Making a mole hill out of a mountain

If you haven't read Michael Gerson's opinion piece in the Washington Post of December 27, I recommend that you give it a look. He lists a few terrible examples of recent, intensifying persecution of Christians in some nations where the followers of Jesus are in the minority. In light of the command of Hebrews 13:3 that Christians remember their fellow believers who are imprisoned or being tortured as if we are imprisoned or being tortured as well, we should not ignore the plight of our persecuted brothers and sisters.

Besides the obvious moral and theological issues that should inspire our concern about the mistreatment of Christians, there is also a vital practical matter at stake. Gerson points out the high correlation between religious persecution and national security threats. According to William Inboden of the University of Texas, every major war involving the U.S. of the last 70 years has been against an enemy that does not prize religious liberty. Conversely, no nation that respects religious freedom poses a security threat to the U.S.

Yet it is Gerson's mention of America's strange disengagement regarding religious persecution that really grabbed my attention. He provides this disturbing quote from  Economist editors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge: “One of America’s oddest failures in recent years is its inability to draw any global lessons from its unique success in dealing with religion at home. It is a mystery why a country so rooted in pluralism has made so little of religious freedom.”

It seems that we the people of the United States may have succeeded in generally making a mole hill out of a glorious mountain. This was the first nation on earth to guarantee religious liberty in its founding documents. This grand experiment is an obvious and remarkable success. 

History and recent headlines reveal the humanitarian abuses that inevitably arise in countries where religious freedom is not protected. Yet, in this nation in which we revere not mere religious toleration but religious liberty for all, violence in the name of religion is nearly nonexistent. On the rare occasions that there is brutality linked to religion here, it is quickly and widely denounced.

We've a story to tell to the nations regarding religious liberty. But, by and large, we are silent, or close to it. Even worse, it is common in many evangelical circles these days to attack the mechanism that protects religious liberty in this country, namely church-state separation. Baptists in particular, once stalwart defenders of separation of church and state, now largely decry the concept. Perhaps more evangelicals would again embrace separation if they paid more attention to the world headlines that describe atrocities committed in places where religion and government are united. 

Be that as it may, I think Micklethwait and Wooldridge are onto something. We don't make enough of the American heritage of religious liberty. We are not as deliberate as we should be about remembering and celebrating our roots in this regard. By continuing to neglect our story about religious freedom we run the risk of letting this right slip away for ourselves and we lose our voice in the world on a point at which we have something important and wonderful to say.   

Drafty tents in a season in which we remember a drafty stable

Does it ever seem to you that there are too things many that we should care about? There are so many needs, so many heart-breaking situations in our world, that it just becomes overwhelming at times. One of the circumstances that has captured my attention of late is the plight of Syrian refugees who have fled their country to escape a bloody civil war. 

I read an article a couple of days ago that told of a Syrian mother of seven named Aisha. They all live in one tent in Lebanon. They had just received a wood burning stove and some fuel for it. Aisha claims that she and her family would soon have frozen to death without the stove. They are but eight of the more than two million Syrian refugees living in neighboring countries. Many are ill-clad with little food and living under pieces of canvas or plastic trying to survive the frigid Lebanese winter. 

In a season in which we mark the time that God gave everything to help a world of people in need, shouldn't we make some effort to remember people like Aisha and her children? It's a good thing to gather with family and friends in warm places in this season and to enjoy fellowship together. Truly, this is a good thing. But as we remember a baby born in a drafty stable, shouldn't we also remember families huddled in drafty tents along the borders surrounding Syria?

It's really not that far from Bethlehem to Lebanon.

There are numerous reputable aid organizations helping Syrian refugees.  

Should the government ban conversion therapy?

I'm a pastor and people who know me are aware that I care deeply about matters pertaining to religious liberty and church-state separation. I'm pretty sensitive to possible government intrusions into matters of faith. In this regard, something in the news earlier this week caught my attention.

Conversion therapy involves attempting to transform homosexual desires into heterosexual desires. On Monday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed into law a bill banning licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy with teenagers. A similar measure was passed in California last year but implementation is currently held up in federal court. Massachusetts and New York have introduced similar bans in their state legislatures this year. 
  
Many experts believe conversion therapy is not only ineffective but harmful. I don't have nearly enough knowledge about the process to know whether or not this is true, but let's say it is true. In that case, here's my question: Is conversion therapy so harmful as to warrant government intrusion into what is for many a matter of religious faith?

Many, if not most, of those who practice conversion therapy and who seek conversion therapy do so as a function of their faith. Many homosexuals embrace that part of their identity without question. Others, often because of their religious beliefs, experience great distress concerning same-sex attraction and they seek help sometimes through conversion therapy. So conversion therapy is very much an act of faith for some. That being the case, the practice would need be considered extremely harmful in order to merit a government ban.

The state laws in question are limited in that they involve only minors and only licensed therapists. Therefore, religious groups using this process may continue to do so with minors as long as they are not utilizing licensed professionals. Yet including this limitation may still be problematic in relationship to government intrusion into matters of faith. If a minor, due to his or her religious beliefs, is in acute distress over same sex attraction, should that minor be barred by the government from seeking the help of a licensed therapist who might use some degree of conversion therapy as a step on a longer journey of healing?    

Again, the main question for me is whether conversion therapy is so ineffective and damaging that it deserves a government ban on what is for many an act of faith? If a teenager expresses extreme anguish over same sex attraction, should government intervention prohibit a pastor from even considering a referral of this young person to a licensed professional who might attempt conversion therapy? Should a teenager be barred by the government from taking this avenue of exploring his or her sexual identity, no matter where that process ultimately leads?

I don't have the answers to such questions, but I think the questions need to be discussed. It could be that conversion therapy for minors is so ineffective and dangerous that it deserves a government ban. But it is also possible that a door is being opened to a level of government intrusion into matters of faith that should be left closed. 

That door needs to be opened

Pope Francis made headlines earlier this week because of what he said about gay priests, which is understandable. What is receiving, so far, comparatively less attention is a statement he  made about women. I have written previously of my appreciation for some of the steps Pope Francis has taken but I confess that his words about the ordination of females disturbs me. 

To be sure, Francis said essentially that there would be no church without women and he acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church lacked a "deep theology of women." But he went on to say, "On the ordination of women, the church has spoken and said no, John Paul II, in a definitive formulation, said that door is closed."

Maybe that's all he could say given what John Paul II wrote in an apostolic letter of 1994. Nonetheless, it is a disappointing statement. After all, Pope Francis also said this recently: "I want a mess ... I want trouble in dioceses!" He has stated his intent to shake things up (certainly a Christ-like thing to do) and he has been doing this in numerous surprising and wonderful ways.

So why not mention the tension between the position of John Paul II and that of the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1976 that concluded that the church could ordain females to the priesthood without violating Christ's original intentions? That would shake things up. But I suppose challenging the doctrine of papal infallibility would make too big of a mess for now.

In disagreeing with Pope Francis I mean no disrespect. I simply cannot allow the injustice of closing the door on the ordination of females to pass without remark whether it is proclaimed by the leader of the Roman Catholic Church or evangelical leaders. The door to the ordination of women needs to be opened. Thankfully that door is open in many Christian groups, including the congregation that I serve.

In my own faith tradition, the Bible is supposed to be our guide for faith and practice. The weight of the scriptural evidence supports the ordination of females.  A detailed examination of the biblical evidence in this regard would produce far more text than most folks would want to read in a single blog entry. So I'll just briefly list a little biblical evidence in support of opening the door to ordaining women:

• There is no outright prohibition of ordaining females in the Bible.
• Women are depicted as carrying out the primary ministerial function of declaring the word of God (i.e. preaching) in the scriptures. 
• Females hold ministerial positions on the pages of the Bible. (Junia [a female] is listed as an apostle in Romans 16:7.  Deborah was the spiritual and political leader and a preacher of Israel in Judges 4-5).
• All of the gift passages of the New Testament are literally gender inclusive, including Ephesians 4:11-12 that says Christ gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
• The New Testament declares principles that tear down gender walls, most notably the one found in Galatians 3:27:28: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (NRSV, emphasis mine).

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now. I'm aware that others make a biblical case against the ordination of women and I have responses to their arguments and they have responses to mine. 

But here's an important point to me. Those who decide to close a door between a whole class of humans and a particular way of serving God had better have an iron clad case for taking such a radical step. As I have indicated, there is a Bible-based case to be made in favor of ordaining females, and a strong one at that. This being the case, who am I to stand in the way of any properly gifted human, male or female, and a calling that human senses from God? 

"Look, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut" (Revelation 3:8, NRSV).

Optimistic about a pessimistic outlook

Robert Gordon is a 72-year-old economist at Northwestern University and he believes that America is in a permanent state of economic decline. According to an article outlining Gordon's view, before 1750 economic growth was virtually imperceptible in the world. Then an industrial revolution began in England in 1750. It was followed by a second industrial revolution beginning in 1870 based largely in the United States. By  the 1950s economic growth was so rapid and seemingly automatic that the average American would roughly double his or her parents' standard of living. 

By the late sixties or early seventies this growth rate slowed. Up until recently virtually all economists were not bothered by the deceleration-just a blip. But Gordon thinks the blip was 1750 until now. Since nothing like the the back-to-back industrial revolutions of 1750 and 1870 ever happened before in human history, there is no reason to conclude that any such phenomenon will happen again.

But what about computers, the Internet, and mobile phone technology? Aren't these innovations evidence that we can expect the innovations and the growth to continue? Not according to Gordon (and others). Example: Our kitchens are largely unchanged in the last 50 years. Go back fifty years before that and there was no refrigeration, only blocks of ice, and no gas stove, just piles of wood. With the growth of the population in the United States, Gordon says that we need innovations eight times more important than what we've had before and there appears to be nothing like that on the horizon.

Is he right? I'm no economist. I don't know. But the article indicates that Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary, is impressed with Gordon's work. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chair, delivered a commencement address this spring in which he considered the implications of a paper written by Gordon which suggests that if Bernanke doesn't embrace Gordon's conclusions he at least doesn't dismiss them. 

But what if Gordon is right? To paraphrase a line from Jack Nicholson, what if this is as good as it gets, economically speaking? What if we have reached the top of the economic development hill and it is a permanent slide downhill from here? 

When I read the article I was a bit disturbed at first. But then a ray of light brightened my darkened spirit. Could it be that slower economic growth could spawn greater spiritual growth? 

If there are fewer next new things to anticipate then might we place more hope in God? If there is less new gadgetry to capture our attention then might we devote more attention to the Lord? If we have fewer chances to gain fulfillment from the next thing our money can buy then might might we seek more fulfillment through the Holy Spirit? If we are forced to expend less energy propping up the American Dream then might we devote more energy to the mission of our Lord?

I'm a Star Trek fan. Maybe someone will invent warp engine technology in the next few years thereby kick starting economic growth for a few more centuries. If not, maybe a decline in economic growth might give way to a different type of growth that we desperately need. Maybe there's reason for a degree of optimism about Gordon's pessimistic view.

Sadly the death penalty is probably returning to North Carolina

Sadly, it looks like the death penalty is likely to resume in North Carolina. An unofficial moratorium on capital punishment has been in place in this state since 2006 due to various legal challenges, some of which resulted in the passage of the Racial Justice Act four years ago, a measure designed to help administer the death penalty fairly. This act was weakened last year and, as of yesterday, the North Carolina House repealed what was left of it. Since the Senate has already passed this latest bill, it looks like the death penalty is nearly ready to return to North Carolina.

I used to be a big supporter of capital punishment--I mean really big. I was once in a debate on the death penalty in school and I was on the pro capital punishment side of the question which is the side I wanted to be on and my team won the debate. But my views on the death penalty changed about 21 years ago.

I was leading a study in church called "Issues and Questions" in which we took up numerous controversial ethical questions including the death penalty. I always presented arguments on both sides of the issue and then asked questions of the group designed to spur discussion. Near the beginning of this series of discussions, a former pastor in the congregation loaned me a book that contained essays by various Baptist authors exploring how the Bible speaks to numerous ethical questions. I was very glad to see that the article on the death penalty was written by one of my seminary professors.

This professor is a highly respected Old Testament scholar. He was one of the translators of the first edition of the New International Version of the Bible. He is also very, very conservative. I turned to his essay on the death penalty first where I was sure that I would find a well structured, Bible-based defense of capital punishment. But I got a big shock. This esteemed, conservative Bible scholar presented a persuasive scripture-based argument against the death penalty.

Well, that just turned my world upside down with regard to this issue. I prayed a bunch and I studied some more and I concluded that I could no longer support the death penalty. Indeed, for more than two decades I have strongly favored life imprisonment without parole as punishment for the most dangerous criminals rather capital punishment.

What are the the specific arguments that led me to this change of heart? It was not secular arguments outside of the Bible, although one can make a pretty good case from that angle. One bit of logic against the death penalty worth bringing up here is that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment--a lot more. According to one study of four years ago, North Carolina could save $11 million per year if we did away with the death penalty.

Isn't it interesting that our current crop of lawmakers who run ads on TV saying that they are in the business of cutting costs are so anxious implement a practice that costs taxpayers $11 million more annually than a very sensible alternative. Think of all the other things that we could do with that money. Even if we simply applied it to our budget deficit we would be a lot better off than using it to kill criminals when simply incarcerating them will keep citizens safe for a lot less money.      

But it is not the logical, secular arguments that are most persuasive to me in opposing the death penalty. It is, rather, biblical arguments. I won't take the time and space here to list all of the Bible-based arguments that I find compelling in rejecting capital punishment. Perhaps I'll do that in future blog entries. Right now I'll mention only the argument that I consider the most important.

Romans 1:16 tells us that the gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (NRSV). The power of God is powerful enough to transform anyone, even murderers, but not if we give them lethal injections first. We can protect society from the most dangerous criminals short of killing them. Because life is precious and because the gospel, the power of God, can transform anyone we must put murderers in prison for life rather than executing them.

When we put the most dangerous criminals in prison for life, we take their lives. Their freedom is gone and they die in the custody of the state. In view of the sanctity of human life and the power of the gospel and the realities of the grace of Jesus Christ, we must not rush the process with a lethal injection.

Holy Land Tour, Part Six: The Trip of a Lifetime

Sunrise over the Sea of Galilee, May 20, 2013.

I took the photo above on our last morning in the hotel beside the Sea of Galilee. We were there for four nights before moving to a hotel in Jerusalem. On three of the four mornings that we were at this body of water around which Jesus spent much of his physical time on earth I went to the shore in hopes of witnessing a beautiful sunrise. 

I guess every sunrise is beautiful in its own way, but, let's face it, some are prettier than others, right? On the first two morning that I went to the beach early, the sky was so overcast that the sun could barely be seen. But on the final morning that I was up with the sun near that lake, the sky was golden and the water reflected it. And I think my little camera did a fairly decent job of capturing that moment of beauty. In fact, I got a poster size print of this photo and framed it for my office.

I wonder if there was a sunrise like that on the morning that the risen Jesus fed breakfast to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (See John 21)?

This really was the trip of a lifetime. I actually got to see places that I have read about and studied for, well, almost my whole life. I got to meet new people and make new friends, not to mention deepening the bonds of friendship with some folks that I knew before this journey. I learned many new things. 

Perhaps most importantly of all, my faith was renewed in ways that were surprising for me. I really didn't anticipate being moved the way that I was often moved by some of the places we visited. Jesus is just as present and just as real here in North Carolina as he is in Israel and the Palestinian Territory. Nonetheless, I was touched in unexpected ways by walking where Jesus physically walked.

I don't know how much, if any, further blogging I will do about this pilgrimage. Terri, my wife, has posted hundreds of pictures from our travels on her Facebook page. I posted some of those on the church Facebook page and we may post more later. I'm sure that some of my experiences in the Holy Land will find their way into my preaching and teaching. But there are elements of this journey that will impact me for the rest of my life. 

What did I like the least? To be honest, it was the sites where churches have been built over sites where important events from the life of Jesus are believed to have taken place. I understand that the Christian groups that built those churches did so out of reverence for Christ and I have deep appreciation for that intent. Still, I wish those places had been left in their natural state with, perhaps, sanctuaries built nearby.

What did I like the most? As mentioned above, I enjoyed making some new friends and spending times with friends I have know for some time. And I liked walking where Jesus walked. "Liked" isn't the right word, really. I found great meaning in this pilgrimage. It really was the tri of a lifetime.