ in light of the ministry by Moses. He was involved in this ministry and the freedom he was talking about was regarding the freedom from Torah-observation among gentile converts to his gospel (3.3, 6, 7, 9). It is possibly Paul’s reformulation of Exodus 34.34 with a similar formula of “Now the Lord … ” Unless Trump was arguing about how gentiles fit into God’s greater plan for Israel or how Paul used certain phrases of the Hebrew Bible to express  his ideas, he shouldn’t be quoting anything from that section of the Bible. While we can’t expect any of Trump’s quotes to be accurate, I’m shocked that no one at Liberty caught this and made it an issue. I suppose if Trump’s agenda fit the political leaning of the college, all’s forgiven. What would be worse however is if people who were taught in that college, a bible-teaching college, can’t even understand that Trump was misquoting scripture. That degree of ignorance is what allowed politicians from both sides to snow well-intentioned believers in the church.

 

 

Right text, wrong meaning, anyone? As a result, we reap the consequence of mistaking the petty for the main issue by majoring in the minor. If we don’t go for political correctness, can we at least go for scriptural correctness? Then again, if we have arrived at scriptural correctness, we may have to change our ways of thinking and our behavior. We wouldn’t want that now, would we?

 

By the way, in England, where I studied for my PhD in the New Testament, they call it “Two Corinthians”. Just saying …

“Like” it or not, we’ve become non-thinkers: the impact of social media on our thinking

Tags

Facebook and faith, social media

“All lives matter!” says the meme.

 

Some of the most widely shared memes on Facebook are the ones that create dichotomies while sporting a cool photo. Usually, these memes have to do with the latest ambulance bloggers are chasing. I want to sit back a bit and look at the way such dichotomous memes play out their logic.

 

The logic goes something like this. Why are we crying out about Cecil the lion when lions in fact kill REAL African people? Why are we crying over the suicide of Heath Ledger when hundreds of thousands are killed everyday everywhere? Why do we lament the overdose of Whitney Houston when many of our troops are being injured and killed every week? Why are we crying “black lives matter” when “all lives matter”? The list goes on.

 

The problem isn’t that these memes aren’t bringing a message; they do.  The message however stops us from thinking. Instead of seeing the angle that comes from both sides, we are forced to choose sides by being outraged for at least 5 minutes.  Perhaps both sides of the issue have legitimate points, but social media have forced us to think in terms of “either-or”. Is it okay to be upset at both the deaths of celebrities like Heath Ledge or Whitney Houston and the lost lives of our soldiers or innocent children? I can’t imagine my readers saying “No.” Is it possible to think that black lives matter in a society whose narrative seems to cheapen black lives at times while seeing that people of all colors deserve justice and fair treatment? No one can say “No” to that. See the problem?

 

Sometimes, these artificially created dichotomies aren’t even logically compatible, but are deliberately framed by the meme creator to set illogical fire for his or her own cause, and we feed into that fire with our thoughtless “likes” or “shares.” What we need isn’t dichotomies these days. What we need is the ability to think independently, issue by issue. What we need is the destruction of such unhealthy binaries. The problem with social media is that we often are so reliant on them that we lose our ability to think independently or to create our own categories. Then, there’s the additional problem of visual appeal. Many people don’t even think through some of the updates and hit “like” and “share”. Why? It’s because the update has an appealing photo attached to it. Even if we’ve read the update, we probably didn’t think too hard on it. We aren’t ruled by our clear thinking; we’re ruled by images and false dichotomies. In so doing, we’ve lost the precious ability to use our brains. The worse thing though is that we’ve lost our ability to be tolerant even in our apparently civil and free society.

 

In our seemingly tolerant era, social media like Facebook and Instagram have taken away our ability to have “both-and” thinking by creating a hegemony of “either-or.” This phenomenon cheapens thinking the way selfie sticks cheapen professional and artfully constructed photography. There’re a new global colonialism. It’s no longer bound by ethnicity or nationalities. It’s transnational. Social media have become king.

 

How does the above affect Christians? I think it affects Christians tremendously. Many Christians these days are activist ideologues. In favor of activism, many dismiss deeper and calmer thinking. In favor of ethics, many dismiss the importance of what’s the right thinking before the right doing. In favor of jingoism, many no longer want to discuss what the true meaning and implication of any given jingo. More importantly, if social media are the rulers of our lives, we’re no longer ruled by scriptural reasoning and theological thinking that make God our King. In our claim for more of a global Christianity, we’re more local than ever with the think tank being the computer screen in the comfort of our bedrooms. We think that the virtual reality of this global faith in the microcosm created by our screens is the only reality. Instead of thinking about why we “like” or “dislike” certain ideas, we’re ruled by our own feeling of “liking” something. We’re in grave danger of losing the intellectual essence of our faith.

 

A further negative impact that social media have exerted over our faith is our ability to tolerate different ideas. I’m not talking about cheap tolerance of political correctness but real intellectual tolerance that allows different ideas to exist. Once we “like” something, we are committed to the original writer’s ideology. We’re temporarily committed to the whole idea. The “like” button forces us to choose ideas because there aren’t too many other alternatives such as “I like this part but not that part.” The problem is, intellectually vigorous reflection requires all sorts of alternatives. Real thinking doesn’t force us to mindlessly like something because the image was nice or certain phrases were catchy. It searches the “why” and “how” of each issue. In other words, the “like” button is potentially anti-intellectual. If our intellect is part of our spirituality, we can also say that many times, that same button is anti-spiritual because it blinds us from more nuanced thinking. Thus, I will always insist that social media, like our TV or movie screens, will never be a place of serious intellectual inquiry. Such media are purely for entertainment. If you think I’m wrong, think about the last Facebook update you liked yesterday and how much of it you remembered. The same goes for hundreds and thousands of Facebook or Instagram updates and hashtags.  I think my point will be proven without any doubt.

When Something is Not Your Problem: Revisiting the Good Samaritan

The good Samaritan story is so famous that I really don’t need to repeat it.  A w file back, I saw a sign (from the Facebook page Blue Street Journal) that says, “Privilege is a problem when you don’t think something is a problem because it is a not problem to you PERSONALLY.”   Nothing comes clearer than when I point out the problem of racism (let’s call it a blind spot) in the rhetoric of a white evangelical leader and immediately I get called a racist for pointing that part out.

 

I read the funny sign in conjunction with a blog that says the Asian-Americans overreacted against the Deadly Viper book, a book Zondervan yanked due to racist stereotype.  The same blogger who is obviously white congratulates the writer Mike Foster for moving on from that drama to launch a successful speaking circuit on that exact topic, not so much about racial reparation but about how the writer feels that he’s a victim by AA Christians’ campaign and how Christians are People of Second Chances.  Then, I read further about Mark Driscoll’s recent emergent (notice I threw that word in there) with Hillsong who paints himself as a victim of hate campaign against him so soon after his disgraceful departure from the mess he found called Mars Hill.  One common bond between these narrative is the rhetorical victim switching.  Victim switching in a society of narcissism is big business for speaking opportunities if you’re famous.  The failure of all these people is the inability to see things from those whom they’ve wronged.  Surely, the backlash is harsh. I don’t believe anyone should call up Driscoll to threaten him or his family.  Neither should people threaten Mike Foster and all the rest of the insensitive crew who helped produce that awful spiritual book called Deadly Viper. But let’s face it, you aren’t really being persecuted when you’re making millions of dollars from your mistake. A few angry words aren’t hurting any of these men’s bank accounts.

 

The Good Samaritan story deserves a closer look because many modern privileged people don’t understand it. As a result, they also don’t practice it.  The question that prompted Jesus to tell the story was from an expert of the law who asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?”  The story frequently gets interpreted in only one way: be a neighbor to another person.  Surely, this is a decent reading, but we fail to grasp the full significance in the story in several ways.  Jesus was answering a person of privilege in his society.  Jesus was also answering the question about the identity of the neighbor.  Who then experienced the answer to “Who is my neighbor?”  It was the victim of the robbery.  He was the only person who could tell who the neighbor was.  Here’s the thing.  We often miss the ironic twist of Jesus because he was telling the law teacher who was privileged to stoop down just a bit not so much to relate to the powerful religious teachers who passed by but to relate to the powerless victim who experienced the kindness of the “other”, the Samaritan.

 

The dire failure in our society AND in our churches is our inability to relate to the point of view of the other.  As a result, we also fail to identity who our true neighbor is.  Instead, we like to think of our true neighbors as those who agree with our convictions and share our same background (whether that background is race, gender or social economic class).  Those who share our background is no more a neighbor as the religious leaders to the injured man. Instead, in a surprising and subversive twist, Jesus stated that the true neighbor was the Samaritan who had nothing in common with the injured man (presumably a Jew coming out of Jerusalem. Who else would be coming out of Jerusalem).  If our faith community leaders also want to use their privileged position to do victim switching in order to further their own agenda, they’re no better than those who walked by the injured man. At most, they suffer minor damage due to their own stupidity. A minor setback in reputation (with no sincere apology) and a little lost book revenue are nothing in comparison to the systemic prejudice that existed within the system they lead.  This is the modern failure to read Jesus’ parable properly and follow Jesus command precisely.

 

Make no mistake about it.  When we look at the cases I just talked about, these people are privileged.  Mike Foster and his white blogger who supported him are privileged because of their skin color.  Why are they privileged?  Instead of letting their repentance sink in, they can take their trespasses against the Asian American brothers and sisters and turn them into their business of speaking tour and a book called Freeway.  Driscoll is privileged simply because he’s got a worldwide audience and sold books as well as built a speaking circuit for millions of dollars of profit.  Anyone who can turn his trespasses and not repent but instead turn them into another money-making opportunity is privileged.  Privilege is when you can afford not to see stuff from the other side of the coin and everything would still be fine and profitable.  Jesus was talking to a privileged person when he spoke about the Good Samaritan.  That’s the aspect many interpreters fail to grasp.  Perhaps, Jesus’ admonition to the teacher of the law needs a renewed look for the modern privileged because Jesus was saying that as a privileged person, he couldn’t afford not to see things from a victim’s point of view unless he wanted to skip over who he real neighbor was, the Samaritan.  Privilege is a problem when you don’t think something is a problem because it is a not problem to you PERSONALLY.

Christians Getting Tattoos, Piercings and Other Silly Controversies III: Why can’t Paul say what I want him to say?

Tags

1 Corinthians 6.12-20, 1 Corinthians 6.15, 1 Corinthians 6.19

This is part of the blog series on silly controversies that really shouldn’t occupy our energy, but Christians occupy so much of their energy debating them that such topics deserve a series.  Almost all such controversies boil down to the simple objections below.

 

As a matter of review from last week’s blog, the Christian response to tattoos, piercings and other fashion controversies are as follows.  First, someone would say, “I don’t like it. Therefore it’s wrong.”  Second, “Maybe he’s doing it for the gospel. The problem is why someone is getting ink.”  Third, “the body is the temple of God. By inking it, the owner shows disrespect towards God’s creation.”  This week I will deal with the third objection.

 

Usually silly Christians would quote 1 Corinthians 6.12-20 at me.

 

¹² “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. ¹³ You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. ¹⁹ Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; ²⁰ you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

 

Quite often they would compare smoking cigarets or cigars are parallel examples. The problem is both exegetical and logical.  First, the exegetical problem.

 

In the chapter 16 of my book, Right Texts, Wrong Meanings, I’ve dealt with this passage extensively, but I’ll apply it to the present situation. By the way of exegetical observation, 6.15 reads, “Do you know that your bodies (plural) are (should be “is” in singular) members (plural) of Christ himself?” The plural combined with singular has much to do with how each member affects the overall health of the Body of Christ. 6.19 reads, “Do you (plural) not know that your (plural) Body (singular) is a temple (singular) of the Holy Spirit, who is in  you (plural), whom you (plural)  have received from God?” The combination of the plural and singular here goes further than the affect the action of one’s body has on the Body of Christ, but the singular “body” here points to the Body of Christ being the singular temple. The whole idea that each individual Christian being a temple is total nonsense. No Christian individual is a temple. It’s the combined church Body that is the temple. So, before arguing this or that, silly Christians ought to read their Bibles (or necessarily have their pastors who know Greek explain to them the intricacies) first before quoting the text. Yet another example of using the text to further one’s morally hygienic ideology!

 

Now to the context! 1 Corinthians context deals with the situation of Corinth where one problem exists in its various forms.  1 Corinthians, at the start tells us that there’s division in the church. Thus, unity was the problem. Now, what causes disunity? Surely, not all causes of disunity are bad. For instance, Paul’s letter to the Galatians clearly told the Galatians to separate from the agitators! No, unity isn’t the absolute good. Paul in 1 Corinthians showed various illegitimate causes for disunity. One of them was having sex with prostitutes in 1 Corinthians 6.15-17. But Christians are just THIS silly in misquoting the passage and inadvertently equating tattoos, piercings, smoking and drinking with soliciting a prostitute. A little silliness isn’t harmless. A little silliness makes light of a very serious issue of degrading another human being (i.e., prostitution) via the vehicle of sexual objectification.

 

It almost sounds silly, but I think my approach to Scriptures is more conservative than many so-called conservative Christians. Sadly, the problem doesn’t end there. Let’s, for argument’s sake, say that the logic of “not harming my own body via tattoos and piercing or even smoking because the individual Christian body is God’s temple” is true. Let’s examine the utter lack of logic of such claimants.  Most people eat three meals a day. Most people eat less than optimal when it comes to sound nutrition. In Asia, there’s also the bad habit of midnight snacking. This is very true for many. In the US, there’s the habit of eating chips in front of prime time TV. All these habits do horrible harm to the body. If you’re an Asian reader and you love to eat rice, do you know that white rice does great harm to the body? How about quit eating rice? Most of us could lose a few pounds or could lose our skinny fat dad bod’s (even for young folks). I can put people on a weight training program with good diet and cardio to help them achieve their physical shape. Why don’t Christians denounce the lack of exercise in their preaching and their writings? I’ve yet to see anyone using the above logic to denounce such habits. Maybe I ought to start blogging about eating more vegetables and less McDonald’s while getting rid of white rice from our diet.  Maybe we should stipulate this or that diet for Christians to make sure they take care of their precious little temples, but we don’t. Why tattoos? Why piercings? (Certainly, my ear is fine and I’m doing great health-wise) Why those? Is it merely because we don’t like tattoos and piercings and want to use the Bible to bully those who do?

 

As I always say, Scripture is never the problem. Its interpreters are! Many interpretations are possible, but not every application is constructive!