Election Reflection

Last spring in the critical thinking class I teach, I had students get into groups and make a list of beliefs from those that they are absolutely certain of down to those that they still believe but only with a confidence level of barely over 50%.  I'm not entirely sure myself that this is a legitimate exercise.  I only believe with about a 55% confidence level that you can put a percentage on how confident you are of something.  But it is a fun exercise for students to think through, and I often learn a lot about my students in the course of it.  I remember that exercise today, because there was one group who gave as their "absolutely certain" belief back then that Barack Obama would not win a second term as president.  So much for absolute certainty.

I was never in serious doubt that the presidential election would go the way it did, and unlike many in my circles of acquaintances, I'm not overly troubled by it.  Let's be very clear:  we were not voting on whether to enact the Kingdom of God yesterday.  The approach of "Let's get our guy into the big political machine so that we can turn all of our convictions into law" has been tried before: King Herod got himself named "King of the Jews" by the Roman senate back in the day.  Instead of having a positive effect on the government, I'm afraid the direction of influence went the other way.  Perhaps you're not impressed with my sample size of one, but I think it has become pretty clear that the Kingdom of God is not going to be enacted through the election of temporal rulers.

Don't get me wrong.  I did vote my convictions.  I guess it's just that I don't have a lot of optimism that people who share my convictions can do very much good in the system, and I don't have a lot of pessimism that people who don't share my convictions will do very much bad.  Democracy is a tremendous leveler in that respect.  If you really want government to be able to accomplish much in a short amount of time, having a benevolent dictator with supreme power would be the way to go.  Democracies with bicameral legislatures and checks and balances don't get a whole lot done besides campaigning for the next election--which I expect to begin in a few days.

As for my convictions, I voted a decidedly split ticket.  These are eight of the folks elected in my neck of the woods:

President - Obama (D)
Senator -  Donnelly (D)
US Representative - Walorski (R)
Governor - Pence (R)
Supt. of Public Instruction - Ritz (D)
State Representative - Niezgodski (D)
St. Joe County Commissioner District 3 - McClure (R)
St. Joe County Council District I - Mark Root (R)

I was 6 for 8 among these in voting for the winning candidate.  In the interest of ballots remaining private, I won't tell you which ones I got correct--with the exception of Mark Root, since he is a faculty colleague of mine (and my son's boss!).

Speaking of son #1, it was his first election for which he was eligible to vote.  We were driving home from our polling station (where we were voters # 286 and 287) reflecting on the process, and I almost got a lump in my throat.  I'm not the most patriotic person in the world; I think Christians generally mix God and country in a deplorable fashion.  But on election day--no matter which way the winners and losers come out--I'm proud to be an American.  Our typical reaction around here to solving conflicts is through the use of force.  But even though the ideological conflicts in our nation are massive, we have impressively cultivated and maintained the tradition of a peaceful transition of power.  Thank God for that.

Masterson and God

Justin Masterson got his second start for the Red Sox tonight (see blog on first start here), and tonight the bullpen did its job and he comes away with his first big league win. He went six and a third innings, giving up only one earned run (and that one came after he left the game). The Red Sox only scored two, but it was enough as Papelbon came on for the save.

During the game, I started wondering how much God cares about baseball. I remember since I was a kid being skeptical about praying for my team to win. But it seems to change things when we move from a generic prayer like that to a specific prayer about this individual player that we know. I find myself trying to suppress the prayer that involuntarily came to my lips with every payoff pitch, "God, let Justin strike that guy out." Because there is also someone that the batter knows who is praying for him to hit a home run on that same pitch. It seems like such prayers cancel each other out and make a mockery of God's involvement in the affairs of the world.

Yet, it doesn't seem wrong to pray, "Let him do his best." Is it problematic that "doing his best" seems to mean "pitching really well... and most likely winning"?? And every batter's mom is praying for him to do his best, which means getting a hit most of the time?! If this is what we mean, we're still stuck in a mode of thinking that our prayers are about affecting the outcome of the game. And in that theological masterpiece, Angels in the Outfield, we learned that at least championships have to be won on their own.

I'd like to think that "Let him do his best" means something closer to "Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven." There is a sense that when anything is functioning as it ought to, it is reflecting the kingdom of God. I think this is true of the natural world just as much as the spiritual realm. But that doesn't mean that everything will always go the way we want it to go. Even when baseball players are functioning as they ought, they're going to win some and lose some. We can pray for peace for the player, for him to be free from distraction, to function as he is capable of; and I believe that God assists in those things. But especially in a game of baseball, there are lots of things that are left to chance. The kingdom mindset is that no matter the outcome, I know that all will be well. With that perspective, we can see how there could be things like games in heaven without both teams winning all the time!

Undoubtedly, Justin is going to pitch in some more major league games. And there are enough Christians in his life, that I'm sure there will be lots of people praying for him when he pitches. And I'll bet he'll win some of those games and lose some of them--and that won't be dependent on how fervently we're praying for him. Through it all, I'll keep praying that the kingdom of God will be evident through his pitching. (But it sure is fun when he wins!!)

Congrats, Justin.

New Year

Those of us in the academic profession feel that new year's day should be sometime in late August. That is the new beginning for us, when all things are made fresh. I have a good deal of responsibility with the the prelude to the new year--think of it as organizing the New Year's Eve party.

We had our new faculty on campus today after a meal at the president's house Sunday night. Lots of fun. Tomorrow starts the full faculty retreat. I have a pretty big speech/talk/sermon (I'm never sure what to call them) to give on Wednesday night. The theme will be the purposes of God in our generation which might be served by the Christian college.

Across my banner at the top, the first descriptor is education. This blog has been rather thin on that topic so far. I'll see if I can't do something about that in the future. I need to dig in now to this speech/talk/sermon. If you're inclined to such things, I'd appreciate your prayers; if you're not inclined... fight the inclination and give it a try. I'm pretty sure it won't hurt you.

Claiborne

I mentioned I was a little disappointed with the seminars at Cornerstone this year (here). The first three I tried to go see, the speakers hadn't shown up yet. That kind of jaded me towards those speakers, and I didn't go back to try to see them later. I see now that was a mistake.

I get a podcast from Krista Tippett's "Speaking of Faith" radio show which airs on NPR (though not on our local NPR station--which is why I get the podcast). The show is very worthwhile listening, especially while out on long runs (very user-friendly instructions about how to subscribe to the podcast here). One of her recent shows was a conversation with Shane Claiborne, who was one of the late-comers to the Cornerstone seminar tents I missed. It was a pretty fascinating 53 minute conversation. I have a bit of a negative association with some of the celebrities in the emergent/missional movement for attitudinal reasons, but this guy is about as humble as they come. Very refreshing.

His words and life just drip with the Kingdom of God--a subject of near-future posts.

Church and Democracy

I think it was Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government--except for all the others." Does the same apply to church government?

I've read Plato's Republic enough to be persuaded that democracy is not all that it's cracked up to be. It is certainly a leveler in terms of guarding against big swings (and so long as theocracy remains elusive, I don't think I'd want any other form of government for the state). But is subjecting difficult decisions to a popular vote the wisest? I think it was Descartes who said, "When you're dealing with difficult questions, you'd expect most people to get the answer wrong."

So what does this have to do with church polity? I'm drawn to the Catholic Church in many ways, but I think they've got the doctrine of the Church substantially incorrect. I'm not infallible, and so could be wrong on this, but the Kingdom of God is not to be equated with the institution of the Church. That leaves the elder system vs. the congregational system.

So for me the central tension is my malaise with democracy vs. the priesthood of all believers. It seems to me that it is better for a group of elders to be charged with the governance of the local body--people who are good and gifted at that sort of thing. You want people making the decisions who are most qualified. But then that seems to encourage (I don't see that it has to lead to, but seems to do so pretty reliably) a class of rulers and a class of consumers. And because I believe so strongly in the priesthood of all believers--even though they have different gifts--I'm pulled toward a congregational model.

No resolution here. Just thoughts. I think it was Daffy Duck who said, "That's all folks."

Mind the Gap

It was a lovely spring weekend in Northern Indiana. I spent a lot of time sitting on decks--both my own and some friends'--enjoying the weather. I sure enjoy the change of seasons. Those living in San Diego or Quito, Ecuador can make a decent argument about constant pleasant temperatures, but I'll take the ups and downs. Too much of the same thing becomes numbing after awhile.

I'm back to writing about spiritual formation. I mentioned in an earlier post that I recently taught a six-week class exploring the spiritual disciplines. The integrity of such a class rests on (at least) these two premises:

1. There is a gap between the mature Christian state we are called to, and the state in which most of us Christians currently find ourselves.
2. God does not zap us into that maturity without our cooperation; we have a role to play.

The gap-premise seems obvious from the letters of Paul to the Christians of those early churches, and this is distinct from what is called justification in most of the the classical theological systems. This latter idea has been emphasized too much in my opinion. I suppose there is some change in standing with God, some legal transaction that occurs, when I repent and my sins are forgiven. But when I read the Bible, the overall emphasis seems rather to be on where I'm going once I've repented (literally, "turned").

If as a non-Christian I am running away from the Kingdom of God, when I repent, I stop and turn around. But if I just stand there looking, I'm not entering the Kingdom. So, if the goal is for us to enter that Kingdom fully by having everything in our lives go the way the king want them to be going, most of us have a ways to go. That is to say, there is a gap between where we are and where we are called to be.

Tomorrow: the N0-Zap-Premise.

More God and Safety

A similar discussion is raging on the Bethel Facebook network in the Bethel Philosophy Group. And here someone wonders whether all tragic situations can be redeemed.

This is tough stuff, because we have such a different emotional reaction to evil than we do a logical one. Logically, I think it's pretty easy to solve the problem of evil... but we're not Vulcans.

Can all evil be redeemed? I guess we Christians believe that in the end, yes, all will be redeemed. Evil's reign is only temporary. All will be made right. But here is where Ivan Karamazov objects: he doesn't want the lion to lie down with the lamb; he doesn't want the afflicted to embrace their afflictors. Forgiveness doesn't take away the fact that someone has been severely wronged.

This is the natural emotional response. Evil ought to evoke anger in us. In the wake of the VTech situation, I was angry that my kids have to grow up in a world where stuff like that happens.

But then unforgiveness doesn't take away the evil that has happened either. And here, then, is an opportunity for us to be chiseled and shaped into people who more fully reflect the image of Christ.

This is still so abstract and impersonal. It used to be much easier for me to reflect on what it meant to love my enemies, because I didn't really have any enemies in the normal sense of the word. Then in the past few months a situation occurred in which I had a very identifiable enemy in a fairly significant and potentially dangerous way. How could I love that person? The situation prevented any personal contact at all, so taking her cookies was out of the question.

To love (in one aspect of the word) is to genuinely will what is best for another person. Could I genuinely pray for God's best to come to her (and not just the heaping of coals variety of best)? I'm pretty sure that one who can do that, conforms more closely to the character of Christ. And in the economy of the Kingdom, there is some redemption that happens.

God and Safety

I was browsing through the Chronicle of Higher Ed today, which included a big section on the Virginia Tech tragedy. Two weeks after the event, it seems that most things have returned to normal outside of the campus itself (and the families themselves who were afflicted). The week after the shooting, I was pretty upset. Most of the media coverage focused on safety--how can we keep our campuses (and our businesses and towns and homes...) safe?

It is interesting that safety doesn't seem to be God's chief concern. Most of us Christians probably have some stories where God did intervene and protect miraculously, but for the most part tragedy doesn't seem to be a respecter of creed or sincerity of belief. Christians die from cancer and are victims of drunk drivers and all the rest. It is not a safe world. This fact causes some theological conundrums.

Jesus taught us to pray, "Deliver us from evil." And he himself prayed--unsuccessfully on most interpretations--that the cup of suffering would pass from him. Granting that God does do this sometimes, still leaves us with the other times. Why doesn't he deliver us from what are obvious evils like psychologically disturbed gunmen?

One response is typically called the free will defense to evil. God places such a high value on the free will of these creatures of his that he's not going to step in and stop the consequences from such actions even when they result in evil. But the problem with this solution is that it is too strong of a response. On this principle, it seems that he never should step in if he values free will so much. This seems to rule out the possibility of any miraculous protection against the evils perpetrated by free agents--a possibility we'd like to leave open. We're still left with the question, "Why does God intervene sometimes and not others?"

While I will uphold free will till I'm blue in the face, it doesn't seem to me that this can be the whole story. And I don't pretend that this settles the problem once and for all, but it seems to me that the answer must lie in the direction of the following: God desires above all our holiness, not our safety or even our happiness. Holiness is an attribute that transcends our existence in this unsafe place, in this kingdom of the world. It is very difficult for us to take the perspective of eternity for ourselves and for those we love, but from God's perspective and from within his kingdom, events like the tragic death of loved ones must look a little different. I don't mean to suggest that they are not difficult or even still tragic. But they must be something else in addition to this. They must be opportunities God has decided to allow because they have some redeeming value for shaping us into the kind of people he wants us to be.

I don't mean to suggest that God is to blame for somehow causing tragedies to happen. Rather, I believe and trust (what else can we do?) that God can use tragic situations for something else, that he can work all things together for good. This is little consolation if our perspective on life is for this world only--quantity and quality of embodied life is all there is. But what if there is more?