Believing in God in a Children's Hospital

In the twentieth century we had bumper stickers on cars. A "bumper sticker mentality" described beliefs so simplistic that they could be put on a bumper sticker.  The modern version of this simplicity is the Facebook meme, a simplistic idea that spreads on Facebook, shared by the small percentage of people who actually agree with the simplistic post. (Did I mention that these ideas are simplistic??)

Here is a meme that recently came across my FB feed:

This FB bumper sticker briefly mentions two legitimate issues in philosophy and religion, but, of course, it just touches on the tip of these philosophical icebergs, as if they were shallow concepts, not deep. An atheist may attempt to explain away beauty as mere illusion while Christians must deal with the problem of evil and pain.

A children's hospital will rub one's face in the problem of pain.

But the problem of evil has a long and deep discussion within Christian philosophy, going back to the book of Job in the Old Testament and discussed in some depth by C. S. Lewis in  his book  The Problem of Pain at the end of World War II.

I am vividly reminded of this meme by some recent visits to a hospital, Children's Minnesota in St. Paul.

Most of us do not visit children's hospitals because we are curious or because we have philosophical questions. For many of us, a visit to a children's hospital is forced on us by the pain and grief of an ill child that we dearly love. Years ago, Jan and I visited a children's hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, at the invitation of a frightened young couple whose daughter was critically ill. I recall tearing up and crying, just getting off the elevator. The sight of numerous children bundled into hospital beds with anxious parents standing nearby -- all that innocent suffering -- it was overwhelming.  

I had the same feeling this time. This time the sick little girl was my granddaughter and the anxious parents were my son and daughter-in-law. This deepened the pain. We cried and prayed over the little bundle in the hospital bed and worried and hoped -- and then rejoiced -- as she slowly got better.

During the week that our granddaughter was in the PICU at Children's Minnesota, she was treated by devoted nurses and doctors. This began in the hurried flurry of activity in the ER as the little girl was admitted and then continued throughout the week.  (We have hopes that our granddaughter will be discharged later in the coming week!)  

In addition to experienced and dedicated staff, there were a variety of other support services, including the Ronald McDonald Family Room in a nearby wing of the hospital. The "Family Room" has friendly staff and many awesome resources for parents and family members dealing with a child in a nearby wing. The "Family Room" includes four private sleeping rooms and a kitchen with lots of different foods (some ready to be microwaved.) There was a bright, exceptional children’s play area with staff who were ready to play with young children. Guest could do laundry, take a shower, nap, relax, recover.  They could talk to other families; home-cooked meals are offered on a regular schedule. Yes, it is traumatic to have a child in this part of the hospital but the staff understand the suffering and they help families eat, sleep, grieve and then hurry back to hovering over their child’s bed. Alex and Sierra had opportunities to meet other anxious couples at the Ronald McDonald house during their visits.

If there is to be pain and evil in the world, I am grateful that there are places like a children's hospital, where one can see a variety of caring people reaching out, as a hand of God, to hurting families. Each actor, whether doctor, nurse, security, or Family Room staff, each seems to be using his or her talents in critical acts of compassion.  I am grateful to God for children's hospitals. 

The Samaritans

Any reader of the New Testament learns that there is a collection of people called "the Samaritans." They are mentioned by Jewish leaders in derogatory ways (in the Gospel of John, for example) while Jesus uses them in his story about the "Good Samaritan."  The Samaritans represent a New Testament ethnic and racial division and it is interesting to see how Jesus interacts with the Samaritans.

To the devout Jew, the Samaritans were a mixed breed, involved in a false version of Judaism. To many the term "Samaritan" was derogatory. When Nicodemus challenges the Jewish leaders in John, they respond by calling him a Samaritan.

The Samaritans developed as a separate, distinct portion of Israel, probably around the time of the Assyrian invasion in 721 BCE. They may have originated from the northern tribes of Israel and were later accused of intermarriage with the local, pagan inhabitants.  A lengthy Wikipedia article on the Samaritans provides considerable details of their history.

In that racial environment, Jesus goes out of his way to include them in his ministry.  He deliberately begins a conversation with a single Samaritan woman in John 4, breaking a number of social taboos. He heals Samaritans in the gospels.  He uses a Samaritan as his central figure in a lecture on the meaning of the phrase "Love your neighbor" (see Luke 10: 30-37.)  Luke's gospel also records Jesus healing ten lepers; it is the Samaritan who returns to thank him (Luke 17: 11-19.) In John 8, Jesus is accused of being a Samaritan, a charge which he does not refute.  (He is also charged with being demon-possessed and does respond to that accusation.)

In Acts, Samaria is the next region, after Judea, to be evangelized. (Acts 1:8, Acts 8:1-25.)

Throughout the gospels, contrary to the religious leaders, Jesus is seen as deliberately singling out the Samaritan in a positive manner, looking to them, defending them.  Both the gospel accounts of Luke and John emphasize this, Luke because after the Good News of the Jewish Messiah reached those dirty Samaritans, it went on even further, to people completely outside the world of Israel, to the Greek Gentiles who needed a Savior.  Luke was one.

In our own lives there a Samaritans that are easy to dismiss or reject.  If we can see them as Jesus did... then we will be modeling the citizenship of Heaven.

Conflict with the World, Part 2, Practice (When I was President of Citizens for Decency)

In John 17:14-16, Jesus prays that his disciples not be "of the world" since he is not. Jesus then goes on to say that The World will hate the disciples of Jesus. In John's first epistle (I John 2:15-17), he tells the followers of Jesus to "not love the world."

How do Christ-followers put this into practice?

In my experience there are two different approaches. In the first approach, one attempts to control the world and culture, turning it into a "Christian" culture that reflect Christian values.  In the second approach, one attempts to live as a "stranger", a citizen of heaven in a nonChristian system, recognizing that the cultural and political system will always be opposed to God, and not expecting otherwise. In this second system, we minister individually, being part of the "yeast" within the bread of society.

The Old Testament, with its emphasis on the kingdom of Israel, is an attempt at the first method. As the Old Testament itself makes clear, the process of creating a nation controlled by God, was a complete failure.

In the New Testament, the emphasis is very different.  In the New Testament, the followers of the Messiah, led by the promised Holy Spirit, "turn the world upside down."  But the political system was unchanged and, as the apostle John makes clear, the World is still very opposed to the Messiah.

Anyone who attempts to force their culture and country to become "Christian" has misread the New Testament.  There is no Biblical concept of a "Christian country".

I know quite a lot about this -- I have paid my dues here. Let me tell you what not to do!

When I was President of Citizens for Decency

Long ago, in the 1980s, I got involved in the "moral majority." I bought into the belief (promoted by one particular political party) that one could wage a culture war for Christianity.  I became active in the local chapter of Citizens for Decency (CFD), eventually becoming president. With this organization, I fought a "war" against pornography in my community. (Among other things, I successfully waged a campaign to have softporn magazines removed from the campus bookstore. Here is a link to a campus newspaper article about the group I led.  Unmentioned in the article is the threat by a university VP that if he had his way, I would be fired from the university.)

CFD accomplished a lot. We met with, and received support from the local DA. Most local stores which had originally sold soft porn magazines and/or rented hard porn videos eventually took these items from their shelves. At the high point of our work, we printed, once a month, 4000 bulletin inserts and delivered these inserts to local churches which then distributed them to their congregants. These inserts described research on the dangers of pornography.  It also rated local stores on their products, outing those stores that still sold pornography and praising stores that no longer did.

We accomplished a lot politically. But we did a lot of damage to the cause of Christ.  I regret my identification in this group as "Christian".

I don't want to downplay the cultural impact and dangers of pornography. But to accomplish what we did, we bullied local store owners.  Mom-and-pop stores that sold Playboy magazine or had a backshelf of x-rated video rentals were threatened by our "Christian" demands. They could support our "Christian" values or not -- but their livelihood depended on their response.

As our group became more powerful, the calls for compliance became more strident.  The problems of the "culture war" became clearer.  Some in our group wanted to ban R-rated rentals from the community. Many churches supported our boycott attitude, but few church attenders rewarded stores that announced themselves a "family friendly."  Other Christians were happy to see us attack "those bad guys", but few went out of their way to reward stores that caved in to our commands.

One local couple ran a small video store about half-a-mile from my house.  They endorsed our political activism and they removed the adult movies from their collection. We then promoted their video store regularly in our monthly bulletin inserts. I dropped by several times a month to chat and to rent videos for my children.  As I chatted with these "good guys", I watched their rental sales quickly drop off. (College students weren't visiting them anymore).  They tried to put a good face on their new "family values" but after a year, they closed.

I don't regret the political activism.  I regret that it was identified as Christian.  Regardless of the official stance of our organization, the community heard, "If you are Christian, you don't own or visit these stores".  That easily translated into, "If you own or visit these stores, you cannot be (or become) a Christian."

We identified Eternity with local business decisions!

Jesus died for these store owners.  He did not die so that they could have shelves clean of porn. By identifying our actions as "Christian" we made pornography a priority over the gospel.

As our group became more powerful and as some members made more strident boycott demands, I began to feel uncomfortable with my work. I eventually stepped down as president.  After a little time, the group collapsed.  Once I had backed away a bit from my leadership in this group, I was able to see its work more objectively and I could observe more closely its many failures among its successes.

Years later, one Sunday morning, my pastor arrived at church with three dozen donuts just purchased from a local donut shop.

"We should not be buying donuts from [that shop]," said one of our lay leaders. "We should boycott them."

This man went on to explain.  "That chain of donut shops is owned by Waldenbooks. Waldenbooks sells pornography.  We should send a message that we are opposed to pornography by boycotting any store owned by Waldenbooks." (See this related news article about the Waldenbooks boycott.)

I quickly objected. Every week our pastor visited this local store, chatted with the owner and clerks, and purchased several dozen donuts.  Our church was identified as supporting this small business. We were appreciated by the owner. This appreciation was a (small) result of our love for others in our community. Let us not ruin the gospel by becoming a "Christian bully"!

Our practice should follow our theology. As the New Testament confronts the world system, it does so by changing hearts, by changing souls. Politics is incapable of doing that.

Tomorrow, in another blog, we begin working our way through the Book of Revelation, the final book in the Bible.  It will have a lot to say about Christians and the world system!

Conflict with the World, Part 1, Theory

In John 17:14-16, Jesus prays that his disciples not be "of the world" since he is not. Jesus then goes on to say that the World will hate the disciples of Jesus. In John's first epistle (I John 2:15-17), he tells the followers of Jesus to "not love the world."

In a separate blog, I am working my way through the New Testament, chapter by chapter.  There, as we move from the Gospel of John into the epistles (letters) of John, we look at this concept of "the world". The Bible has a fair amount to say about the "World" (Greek "kosmos") and the path of the citizen of heaven.  According to the Bible, the cosmos is under the control of Satan (I John 4:4 and I John 5:19.) The world is the object of God's every action. Other passages on examples of "loving the World" include Genesis 3:6, Joshua 7:21, 2 Sam 11:2. New Testament verses on "the World" are John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11.  (I'll return to these at some later time.)

In my country (USA) in my times (late 20th, early 21st century) the Christian conflict with "the World" has often been misunderstood. This conflict is often interpreted to mean that believers must wage some type of "war" on the culture around them.

The New Testament view of "the World" is quite different. The follower of Jesus recognized that there was a higher kingdom, a higher citizenship (see Hebrews 11: 13-16) and that the political establishment (primarily the Roman empire) and the social establishment (civic Judaism) was in principle opposed to the things of God. Even the local social fabric in Israel seemed to promote a fake religiosity that allowed one to act spiritual (to act like a sincere Jew) while being insincere.

This has not significantly changed in two millenia. The Christian still should not expect to be rewarded socially or politically by his/her commitment to follow the Messiah. One of Jesus's teachings (Matthew 10:34-39) is particularly depressing in that regard, unless we are indeed looking for the City that God has prepared for us.

The relationship between the Christ-follower and their community is a complicated one. It should be so.  There should always be a certain tension between a Christ-follower and the community within which he/she lives, just like there is a certain tension in traveling overseas, in a culture and community that is not one's home.

Some of our community culture comes from within "the church", from religious organizations. Just as  Jesus experienced the sharpest conflict with the Jewish religious leaders, so too the Christ-follower will discover that religion (Christian religion) is in conflict with genuine spiritual growth and action. In any society in which Christianity has begun to hold significant social or political power, the culture has invaded the church. In my experience, we may need to be most alert to the influences of "the World" on Sunday. And it will not be in ways we first expect.

I have been in a number of churches that used Romans 14: 13-21 -- a passage that emphasizes compassion for spiritually weaker brothers or sisters -- to prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages. This is not because of some deep understanding of Scripture, but instead a long running cultural response to Prohibition in twentieth century America. A thoughtful reading of that passage in Romans should lead one to act differently in a number of ways -- and alcohol is the least of the problems of the church!

At some point, one has to decide with Habbakuk (Habbakuk 4: 17-18): "Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior."

In the New Testament one might observe the "Agrippa Principle" -- Christians often speak from chains -- (Acts 26: 28-29)... Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"  Paul replied, "Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

I will try to flesh this out further in a second, later post.  At one time I was very much immersed in the political fight against "the World". At one time I was president of the local chapter of Citizens for Decency, leading a campaign to rid the community of pornography (among other concerns.) I lost track of the true focus of the Christian life and I stooped for political influence.  I regret that.

Culture, "Culture Wars" and the Jewish Messiah

The various writings of the New Testament have an interesting approach to the first century culture and to culture and politics in general.

At a certain level, there is a deliberate lack of engagement with local culture and politics.  Jesus does not attempt to overthrow the Roman government and when challenged regarding Roman taxes, has a famous response about giving to God the things of God and giving to Caesar the things of Caesar.  In a similar way, Paul makes no attempt to overthrow the first century institution of slavery, but does pressure Philemon to free his runaway slave, Onesimus.

On a different level, there is a direct and confrontational approach to culture and politics.  Jesus forgives tax collectors and prostitutes and confronts religious hypocrites and the control of Jewish leaders.  In personal interactions, he tells an adulterous woman to "go and sin no more" and gets a tax collector to promise to repay everything he has stolen.  In a similar way, Paul confronts the jealousy and gluttony of the church in Corinth and insists that they are to be a model of the kingdom of God.

So how are Christians to engage in their culture and community?  I want to lay out some principles from the New Testament readings.

1. It begins with the heart.  There is such a human desire to change other people.  But one cannot engage as a Christian in the community unless one begins with their own life, recognizing their own selfishness, self-deception, jealousy, ego.  The world changed in the first century because people changed, because individuals committed to joining the Kingdom of God, not because they tried to enforce "religious" actions on others.  If I want to be an agent of change, then the first person I should hope to see changed is me.

2. It relies on the Holy Spirit and God's power and sovereignty.  God changes people; my  life is changed as I allow the Holy Spirit to work.  Paul repeatedly tells believers to pray and "not be anxious."  Change comes not through a legalistic set of resolutions but through genuine concern and love for others, seeing others through God's eyes.

3. The church has authority only over the church!  In I Corinthians 5, Paul confronts a very human desire to tell others what to do.  There, in verses 12-13, he asks, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church?"  If one says, "I am a believer and want to be part of your believing community," then it is appropriate to say, "Our community of believers has both rights and responsibilities."  It is only within the community of believers that Paul lays out expectations for truth, love, honesty and generally healthy community behavior.

4. The most common threat to the body of Christ seems to come from religious authorities! Throughout the New Testament the direct conflict to the young church comes first from Jewish religious leaders and later, occasionally, from pagan religious leaders (such as the followers of Diana in Ephesus, see Acts 19:23-41.)  It might be pointed out that religious leaders have often worked out a way to profit financially from their religion and so find true religion a threat.

In the United States, Christianity has suffered greatly at the hands of religious leaders who claimed to represent Christian beliefs and then used those beliefs for political gain.  I recall Richard Nixon, in 1972, getting Billy Graham to endorse him; Nixon also presented himself to the Explo '72 crowd as a Christian president who fully supported the evangelistic goals of Campus Crusade.  (I was there.)

I could list numerous examples that followed.  Routinely religious leaders (see item 4!) have used Christianity as a way to gain power, bully those who don't believe (item 3), pressure people to be anxious and frightened (#2), while routinely living personal lives of greed, jealousy, lust and abuse (#1.)

The only comment I might make about current US politics is already said in this link. However, let me give a more general example of how not  to engage in culture change.

A US television network tells people there is "a war on Christmas."  It encourages its viewers to get angry and fight against this war.  (See items #2 and #3.)  As it encourages Christians to speak up to "preserve Christmas", the network's ratings go up and certain "Christian" leaders gain popularity (#4.)  But if you are a believer and follower of Jesus, why engage in this? Relax!  God is ultimately in control. If you want to "preserve Christmas", make it a time of joy and kindness. Remember the Messiah born in the Jewish city of David, who died for all humankind.  Let nonbelievers celebrate the holiday (or not) as they wish. And be leery of people with financial incentives (ad revenue) who attempt to get you to abandon compassion for conflict.

NO, you do NOT need to vote for President!

Here in the United States, after a bizarre primary season, American voters prepare for a November election.  As we do this, everyone repeats the old myth that, regardless of the difficulties in choices, "You must cast your vote for President!"

Facebook posts and news articles stress that "Your vote for president is important!"  (Many then go on to tell you who you should vote for and why that candidate matters.)

I will skip all the political debate about who to vote for and confront the false and damaging myth that "Your vote counts!"

Your vote for president is meaningless.  And the belief that that presidential vote counts is damaging.

IF you cast your first presidential vote at the age of 18 (as I did) and if you continue to vote every four years until you are 118, your vote will never come close to impacting the election.  This is true even if, somehow, you also talk TEN THOUSAND friends into voting with you!

My goal is not to denigrate voting for president.  But your vote is only important locally, not nationally.  Vote locally; vote in the small elections for city council, school board, district judges, the sheriff or chief of police.  It is in those small, less splashy elections that your votes (and the votes of your friends) may indeed count!

The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri on August 9, 2014, turned a spotlight on that city of 21,000 residents.  Although two-thirds of the residents were African-American and many of those residents expressed frustration with racial profiling, the city council remained all white; the police chief was white and 48 of 53 police officers were white.  The officers were comfortable making racial jokes and slurs.  The local environment was toxic.  But when discussing the make-up of their city, many African-Americans expressed resignation about local politics, skepticism that the city could be changed and apathy about voting locally.  Yet many of them also expressed their excitement in voting for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

It was precisely that presidential vote which did them no good.

In hindsight, it is clear that if the African-American community in Ferguson had concentrated on changing the local environment, on supporting progressive candidates for city council and mayor and had advocated for removing the police chief, the endemic racism in the local structure might have been forcibly changed (or at least reduced.)  The cycle of poverty caused by police revenue-generating tactics could have been confronted.  But instead the community voted for president.

In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won Missouri by 260,000 votes and so Missouri cast 10 votes in the electoral college for Romney.  It cast no votes for Obama in the electoral college (of course) and so any vote for Obama in Missouri did not affect the electoral college vote.

The racially oppressed African-American community in Ferguson had (still has) the power to change the political structure of that town.  The members of that community should vote in all upcoming elections.  But they don't need to vote for president.  While everyone's attention is turned to the splashy presidential and national elections, the real power of the voter is locally!

Nate Silver's 538 webpage predicts that Missouri will go strongly Republican in the 2016 presidential election and (at the time of this writing) gives Donald Trump an 83.6% probability of winning Missouri's 10 electoral votes. Regardless of how any one individual votes, the state will cast all its electoral votes for Trump.  The people of Missouri can debate the merits of Trump, Clinton and third party candidates like Gary Johnson all they want.  They can post on Facebook arguments about the next president's impact on pro-life, pro-choice, immigration, women, health care, military ... but the simple truth is that Missouri will cast 10 electoral votes for Trump and that is that.  What really matters is the local election!

I can hear the common opposition to this argument. It begins, "If everyone followed your advice then..."

Stop! Logically -- one canNOT argue a point with a supposition that is false! This will never occur; human beings don't act that way.  If, in some unlikely future election, MILLIONS of people were to decide to cast local votes but NOT vote for president, this might force politicians to rethink the election process and the electoral college.  (Frankly, that would not be all bad.) But most people will continue to mindlessly believe that their presidential vote is somehow important.  And they will not pay attention to the smaller local elections where they do have a voice.

Yes, think globally.  But vote locally!

Is Your Country Your Idol?

Next week, as we work our way through the New Testament, a chapter per day, we will hit Hebrews 11. This lengthy chapter is the culmination of the author's essay on the importance of following Christ and the patience required in being a citizen of Heaven.  Although some describe the chapter as a list of heroes of faith, the chapter has a secondary undercurrent which surfaces in verses 13-16 of that chapter. There the author makes it clear that these past heroes of faith saw themselves as citizens of God's country and recognized that they were "aliens and strangers" on this planet.

This theme occurs in other places throughout the New Testament. Jesus, throughout his ministry, announced the beginning of the kingdom of God (or kingdom of Heaven) and in various ways (see Matthew 22:15-22 and Matthew 4:8-10) made it clear that the kingdom of God was much more serious than mere political power.

Paul, in II Corinthians 5: 17-21 , describes his role as that of an "ambassador", reaching out to people in this world to encourage them to be reconciled to God.  The ambassador metaphor is a strong one; the ambassador lives in one country but represents another.  We, as Christ's ambassadors, currently live in a strange country, one "not our own"; we live as ambassadors for another country.

This image is true throughout all time, since the day of Jesus.  Christians are citizens of "another country", whether they live in the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, whether living in the German kingdoms of Luther's day or the Scotland of John Knox.

From time to time, Christians forget this.  Christians are occasionally seduced by political power into believing they can create a "Holy empire" or a "Christian nation."  This seduction first occurred in the Roman Empire when Constantine converted and decided to make his empire "Christian." Later Charlemagne called his empire "Holy". The Catholic Spanish Empire mixed Christian missions with imperialism and oppression, especially in South America.  Protestant England claimed to be a "Christian nation" and used that motive to build its global empire.  In justification of this, there even arose the cult of British Israelism, in which many claimed that Britain was the new Israel. Some English Christians even claimed that the kings of England were descendants of King David.

A Christian does not have to read world history to see the problems with this "Christian Nation" philosophy. The New Testament says nothing about "Christian nations" or godly kingdoms. Indeed, the last book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, assures Christians that the heavenly kingdom is waiting in the wings, for the final trumpet, after all the earthly kingdoms have undergone their violent tantrums against God.

The only references in the Bible to a "godly nation" are in the Old Testament. There the references are to the nation of Israel, set up as a theocracy, a nation ruled by God alone.  As that nation repeatedly resisted this idea, it replaced God with kings and kingdoms and it alternated (for centuries!) between obedience and disobedience.  There are many passages in the Old Testament (such as II Chronicles 7:14) in which God makes promises to the nation of Israel but one should be careful with that context and not presume that those same verses somehow apply to the Holy Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire or even countries or kingdoms in existence today.

Jesus told the Herodians and Pharisees "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." He also said, "No one can serve two masters."  One cannot pledge allegiance to the future kingdom of God and to one's country at the same time, for they are in conflict; they both will seek to be the master.

Adolf Hitler, attempting to promote German nationalism among German Christians, created the Reich Church.  The book Mein Kampf appeared on the altars of those churches (presumably next to the Bible) and the national symbol, the swastika, appeared in the front of the sanctuaries.  We may laugh at this today -- it seems ludicrous to us -- but I have been in churches which had the American flag visible up front, near the cross.

The New Testament has a lot to say about Christians serving as good citizens within our communities and within our countries, wherever God places us.  But it does not allow us to make our country an idol. If we follow the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, then we are citizens of another country and we are aliens and strangers here.

Update July 2, 2016: A similar post is here.