In the Beginning Was Laughter

What does joy look like, and from where does it come?

We tend to think about what God is like in relation to us. God is love because he loves us despite our sin. God can be angry because he hates to see sin destroy the people he created. But are God’s so-called emotions entirely dependent on us and what we do? Does not God have a life within himself? Of course. In Proverbs 8—a passage that extols wisdom—we see a surprising picture of what was going on within the Trinity before sin ever entered the world.

The apostle Paul reminds us that Christ is the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). So it’s not much of a theological stretch to recognize Christ in Proverbs 8, a famous passage about wisdom:

According to some scholars, rejoicing is a conservative translation of the Hebrew word sachaq. More accurate would be laughing or playing. We’re understandably reluctant to ascribe laughing and playing to Almighty God. Still, you can see for yourself in any Hebrew lexicon what the word means—and subsequently what God and wisdom were doing when they created the world: laughing and playing.

The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old. . . . I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. (vv. 22, 27–31, emphasis mine)

But let us note: God’s laughter is no joke. He contains such force and infinite energy that when he plays, living solar systems are painted on the canvas of creation.

When I tell others about the laughing God creating the cosmos, I usually hear, “Oh that’s cute; that would be great to teach in the children’s ministry.” But I am not talking about a laughter that is cute or silly, but one so powerful and mighty it creates entire oceans, and holds them together with astounding energy and pressure.

If you had witnessed this transcendent Being–in-Three-Persons letting out roaring laughter as he played, thus creating the universe, you probably would have shouted and cried out with joy. That is exactly what the angels did. “Where were you,” the Lord scolds Job, “when I laid the earth’s foundation . . . while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4, 7).

We sing worship songs about the “fullness of joy” in God’s presence (Ps. 16:11, ESV) and an “inexpressible and glorious joy” (1 Pet. 1:8). But how does that joy express itself? And from where does it come? Is it our joy? Or is it God’s joy? Obviously it is both God’s and ours. But clearly its source is the playful heart of God. And Proverbs 8 gives us a delightful picture of what it looks like. It looks like a Father and Son laughing and playing as they make the skies and seas and everything that inhabits them.

In Psalm 104 we read about God’s capricious creativity:

How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number— living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there. (vv. 24–26, emphasis mine)

God makes creatures whose main purpose, it seems, is to play. This is one reason some theologians conclude that the basic activity in the restored heaven and earth can be described as play. How so? One aspect of play is that it is non-compulsory. As theologian Fred Sanders says, “The commandment ‘Thou shalt play’ is an incoherent one. . . . We have God’s permission to play.” The kingdom of heaven will be a place in which we will gladly, in freedom, live as God wishes us to live. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free,” wrote Paul in Galatians 5:1. And as Jürgen Moltmann put it in his Theology of Play, “If man knows himself to be free and desires to use his freedom, then his activity is play.”

In an unpublished essay on the Trinity, Jonathan Edwards discussed the “Infinite Happiness of God,” arguing that God’s joy and happiness reside within himself. He didn’t create the world in order to make himself happy. He was already bubbling over with unbounded pure happiness within the gleeful fellowship of the Trinity. And so the universe was born out of the laughing joy of God.

Meister Eckhart seems to have grasped this biblical truth, prompting him to say, “In the heart of the Trinity, the Father laughs and gives birth to the Son. The Son laughs back at the Father and gives birth to the Spirit. The whole Trinity laughs and gives birth to us.”

It might also be said that the source of God’s anger against sin is that it stifles joy and laughter—that is, our rejoicing with God. Joy is what he intended for us from the beginning, and the reason Christ died for us, that we might restored to fellowship with him, that we might play for eternity with him. Zechariah’s vision of what it will be like for Israel to return from exile might picture life in the kingdom of heaven: “The city streets will be filled with boys and girls playing there” (8:5).

Our God, then, is dead serious about joy, and the joy of the Lord is not something trifling. It’s a playfulness that created and sustains the universe, a laughter that guides history to its glorious end.

Dylan Demarsico is a writer in Los Angeles, California, working toward his master of divinity degree through Liberty University.

Theology

Ultimate Hide-and-Seek

Why is God so elusive sometimes?

My children are long past the age of taking delight in childhood games, but I remember hours in years past playing hide-and-seek together, even though it was a game they never quite learned to play according to the rules. In fact, I used to worry about my son. For years I couldn’t get him to understand that he shouldn’t yell “ready” when he’d found a good hiding place; that only gave it away. He was missing the whole point of the game, I explained. One wants to hide well! Only later did I come to realize that from his perspective, I had missed the whole point of the game. The most fun comes, of course, in being found! Meister Eckhart expressed this mystery well when he said that “God is like a person who clears his throat while hiding and so gives himself away.” Even God—perhaps especially God—discovers the highest joy in hiding only so as to be found.

This simple truth reveals a fault that cuts through much of our mistaken thinking about God as Deus absconditus. Too often we associate the “hiddenness of God” with a fearful sense of obscurity, inaccessibility, or remoteness—as if the divine inscrutability were an end in itself. We lose the playfulness involved in this truth. Looking upon God’s act of masking or veiling as a means of protecting the divine majesty from prying human eyes, or as way of protecting us from a grandeur too terrifying to perceive, we forget that God’s hiding is rooted first of all in divine compassion. God hides not only to protect, but also to draw us in love.

God’s elusiveness serves a longing for relationship. Hiding, therefore, can become an act of playful teasing—a blithe form of seduction, God’s way of inviting us to the place of surprised encounter. God as Deus absconditus is never far removed from God as Deus ludens, a God revealed in playfulness. God disguises himself, hiding in a manger, his majesty veiled upon a cross, so that we might irresistibly be drawn to a grace far closer than we ever imagined.

The Jewish tradition tells a story about the first Lubavitcher rebbe, Schneur Zalman, the founder of one of the most vital of today’s Hasidic communities. His young son once came running to him, crying inconsolably. Between huge sobs, he managed to say, “Father, I’ve been playing hide-and-seek with the other children. It came my turn to hide, but after I found a good place, I sat there in the woods for hours waiting for the others to find me. No one ever yelled into the woods to tell me to come out. They just left me there alone.” His father put his arms around the child and held him close, rocking him back and forth. “Ah, my son,” he said, “that’s how it is with God, too. God is always hiding, hoping that people will come to look for him. But no one wants to play. He’s always left alone, wanting to be found, hoping someone will come. But crying because no one seeks him out.

What is this mystery of God’s great compassion, wanting so much to draw us to God? Like others, I too often shrink back in fear. I’m reluctant to embrace a God of hidden majesty. Yet I’m surprised again and again to find myself sought out more lovingly than I ever dared to hope by what I first had feared. Francis Thompson discovered the playful, grand conclusion to his own lifelong flight from God in being found by that from which he’d fled. At the end of his great poem on being sought by a love too fierce to withstand for long, he speaks with incredulous joy:

Halts by me that footfall; Is my gloom, after all Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly? “Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest, I am He Whom thou seekest! Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.”

For him, it was as if Christ, the Hound of Heaven, had finally shouted out in reckless abandon, “Olly, olly, oxen free!” and the hiders had come from behind every bush and nearby tree, running safely home to outstretched arms. This, at last, is the meaning of God as Deus absconditus, the truth which Luther found so important in his own theology of a gracious God.

When my daughter was very young, one of her favorite tricks in playing hide-and-seek was to pretend that she had run away to hide, and then come sneaking back beside me while I was still counting—my eyes shut tight. She breathed as silently as she could, standing inches away, hoping I couldn’t hear. Then she’d take the greatest delight in reaching out to touch home base as soon as I opened my eyes and began to search for someone who’d never even left. She was cheating, of course, and though I don’t know why, I always let her get away with it. Was it because I longed so much for those few moments when we stood close together, pretending not to hear or be heard, caught up in a game that for an instant dissolved the distance between parent and child, that set us free to touch and seek and find each other? It was a simple, almost negligible act of grace, my not letting on that I knew she was there. Yet I suspect that in that one act my child may have mirrored God for me better than in any other way I’ve known.

Still to this day, it seems, God is for me a seven-year-old daughter, slipping back across the grass, holding her breath in check, wanting once again to surprise me with a presence closer than I ever expected.

“Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself,” the prophet once declared (Isa. 45:15, RSV). A playfulness as well as a dark mystery lie richly intertwined in that grand and complex truth.

Belden C. Lane is professor emeritus of American Christianity at St. Louis University. He is the author of The Solace of Fierce Landscapes: Exploring the Desert and Mountain Spirituality (Oxford, 1998), from which this article is excerpted and condensed with permission.

High Praise

What’s a bird doing flying above Mt. Everest?

You’re a mountain climber, and you have just scaled the highest peak in the world, Mount Everest. The air is so thin here you need an oxygen tank to breathe. You look out over the panorama beneath you and realize that no living creature, under its own power, can be higher than you are at this moment. But suddenly you hear a honking, and a flock of bar-headed geese fly over your head on their annual migration.

What? There are birds flying over Mount Everest? It’s true. An ordinary-looking goose lays claim to the title “Highest-Flying Animal.” This tenacious bird actually migrates over the Himalayan mountains! They carry no food or water, no extra oxygen, no winter survival gear—yet there they are, higher than any creature should be.

The dapper bar-headed goose (Anser indicus) is a migratory bird that breeds in Central Asia (southeast Russia and western China) but travels to India and northern Burma for the winter.

It navigates the air over the Himalayas at 30,000 to 33,000 feet (5.7 to 6.25 miles). The oxygen concentration at this height is a little more than one-quarter that of sea level—not enough for kerosene lanterns to burn, helicopters to hover, or people to breathe. Yet this goose remains fully conscious and faithfully flies over the Himalayas twice each year, a journey which takes just hours. (An ascent of Mt. Everest usually takes a climber days or weeks, depending upon weather.)

The anatomy of the bar-headed goose includes larger-than-normal wings, lungs that inhale greater-than-normal amounts of air, and blood containing a special type of hemoglobin that carries higher-than-normal levels of oxygen to its tissues and organs.

This bird was also designed to produce a lot of heat when it flies. The constant radiation of body warmth and the goose’s down feathers prevent ice from forming on the bird’s wings, which would potentially ground it.

With a little help from tailwinds, the bar-headed geese make the trip from Tibet to India—more than 1,000 miles—in a single day. By using tailwinds, the geese capitalize on weather that would pulverize lesser creatures. These geese are powerful flappers with huge wings that are pointed to reduce wind resistance. They can fly over 50 miles an hour on their own power, and they really move if they can add the thrust of 100-mile-per-hour tailwinds. Able to gauge and correct for drift, bar-headed geese can even fly in crosswinds without being blown off course.

Why don’t they just fly around the mountains or snake their way through using river valleys, like the majority of the other migratory birds in the Himal region? It’s hard to say from a biological perspective. Theologically, however, it’s another testimony to the marvelous works of God.

The Psalmist prayed, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (139:14). He could have added, “I praise you because the bar-headed goose is fearfully and wonderfully made.” He did say that, sort of: “Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”

Rick Destree is director of His Creation.

Aviation Marvels

Right now there are over 60,000 people overhead.

When God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens” (Gen. 1:20, ESV), he probably knew these soaring creatures would inspire imitation. It took a few centuries, but now flight seems as common and mundane as crossing the street.

It may be common, but it is hardly mundane. Aviation is a human creation that suggests the glory of man, that creature made a little less than the angels (Ps. 8:5). Yes, a little less: angels are said to be able to fly with their own wings; humans have to use specially-built craft.

Today those craft are a wonder of technology. A Boeing 747 is made up of 6 million parts. The engines alone weigh 4.5 tons each—and yet they only account for 5 percent of the weight of a fully loaded plane on takeoff. To withstand the landing weight of a fully-laden jumbo jet, airport runways have to be between 2 and 4 feet thick.

This massive piece of steel can not only get off the ground, but also reach a top speed of almost 600 mph. How powerful do these engines have to be? Let’s just say that in May 2000, a chartered jet carrying the New York Knicks basketball team taxied out too close to a line of cars parked on the tarmac; the blast from the taxiing jet flipped head coach Jeff Van Gundy's car into the air and over three other cars, completely demolishing it.

Such power does not come without cost. The 747 burns about 12 gallons of fuel per minute when cruising. Seems like a huge waste. And yet most of today’s aircraft are 70 percent more fuel efficient than jets of the 1960s.

When it comes to computer technology, the 747 is a dinosaur compared to the 777. The former has only 400,000 lines of computer code written into its flight systems; the latter has over 2.6 million.

So, yes, the aircraft itself is a wondrous thing. But so is the airline transportation industry. At any given hour, there are over 60,000 people airborne over the United States. To do that, planes are constantly taking off and landing all over the country. At Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, for example, that happens every 37 seconds, or about 100 planes an hour. The busiest commercial airport is Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta, with nearly a million takeoffs and landings a year, moving 260,000 passengers daily.

That being said, relatively few people are doing all that flying. Only 5 percent of the world’s population has ever been on an airplane. Perhaps people like businessman Tom Stuker skew these statistics. In 2012 he was recognized for logging over a million miles on United Airlines. At that point, he’d flown more than 13 million miles as an independent consultant and sales trainer. The phrase “frequent flyer” is too prosaic to apply to him.

https://vimeo.com/98941796

So, from the miracle of flight to the wonder of moving all these people every hour, well, as Lauran Paine Jr. put it in a Sport Aviation article, “If you are bored flying, your standards are too low.” This thing we created called commercial aviation is one of the wonders of the world.

The Psalmist may have wistfully prayed, “Oh, that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest” (Ps. 55:6, ESV), but we can actually do it.

Wonderful aviation links:

—The Editors

Wonder on the Web

Links to amazing stuff

Spooky Light Particles

“We are still getting to grips with the properties of photons and it seems that they don’t experience distance in the same way as we do.” So says Michael Brooks in this piece on photons, which can be light years apart and yet have some unexplainable “cosmic connection.”

Walk in the Light—Up to a Point

The Bible tells us to walk in the light, but apparently we don’t want to do that for too long. At least literally speaking. Apparently “our brains and bodies cannot cope in a world without darkness.” Such is the argument of the article “The End of Night” on light pollution on our planet. Enjoy this issue’s long read.

The Incredibles

We’re talking about Christians here. Not because they are superheroes or people of superior morals. This classic by A.W. Tozer points out the many apparent “contradictions” of the Christian life. The faith, he suggests, is less about logic and more about lived mystery.

Slow Life

An amazing close up video of Great Barrier Reef animals. Definitely worth three and a half minutes of your time.

—The Editors

Culture
Review

The Song

A film that re-imagines the story of Solomon with uncommon artistic integrity.

Ali Faulkner and Alan Powell in 'The Song'

Ali Faulkner and Alan Powell in 'The Song'

Christianity Today September 19, 2014
City on a Hill

Sandwiched between two major studio productions about biblical legends (Noah and Exodus) is an independent film about the rise and fall of the ancient Hebrew king, Solomon. While The Song lacks the artistic depth of Noah and the presumably jaw-dropping special effects of Exodus, it may have more heart and real-world value than either one.

Ali Faulkner and Alan Powell in 'The Song'City on a Hill
Ali Faulkner and Alan Powell in ‘The Song’

Also unlike its “Year of the Bible” counterparts, The Song recasts its characters in modern context. Solomon is reimagined as a modern-day singer-songwriter named Jed King (Alan Powell) who struggles to make a name for himself apart from being the progeny of his famous father, a renowned country music star (aptly named “David King”). In the midst of an identity crisis, Jed stumbles into a romance, courtship, and marriage to Rose (Ali Faulkner), a vineyard owner’s daughter.

The young couple has a “perfect” wedding night and storybook start—complete with poetic voice-overs drawn from the Song of Solomon. But after Jed writes a hit song for his new bride and is catapulted into the national spotlight, things get all Ecclesiastes. The pursuit of his thriving career leaves Jed wanting more. And the more he finds fame and success, the more he loses himself and his true love.

One of the glaring weaknesses of this film is the absence of even a single A-lister. In a year when biblical films feature a pile of notables, this film risks being overlooked. This gamble is apparent in a few awkward “rookie moments,” but is tucked away in mostly authentic, emotional performances. Overall, what the film lacks in pedigree it makes up for in honesty.

Alan Powell and Caitlin Nicol-Thomas in 'The Song'City on a Hill
Alan Powell and Caitlin Nicol-Thomas in ‘The Song’

From drug and alcohol abuse to an extramarital affair with a sultry fellow performer (Caitlin Nicol-Thomas), Jed’s character wrestles with the meaning of meaning in a way that will make fans of faith films shift in their seats. But this risk turns out to be The Song’s greatest strength. It is willing to “go there,” to address the messiness of love and life without leaving all the tough stuff on the cutting room floor.

As executive producer and pastor Kyle Idleman said, "I think the church often hides under the covers, so to speak, when it comes to the issues of love, sex, and marriage, and by doing so popular culture continues to shape how we think about these subjects. It seems like it might be good for [the church] to step back and ask the question, 'How's that workin' out for us?'"

Like Idleman, I prefer a PG-13 flick that walks headfirst into a difficult conversation than a unrealistic, G-rated family film that tiptoes around a tough issue any day.

Religious audiences may also be surprised to find that there is little overtly spiritual content in this “faith film.” With the exception of one subtle and almost ill-placed reference to “someone who loves you enough to die for you” by Powell’s character during a performance at the “American Roots Music Awards,” all God-talk is limited to sparsely-placed narration quoted from biblical poetry. Secular audiences will probably never catch the subtle scriptural nuance woven into the script and soundtrack. Only the biblically literate will catch the cleverly hidden nods to the story of King David and Bathsheba, the “rose” of Sharon, and dozens of subtle references contained in the lyrics of Jed’s songs. (Look for Solomon’s famous judgment to “split the baby,” and the romantic language of Song of Solomon in “The Song” Jed pens for his wife.)

'The Song'City on a Hill
‘The Song’

If you want a heavy-handed evangelistic tool along the lines of Courageous or Fireproof, save your money. This film is not that.

Rather than convert audiences, The Song seeks to convince them that they are not alone in their troubles. Which is why I suspect most viewers will see themselves in this story. The husband who’s guilty of straying; the wife who chooses her children over her marriage; the son or daughter searching for his or her own identity; the strong woman who refuses to be abused; the pursuit of success and notoriety at the expense of all else—and, of course, the hope that redemption is possible amidst the muck and mess that life inevitably drags through all of our front doors.

'The Song'City on a Hill
‘The Song’

By blending together Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, The Song gives us something very Proverbs-like. It forces audiences to ask probing questions about life and love. It grapples with timeless, tough topics without pulling punches. But, most of all, this film reminds us that pursuing anything outside of the Source of true meaning is—as both Solomon and his modern counterpart say—“a chasing of wind.”

Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service and author most recently of Jesus Is Better Than You Imagined (FaithWords).

Books

Memoir in the Me-Generation

How social media helps us tell our stories.

Her.meneutics September 19, 2014
flower_bunny / Flickr

Among Christian writers and bloggers, we all likely know someone whose book proposal—whose personal story of struggle and second chances—has been rejected by publishers. We’ve seen their disappointment and frustration from the lack of interest.

As a friend, I try to offer words of encouragement. That it might not be the right time. That if it is supposed to get published, it will. I remind her there are a myriad of reasons a book might not find a publisher.

But as someone who sifts through book ideas and book proposals on a frequent basis, I’ve come to believe memoirs are a somewhat dubious venture. (This is not to say they can’t be beautifully and successfully done.)

For one, there aren’t very many memoirists—people who write repeated memoirs. Of course, there are the Donald Millers and Anne Lamotts, the splendid exceptions. But how many of us live interesting enough lives to write more than one memoir? (I’d argue that even celebrities don’t. It’s uncanny that someone like Justin Bieber could write two memoirs before the age of 18.)

Additionally, some Christian publishing insiders think memoirs can be—but not always—hard to sell. Is this because they don’t have a good place on the bookshelf? Or because Christian book-buyers tend to prefer Bible studies and non-fiction?

These personal curiosities jostled when I read Dani Shapiro’s article “A Memoir is Not a Status Update” in The New Yorker. In the piece, Shapiro, author of multiple books (three of which are memoirs), laments the effects of social media and today’s me-culture on the memoir.

She describes how the slow-drip of 140 character tweets and status updates can hinder the bubbling-over of a person’s story within—the years of thermal simmering deep inside a writer’s soul that eventually explodes a memoir:

I worry that we’re confusing the small, sorry details—the ones that we post and read every day—for the work of memoir itself. I can’t tell you how many times people have thanked me for “sharing my story,” as if the books I’ve written are not chiseled and honed out of the hard and unforgiving material of a life but, rather, have been dashed off, as if a status update, a response to the question at the top of every Facebook feed: “What’s on your mind?”

I worry about that too. But at the same time, we can see the direct, cooperative relationship between the memoir and the status update in today’s publishing industry. Ask any author who has birthed a memoir the difference between a status update and the lengthy, laborious, anxiety-producing delight of penning a snippet of his story, and he’ll groan. Creating an exceptional memoir is nothing like a posting status update. And yet, for the aspiring author, the status update might help lead to publishing the bigger story.

Many aspiring authors are pushing “post” and “tweet” multiple times a day, as advised by agents, consultants, and friends alike in an effort to build an established readership so that they can land a publishing contract. Their updates inevitably leak bits and pieces of their story as their readers get to know them. This might invite the question, Are book audiences these days really after good stories, or are they more interested in following their most beloved celebrity in a day-to-day sort of reality TV?

Social media and our frequent updates with details of our day, perspectives on life, and opinions on religion and politics and social justice seem to perpetuate a culture where we follow a person more than a story. Each selfie and snapshot of what we’re reading, eating, wearing, buying lends to our public persona. Authors are forced to rely on social media presence since publishers expect them to co-market their own book.

Don’t get me wrong: the narrative is very important, but who is telling the story also matters. How it is told matters. The more we know about the author—the more we like the person behind the story, their brand, their style, their friends, maybe even their face—the more their memoir will touch the deep places within us. When a reader feels he actually knows the author, he is much more able to hear and receive the message of the book with a positive slant. Plus, book buyers like to have an idea of what they’re getting in a book before making a purchase. I’m not saying this “culture of persona” is good or right, but more and more, we find it’s true.

Also, there remains a discrepancy between interest in a person’s story on social media and interest in paying $24.99 to read that story in a 60,000-word memoir. This is perhaps one of the more confusing and tragic realities an aspiring memoirist might face. A parent of a child with a terminal illness might draw page views from concerned friends and curious onlookers, but if that same story was put in front of a publisher months later, he might wonder if the mass market would want to spend money to read such a tragic story. It’s one thing if the content is free and available, but publishers want stories that are sellable.

As an example, I worked with the Katie Davis on her 2011 memoir Kisses from Katie. At the time, Katie’s platform was relatively small, but she was a talented writer with a loyal following. As readers heard her story bit by bit on her blog—from winning homecoming queen, to forgoing college and moving to Uganda, to mothering 13 young girls and starting a ministry organization for orphaned children—readers got more than a first-person narrative. They were invited into the remarkable story. That is the selling feature, and a large reason why over 350,000 people have read her book to date. But without Katie’s blog, it would have been extremely difficult to ignite the grassroots movement of supporters that propelled her book to The New York Times bestseller list.

A good memoir blends remarkable story, talented writing, and a sellable hook. But even with those elements, there’s no telling which memoirs will find a publisher. Some stories are not meant to be told as memoirs and would do better told on our blogs, in articles, around Thanksgiving tables, and in our status updates. Ultimately, it’s not a publisher that validates a story. It’s the storyteller herself.

Karen E. Yates is a seminary student, writer, mother to three short people, and sushi addict. After working a decade in the Christian non-profit space, she began to help authors at Yates & Yates, a Christian literary agency and law firm serving top tier authors and communicators.

She blogs at www.KarenEYates.com about parenting, spiritual formation, books and publishing, and tweets as @KarenYates11.

Karen also wrote for Her.meneutics on “The New Chapter for Christian Publishing.”

News

What Evangelicals Think About Scotland’s Independence Vote

(UPDATED) After narrow “No” vote, Scottish evangelicals say churches will take lead in building the ‘new Scotland.’

Christianity Today September 18, 2014
Evangelical Alliance Scotland

Update (Sept 19): A narrow majority of Scottish voters (55%) voted no Thursday on independence from the United Kingdom. In the wake of the contentious referendum—which saw more than 80 percent of voters participate—the Evangelical Alliance Scotland called for Scots to "unite and build a new Scotland with Christian values at the heart."

"The Christian gospel provides the catalyst for reconciliation, and as Christians we recognise our responsibility to model grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation to our fellow citizens," said national director Fred Drummond in a statement. "During this campaign all Scots have rallied around a flag. But as Christians our identity is not based on a flag or a national boundary but on the radical grace of being adopted into God's family."

Drummond also exhorted the referendum’s victors to graciously embrace Scottish nationalists and challenge themselves to "love our neighbour."

"As Scots now consider what kind of nation will now emerge from this campaign, the church must lead—and be allowed to lead—the way to ensure the new Scotland is one that reflects God's values in the economy, the family, our communities and our environment,” he stated. “As Christians we passionately believe that these values will shape our nation for good."

The Evangelical Alliance Scotland's full reaction statement is at bottom.

—–

As Scotland votes today on independence from the United Kingdom, Christians lack consensus on whether Yes or No is the way to go.

A survey released last month by the UK’s Evangelical Alliance suggested that British evangelicals at large would disapprove of Scotland’s departure: 74 percent of its response panel said earlier this year that they would be unhappy about the breakup.

But the views of Scottish Christians themselves are less clear. Most Christian institutions have declined to take official sides on the referendum, and instead have served as middle ground for varying perspectives.

The Evangelical Alliance Scotland, calling the referendum "the most important ballot in the nation's history," offers a thorough manifesto on what kind of nation Scotland should be. "Much of the referendum debate to date has focussed on purely economic terms," it states. "This debate must evolve to consider the sort of nation Scotland aspires to be, the values that we hold as Scots and those we wish to pass on to our children."

The Church of Scotland, which has stayed neutral, leads its latest magazine with views on the referendum.

CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) offers a one-page argument for each side.

On the Yes side, Dave Thompson, a member of parliament representing the Scottish National Party, argues that “a vote for self-governance gives Scottish Christians the best platform upon which to work collaboratively with others to build a more socially just society at home and abroad.” Also, he writes, “by virtue of relative numerical strength and geographic proximity, Scotland’s Christians will have greater hope of in fluencing a Scottish government than an administration based in London.”

On the No side, Murdo Fraser, a member of parliament representing the Conservative party, warns that a shifting political structure gives “no guarantee that a new Scottish constitution would protect the role of faith groups.” “The Scottish Secular Society are backing a ‘YES’ vote as a route to a more secular Scotland,” he writes, whereas “Great Britain is a country founded on Christian (specifically Protestant) heritage. Over the centuries we have been a beacon to the world in defending religious freedom.”

Christian think tank Theos has featured bloggers for both sides.

On the Yes side, Doug Gay, a Church of Scotland minister and theology professor at the University of Glasgow, pushes back against the idea that supporting Scottish sovereignty is wrongly nationalistic. He argues that love of one’s country should be tempered by “refusing an idolatrous vision of national identity. No Christian can say, ‘my country, right or wrong.’”

On the No side, Nigel Biggar, a theology professor at the University of Oxford, warns that those undecided about Scottish independence would be wise to consider it first through an economic and political lens.

Theos also reflects on the deeper questions at stake. Theos researcher Ben Ryan cautions why the eventual winning (not losing) side has the harder road ahead, while Jonathan Chaplin, director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics, argues the debate is really about what public justice requires.

Nick Spencer, Theos’s research director, offered CT his analysis (copied in full below). He told CT that almost all of the political ramifications and issues have already been hashed out prior to the election, so he thinks Scots could do well to consider faith.

“There are uncertainties about staying in the union, and even more uncertainties about leaving it. Claim fights counterclaim. Many predict. No one knows,” he told CT. “The only way forward, irrespective of the actual outcome of the vote, is in faith.

“This may not seem like a Christian perspective but it surely is,” he continued. “Faith shouldn’t be about politics, at least in the calculative way outlined above. But politics should be about faith—putting forward arguments and making decisions that are, in technical terms, ‘underdetermined’ by the available evidence—because all life is. To paraphrase the great French writer, mankind is condemned to have faith. The real question is in what.”

In its manifesto, the Evangelical Alliance Scotland notes:

Before us stands a choice: a choice about who we want to be as a nation. Usually such a debate only happens following severe upheaval, revolution or violence. Yet we have a unique opportunity to consider our future and who we desire to be.

CT’s previous coverage of Scotland includes its role in world missions, whether church membership has fallen far enough, and saving Celtic spirituality.

[Image courtesy of Evangelical Alliance Scotland]

Here is the full analysis from Theos’s Nick Spencer:

After two years waiting, the last two months of which have been increasingly frenzied, there is not much new to say about the Scottish referendum. Every point has been probed, every angle taken and 70% of the population of Scotland interviewed on some media network or other, or so it feels.

Is there a Christian angle amidst all this reflection and refraction? Two come to mind.

The first is urgent but ultimately superficial. Religious affiliation has played a role in post-war Scottish politics in a way it hasn’t south of the border. Religious identities have been hard, loyalties sincere and sectarianism rife. As always, such factors never stand in a vacuum, as this Theos report explains. Catholic support for the Labour Party in Scotland, for example, has as much to do with immigration and socio-economic status as it does with denomination, these factors being intertwined inextricably. Nevertheless, the fact is that, while no one has been naïve enough to suggest that the ‘religious vote’ will tip the balance tomorrow (given how fine that balance is, pretty much any vote could tip it), many have commented that it the Catholic vote will have particular significance, the general Catholic trend away from Labour towards the Scottish National Party making a Yes vote more likely than it could ever have been a generation ago. A corresponding, if slightly less clear cut and decisive, analysis could be made of the thinned, ageing but more Union-centric Presbyterian population. In this regard, at least, Christian commitment matters.

But this regard is a somewhat dispiriting, instrumental regard: the Christian angle on referendum is simply one of ‘doing the math’ (as we English don’t say). Faith is basically about politics. More interesting, if less urgent, is a second point, namely what the referendum says about politics itself.

British politics — Scottish no less than English — has suffered from deep-grained and spreading public scepticism in the last twenty years (as, indeed, has that of most European countries, whose politicians now find themselves “ruling the void .” Yet, this time is been different. Nearly 98% of eligible voters have registered. The issue has divided cities, communities, churches, and families across the country, unlike so many General elections where the voting patterns are geographically, socially and economically rigid and predictable. The outcome is even now hard to foretell with confidence. And the matter is of great significance. This has been animated, engaged passionate politics and even if that has sometimes shaded over into anger and alleged intimidation it is still a world away from — and so much better than — the sceptical anaemic politics of late.

The reasons for this are varied but they boil down to an essential confluence of two factors: it matters and it’s uncertain. The clarion cry of the modern political sceptic is that politicians are “all the same” and that nothing they can do will really change anything, governments across the world now being compelled to trail submissively in the wake of international financial and legal institutions.

However much truth there is in that (and there is certainly some truth in it), it is a mockery of what politics is supposed to be: collective debate, agency and self-determination. This is what the Scottish referendum has felt like (even south of the border) but the corollary is that this kind of living politics comes at the cost of certainty. There are uncertainties about staying in the union (how many more powers will be devolved? What will that mean for the rest of the country? Are we headed for a federated union?) and even more uncertainties about leaving it (What currency would an independent Scotland use? What economic risks of independence? What about Trident? What about North Sea Oil?). Claim fights counterclaim. Many predict. No one knows. The only way forward, irrespective of the actual outcome of the vote, is in faith.

This may not seem like a Christian perspective but it surely is. Faith shouldn’t be about politics, at least in the calculative way outlined above. But politics should be about faith – putting forward arguments and making decisions that are, in technical terms, ‘underdetermined’ by the available evidence — because all life is. To paraphrase the great French writer, mankind is condemned to have faith. The real question is in what.

Scottish referendum: Is faith about politics or politics about faith?

Here is the Evangelical Alliance statement on the referendum:

Time to build a new Scotland with values at the heart

The Evangelical Alliance Scotland has called for the nation to unite and build a new Scotland with Christian values at the heart following the results of yesterday’s vote. Responding to the outcome Scottish National Director Fred Drummond said:

"This has been an incredible season for our nation and the referendum debate has invigorated Scotland with our churches at the heart of the debate. With the votes now cast and the result declared the people of Scotland have spoken and it is now time for us to unite as a nation and build a new and better Scotland based on the vision, hope and aspiration which characterised the debate.

As Scots now consider what kind of nation will now emerge from this campaign, the church must lead – and be allowed to lead – the way to ensure the new Scotland is one that reflects God's values in the economy, the family, our communities and our environment. As Christians we passionately believe that these values will shape our nation for good. There has been an exceptionally high level of engagement and this must not wane. The passion must continue.

We recognise that while many are celebrating this morning there are also many in Scotland who are devastated at this result. It is now time to show grace and kindness to those on the other side and move quickly to bring reconciliation where it is needed in our land. I know it will be a difficult thing for some people to do but we must love our neighbour. We are all Scots and Scots at heart together. If we put God’s love at the heart of what we do, healing will be much faster, genuine and long-lasting.

Christian values have built Scotland and helped it to achieve the success in society. Let’s reinforce these principles and strengthen them. It is an undeniable fact that Christian values have been good for our society.

Our evangelical churches are here to help. We are here to help heal divisions within families, workplaces, friendships and even in the church itself. The Christian Gospel provides the catalyst for reconciliation and as Christians we recognise our responsibility to model grace, forgiveness and reconciliation to our fellow citizens.

During this campaign all Scots have rallied around a flag. But as Christians our identity is not based on a flag or a national boundary but on the radical grace of being adopted into God's family.

Scotland and the UK will not be the same after this vote. We the Evangelical Alliance and our member churches stand ready to play our part.

We urge Christians in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales to come together to pray for Scotland as we build a future for our nation.

Pastors

Review: “Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations”

How can churches embrace a repentant response to a dark side of culture?

Leadership Journal September 18, 2014

Friends – I’m pleased to offer this review of one of the most important ministry-related titles you probably haven’t heard of this year.

Enjoy this response from the estimable Dr. Brandon D. Rhodes, in his PARSE debut. (As an aside: look for Brandon’s first book next year, titled Blip: The Making and Unmaking of the Petrol-Driven Church.) I especially urge you to read Brandon’s summary of postcolonial thought and "response" section below, and begin to ponder how it could impact your life and ministry.Thoughts on where to start? Please share in the comments.– Paul

++++

"Oh great: another book about white guilt. Ugh."

I’m not proud that those were my first thoughts when Paul Pastor asked me to review Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations: Global Awakenings in Theology and Praxis(IVP, June 2014). But they were. I can recall multiple conversations with postcolonial practitioners whose tone spasmed between smug I’m-so-aware-about-colonialism inaction to an action-stopping attitude of everything-is-problematic-and-whoops-I-think-I-just-deconstructed-myself obstructionism.

Why would I want either of those attitudes?

But my reaction was completely unfair (and perhaps a bit too convenient, since I’m a white, straight, middle-class, educated, US American male). Wanting to pass over this book because of the few postcolonialists who may convey their convictions brassily is as unfair as if I had passed over the book for its other trigger word—“evangelical”—because of experiences with bad examples of our tribe.

The challenge of a book which begins to hybridize these two sometimes contentious communities is impressive. I am happy to report, though, that the authors and editors of Postcolonial Evangelical Conversations have done a fine job drawing the richness of both traditions together. Most compelling to me was the call to actual practices evangelicals can take in response to postcolonial critiques. These highlight that the point of the conversation is repentant response.

Postcolonialism surveyed

If you’re new to postcolonialism, here’s a quick summary (from page 31):

“[P]ostcolonialism is not so much a theory as it is criticism. It is the adoption of a critical stance in favor of those suppressed in colonial and postcolonial circumstances. The purpose of the criticism is to generate ‘counterdiscursive practices’ that correct and undo so-called Western hegemony.”

That’s a fancy-talk way of putting it. My translation goes something like this: if history is written by the victors, theologies and worldviews and just about everything else are too. Everyday interactions today—including church ministry and pastoral work—still resonate with past political and economic conquests. Postcolonialism scrutinizes how history’s winners have defined so much of our modern world, helps us see past victories still active today, and suggests how to develop as healthy communities and persons in light of all that. Postcolonial practices help keep residents of a colonized or colonizing culture aware of dynamics that are often assumed as the only way things could be, and validates marginal voices and peoples.

Everyday interactions today—including church ministry and pastoral work—still resonate with past political and economic conquests.

Postcolonialism is a lens that helps us better understand any power relation over time. First Nations and European-American settlers, the Dutch in South Africa, whites toward blacks in the United States, men toward women, Romans toward first-century Jews, and Israelis toward Palestinians. The list goes on, and this book covers them all. Well, almost all: there are a couple glaring omissions for a US American readership, but I’ll get to that later.

An avenue of repentance

Postcolonialism is deeper than politically correct finger-wagging. The point of it is not to shame colonizers, but to summon them toward an ongoing conversion out of cultural captivity and toward humble creativity.

Let me be clear, though: postcolonial thought isn’t the gospel, and it can’t be the church. But it is a very natural conversation partner for a people who worship a colonized (by Rome) blue-collar worker (carpenter) killed for speaking truthfully to the colonial status quo of kingdom. The authors of this volume argue as much: postcolonialism is about humility, living with honesty about our cultural captivity. It trains us to scrutinize our host culture not with hate, but with loving honesty. It helps us detangle the gospel from our culture. Postcolonialism is (or should be) the sharply honest cutting edge of cultural exegesis.

I agree with the authors that postcolonialism can strongly complement evangelicalism’s historic distinctives, while also challenging each to be more deeply practiced. For example, postcolonialism enriches evangelicalism’s focus on conversion by calling us to an ongoing conversion and freedom in Christ from the powers of colonialism which are so enmeshed in our day to day lives. Such enrichment of our tradition is wisely explored in the Introduction and in Part Four of the book, with particular guile by Kay Higuera Smith in her chapter, “Embracing the Other: A Vision for Evangelical Identity.”

Postcolonialism can strongly complement evangelicalism’s historic distinctives, while also challenging each to be more deeply practiced

This may come as a surprise—in my experience, many evangelicals feel that postcolonial conversation falls somewhere between a liberal distraction from the gospel and an anti-American atheist conspiracy. But as Saint Paul encouraged the Philippian church, “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things.” Regardless of the political or confessional affiliations of postcolonialists: there are many true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy things in it to think through. And this book does that very well.

Blurred (class) lines

Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations gets a lot right: its contributors redemptively address racism, apartheid, post-slavery America, genocide of indigenous peoples, and sexism. But one blind spot seem achingly evident: classism. By that I refer to the variously legitimized privileges and perceptions of the upper and middle economic classes toward lower economic classes in most societies. I would love to know why the authors do not explore issues of class in this volume.

I bring this omission up here because the pain of class lines is felt most acutely these days at the intersection of church-planting and gentrification (the expulsion of longer-term residents of a lower-income neighborhood by higher-income new residents). As more and more middle-class whites lose their love affair with the suburbs and are re-enchanted by walkable neighborhoods, their fatter wallets squeeze “natives” out. It’s people with privilege getting what they want, which isn’t wrong per-se, but it comes at the expense of less privileged folk, which is an injustice. That the class lines drawn around gentrified neighborhoods are also often racial lines reveals the miserable truth: gentrification is baldly colonial. If you want to see colonialism at work, walk to the nearest urban cupcake shop. Odds are, you’ll be enjoying its artisanal wonders in a neighborhood that ten years ago was populated by the poor.

Here in Portland, Oregon, evangelicals are increasingly planting churches and multisite campuses in gentrifying neighborhoods. Rarely do we get to the poor neighborhood before the gentrifying masses. Instead, we tend to follow the money—a colonial move. It seems odd to say it, but church planting success stories are thus often built on the backs of colonized peoples who are being displaced. These churches are often doing tremendous good in many respects (expanding missional practice brilliantly at times). But we must remember that missional is related to mission—which, if you’ve ever visited Latin America or the US southwest, is related to colonialism. That legacy should not be underestimated.

I bring this up because it’s something that most of us can take responsibility for. You don’t have to live near an urban center to be close to gentrification or classism. This means your community can begin to act out of the wisdom of Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations promptly. I feel convicted that I and others can deepen our faithfulness to Jesus Christ by beginning to live out of repentance in this area.

Christena Cleveland, Ross Halbach, Noel Castellanos, Paul Louis Metzger, Efrem Smith, and a handful of others have begun to publicly address the church’s (largely unconscious) culpability in this head-on. But there should be more. I suspect that when pastors read this book, many of us will begin to see patterns of colonialism at work in their tribe’s church planting. But will we act?

From 3 easy steps to 3 slow practices

Action, fortunately, is one of the central hopes of this book. The authors don’t seem primarily interested in changing our “public position” on an issue. Rather, they call for postures of ongoing repentance. By “postures” I mean practiced dispositions and life patterns which open up otherwise hidden possibilities. Postures are about having eyes to see. They don’t guarantee results, but they do deepen faithfulness.

As evangelicals, we’re primed to want simple blueprints for how to promptly “be postcolonial.” Just tell me what to do.

As evangelicals, we’re primed to want simple blueprints for how to promptly “be postcolonial.” Just tell me what to do. Unfortunately, postcolonial practitioners insist that the actual journey is much slower and nuanced—because it is enmeshed in the particularities of relationships. Attending a conference or hiring a consultant simply won’t do. Evangelicals (like me) who desire to live a more robustly postcolonial discipleship in Jesus Christ will need patience.

Contributor Kay Higuera Smith suggests three practices for readers which may in time yield a richer witness and faithfulness in our churches. She assumes each are shared practices, not individual pursuits. Moreover these practices assume that no matter our background—black or white, man or woman, documented or undocumented—we all carry some inherited sense of power and privilege. Even the most dominated of persons can still in some ways be colonial. (Echoes here, of course, of original sin.)

The first suggested posture is what I would dub cruciformity—socially relating in a way that self-empties as God in Christ did most evidently on the cross (Philippians 2). Smith suggests we “[interrogate] power in all our social relations and structures.” To me this means have eyes open for how cultural privilege may intrude in our relationships. This lends itself to gentleness, patience, and care for the marginalized.

The second posture is what I would call deep hospitality. Colonizers, Smith says, tend to objectify the colonized, thus cleansing themselves of any need to change or accommodate or create room for others. This puts the burden of cultural adjustment on the colonized. Smith argues that the key to colonizers overcoming this alienation from the colonized is to let themselves be changed by the marginalized.

Third is a posture of humble curiosity—a disciplined listening to those outside the halls of your own tradition, and hearing them as having an equal voice. Challenge yourself. Read theology and biblical studies from global voices, or from historically marginalized peoples or groups. Groups other than your own. Choose to be mentored, as my neighbor Leroy Barber suggests, by someone your demographic has colonized (if you’re white, actively seek a mentor of African descent). Read histories that fairly explore the underside of your society’s legacy, such as (for me) A People’s History of the United States.

This journey doesn’t necessarily mean changing our theology or ethics, but it ought to change our hearts.

This journey doesn’t necessarily mean changing our theology or ethics, but it ought to change our hearts. And that changed heart in turn may mean fresh openness to learn, and willingness to concede our own lack of understanding. Deepening our humility and opening ourselves to the wisdom of the oppressed enacts postcolonialism’s deepest hopes while providing a potent (if quiet) witness to a world that rolls its eyes at a know-it-all evangelicalism.

Conclusion

My friends Mark and Amy Van Steenwyk of Minneapolis don’t say they live in “Minnesota.” They are teaching their son that they live in a part of God’s creation that today’s politicians name as “Minnesota,” but that before them the Sioux people called something else. And before even the Sioux, the land’s deepest naming is as “God’s creation.” This practice helps them remember reality truthfully. It liberates their land from the lines that history’s victors have drawn on it.

My other friend Jesus (and his friend Paul) invited colonizers and the colonized to feast together regularly. They broke down the us-versus-them attitudes that colonialism thrives on precisely by insisting that the proverbial “them” of that equation are beloved creatures of Yahweh intended to be part of God’s one family. “Greeks and Jews” dining together was (and is) a postcolonial practice that helps the Church remember our deepest, common identity as members of Christ’s Body.

Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations has much to offer the local church. I hope many pastors and seminarians will read it. More importantly, I hope they will read it with others. More importantly still, I hope they will read it with someone from a colonized people group.

One of the most challenging lessons the book conveys is that we cannot be postcolonial alone, nor does a postcolonial-conversant evangelicalism lend itself to church boards enacting top-down acts of repentance. If evangelicalism in North America is to take its legacy and future seriously, slow journeys of patient conversation and mutual submission must take place at all layers of church life between colonized and colonizers.

EDIT: As a bonus for PARSE readers, IVP has offered the following special discount codes through Sept. 28th (45% off) for readers wishing to purchasetitles from diverse theological voices, including the book featured in this review:

Brandon D. Rhodes is a grassroots scholar, writer, and small business owner in Lents, Oregon, closely involved with Springwater, an Anabaptist parish church.

Church Life

Slammed in the Spirit

Hope for a Christian blogosphere that focuses more on God than each other.

Her.meneutics September 18, 2014
howardkang / Flickr

Earlier this summer, my daughter came home from Vacation Bible School wearing a thick purple bracelet with bright orange lettering. “Watch for God,” it read. To me, it seemed like an incomplete sentence. Watch for God to what? But my mental sluggishness only revealed a spiritual truth: God seems distant lately, and it’s difficult to see him working.

Overwhelmed with bad news, we tend to view the world through our own small, distorted prisms. Fred Rogers told of how his mother would comfort him as a child when confronted with scary news, “Watch for the helpers,” she’d say. “There’s always someone trying to help.”

But what if we don’t hear about those stories? What if those stories are buried under the rubble of the pessimistic 24-hour news cycle, in which the critical commentator reigns supreme and bad news outweighs the good by 17 to 1?

It’s not just the news’ fault. What really blinds me to the work of God in the world is the troubling public discourse between Christians. We have picked up the cynics’ dialect; we have adopted the tone of negative sensationalism.

Christians too often bury the good and beautiful ways God is working through our constant criticism of one another. Christian bloggers war with one another in battles big and laughably small. Critical articles outweigh positive articles by 3-to-1 on some Christian sites. Almost every viral article or blog post contains a negative component. Out of principle, I’ll refrain from linking to examples, but these headlines should be familiar:

  • “What Christians Get Wrong”
  • “What Christians Need to Stop Saying”
  • “Myths Christians Believe”
  • “The Problem with Christians”
  • “The Bigoted Christian”
  • “Christians Don’t Care About …” (Insert any given cultural issue—war, peace, abortion, women’s rights, marriage equality, traditional marriage, racial reconciliation, the poor, religious freedom.)

And the heart of God is grieved.

Our public discourse drowns out the truth of how he is working in the world and harms our witness. “By this all people will know you are my disciples,” said Jesus in his farewell discourse, “if you have love for one another.” Only this. Scandalously, he does not mention here love for poor or love for disenfranchised, but only love for one another.

What are we saying to unbelievers with all our mud-flinging, with the careless words we toss out to faceless Internet audiences? I’m afraid it may be something like this: “Yes, Jesus is wonderful! Come and join us so you can be as miserable as us, so you can have a community you can count on to bicker with and eventually stab you in the back."

We who have the key to the only hope in the world have contributed to the growing despair by failing to honor God and one another in our public discourse. In our push to correct and critique the Christians who get it wrong, we forget that they are the exception to all the faithful believers we know in real life.

The heart of God is grieved because our negative speech blinds even us to how he is working in us, through us, and in the world. Our words rot our own heart, implanting within it both bitterness and malice. Throughout the Scriptures, the Lord pleads, “do not bear a grudge against the sons of your own people,” “let all bitterness and wrath and anger and slander be put away from you … be kind to one another,” “let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God,” “anyone who does not love does not know God,” “Why do you pass judgment on your brother?”.

When we slam or denigrate other Christians in the public sphere, we commit the sin of slander. We bear false witness, publicly critiquing only a part. Many of the arguments about cultural issues take place online and outside the context of Christian relationships. Therein lies the trouble. We form judgments about people on the other side of the issue without the incarnational context of how their theory works out in everyday life. The only information we have is a thesis, a position, not information on how that works out in relationships.

But we build our assumptions on the back of our own stereotypes, often for the worse. And thus, people are hurt. Who can bear up under such constant verbal assaults? Warren Wiersbe writes, "It's a painful experience to hear one’s work and ministry maligned, especially when the slander comes from believers who profess to be doing the Lord’s work by exposing the sins of the saints."

It's not that Christians should not argue or should not offer correction or discipline; it's that there is a right way and a right place to do it. When Paul corrected heresy and disputes between Christians, he did so through letters, which would be distributed or shared in the context of that church community. He did not go to the top of Mars Hill and shout about heresy and disputes in front of the Roman public. Much of the critique that clogs the blogosphere can happen offline or not at all, and the critiques we do offer can be graciously offered in a posture of humility, shifting our tone (and our hearts) from negative sensationalism to a tone more suitable to those who have seen God, who are called followers of the Way, children of God, friends of Christ.

There is a time to correct and shepherd the church community towards the way of the Lord, such as the exposing of sexual sin in congregations. The injunction to offer correction and instruction is always governed by the greater commandment to love, and always in the context of a loving Christian community.

Watch for God. Can we learn to watch for God not only in the world, but also in each other? Can we change our tone, offering fewer critiques in a tone of grace, regardless of what it costs in Facebook likes, social media shares, and popularity? I became a believer because someone dared to see in me—me, a doped-up atheist—what God sees in me. I became a believer because someone treated me as if I had value and though imperfect, I was deeply loved.

Can we continue to do that for one another? This world is not an easy place to dwell; it’s hard enough to bear our daily disappointments, heartache, losses, fear, and anxieties with dignity without the negativity we see so often in Christian discourse. May we be kind to one another, and learn again to view each other through the gracious eyes of Christ.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube