Of MONOPOLY™ and Meekness

 
MONOPOLY™ is that all-American game where the sole objective is to be the first person to buy up all available property, plot by plot, and then to charge such exorbitant rent that you drive each and every friend or family member into utter financial ruin, until finally you have acquired all the money and all the property possible. Created at the height of the American Depression, it’s easily one of the world’s all-time most popular board games.
 
How do we account for the fact that the theme of personal domination makes for such well-loved games? Could it be that one of our primal human instincts is titillated when we obtain utter mastery over others, even if it leads to their ruination? MONOPOLY™ has outsold all other board games of its kind with estimated sales of over 250 million copies. We all apparently love to rule over others. This would be just a curious observation but for the fact that a real-life MONOPOLY™ game is going on in most of the world. Much of the property in cities of the developing world is either wholly owned by or under the control of powerful families (or the corporations the families own). Other property is under the control of the “government,” which in some cases amounts to little more than a family-run business. For the world’s poor, the MONOPOLY™ board has been set and the property has been doled out to others. They will live their entire lives paying rent to the few who own everything.
 
The government of Cambodia, for instance, is parceling up the land on which the poor live and selling it to the highest bidder. Developers are betting that the tourist industry in Cambodia will grow. As of April 2008, 45 percent of the land mass of Cambodia had been sold. The poor (and the middle class, for that matter) have no real chance to purchase this land. Wealthy individuals and developers are not only able to come up with the cash required to purchase the property, they’re also willing to pay for the prostitutes needed to “service” the government officials and throw the parties that will enable the sales to go through.
 
Economists like Hernado De Soto believe that without the ability to legally own a piece of property, the landless poor are destined to live in perpetual desperation. They are locked out of MONOPOLY™ and serve only as income generators—“rent payers”—for those who own the board, until it becomes more convenient to kick them out.
 
If the property of billions of people is in the hands of a few game-winners intoxicated by the idea of winning at all costs, where is the hope for those who have been born losers?
 
The hope for the world lies in meekness. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). The reason that the meek will inherit the earth is that they are naturally disposed to use power in the way it was designed by God to be used—as a guard for the weak and to preserve the common good—in contrast to those possessing MONOPOLY™ power, who consolidate wealth and status in a single set of hands at the expense of everyone else. Notice that the Beatitude from Matthew 5 does not say that the meek will conquer the earth or take over the earth. They will inherit it. It’s a trust given to them by their Father.
 
Wielding power with meekness is part of the design for humanity. It is the means by which the cosmos can operate most effectively. And for the person at peace with themselves and with God, meekness is a natural impulse, a quality which emerges because the ego is not hungry. But when we’re insecure, when we fear the slippage of our position, our deeply engrained broken desires come to life, clamoring for money, status and power even if it means crushing those around us. As the apostle Paul said, “Those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains” (1 Timothy 6:9-10).
 
Meekness is the state of the healthy human freed from those “senseless and harmful desires,” freed from the fear of losing. The meek are able, like Jean Vanier and Henri Nouwen, to leave their jobs at the height of their careers to care for severely developmentally disabled adults. The meek will gravitate to those whom the world discards—whether the poor, the disabled, the homeless or the socially leprous—not simply out of compassion, but because they know there is much to learn from the broken. The meek are magnets for children because they are like children in some ways; they have that remarkable ability to embrace innocence without becoming ignorant of evil.
 
Meekness comes when the soul is at rest, and when given power to rule the earth, the meek will create a dominion that will subvert the self-oriented MONOPOLY™ world. But becoming meek requires dying, which is why so few of us actively pursue meekness.

Do Good. Subdue Evil

“Never pay back evil with more evil … Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good.” Romans 12:17-21 (NLT)
 
When one of my brothers hit me as a kid, I usually hit back (if I could catch them). I am sure I did my share of initiating as well. The funny thing was that I never wanted to hit them back less hard than they hit me. In fact, just to be certain that I hit them back at least as hard as they hit me, I would usually give the punch as much gusto as possible. I never wanted to under hurt. That tendency is why victims are not allowed to serve as judge or jury in the crimes commited against them. You might call it retaliation inflation.
 
Retaliatory violence is rarely lighter than the original violence committed. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek and when Paul urged us never to pay back evil for evil they were placing a check on our tendency to pay people who harm us back with just a tad more oomph than they used to hurt us. Retaliation is a form of exalting evil, a kind of Satan worship; a celebration of violence.
 
As a school kid I was pretty low on the popularity pecking order. I was short and shy – a dangerous combination in junior high and high school. One day Jimmy, a kid much taller but also unpopular, announced on the bus ride home to everyone that he would fight me at the bus stop. This, I assume, was to attempt to increase his status if only a little.
 
I was mortified. I didn’t want to fight Jimmy. Besides, I knew I could not win. So when he started pushing me a crowd gathered around. I sheepishly said I wasn’t going to fight him. He simply kept knocking me down and hitting me each time I got back up. Still, I refused to hit him back, more out of conviction that I’d never win than out of a noble sense of turning the other cheek.
 
The funny thing was that when it was all said and done Jimmy was the one who walked away totally humiliated, as if he were unable to even beat up a pipsqueak like me. He never had the satisfaction of proving his physical superiority because I never hit him back.
 
There is beautiful power in non-violent, non-compliance. Evil, abuse and oppression is exposed for what it is when the little guy does not fight back. There may be times when it is appropriate to remove yourself from a situation of oppression, but to fight fire with fire often simply solidifies and justifies the decision of the oppressor to use force.
 
Paul and Jesus go a step further than non-violence. They endorse the violence of love in the face of evil. When a Roman soldier pressed you into service, he was prohibited from forcing you to carry his gear beyond one mile. To carry it for two was to say, “I don’t carry your gear because I have to or because I am afraid of you. I carry it out of love, and because my Emperor’s rule of two miles trumps your Emperor’s rule of one mile.”
 
A story is told of a couple, who after years of trying to have children, finally bear a son as they enter their early forties. Their young son is the pride of their lives and cherished beyond imagining. At five years old the boy is brutalized and murdered by a mentally ill and tormented young man. Retaliation would be for this couple to kill the man. Justice would be for the man to be tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law. Mercy would be for the couple to forgive the man. But Paul and Jesus suggest a way of love and grace which goes beyond justice and beyond mercy. The way of grace is when the couple adopts the young man as their son and seeks his restoration and healing.
 
This kind of grace has a way of not simply preventing evil from infecting and poisoning us to become evil ourselves, but is a way of overcoming, overpowering and subjugating evil through outrageous, even offensive, good.

Can "The Gospel" Be Lived?

Hi Scott,
 
Two years ago, I took some time to study the word "gospel" as it is used in the Bible.  I started out by reading the four gospels themselves, making particular note of any reference to the gospel in word or intent.  Then I did a word search and looked at all of the verses in the Bible which contain that word.  (There are fewer than 100 and surprisingly, none at all in the book of John.)  I think I started this study because I heard you and others using the word "gospel" to mean something broader than the understanding I had always held.  Maybe I was missing something.  It wouldn't be the first time.  There have been lots of narrow views that I held as a young believer attending a Baptist church which I later rejected or expanded. 
 
This time, however, I concluded that the narrow definition is best.  The gospel is simply the good news that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." (1Tim 1:15)  I find no Biblical evidence that our particular gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ, is anything other than this. 
 
A very consistent pairing of words found in the Bible is "preach" and "gospel."  The gospel is preached.  It is a message.  You preach the gospel, you don't live the gospel.  That word pairing, "live" and "gospel," is not found in any meaningful way in the Bible.  To be sure, we should live "in light of" the gospel message.  But if that's what you mean, then say it that way.  Saying that we should "live the gospel" is just confusing and an invitation to misunderstand.
 
There is no "whole gospel" that is somehow more inclusive than the meaning found in 1 Timothy (and every other Biblical reference I could find.)  Again, this word pairing is not found in the Bible, and again, its use just invites confusion.
 
Feeding the poor is not the gospel.  "Feeding the poor" is feeding the poor!  Let's use accurate language.  Pursuing justice is not the gospel.  Taking care of the environment is not the gospel.  But saying this in no way diminishes the importance of these things.  The sheer volume of admonitions from Jesus to take care of the poor makes it imperative.  Clearly God loves justice.  I'm a big fan of creation care. But resist the temptation to call these things "the gospel."  They are not!  These thing are important in their own right.  There's no need to infuse importance by attaching the word "gospel" to them.
 
Want to get together for coffee sometime?
 
Rick.
 -----
 
Thanks, Rick, for the thoughtful engagement around the word “gospel.”
 
I agree, by definition, “news” is not a verb and it is not lived, it is broadcast or announced. What I suppose I find myself resisting is the reduction of that “news” into four spiritual laws which have an exclusively individualistic focus. To me the news which is good enough to herald has more expansive implications than simply being rescued from Hell.
 
1.       Gospel and kingdom are paired in at least 9 sections of scripture. That is to say that this good news is about a realm, a dominion, a kingdom. And while it is true we cannot speak of the kingdom without reference to the King, it would be short-sighted to ignore the scope of this news. If we want to count references (which we probably don’t) “kingdom” is referred to by Jesus far more than “gospel” (“gospel” shows up 9 times in the Gospels while “kingdom” shows up 116 times).
2.       This kingdom so worth proclaiming and even losing your life for belongs in some special and particular way to the poor. And while the sermon on the mount reference, “blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom”, likely refers to a poverty of spirit, it most certainly cannot be divorced from those who experience a poverty of body (the lame, blind, etc) and a poverty of resources (the materially poor). We cannot avoid the centrality that the poor occupy in this kingdom announced by, and ushered in by Christ.
3.       The scripture Jesus probably refers to when he re-coined the term “good news” in his teaching is Isaiah. 61:1 “The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners.” This proclamation, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4, was not only particularly good news to the poor but involved broken hearts being healed, captives being freed, and prisoners coming out of darkness. These would have been understood with both literal and metaphoric power.
4.       Jesus talks about losing one’s life “for the gospel” and Paul speaks of being in chains “for the gospel.” Interesting that this particular phrasing does not necessarily say losing one’s life for preaching the gospel, but that aside, the gospel must certainly have implications beyond a privatized and personalized response to such a point that it endangers those who “obey the gospel” (another iteration which may not involve preaching).
 
While I will concede that the technical definition of “gospel” is something one heralds, I grieve that the understanding of this good news of a dawning kingdom has been reduced to an individualistic, consumeristic, privitized, personal relationship with Jesus (a particular understanding of “gospel” which I think I could argue has been popularized only in the past couple hundred years by a specific wing of western Protestantism). It has become for many a gospel of self absorption, not a gospel of the absolute reign of Christ over “all things” systems and individuals included.
 
Yes! Let’s do coffee.
 
Scott
-----
 
Hey Scott
 
You make some really good points, particularly about the kingdom.  The "gospel of the kingdom" is a phrase used by both Matthew and Luke and that concept is expressed elsewhere as well.  I also agree with you that the "life insurance" view of the gospel which has been popularized over the past century is inadequate, even dangerously inaccurate.  I continue to maintain that for the sake of effective communication, it's important for us to define and distinguish between "the gospel" and "the implications of the gospel."  However, let me propose a definition that's a bit more robust than what I previously implied:
 
I believe that the gospel is the good news that Jesus came to die for sins, to establish His kingdom, and to redeem creation.
 
It's always great to talk with you, Scott.
 
Rick 

The Poor You Will Always Have With You

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
 
Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
 
"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me” (Mark 14:3-7).
 
For someone who speaks and writes regularly about Jesus’ heart for the poor and about the powerful connection between “true religion” and our generosity toward the poor, this is an uncomfortable passage. Was Jesus saying that our compassionate giving to the poor doesn’t really make any difference in solving the problem of poverty? Was he suggesting that we resign ourselves to the permanence of poverty?
 
Before getting too far into understanding what Jesus may have meant, let me simply say that I believe poverty is less a failure of money as it is a failure of love.
 
As much as I grieve the hemorrhaging of money out of poor communities and into the pockets of the rich, as difficult as it is for me to see the incredible pressure that keeps the world’s lowest wages at unlivable levels, and as useful as it may be to stimulate economic growth among the poor, I simply do not believe the chief problem with poverty is money.
 
One of the problems exacerbating poverty, however, is most certainly greed – which has very little to do with money. Greed is a sickness. It is an itch which is never satisfied. Greed is not as much about money as it is about the “love of money,” which Paul says causes us to wander from the faith and pierce ourselves with many griefs (I Tim. 6:10). Greed is the act of rejecting God as master in favor of another (Luke 16:13). Greed is spiritual, not material.
 
When Jesus asked the rich, young ruler in Mark 10 to sell all he had, give it to the poor and come follow him, Jesus was not attempting to solve poverty, he was attempting to cure this young man of the greed that had killed his soul. He was trying to resuscitate his spirit and give him real life.
 
Money has the power to trap us but it does not have the power to truly free us. A solution to poverty may include the need to re-think economics, but the end of poverty will not be rooted in the growth of economies but in the growth of love.
 
So given that poverty and greed are spiritual more than material, let’s look again at Jesus’ statement.
 
  1. The context of this passage was the fleeting, physical presence of Jesus Christ on earth just before his death and resurrection. The focus of the passage is centered on worship not poverty and wealth. If his second coming included his physical appearance at my house for dinner, and if I were privileged to pour him his first taste of wine since the last supper, I would not hesitate to spend my retirement savings for a bottle of 1945 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild Jeroboam.
  2. His statement was in response to the berating this woman received, particularly from Judas who was greedy for the money this perfume might have fetched to line his own pockets (John 12). He was defending this woman’s act of worship. Perhaps he was suggesting that our acts of worship would be to pour our alabaster jars of perfume upon the heads of the poor after his ascension, essentially saying, “This woman has done a beautiful thing to me now while I am physically present, you will have many chances to do beautiful things to me later when I am present in the form of the poor.”
  3. Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 15. This is a stunning Old Testament passage which says both, “You should have no poor among you,” v. 4, and “There will always be poor people in the land,” v. 11. God set up an economic system that, if followed, would make poverty virtually unheard of. The acknowledgement in verse 11 that there would always be poor in the land is either a prophetic denouncement that Israel would never fully obey the commands, or that the flourishing nation would be so economically solid that it would attract the poor from the nations around them. Either way, in his quote Jesus harkens to a passage which essentially says that poverty was never meant to be a thriving condition among God’s people.
Just because it may not be possible to eradicate all sexual aberration from earth does not mean that child prostitution is acceptable and cannot be made a bizarre and rare occurrence, or that we should accept it and not work towards its end. Can we eradicate greed from humanity? Probably not. Can we create a world where it is hard to get into poverty and easy to get out? With God’s help I believe we can.
 
Jesus was not saying that we must accept poverty as normal and OK, he was reminding us of the primacy of worship and calling us back to the Deuteronomic blessing of living out God’s commands for Jubilee, forgiveness of debt, and generosity toward those in need.

Why the Church is Full of Sickies

I sat next to a man on a plane once reading, Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays …by Bertrand Russell. I leaned over and asked, “Does Bertrand Russell provide a compelling argument?”

The man looked up a little surprised and said, “Yes, actually. He is pretty compelling.”
 
I further inquired, “Are some of his main arguments against Christianity really more focused on Christian followers than on the person of Christ.”
 
“Yeah.” He replied. “The reason he’s not a Christian has as much to do with the Church as with anything else.”
 
In fact in his essay (originally a talk given in 1927 to the National Secular Society in London) he says, “I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do.” Russell goes on to cite how Christians do not really believe the “turn the other cheek” teaching of Christ (Russell was a strict pacifist) and then lists other ways Christians don’t really take seriously Jesus’ teachings on providing for the poor or not judging others
 
“Humph,” I grunted in agreement. “Yeah, Jesus certainly does attract messed up people to Himself. He said that he came for the sick and not for the healthy, so I guess that’s why the Church is so full of sick and broken people.”
 
The fact of the matter is that more jerks enter the faith than well-put-together people. I’m talking about people with serious issues. Not only is the church full of them but the Bible is as well! Abraham was a liar, Moses was a murdering hothead, David was a womanizer, the apostles all had issues (even Jesus’ very own great, great, great, etc. grandmother was a prostitute). Who would make up such stuff? The Bible is so full of such incredibly flawed people that one of the reasons I am a Christian is that ancient near eastern mythology would never invent people like Abraham, Moses, David, Rahab, Peter as heroes unless there was some kind of objective historicity to them.
 
The Church is full of sickies. But the fact that there are seriously flawed people following Jesus (I include myself here) should not be so disturbing to us. In some ways it makes a lot of sense that only those who are struggling, messed up, and hungry for wholeness manage to limp our way to Jesus and enter into his big, fat, dysfunctional family. We should expect a Church with a decided lack of emotionally whole, socially adroit, intellectual geniuses who have no need of a Savior. What is missing from the Church sometimes is our ability to admit that we are all broken beggars clinging to a mysterious Savior whom we understand imperfectly and follow even less perfectly.
 
So for all the flawed people out there who have avoided the Church because Jesus’ followers seem so … so … well twisted, I welcome your own bent, messed up soul into this company of followers as we seek simply to draw near to and love with our sick, twisted hearts the only Unbent One I know of.

IV. Poverty: Not in History's Culmination

(You may want to check out Part I, Part II, and Part III

Except for an infinitesimal pocket of humanity (almost exclusively in the west and mainly in the last few hundred years) men and women in every era and on every continent have known that there is some kind of life after death. From the beginning of the human experience, archaeologists tell us that we humans have always been deeply convinced of the hereafter.

When God came to earth in the man Jesus Christ, he spoke a fair bit about “eternal life,” and about the “age to come.” While there is plenty of mystery surrounding the specifics of this place and time, one thing is clear – at some point at the culmination of history, God and people will live together in a way we have not known … at least not for a very long time. One of the final verses of the Bible puts it this way:
 
"Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev. 21:3-4).
 
In this place where lion and lamb lie down together, where the tree of life gives leaves which heal nations, where a river of life flows from the throne of God; there is no slum, there is no homelessness, there is no child labor, no sex trafficking. It is a place of shalom. When God redeems all things at history’s culmination, there will be no poverty.
 
There was no poverty in creation. And even in our fallen world, God set up a government in Old Testament Israel in such a way that “there should be no poor among you.” (Deut. 15:4). When the followers of Jesus first came together after Jesus had risen from the dead “there were no needy people among them,” (Acts 4:34). And in the picture of “the age to come” we see a place where “children will not be doomed to misfortune,” (Is. 65:23).
 
So if poverty was not part of the design for the universe, if God created structures among his people in both old and new testaments to eradicate it (or at least make it very rare), and if God’s kingdom to come does not tolerate poverty, then why do God’s people accept it today as if it is something we just have to get used to? Is God OK with half of humanity living on less than $2.50 per day and 25,000 children dying each day because they simply lack the dignity of daily bread?
 
Let me assure you that poverty is not OK with God. A twelve-year-old girl, forced because of poverty to have sex with ten guys a day is not OK with God. Poverty so deep that entire communities must live off the garbage of others is not OK with God. Poverty is an offense to God, it is an offense to creation and it ought to be an offense to us. And until his kingdom has come and his will is done on earth as it is in heaven poverty should not be tolerated.

Predestined to Hunger, Homelessness and Hardship

I have opportunity to speak pretty regularly, mostly to highly educated, relatively rich young people. It’s always a little unnerving to see people nodding off as you speak, but I’ve come to expect it … except when speaking in certain contexts. By far and away the most attentive audiences I’ve ever spoken to have been inmates in a maximum security prison. Extremely alert, engaged and respectful. Would that all wealthy, educated, upstanding, church-goers have the passion for God and his word like a murderer serving a life sentence.

Last night I attended a Bible study at a homeless shelter in San Jose, CA led by my friend Andy Singleterry. One of the things I love about people who have lived on the streets (like people doing time in prison) is their sincere spirituality, their love of God and their knowledge of his word. Many of the homeless I’ve had the privilege of interacting with can quote vast bodies of Scripture backwards and forwards. I guess there is something about life in jail or on the streets that draws a person to the feet of a Homeless Convict who didn’t have a chance to serve time because of the speed with which he was executed by the State.
 
A theology I find common among the faithful, believing poor, however, is a view of God’s sovereignty which is frightfully all-encompassing. Last night, a guy named Eric said it pretty clearly, “I got the lottery to stay in the shelter tonight.[1] That’s God’s hand. And when I don’t, well that’s God’s hand too.” Herbie, who had just been released from prison 24 hours earlier and whose Bible looked as worn as he did agreed, launching into a sermonette on predestination. Sanni chimed in as well. All of them stirring one another up with the idea that God ordains everything that happens, even if its prison or street life (I must concede here the one guy who didn’t chime in was Cotton. He slept contentedly in his chair the entire time just like a college student in one of my talks. However his slumber was likely brought on by days of sleeping in 45 degree weather on a wet sidewalk).
 
The disturbing thing about so many of my poor friends and acquaintances is that they believe that their hunger, homelessness and hardship are part of God’s will for them. He’s in control of everything, so they receive with poise their “lot” even if it includes a wet sidewalk instead of a shelter bed (or a home for that matter).
 
It’s true that many of the poor face hardship because of a complex mix of circumstances – some circumstances which they contribute to and many other circumstances which were foisted upon them. The majority of the world’s poor are poor because they were born losers - that is, poverty and instability were the birthright they inherited the moment they took their first breath, and they have remained poor because the inertia required to break out is simply too great or requires the alignment of too many things outside their control – especially in the developing world. Things like access to health care, education, employment, transportation, etc. are simply not available to them. And I would guess that some of my acquaintances around the table last night were born into family situations, environments, and systems which actively worked toward their impoverishment and which very few of us coming from places of immense opportunity, stability and relative fortune can comprehend.
 
I don’t necessarily hear the poor dismissing their part in their circumstances (though denial of our part in the messes we make is a natural impulse of rich and poor alike). Some of the poor I find extremely humble, owning way too much of the responsibility for their hardship. For people like Eric to say that his street life must be part of God’s mysterious plan, that God must have ordained things like a father’s abandonment, lack of adequate health care as a kid, an uncle’s abuse, mental illness, etc – this may be the safest theology when suffering, but it smacks of falsehood and being overly-simplistic.
 
When predestination is mixed with poverty and suffering it produces acquiescence to the malevolent powers at work in this world and inside us which keep us stuck. It seems to me that God’s intentions for us are far greater than our theologies will allow us to believe. What does his kingdom coming to earth look like for the poor, the prisoner and the homeless, and why would Jesus charge us to pray for and strive for his kingdom and his justice/righteousness on earth if his perfect and mysterious will was really for people to be stuck for years sleeping on wet sidewalks.


[1] Shelter beds are at a premium in the winter. Homeless essentially put their names in a hat to see who gets to sleep on a mattress in the shelter and who gets to sleep outside another night.

Can We Change the World Without God?

   

When you survey the wondrous and tragic history of the human drama on planet earth, it is overwhelming to recount all of the individuals who have contributed positively to human advance. Agriculture, music, engineering, art, political science, mathematics, medicine, genetics, zoology, literature … they each have their own very large “halls of fame” filled with people from different continents and eras and coming from different faiths, worldviews and cultures. Daniel Boorstin in his books, The Creators and The Discoverers writes sweeping accounts of the thousands of years and the hundreds of persons who have contributed to our life together as humans.
 
It is interesting to consider what part faith in Jesus Christ makes, if any, in bringing about positive change for humanity. Are the contributions of Einstein, Edison, Benjamin Franklin or Freud rendered null because they were atheists or agnostics? I don’t know about you, but I still love the effect of flipping on a light switch along with the various forms of energy harnessed because of atheists like these. The above list represents just a few modern, western atheistic inventors, and says nothing of the Arab, Asian, Latin American or African creators and discoverers who added something to human flourishing without a belief in Christ as savior.
 
Of course the list of contributors motivated by their Christian faith is quite impressive as well: Michael Faraday (speaking of electric energy), Louis Pasteur, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, not to mention the Arab (i.e. Charles Malik), Asian (i.e. Watchman Nee), Latin American (i.e. Oscar Romero) or African (i.e. Desmond Tutu) followers of Jesus who have added to human flourishing.
 
Because every human bears the marks of a Creator who infused us with ingenuity, artistry, imagination, governance and creativity – whether they believe in him or not – the propensity for humans to contribute to their own flourishing is simply a reflection of the fact that we were made in the image of a God who loves to make things which flourish. We have much to gain from atheists like Pavlov or Hawking, and I am thankful for the myriad clever, compassionate, God-hating (or sometimes just Church-hating) men and women who give themselves to serve to the poor and marginalized or advance the general well-being of our planet and her inhabitants.
 
So is there any benefit in knowing Jesus as friend, master, and teacher when bringing about global change?
 
The Hope Catalyst: One of the most pernicious scourges of humanity, especially among the poor, is despair. Despair is a spiritual condition, and its primary manifestation is apathy towards ones own welfare and the welfare of others. Hope is the only cure for despair and requires something more than wishful thinking. Hope must be grounded in truth. For me the truth of God’s love, incarnate in the man Jesus, and God’s promise to be with us in our trials and sufferings makes a difference. Aligning ourselves with the Creator brings power to confront evil and to right wrongs. Hope – a conviction about God’s love and a future of redemption – is the catalytic power behind a change agent.
 
The Ear of God and the Mind of Christ: There is something about communion that positively infects the Christian thinker, artist, writer, scientist and aid worker. I’m not necessarily talking about the Eucharist, though this is a picture of what I mean. I am talking about that place of intimacy with the Divine. That God invites us into fellowship, that Christ calls us to consume him, that each believer is possessed by the Holy Spirit – these things make the Christian more than flesh and bone. We have God’s ear in this Divine – human romance, and access to a kind of wisdom that confounds human wisdom. There is a mystical beauty in being united to God which bodies like the UN or people like Stephen Hawking do not understand and it affects how we interact with the world and expands what we have to offer an ailing humanity.
 
The Perseverance of Faith: I know Christians who have reached places of burnout or become jaded … I’ve danced pretty close to that line myself. But there is something about the believer’s access to Sabbath rest that I often do not see in the lives of others. Some studies suggest that half of returning NGO workers suffer pretty serious burnout, depression or post traumatic stress disorder. For Mother Teresa and the Sisters of Charity and for the New Friars whom I hang with, there is a qualitative difference in their devotional focus which gives many of them staying power in some pretty awful situations. It has something to do with their ability to get alone with Jesus, allowing him to replenish them. It is as if there is a kind of water available in Christ that quenches a thirst for justice and righteousness and satisfies a tired soul.
 
Can we change the world without Jesus? Yes. Can we bring the kingdom without the King? No. The kind of change I want to see involves giving hope to the hopeless. It requires the sort of thinking and problem solving that rises out of meekness and divine wisdom. It requires the power to stay with a difficult situation without growing weary. Many good things have come from God’s image bearers who do not believe he exists. But true transformation must have a spiritual dimension – and as someone who believes in a singular, intelligent Creator who made a way for the world to climb out of our mess through his Son, I do not see real transformation coming from anywhere else but him.

The Advocacy Gene

 

There are a number of places in scripture where the worship of God’s people is odious to God because of injustice in their midst. Amos says “Take away from me the noise of your songs … but let justice roll down like waters.” (Amos 5:25), and God says through Isaiah, “Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts … I want no more of your pious meetings (Is. 1:13 NLT). His remedy for their useless worship gatherings is advocacy:
 
“learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17 NRSV, see also Jeremiah 5:28)

 
Advocacy is in the DNA of those who know and love God. We see the advocate posture in many Biblical stories – Esther, Moses, Daniel – all of whom stood before powerful kings to advocate for an oppressed people. Part of the reason that advocacy is a “genetic predisposition” of God’s people, is because advocacy is one of the chief characteristics of God himself. King David says of God “He is my advocate and will deliver me ...” (I Sam 24:15 NLT), Christ is described as “an advocate who pleads our case before the Father” (I John 2:1 NLT), and the Holy Spirit is actually named “Advocate” (paraclete Gk).
 
The form of government designed by God in the Old Testament was essentially just a judicial branch. People were to be governed by wise judges who could guard the weak and powerless and ensure the common good, and average citizens were adjured, “do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd” when testifying before a judge (Ex. 23:2). It is not surprising, then, that defending those who are oppressed – advocacy in its purest form – is a basic Christian discipline.
 
Clement, an early church father, praised the Corinthian church because members of the church were selling themselves into slavery and using the proceeds to purchase the freedom of others. And early Moravian missionaries thought that the best way to bring good news to African slaves in the West Indies was to sell themselves into slavery alongside them. While these acts do not exemplify addressing systemic change, they do display how some Christians have understood our calling to stand with the dispossessed. If we have the Spirit of God inside us, we will take on the nature of the One who delivers from oppression.
 
My friends in Vancouver held a Pirates of Justice flash mob at a port where cruise ships dock. They wanted to call attention to the exploitation of cruise ship workers. For them, this was as natural a Christian discipline as reading the Bible or fasting.
 
How do we grow the spiritual practice of advocacy and deliverance without becoming mired in politics or developing a messiah complex? Some young people working for World Vision helped spawn a youth movement called act:s  which is designed to mobilize young adults to engage global poverty. They, along with International Justice Mission and Sojourners, are working to animate the spiritual genetics of justice, deliverance and advocacy at Urbana 09. One way to discover how to properly engage oppressive situations is to enter into dialogue with those who are attempting to walk it out – even if imperfectly.
 
The desire to live out an advocacy calling is simply an expression of acceptable worship. It is an attempt to grow into our spiritual lineage so that we look more like the God in whose image we were made.
 
“Father to the fatherless, defender of widows— this is God, whose dwelling is holy. God places the lonely in families; he sets the prisoners free and gives them joy. But he makes the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.” Psalms 68:5-6 (NLT)

 

The Safe Display of the Rare and the Strange

A circus came through town
Among the feats of fantastical danger and the acrobatical, body-bending wonders
Beyond the animals, dizzying themselves with their caged pacing
and past the stand selling roasted peanuts and hard striped candy
was a tent boasting the rare and the strange within
and for fifty cents you could see it all.
The rare and the strange
on display
so we can gawk in safety.
 
Inside were little tarpaulin rooms
marked by words begging wondrous stares to peer behind the curtains
“Amazing! Man with two heads,” read one placard
Past the curtain sat a man with a round hairy growth on his neck
and when he moved, the thing on his neck rolled from one side to the next
like a drunk unable to keep his head upright
drawing the attention of onlookers who love to see
the rare and the strange
on display
so we can gawk in safety.
 
Across from the two-headed man
another sign seduced the crowd,
“Captured from the Amazon – half monkey half woman!”
Past the curtain was a glass coffin
and the people who gathered looked on in bemused horror
The thing inside was dead, covered in hair
And one couldn’t really tell if it were man or woman
Still, the sight did not disappoint the morbidly curious
who’d come to see
the rare and the strange
on display
so we can gawk in safety.
 
Next to this room was another sign
“Unbelievable power!
The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven!”
We looked expecting to see a preacher who fills stadiums
or the bones of a saint
Behind the curtain was a little girl of seven or eight
dressed in a tattered, dirty white dress with puffy sleeves.
She was black as Iowa dirt, and shuffled on a clubbed foot.
She looked up from the rags and rubbish she sorted with innocence and excitement
Peering at those who had come to see
the rare and the strange
on display
so we can gawk in safety.

More Entries

Disclaimer: These blogs are the words of the writers and do not represent InterVarsity or Urbana. The same is true of any comments which may be posted about any blog entries. Submitted comments may or may not be posted within the blog, at the bloggers' discretion.

learn. be. go. serve. ask.

 

"Praise the Lord, all you nations! Extol him, all you peoples!"

Psalm 117:1 (NIV)

 
 

Urbana Stories

“Urbana 90 was more than a success, it has challenged me to be more committed to Jesus Christ than ever...”

read more

share your story

 

Books by Scott Bessenecker:
The New Friars: The Emerging Movement Serving the World's Poor

How to Inherit the Earth