Success redefined

The Globe and Mail has chosen Canada’s 2008 nation builder:  Jean Vanier.

Jean VanierM. Vanier was instrumental in changing the way that mentally handicapped people are cared for. In L’Arche communities, founded by M. Vanier, volunteers live round the clock with the mentally handicapped people they serve.

M. Vanier is a devout Roman Catholic. It seems to me that L’Arche (= “the ark”) follows a monastic model of ministry:  devoting one’s entire life to carrying out God’s work in a community set apart from the way people ordinarily live.

The L’Arche model is certainly rooted in the Gospels:  specifically, in Jesus’ admonition to serve “the least of these, my brethren“. Vanier tells the Globe and Mail that he wants to announce a message:

That people who are weak have something to bring us, that they are important people and it’s important to listen to them. In some mysterious way, they change us. Being in a world of the strong and powerful, you collect attitudes of power and hardness and invulnerability. [… But] it is vulnerability that brings us together.”

Vanier maintains that we need to redefine success:

Recently, a couple came to him with their one-and-a-half-year-old son, who had an undiagnosed disorder and screamed incessantly. Mr. Vanier asked the mother how she was, and she muttered, “Okay.” He asked the father, a military man, the same question. “Sometimes,” the father said, “I want to throw him out the window.”

Mr. Vanier leans forward in his chair. “And I said to him, ‘I understand. I’ve lived the same thing.’”

He is referring to Lucien, a severely handicapped man who used to live with him and whose endless shrieking began with his mother’s death and rarely stopped. Mr. Vanier often returns to Lucien in his writing: Suffering through that noise helped him understand not only his own limitations but what the families of disabled people must go through, isolated as they often are.

“It obviously penetrated through all my protective systems and awoke anguish, and I could see violence within me,” he says. “If I hadn’t been in a community, I don’t know what I would have done.”

Lucien died a few years ago; his screaming never ceased entirely. It is easy, when hearing this story, to understand why L’Arche is always facing a shortage of volunteers. Most people would find such a life too taxing to endure.

What Mr. Vanier finds surprising is that very often it’s the volunteers’ parents who don’t want them to work at L’Arche.

“Parents will say, ‘We gave you education, university, and now you want to live with these people?’” […]

This leads to one of the cornerstones of Mr. Vanier’s philosophy, which is essentially that we’ve lost track of the different ways to measure a successful life. [… Vanier muses,] “How to find a world where the essential thing is to work for peace, to work to build something together?” […]

One of those who came and stayed was Cariosa Kilcommons. Disillusioned with her pre-med studies, Ms. Kilcommons dropped out of St. Francis Xavier University more than 20 years ago to live at the L’Arche home in Cape Breton. Four years later, she came to stay in Trosly; now, she returns to her family home in Pincher Creek, Alta., only for the occasional holiday.

“It was pretty radical,” she says of her decision to make L’Arche her life. “But I was filled with inner certitude. It’s true that a lot is asked of us here, but we get a lot back. The hours are long, but the experience is so rich.”

Certain public figures maintain that the world would be a better place without religion. And it’s true that religion does a lot of harm in the world. Some of the most prominent religious leaders stand for intolerance, division, and violence (whether overt or covert).

Maybe those religious leaders have absorbed the wrong definition of success. They pursue publicity, glory, money, deference, and access to the corridors of power. Perhaps they also mobilize people for ministry. But it’s difficult to keep one’s motives pure when those things begin to blend together.

How many of those leaders would show the same dedication to ministry if God called them to toil anonymously in a L’Arche community?

Jean Vanier hasn’t sought the public spotlight. Nor has he developed a personal fiefdom, where he can reign as a little pope. Instead, he has poured out his life in service to people who might otherwise be forgotten by the world.
Read the rest of this entry »

The incomprehensible, indispensable Trinity

Two views on the trinity. Barton Stone argues that the doctrine is “both above and contrary to reason”. Brian McLaren explains why the Trinity is a deeply meaningful concept in shaping his Christian faith.

First, Barton Stone:

It is commonly stated, that there are three persons in one God, of one substance, power and eternity.

To me it is evident that they, who maintain this proposition, do not — cannot believe, that these three persons are three distinct spirits, beings or Gods, each possessed of the personal properties of intelligence, will and power; for this would not only contradict the scriptures, but also those sections of their creeds just quoted, which declare that there is but one only living and true God, without parts. They must understand the term persons in God, not in the proper and common sense of the word person; but in such a qualified sense as to exclude the notion of three distinct spirits or beings.

What this qualified sense should be, has long puzzled divines; and in no proposition are they more divided. The cause of this perplexity is obvious, because no idea of it is to be found in revelation, nor reason. Revelation no where declares that there are three persons of the same substance in the one only God. …

If a doctrine be revealed, however mysterious it may be, I will humbly receive it. My reason shall ever bow to revelation; but it shall never be prostrated to human contradictions and inventions. …

That the Son of God was very and eternal God, and yet eternally begotten, is a doctrine to which I cannot subscribe. …

According to the before cited articles, the Father and Son are one eternal substance. The voice of reason is, that the same individual substance cannot beget itself, nor be begotten by itself. …

If language conveys ideas, it is plain that the act of begetting implies a previous agent; and that the agent and the act must precede the thing begotten; therefore the Son could not be eternally begotten.

(from An Address To the Christian Churches, 1821)

Second, Brian McLaren

The experience of God in Jesus was so powerful that it forever transformed what followers of Jesus meant when they said the word God. […]

Eventually, after a few centuries of reflecting on God as revealed and experienced through Jesus (in the context of some major controversies with varied forms of Greek philosophy), the church began to describe God as Father-Son-Spirit in Tri-unity or the Trinity. For them, God could no longer be conceived of merely as “God A,” a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will, but as “God B,” a unified, eternal, mysterious relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love.

Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God A created it:  a universe of dominance, control, limitation, submission, uniformity, coercion. Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God B created it:  a universe of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality, freedom.

I’m not sure which comes first — the kind of universe you see or the kind of God you believe in, but as a Christian who believes in Jesus as the Son of God, I find myself in universe B, getting to know God B.

[A Generous Orthodoxy, chapter 2, "Jesus and God B"]

Stone’s argument strikes me as logically unassailable. On the other hand, McLaren points out that the doctrine of the Trinity has practical utility (who’d have thought it!).

The doctrine has implications for our worldview. McLaren’s argument is much more appealing than the sort of abstract, bloodless reasoning that Stone was reacting against.

In sum, the doctrine of the Trinity is both incomprehensible and indispensable.

Good news? For whom?

Christians commonly refer to the New Testament message about Jesus as “the good news”. In fact, that designation appears in the Gospels themselves. For example, Luke 7:22:

Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John [the Baptist] what you have seen and heard:  the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”

Is the Gospel good news? Yes: but perhaps not for everyone.

I want to discuss one of my favourite Christmas texts. The text is beloved by Roman Catholics, who call it the Magnificat. But, in my experience, evangelical Protestants rarely refer to it, let alone preach on it.

The context is this. Mary was visited by an angel, who told her that she was going to bear a son:  “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High … of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Mary and ElizabethThe angel added that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth had also conceived a son (John the Baptist) in her old age:  “This is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Mary then rushed off to visit Elizabeth, at which point we come to my text, the Magnificat.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mary says:

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.(Luke 1:46-55)

The Gospel is indeed good news — for some. According to the first passage I sited, it is good news for the blind, the lame, lepers, the deaf, the poor: and even the dead. According to the second passage, the Gospel is good news for “those of humble estate” and the hungry.

Mary illustrates the kind of person for whom the Gospel is good news. She describes herself in these exact words:  “God has looked on the humble estate of his servant.” Mary was chosen, not for her significance in the eyes of the world, but for her insignificance.

Yes, I assume Mary was devoted to God and morally respectable. But it was also a prerequisite of her calling that she should be one of the “people of the land” — the common rabble — who were viewed with contempt by those who held religious office.

The text goes so far as to say that God will scatter the proud, bring down the mighty from their thrones, and reduce the rich to penury. For people in these categories, the Gospel apparently is not good news.
Read the rest of this entry »

Who has hijacked Christmas? From whom?

Have atheists hijacked Christmas? Randy Kennedy quotes the full-time infidel, Sam Harris:

It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas — giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it — all of that has been entirely appropriated [from Christians] by the secular world.

Thus Harris feels OK about having a Christmas tree at home, even though he thinks the world would be better off without faith.

Was Harris right? Has he correctly identified everything we value in Christmas?

An Andrew Sullivan reader reverses the usual complaint. He argues that Christians have hijacked a secular model of Christmas:

As a religious holiday, pre-modern Christmases were rather austere celebrations defined by lengthy church services. That this coincided with pagan culture’s raucous celebrations of the winter solstice was a source of great displeasure to institutional Christianity for centuries. The “kitsch” that Harris discusses (Evergreen Trees, the man from the north who brings us goodies) are pagan icons. Giving gifts and spending time with your family and friends (instead of spending the day in mass) are also holdovers from popular tradition of drinking and reveling which the church had been actively hostile to.

In short, everything WE secularists value in Christmas has been entirely appropriated by the Christian world.

It’s a provocative point. Maybe Christians should return Santa Claus, commercialism, and partying to those who have no faith.

Personally, I can still accept Christmas trees:  I view them as a universal symbol, neither Christian nor pagan.

It’s like “darkness” and “light”. Those terms have been used in Christian theology, but they are hardly unique to our religion. It’s an obvious symbol that has been utilized by every religion, and by secularists, too.

Similarly, evergreen trees are an obvious symbol of life during a season when so much of nature is dormant (taking on the appearance of death). No, Christians weren’t the first to seize on that symbolism. But I won’t concede that Christmas trees are peculiarly pagan, either.

Could we settle for a Christmas tree with just a few presents under it — one for each member of the household? Then we could focus our energies on singing carols, and rehearsing the tale of Christ’s birth and our redemption.

Perhaps Christmas could become a season of rest, enjoyed in quietude with our families:  instead of rushing to the mall dozens of times for “one last thing”. Or spending dozens of evenings at church, for that matter.

What is it that Christians truly value about Christmas, anyway? It would be hard to guess the correct answer, based on how we actually celebrate the season.

Women in the Church: the missionary mindset

Q. What does the following text have to do with the role of women in the Church?

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel. (1Co. 9:20-23)

A. Christians can (and should!) make cultural accommodations to eliminate obstacles to evangelism. Those cultural accommodations might include relaxing certain New Testament limitations on the role of women in the Church.

The West as a mission field:

I wish Christians in North America would adopt a missionary mindset. I suppose that, in some parts of the USA, Christianity is still a dominant force. Therefore it is very difficult for Christians who live in those states to conceive of the USA as a mission field.

In other parts of the USA, it’s a different story. Likewise, in Canada, Australia, England, and continental Europe, the Church has been in steady decline for decades now. A sizeable percentage of the population is now three generations removed from any church connection.

The point is, the West is quickly becoming a mission field. And anyone who wants to succeed in evangelism must learn to think like a missionary.

The missionary mindset:

But what does that mean — to think like a missionary?

Missionaries communicate the Gospel across cultural boundaries. Therefore, missionaries must learn to distinguish between the moral imperatives of the Gospel and the culturally specific expressions of the Gospel that may be so familiar as to be second nature to them.

Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:

Some time after his conversion, Paul made the decision that obedience to the law of Moses is in the realm of culture; it is not a moral imperative. Therefore he could accommodate the preferences of whatever group he was evangelizing at a given time. When he was evangelizing Jews, he “became as one under the law”. When he was evangelizing Gentiles, he “became as one outside the law”.

Such flip-flopping has the appearance of unprincipled behaviour. On the contrary, Paul was acting consistently, as judged by a higher principle:  a principle to which he subordinated all other considerations. The principle is, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel.”

That is the missionary mindset.

Application to the role of women in the Church:

I believe that women should be permitted to hold any office in the Church, on an equal basis with men. And I believe there is good scriptural precedent for that position:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 )

I could appeal to other texts instead:  for example,

  • to the precedent set by the Lord Jesus, who taught Mary and allowed women to travel with him as part of his entourage of disciples;
     
  • to Paul’s reference to women prophesying and praying in the assembly; and
     
  • to women that Paul identifies as ministers of the Gospel:  Priscilla, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha, Phoebe, and Junia.

Of course, there are texts on the other side of this issue, too (notably, Jesus’ selection of twelve male apostles; 1Co. 14:34-35; and 1Ti. 2:12).

What shall we make of the conflicting evidence? In my view, the scriptures vacillate because the role of women in the Church is a cultural matter; it is not a universal moral imperative.

Let’s exercise our imaginations a little, and try to reconstruct events chronologically.

In the first century, women were expected to “know their place”. When the early Church briefly elevated women to a position of equality, they scandalized the non-Christian population and thereby undermined the Gospel.

Scholars believe Galatians was written before 1 Corinthians. In other words, Paul’s initial position was egalitarian:  “there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But when certain churches began to put the principle into practice, it brought the Church into disrepute. So Paul reversed course (although he still allowed women to pray and prophesy in the assembly, according to 1 Corinthians 11) and ruled that women should be seen and not heard.

1 Corinthians 9:20-23 and Galatians 3:28:

Note the direct link between 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 and Galatians 3:28.

Galatians 3:28 lists three commonplace social distinctions:  Jews and Greeks; slaves and free people; women and men. Note that the first of these social distinctions is the subject of 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 —

  1. neither Jew nor Greek:  Adherence to the law of Moses is a purely cultural consideration, according to 1 Corinthians 9:20-23. Paul was free to obey the law when he ministered among Jews, and he was free to disregard the law when he ministered among Gentiles:  all for the sake of the Gospel.
     
  2. neither slave nor free:  I insist that slavery is contrary to God’s will (because it reduces a human being to an object, and makes him or her the property of another human being). And yet, for the sake of the Gospel, Paul did not campaign against the institution. Slavery was deeply entrenched in Roman society, and Paul was unwilling to make the Church an enemy of the state.
     
  3. neither male nor female:  Paul limited women’s roles (in 1Co. 14:34-35 and 1Ti. 2:12) as an accommodation to the society in which he lived. He did not regard it as a universal moral imperative:  any more than law-keeping or slavery are universal moral imperatives.

Conclusion:

We do not live in the first century any more. The non-Christian culture has moved on, and Christians must adapt to the new social context.

Christians could insist that men be circumcised when they convert to Christianity. But, if they do so, they will be creating a significant, unnecessary obstacle to the Gospel.

Christians could advocate slavery. They could argue, based on biblical texts, that it is OK for believers to own slaves. But, if they do so, they will scandalize the non-Christian community, bring Christ into disrepute, and erect an enormous obstacle to the Gospel.

It is no different with respect to the role of women in the Church.

I plead with my evangelical readers to consider what I’m saying. Evangelicals are well-meaning, I know. They believe they are being faithful to the Gospel in this matter. But in fact they are bringing the Church into disrepute.

Non-Christians now accept that women are equal to men. (Perhaps Galatians 3:28 influenced the evolution of Western society!) When the Church argues the opposite position — that God requires women to submit to men — we scandalize the non-Christian community. We thereby erect an obstacle to Christian faith.

The Church needs to adopt a missionary mindset “for the sake of the Gospel”, per 1Co. 9:23.

« Older entries