Only God Knows the Truth

“What is truth?” That is the question. Long after Pontius Pilate asked that question of a wandering rabbi from Nazareth, the answer still evades us. The writer of the Gospel of John tells us that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We capitalize those words because we, Christians at least, believe that Jesus provides us with a Truth that is somehow ultimate.

But sadly, even Christians disagree on Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” How else do we explain the existence of various denominations except that we have defined our “truths” differently? The religious soil of the U.S. has proven amazingly fertile in the propagation of diverse spiritual experiences, expressions and faith communities. But proclaiming one Truth to unite us all has been incredibly difficult. The non-believing world holds Christians at a distance in part because we can’t get our “truths” together. And well did Jesus foresee this problem when he prayed for the disciples that they might be “one that the world would believe (John 17:20-23).” Until we get at the capital “T,” Truth, the world is still going to have problems with us Christians.

Not only is the definition of Truth a problem for world evangelization, but it is also a problem in human relationships. On the mega-scale, we have Glenn Beck rallying in Washington declaring a revival of the meaning of civil rights. On the same day in the same city we have the Rev. Al Sharpton defining civil rights very differently. Both men claim the name of Jesus as Savior. But who speaks the Truth?

I suspect only God knows, and I am guessing that absolute Truth may be something we will have to wait on. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13, “Now we see in a mirror dimly, then we shall see face to face. Now I understand in part, then I shall fully understand, even as I have been fully understood.” The key phrase there is, “as I have been fully understood.” God knows what’s True, even when our perception of Truth is distorted.

So, there is great comfort for me when I sing the old spiritual, “In the midst of faults and failures, stand by me . . .When I’ve done the best I can, and my friends misunderstand. Thou who knowest all about me, stand by me.” After all, there is my truth, and there is your truth, and if we disagree, what are we to do? To quote another soulful song, “There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy. There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”

God knows our hearts. We have our own perceptions, and sometimes we are fooling nobody but ourselves. Only God knows the Big Truth of the human condition, and only God knows what is really true about us. When we are so sure we are right, that’s the first warning sign that we could stand some humility.

We can only make it in this world with a lot of empathy and forgiveness and humility as we await the day when “we shall fully understand as we have been fully understood.” Meanwhile, we can try to be a little less arrogant and a little more merciful, and that’s the Truth we can live with.

Dr. Laura's Gaffe

First a disclaimer, I never listen to Dr. Laura's radio show. Whenever I have scanned over it in the past I have never lingered. I am no fan. Nor am I a fan of political correctness (PC). I defend a person's right to speak the truth, without the verbal gymnastics that our current PC climate seems to necessitate.

Still, I believe one can speak the truth with sensitivity. One can speak the truth with respect for others. One can speak the "truth in love," to be Biblical (Ephesians 4:15). The context of that passage of scripture might help Dr. Laura, and the rest of us, to use our right of free speech with greater grace.

The writer is urging us toward spiritual maturity, to aim toward the "stature of Christ," so that we may "grow up in every way into him who is the head." So, as Americans, we may feel like we have the right to say whatever is on our mind, but even that right is subject to limitations. One can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater unless, of course, there really is a fire. Several kinds of "hate speech," are against the law in this country. So, to paraphrase a popular modern slogan, "Freedom (of speech) is not free." Speaking the "n" word has consequences.

Then, how does Christian faith empower, or limit, the kind of speech we use? How does our imperative to love one another affect the way we speak the truth? I would argue that our speech becomes both more critical, in the prophetic sense of the word, but also more gracious. More critical because we are compelled by our righteous God to identify the "powers and principalities," and to demand justice and integrity in all of society. More gracious because we are a people aware of our own shortcomings (read as "sin"), and thus demonstrating empathy for others.

So, what would I say to Dr. Laura, not that she'll ever read this blog which has a following of less than a handful of readers? I would probably say, "Conduct yourself wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone (Colossians 4:5-6)."

One last thing - the other night Dr. Laura was interviewed by Larry King. She said she is closing her radio show so she can say what she wants "without people getting angry." Good luck with that one. The Dixie Chicks have already learned that free speech carries consequences, including anger, loss of popularity and income. And as a preacher who speaks semi-publicly every Sunday, I have learned that almost any kind of speech, even what seems most benign, will make someone angry. And if you're telling the truth, especially The Truth, the powers and principalities might even crucify you.

Blurring the Line between Sacred and Secular

A recent interview with Stephen Mansfield, popular author who has written books about the faith of both Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama, delves into the subject of his latest book, "God and Guinness," in which he explores the life of the Guinness family, whose fortune was made in brewing beer, and their attempts to integrate their faith with the way they lived their lives and ran their business, particularly as Christians within the Wesleyan tradition.

Mansfield says of Arthur Guinness, that he "was unusual in that he absorbed [John]Wesley’s social teaching very deeply and lived it out more radically than most. He took care of the poor, started hospitals and ran his company in a way that was radical -- paying 20 percent more for salaries than most other people and providing benefits to his employees that would challenge the accomplishments of Microsoft and Google today."

Those who wonder about the congruence of Christian principles and brewing beer need to understand the historical context. In the 1600's, clean water was unattainable. The options were between water which could make one sick, or wine or hard liquor. Home-brewed gin was a scourge. Alcoholism was rampant, as were water-borne illnesses. By contrast, "beer was healthy. It had a variety of B-complex vitamins. It was lower in alcohol content than the other drinks. It was more nutritious in every way. To answer this scourge of alcoholism, social reformers began to brew and encourage drinking beer. By the time Arthur Guinness came along, the brewing of beer was seen as a positive factor in society."

The Guinness company has continued the tradition of public service, instituting programs contributing to the public health of Dublin, Ireland. They have eschewed the modern corporate mantra of "profit at all costs," continuing to be a model for the equitable treatment of workers and being a good corporate citizen.

As a life-long teetotaler, I am nevertheless inspired by the example of Arthur Guinness and his ability to merge faith and life. May we all strive to do the same, that we might blur the lines, in a good way, between what is sacred and what is secular.

The Everyday Hero

Tom Hanks is the kind of actor labeled as "everyman." He's the kind of actor who appeals to men and women, with whom anyone can identify in some way, similar to the way Jimmy Stewart was for a previous generation. What is heroic about the characters these men played is not their extraordinariness, but the way in which in mostly ordinary circumstances they seemed to survive and thrive. Among women actors, I think of Helen Hunt in her role as a mother/waitress in "As Good as it Gets." These characters make us think, "I hope I could be like that." Just ordinary, everyday heroes.

I acknowledge the everyday hero. The woman who gets up each day and stirs up her three sons and gets them all ready for school, making sure they get their breakfast eaten and their teeth brushed. There are enough stories told about negligent moms, so how about some kudos for the mom who perseveres through the never-ending loads of laundry, stacks of dishes, and refereeing constant sibling squabbles.

Let's hear it for the everyday hero. The father whose wife has decided her personal choices and freedom are more important than her children, leaving them to his care. I watch as he juggles the demands of working full-time while ferrying his children to daycare, or to grandma's, or to the doctor's office, or to piano lessons and dance and soccer . . . And cleaning up the house every night after the kids are in bed.

There is the grandmother who never anticipated raising her grandchildren, but when her own daughter dumps them on the doorstep and says, "I need you to take care of them for a while," and then disappears, what would you do? Well, the everyday heroic grandmother starts all over again, raising a new family, taking too much of the blame for her daughter's failures, and trying to do a better job this go 'round. She may be 65, or 75, with less energy than she once had, but these are children, after all, and they need love and care. So, she does the hard thing, the right thing, and takes up where she left off a generation before, God bless her.

Everyday heroes . . . they're sitting beside you in the pew, or at the restaurant. They don't seem extraordinary. The woman working a second job (which she hates more than her first job, which she also hates) so she can pay for her child's college education. The man who grinds his teeth through another awful day answering to a bully of a boss. Why does he put up with it? Because he has a family to support and that's more important to him than contentment in his work.

If you don't think these people I've described are heroic, then I think your perspective has been distorted by too many comic book or video game characters. Perhaps there is nothing more heroic than the person who you can count on, everyday, to do the right thing, to do the caring thing, to be there. Everyday heroes, who consistently put the needs of others ahead of their own, who love their neighbor as they love themselves. . . rather than just themselves.

I salute you everyday heroes. Tom Hanks or Helen Hunt would be fortunate to play your role.

The New Atheism

A new book was reviewed in the local paper this past weekend. It was an interview with five Protestant ministers who had lost their faith but were still leading their churches. The book was published by a group that is representative of a movement called "The New Atheism," which I understand to be a more assertive and organized effort by atheists to undermine the tenets of faith. The recent book achieves the goal that the authors wanted. It stirs the pot and gets people talking and wondering, "Gee, is my preacher faking it?"

I say, "Big deal." Five ministers who have lost their faith seems like a miniscule sampling compared to the tens of thousands who are out in the fields doing their work with integrity and perseverance. I have no hostility toward the "new atheists," nor am I threatened by them. I grieve for them that they feel compelled to undermine people of faith. I grieve for the five ministers and their congregations who are living a lie. But I celebrate the faithfulness of those churches and their leaders who keep true to their calling in word and deed in spite of the ridicule of culture.

In another century, a man of faith named Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote a book addressed to religion's "cultured despisers," in an attempt to win them over with the "reasonableness" of religion. It reminds me of the apostle Paul's address to the philosophers in Athens in Acts, Chapter 17. Paul met with little success there and you will note there are no letters from Paul to the church in Athens. Some folks, too sophisticated I suppose, are beyond convincing, but it didn't stop Paul from trying.

There was a time when I thought I was too sophisticated for religion. I had read Ayn Rand and a few others whose names, interestingly, I have forgotten, and became convinced by the "reasonableness" of their atheism. Then, some years later I re-read the Gospels and was so compelled by the life of Jesus and the "unreasonableness" of following him that I could not deny the call he made on me. Since then I have discovered scholars who are every bit as sophisticated as the most brilliant of atheists, and yet they see a life of faith as no contradiction to reason.

In any event, the life of Jesus continues to compell me, even beyond reason. There is something irrational about giving one's life for others, but there is a Truth to that way of living that goes beyond my ability to explain it, or to explain it away. I invite you to read the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whose names I have not forgotten, and see for yourself what is so compelling about the person named Jesus.

Psalms are for Psinging

The prayer book of God's people is the book of Psalms, located somewhere close to the middle of the Bible. Psalms are meant to be sung, but singing them meaningfully in modern melody can be a challenge. The meter and rhythm of Hebrew doesn’t always translate into tuneful contemporary songs in English. Still, there are some songs that have been made successfully out of many psalms. There are a number of wonderful hymns or songs based on the 23rd Psalm, for instance, and one of my new favorites is based on Psalm 63.

Someone has said, “the one who sings prays twice.” I don’t know if that rings true for you but it does for me. When the words of prayer and devotion are set to music in some creative or melodic way, my sense of connection to God seems deeper. Such a connection may simply be an emotional response to a tune that grabs me in some way, but then God did come in the flesh to be with us, so I don't discount emotions as an avenue for God to reach us. Some of the scripture I love best is that which I have sung in choirs or with congregations.

This Sunday I am struggling with Psalm 13 (and it is a psalm of struggle), a rather melancholy prayer lamenting God’s absence. Many of the psalms speak of a yearning for God, a longing that is often hard to satisfy. Popular Christian duo, Shane and Shane, have a wonderful interpretation of Psalm 13 which will keep it in my heart for the rest of my life. I recommend it as a resource for your own devotional life.

Another psalm which speaks of our longing for God, and which has been set to lovely melody is Psalm 42, “As a deer longs for the water, so my soul longs after you.” Praying the psalms can be a way of learning how to pray. Singing the psalms deepens prayer. I advise singing the psalms even if you can't carry a tune in a bucket. Give it a shot, and surround yourself with a singing community so they can make up for your lack of melodic confidence. Psalms are meant to be sung.

Church and State - Christ and Culture

Last week as I was preparing for this Sunday's sermon (The Fourth of July!), I was in tortured conversation with some of my preaching colleagues regarding the relationship between church and state. After an hour and a half of conversation, we were still unsettled, perhaps because it is an issue that can't be settled in this life.

I'm not speaking about "the establishment clause" in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I'm thinking about the broader context, the relationship between Christianity and culture, a concept explored in greater detail, and with deeper insight, by H. Richard Niebuhr in 1951 in his book, Christ and Culture. In this book, Niebuhr described five different ways the church has responded to culture, and elucidates the strengths and weaknesses of each position, without making a value judgment on each one.

I'll try to give a nutshell description of each one, and forgive my oversimplification:

Christ against Culture: This view is one of separatism and can be seen in monastic and sectarian groups such as the Amish. These see the only valid witness of Christian people as one of separation from culture.

Christ of Culture: This view is perhaps the opposite extreme to the more sectarian view - sees the will of Christ in harmony with the highest aspirations of humanity. This view was in great ascendancy during the triumphalism of 19th century Protestantism.

Christ above Culture: This view sees both harmony and disharmony in the relationship between Christ and culture, that the good in culture can be harnessed and ordered in Christ. The Catholic tradition often reflects this view.

Christ and Culture in Paradox: This view sees less harmony and more tension between the desires of Christ and the desires of Culture. There is a rightful role for the culture, but it is distinct from the role of the Christian and the church, and the Christian must never confuse the two. The Lutheran tradition exemplifies this view.

Christ transforming Culture: This view sees culture as sinful but affirms the regenerating effect of the gospel, shaping culture to Christian purposes. The Puritans held such a view, and in more recent history, so did the proponents of the social gospel in the early 20th century.

I can’t say that one view is more “right” than the other view. Each has Biblical support. As a result you will often find respected Christian leaders and thinkers in vocal disagreement on the role of the church in relation to the State. I would argue that, historically, John Wesley would have been a proponent of the “Christ transforming Culture,” position and we Methodists have inherited that tradition.

However, recent voices in Methodism have sounded a more “Christ against Culture,” view, specifically, Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon. I have heard Bishop Willimon diminish the value of exercising the right to vote, for instance, as a Christian witness that we not be caught up in the things of this world. On the other hand, Bishop Peter Storey, who spent his life and ministry in the pre- and post-apartheid climate of South Africa, is a strong advocate for Christians being deeply engaged in the political life of their respective cultures, to bring about justice at any cost.

I have a friend who has been a pastor and seminary professor who also is a mayor. Obviously not Amish.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a voice for pacifism, yet he engaged in a plot to assassinate Hitler, so apparently even individuals can hold two contrary positions at once.

I see churches decorating their lawns with American flags on the Fourth of July (Christ of Culture). And as pleased as I am to be a citizen of the United States, I am not comfortable with that, which means I’m more influenced by some of the other models that Niebuhr described. Still, I humbly admit that I don’t know which view is right. But it helps me understand why we have such differences of opinion within the life of God’s people.

Maybe there are even more variations on the five types that Richard Niebuhr tried to define. I suspect there are. I wonder if we can discern, with any objectivity, the position of Jesus? “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God’s.” That gets us started. I wonder if Jesus had had the right to vote, if he would have? And for whom? Or would he have simply ignored the political process and kept going about his mission of proclaiming good news for the poor, recovery of sight for the blind, setting free the oppressed, and declaring God’s kingdom? Hmmm, can you do all that and ignore the political process?

A modern parable describes a man pulling people out of a flooding river, saving their lives. But then he thinks, “Maybe I should go up the river and see why the river is flooding in the first place?” Saving the individuals, or fixing the cause of the flood, are both valid ways for a Christian to witness to the culture in which we live. Either way has merit. I wonder if we can avoid arguing who is right and each of us live out our calling, as we each discern what that calling is, and let Jesus be our conscience. One thing is sure, we live in the midst of our culture, as Christ did in his. Let me be a witness to the reign of God in the midst of it, as best I can.