*******

Below I give a small excerpt from one of his sermons titled “The Gospel, The Church, and the World,” which was based on a passage from 1 Peter 2:4-12, and in which one of the key ideas is that believers are called to live as resident aliens. Just prior to this excerpt Keller had been talking about the reputation of the Early Church in Ancient Roman society.

*******

No one had ever seen a group of people that held to all those practices. They were aliens. They weren’t like the Greeks. They weren’t like the Romans. They weren’t like the Jews. They were aliens. Well, you say, “That was then.” Well, okay, now think about this for a second. What if there was a group of people now that were following those same set of biblical values?… Rejecting blood thirsty sports (militarism), empowering women, reveling in the combination of races and classes, radically serving the poor. What kind of group is that?… Sounds liberal. Forbidding abortion, forbidding sex outside of marriage, forbidding same sex practices, insisting that Jesus is the only way of salvation, and what’s that sound like?… It sounds like a horribly conservative group. Guess what, we’re still aliens. We do not fit into Western  relativistic individualism; we don’t fit into traditional hierarchical legalism, we don’t fit. We don’t fit conservative, we don’t fit liberal. We’ve always been aliens.

*******

Redeemer Presbyterian

The Sermon Above

Free Sermons

Putting the Golden Mean aside, the other day I was listening to NPR and I heard a report by their ombudsmen, Alicia C. Shepherd, about bias and the media. In this report, Ms. Shepherd mentioned that “between June 9 and Oct. 19, 2008 [her] office received 282 emails specifically accusing NPR of favoring Obama and 252 emails accusing NPR of favoring McCain.” She further said she had received hundreds of more email that charged the network with being too conservative or too liberal. As the report continued, Ms. Shepherd went on to give further information and statistics regarding NPR’s coverage during this election season, the summation of which was that both candidates received roughly equal coverage, and if anything, McCain received slightly more.

Beyond the amount of coverage, Ms. Shepherd also acknowledged that a complete picture regarding media bias must address “how a broadcast network covers political candidates.” Elaborating on this, she gave a few examples of how different types of coverage can leave different types of impressions upon the listeners, even when the coverage is analytical and not promotional in nature.

Perhaps the most illuminating factor that Ms. Shepherd addressed regarding media bias was the related issue of listener bias, which is to say that people hear through their values and convictions, which influences their impressions of how content was presented. Not wanting to place the impression of bias solely upon the listeners, however, Ms. Shepherd referred to a report conducted by Timothy Groseclose, a political science professor, which stated that 18 of the 20 major media outlets were just left of center in relation to the average American voter.

In the end, what I found interesting regarding Ms. Shepherd’s report was the location of bias. Is it something in the media or something in the listener? My own personal conviction, one that I think was implied by Ms. Shepherd’s report, is that though journalists are professionals who are trained to approach news coverage objectively, no one is ever completely free from values and viewpoints when it comes to handling and presenting information.

So, do you think complete objectivity is possible? Given human nature, what should we reasonably expect from journalists and the news media? How sensitive and alert are you to your own biases? How do you strive to be as truthful or objective as possible? Are there news sources you recommend, and do you recommend them because they are fairly objective or might they just align with your convictions?

While in grad school, I came across pastor and theologian Gregory Boyd when I did a paper on various models of the atonement, and I found his work to be provocative and insightful. Recently, I also found him to be kindred when it comes to addressing the above questions. Not long ago, Pastor Boyd gave a sermon series titled “The Cross and the Sword,” which became the foundation of a book he wrote, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church. The response of Evangelicals to this book has been polarizing, with some viewing him as practically apostate, and others viewing him as a prophet giving much needed words to a wayward Church. With mild reservation, I am of the latter group, and for this reason I have decided to post the three videos below, which together comprise a 22 minute interview conducted by Charlie Rose. Though you may not agree with Gregory Boyd, I think if you are a reflective Xian, you have to wrestle with his ideas.

Part I

Part II

Part III

*******

Gregory Boyd’s Webpage

Along with this, the losing candidate, John McCain, gave an absolutely stellar concession speech, a speech full of grace and humility, a speech that called Americans to move beyond the tribal politics of division and toward a spirit of unity and peace. Honestly, if this was the McCain on the campaign trail, I would have been drawn to him, but at least this is the McCain that will continue to serve his country as one of our most outstanding senators.

Finally, I saw America become all the more the land of opportunity when I looked at the hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in Grant park to celebrate the victory of Barak Obama. As I looked at this crowd, particularly at the faces of African Americans, it was not hard to see how profoundly significant this moment was in our nation’s history. This really struck me when I saw tears streaming down the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s face, a man who marched with Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights Movement. And then, I felt deeply moved as I saw Obama on stage, accepting his place in history, and I recalled the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

Like the tragedy of Moses, it is, of course, sad that MLK did not enter the promised land, but last night, though we did not quite enter that land, it seems pretty clear that the racist walls of Jericho are tumbling down. We are and will likely continue to be an imperfect nation, but we can proudly rejoice that we are closer to embodying our founding ideals that all men are created equal.

These reports have said that Al Qaeda is a politically sophisticated entity that for the reason mentioned above sees an ironic advantage in having a more militaristic leader in the Whitehouse. Moreover, such a leader would serve as an unwitting agent in their hopes to wear us down through a war of attrition. If they are so sophisticated, however, why would they want their preference to be known, particularly in the American public. I mean if anything is going to drive the bulk of American’s away from a candidate, it would be that that candidate has received Al Qaeda’s endorsement. So, was this endorsement meant to be private, insofar as it wasn’t meant for American ears? I have my doubts. It seems more likely that this whole thing is another cooked up expression of the crap that has stained this political season.

I remember having the same reaction during the bebates between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Al Gore, much like Biden, expressed a greater mind for facts, concepts, and political nuances, and Bush, much like Palin, expressed a kind of homespun, down-to-earth sensibility that the bulk of Americans apparently appreciate. Being a teacher of written communication, I certainly acknowledge the importance of emotional appeal in communication, but it cannot be a substitute for sound reasoning, nor a substitute for mastery of subject matter.

In looking at the response of Americans to recent debate performances I come to one basic conclusion: many Americans must have a simplistic view of the world, and therefore view people who demonstrate sophistication and an awareness of complexity regarding culture and politics as a bunch of elite circumlocuters. I don’t know about y’all, but when it comes to picking people to make tough political decisions, though I do want someone who will be sympathetic to the plight of the common person, I don’t want someone who is a common person. Very simply, I want someone smarter than me.

Dobson and his companion commentator routinely distorted what Obama was saying by rephrasing and capturing what he said in their own context and for their own agendas. For instance, Obama hypothesized (Dobson didn’t get this) what would happen if we moved all nonChristians out of our society. Even then, he was suggesting, we’d have diversity. Then, Obama asked, if we lived out the Bible which parts would we choose? Would it be Leviticus or Deuteronomy — and he brings up shell fish and stoning one’s son — or would it be the Sermon on the Mount, which Obama stated would be difficult for the Defense Dept to apply. Dobson and his guest got into how the OT laws aren’t for today.

What they miss here is that Obama is talking about how to live in a pluralistic society.

Here are the words of Obama: “Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s

In response to this post Dr. McKnight received no less than 205 comments, among which was a comment I cribbed from a response I left at John Armstrong’s blog, Act 3. (For more information about John Armstrong, see my previous post.) Dr. Armstrong’s post asked the question, “Does political partisanship help or hurt the mission of the Church?” and my response to him was as follows:

In my imagination I have often revisited the moment when Jesus is standing before Pilate declaring that his Kingdom is not of this world. An implication that I see in this statement is that we cannot understand the political ramifications of the Gospel by resorting to the categories that this world offers. Jesus’ Kingdom cannot be captured or expressed via the platform of the Republicans or the Democrats for the Gospel transcends them regarding the hope it offers and the expectations it places upon humanity. Consequently, it also provides an indictment on both of these parties, or any party, or political ideology.

Can a Xian be a Republican? Certainly. Can a Xian be a Democrat? Certainly. But, in both instances they need to be critical members of those parties, they need to hold their affiliation loosely, and pragmatically, as when Paul utilized his Roman citizenship in service of the Gospel.

As Jesus said, new wine requires new wine skins, and so, as we seek to live out our faith in political terms, we need to draw upon new categories to sort our political experience, options, and courses of action. We also need to realize that we will never nail down how the Gospel transfers into political commitments, for it is transcendent and thereby it most essentially calls us to be ever self-critical and self-reforming.

So, what do you think about the relationship between faith and politics, or about political partisanship and religious commitment, or for that matter, Dr. Dobson’s critique of Obama?

For More, See These Links

Jesus Creed: Dobson on Obama

Jesus Creed: Dobson and Conservative Politicians

Act 3: Does Political Partisanship help or hurt the Church?

In hearing the report, I must admit that though I felt outraged that a peaceful voice for truth was silenced, I also felt some sympathy for the Turkish people. My sympathy is not one that excuses evil, but one of a personal connection that comes from not wanting my own dark deeds to be dredged up for all to see. In short, I can understand Turkish resistance to confessing such a heinous deed, as it certainly mars their national character. I particularly understand this resistance when I consider that it is this generation of Turkish people who would have to bear the shame of their forefather’ deeds. However, as I continued to reflect upon this matter, I couldn’t help but think that a confession of truth is the only path upon which they can establish their dignity.

Drawing from the Christian tradition, I would assert that truth and dignity are hand-in-hand realities, and that a commitment to truth is the only means by which one can build a noble life. Of course, a commitment to truth will inevitably mean a confrontation with darkness and brutality; as such things are all too common of the human condition. Moreover, this confrontation will not only be with evil forces out there, but with evil forces within ourselves, and this is where the problem arises for many. For what hope of nobility or dignity do we have, when all of us have done things, individually and collectively, that are far less than noble and dignified? In responding to this, I again draw upon the Christian tradition, at the heart of which is the belief in redemption. Though the doctrine of redemption has been understood and defined differently throughout Christian history one thing that has been consistent is the idea that one’ past need not determine one’ future. Spoken in more particular terms, a person need not be bound by his or her past misdeeds (or that of a father’), but through God’ grace may be restored and may begin a new journey that is not propelled by the momentum of past dishonor. However, this journey of redemption can only begin by embracing the truth, an embrace that is often at first difficult.

When I think about Hrant Dink, and all that I have read about the work he was doing, I see an irony, in that this man, who so many Turks saw as a threat to their well being, was actually giving them a chance to find redemption. In saying this, I realize that the Turkish people are largely Muslim, who, as a whole, value truth and righteousness, but who also don’t have, as central to their faith, a redemptive framework. And thus, I wonder if part of their resistance to acknowledging the genocide comes from their religious worldview. I also wonder if my position about the Armenian genocide, or my affirmation of Dink’ work, would be the same if I were raised in that culture, with their worldview. In the end, I have reason to believe that this is a good possibility as I have also read that when news of Hrant Dink’ death spread across the nation of Turkey many mourners flooded the streets carrying signs and chanting phrases such as, “We are all Hrant Dink and we are all Armenians.”