What's wrong in Washington, and beyond?

 I posted a shorter version of this several weeks ago on Facebook. I decided it is worth cleaning up and posting here.

I heard the news this morning that Senator Joe Manchin, from my neighboring state of WV, killed President Bidens Build Back Better Bill.

While I'm so far from being a political pundit that I had to check the spelling of the word, I seriously disagree with that. Further, I don't think the reasoning behind that cause of legislative-death post-mortem is purely, or even mostly, political. It is but one example of the way things are in our world today.

At this point, I'm not saying whether President Biden's bill is good or bad. I am saying that it was killed by one outworking of the extreme partisanship of today's US political landscape, which is but one outworking of the postmodern zeitgeist which is the air which we all breathe.

No doubt there are many good things in the President's expansive proposal. Other things, not so much. It used to be that decisions like this were made on the basis of appealing to people of goodwill to do what is right or more right than wrong, or at least the best we can do in the current circumstances. Statesmen (persons), realizing that no manmade proposal is perfect, weighed the pros and cons. There was recognition that each representative represented a different constituency with a different set of interests. Some representatives had lines of conscience or stubbornness that they would not cross. Deals and accommodations were made. Backs were scratched. While such maneuvering often involved party alignments such legislation was often passed in a bipartisan manner. The common interests that crossed the aisle were of more importance than the partisan, unshared, interests of each side.

As I look out through my keyhole, I see an entirely different scenario. Two party machines meticulously--dare I say ruthlessly--maintain conformity to the party line in ways that differ only in degree from the methods of absolute dictators or Mafia dons. "Do what I say or I will make you suffer." In this encounter, the sides were almost evenly matched. The one vote differential allowed no room for defection. Again, from my perspective, it didn't appear that the expectation was that we can win this because "truth, the welfare of the nation, kindness, and responsibility are on our side." Instead, the expectation of victory was, "We have one more vote than the other side." I quickly add that it also appeared to me that the other side based their hope for victory or defeat on similar mathematical logic. Except.

I'm not arguing whether the Senator from my neighboring state did the right thing. As I look at the situation I don't see any other conclusion than that he thought he was doing the right thing. I figure he will pay a price for it. In that sense we clearly need more politicians like Senator Manchin.

Above the political rhetoric and maneuvering an overall principle reigns, "My party, right or wrong." I hope some lessons are learned from the current impasse. The lessons for those elected to serve us in government should be obvious, but in our eagerness to point our fingers at those we have elected are we neglecting to see how this applies to those of us who do the electing? Do we focus too much on those who are able to get things done and too little on the things they want to get done.? Is it that the people in power aren't doing the right thing or is it that we aren't putting people who think rightly in power? Or, perhaps it is both.

I think clearly the defeat of this mammoth bill points out something that's been obvious, but too seldom spoken, for quite a while, now. His Excellency Emperor Partisan (and I'm not giving this title to any particular person but to the whole syndrome that reigns) is buck naked.

EKKLESIAPROJECT.ORG

ekklesiaproject.org

Pastoring, in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage is more complicated than it used to be.

 I guess I should be glad that I've entered the emeritus phase of my ministry. Pastoring, especially in regard to matters of sexuality and marriage has certainly gotten more complicated. I'm not, however, comfortable in just ignoring these matters. For one thing, Old guys like me are frequently asked to perform weddings. Given the right circumstances, it is something I'm glad to do. Secondly, I regard my years of experience as a trust. I think I have an obligation to help the next generations of shepherds. For these, and other, reasons I maintain an interest in the increasingly complicated realm of pastoral ministry in the sexual/gender/marriage realm.

In that regard, I recommend two articles that have come my way recently;

1. A blogpost by Gene Vieth, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2021/11/should-couples-and-their-pastor-reject-marriage-licenses/
   Vieth is a Lutheran, and as such interacts with a report that came from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I encourage my pastor-buddies to read the report. As a baptistic, conservative Evangelical, I find it helpful. The report is linked in Veith's post. Veith gives a good summary of the report. Basically, Veith and the longer report ask some post-Obergefell questions and offer some answers and counsel that are worth considering. My oversimplified summary is that the article's position is that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision didn't really change anything for a faithful pastor's practice. SCOTUS clearly misdefined marriage, but it didn't do so in a way that requires we shepherds of God's flock to do so. (Might that happen? Maybe. Realize, though, that while some slopes are slippery, not all are. I say for now we should be vigilant and try to drive in some stakes on the sloping terrain wherever and whenever we can.)
2. A second article, by Al Mohler, asks a question that I've seen come up several times, lately, though I don't remember exactly where (there are reasons why I'm emeritus). Here is the article. https://albertmohler.com/2021/11/10/briefing-11-10-21?utm_source=Albert+Mohler&utm_campaign=b40e1c087c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_08_09_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b041ba0d12-b40e1c087c-307975913&mc_cid=b40e1c087c&mc_eid=20aa58364c
   The question posed is a fine-line kind of distinction but one that in my humble opinion needs to be considered. Again, IMHO, I think that way back in the last century those of us who seek to hold to a Biblical view of gender/sexuality lost a significant semantic battle. That loss led to, or contributed to, a significant point of confusion. Is it proper to speak of a "Gay Christian"? Or even more pointedly, a "Gay Celibate Christian"? 

Pastors in the 2020s are faced with questions that weren't out there in the 1970s when I began my ministry. The requirement to be faithful to the Word remains the same.

Knees, Stairs, Numbers, and My Wife's Advice

 Going up and down stairs takes more effort than it used to. The effort is not only physical, it's mental. I remember going up stairs two at a time. Now I often think about a joke:

When I was twenty I took stairs two at a time.

When I turned forty I started taking them one at a time.

Now that I'm sixty, I take the elevator.

The joke's funnier when it's told out loud. Getting just the right inflection and rhythm on the last "take" is important. Timing is often important. Thankfully, my mind is still relatively quick. My feet have slowed down, though. I can remember coming down stairs in sort of a controlled fall. Though I've always been far from graceful, I was able to kind of flip my feet, sliding over the edge of one stair, barely catching the next, just enough to slow my descent to a manageable rate. There was some danger in coming down stairs that way. As I look back, though, it didn't seem that great. A sprained ankle or a broken arm wasn't that big a deal. I'd get over it. Actually, I think more about that controlled-fall descending style, now, looking back than I ever did when I was doing it. Back then it was automatic, so was climbing the stairs. In fact, I didn't really climb them. I just walked, or even ran, up them, as I said, sometimes two at a time. Now, I think about them. I want to be sure that each foot is firmly planted before I trust my full weight to the change in elevation that is coming. Do I do the one step at a time method, letting my stronger right leg do most of the work? Especially if I'm carrying something that is a good option. (Or is it a tempting option?) Or do I give my left leg the exercise it needs? You know, "Don't give in." Since I live in a house with three stories I quiz myself on that several times a day. So far I'm passing the test. The answer key is, "Did he fall?"

Not only do I think about how to go up and down the stairs these days, I think about what thinking about stairs means. This is where my wife's advice comes in. She is a proponent of thinking young. Don't talk about being old. In many ways, I agree. A case can be made that a number is an arbitrary thing. On the other hand, numbers are most useful when they are attached to something meaningful. Having twenty dollars in my wallet is much better--twenty times better in fact--than only having one. When it comes to stairs, having seventy-one years is worse than having twenty-one. I'm well aware that modern medicine and a greater emphasis on health have allowed us, on average, to stay more active longer than our grandparents but that only goes so far. I'm at the age now when I take greater note of those who are five, ten, or fifteen years older than me. Sometimes I take note when I read their obituary. I think of the lightning speed with which the last year passed and . . . well, you complete the thought. If I don't get my foot placed right on that fifth step coming down I could waste six months of what's left in surgery, in a cast, on a walker, or worse. I could see the surgeon about getting a new left knee--I like my titanium right one--but again the subtraction factor enters in, and like stairs, surgery isn't a sure thing. Do I leave well-enough alone, or should I choose to fix what's no longer good enough? My wife is right; focusing too much on being old detracts from making the most of the life we have. Yet, there is wisdom in learning to number our days.

I'm sitting in a chair, now, so I can think about that. When I'm on the stairs, I can't be distracted. I guess that is sort of my paradigm for living right now. Some years ago a friend of mine said, "When you get to be my age you don't concern pay the extra money to put the thirty-year shingle on your house." I visited my friend's house not long after he died. Sure enough, it needed a roof, but the twenty-year shingles had out-lasted my buddy. I think he was wise to use his limited resources on the twenty years he had rather than focus on the ten he didn't have. Of course, I know he was just playing the odds.

The bottom line about all of this is really no different than it was back when I twenty-one looking forward to the next fifty years, which is now the last half-century. What really matters is using my days, however many or few they be, to the glory of the God of eternity. 

For now, I have more stairs to climb. Pray for me.

Reading Between the Lines of a Missionary Prayer Letter

I receive emails from various missionaries and mission groups. Not long ago, I was one of those who sent such prayer letters. This brief report, that I read this morning, really spoke to me, not only for what it said but for the challenge it implied. I edited it a bit, to remove identifiers and to make the brief account clearer. I'll share a few comments afterward

From the world, where things like this happen (the request contained the missionaries place of service):

We marvel at God’s workings! A coworker from a social ministry project regularly attends a meeting of a group of subsistence farmers. He noticed that one of the female participants had not planted a field next to her house. It turned out the woman had been accused of having used magic to kill her nephew. The boy had died of malaria. As a result of her familynand church believing this accusation, she was beaten so severely, she couldn’t even move for a long time. So the coworker and associates planted a field with her, even though they weren’t sure there would be enough rain to produce a good harvest. "We also tried to point to reconciliation through God," as all those involved in the beating incident attend the same church.

They report, "How happy we were, when three months later we were able to have a thanksgiving service on that woman’s field – not only for a good harvest but also for the joyous news that she has forgiven her family. Later we heard that her brother, acting as the head of the family, had asked her for forgiveness."

Christians have often been accused of "killing their own wounded." Having been a pastor for most of my life, and working in Christian organizations all my life, it is far too often a fair observation. "Coworker" found a way to step in and redeem such a situation. She/he did so on several levels: 

• In the environment where this story originates, this field represented an important part of a family's livelihood. It is probably not saying too much to say that whether or not this field was planted was a matter of life and death.
  I, and you, need to be looking for places where we can step in and interrupt the flow of evil in this world. The church has an impressive history of doing this. From the early church rescuing abandoned infants in the Roman Empire, to Christians stepping up to care for victims of the Black  Plague in the middle ages, to modern-era missions erecting hospitals and aiding with agriculture all over the world, dedicated Christians have chosen to light a candle rather than merely curse the darkness. Thanks, Coworker, for this example.
• Whenever tragedy strikes, sin is usually lurking around. The "father of lies" looks for any opportunity to damage the church. Here is a church in an agricultural community minus all the tractors, silos, and equipment that mark farming in the west. These aren't folk who grow tomatoes because they can grow better ones than those available at Walmart. For these folk, if their field produces they eat. If it doesn't they don't. The devil is smart enough to know that someone attending the funeral(s) that would have taken place, had not Coworker and his band stepped in, would draw the clear conclusion, "This is the church's fault. The beating this woman received was a sin not only against her but against those dependent on her. Worse, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that but for Coworker, this would have resulted in a stain on the reputation of the church--even The Church.
• Did you note that Coworker didn't plant the field alone? "Associates" helped. Further, the group of outsiders didn't do it for the injured woman, they did it with her. There are times when brave, dedicated Christians need to step up on their own, but those occasions are rare. Usually, the pattern one can observe in the book of Acts--partnership--should be the mode of action. 
• As important as it was for this family to be fed, that wasn't most important. The brief praise and prayer note didn't say for sure, but I take it that "the brother acting as the head of the family" is the father of the boy who died from malaria. If so, it makes the forgiveness that was offered all the more powerful. The Apostle Paul tells his son-in-the-faith, Titus, to teach his congregation "to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. . . . to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people." (Tt 3:1–2 & 8). This is part of the lifestyle that results in "the word of God . . . not be[ing] reviled" (Tt.2:5), and "condemned" (Tt 2:8). In fact it results in the "adorn[ing of] the doctrine of God our Savior" (Tt 2:10). Can you imagine that people like you, me, Coworker, and Associates have the opportunity to make the truth about Jesus Christ more attractive to those who live around us? We do!

I prayed for the missionaries who shared this request. I thanked the Lord for the good harvest and the reconciliation that came as a result of this act of kindness. I ask that the Lord will continue to provide these missionaries, Coworker, and Associates with opportunities to show the Good News in practical ways. But, I also prayed, "Lord, what can I do to make the Gospel more attractive to those who watch me?" I'll try to remember to not only read what is written in missionary prayer letters but to read between the lines, as well.

Politics and Brotherhood:

 I had a break from mainland USA & Virginia politics. On Guam, where I spent most of the five years, and in the island nations and states of Micronesia, people take their politics seriously, but it clearly has a different character. There are only 170,000, or so, residents of Guam. Some of the legislative contests in FSM and Palau are decided by electorates of a few hundred or even less. Often the main candidates for a position are relatives. Even on Guam, a US territory, the social group from which candidates are usually drawn is a pretty small club. This familiarity tends to bring a measure of civility. I haven't seen that in the current Virginia contest for governor. The mud is deep. Even though most of you don't live in the Old Dominion, I figure you have a share of the wet, sticky soil in your neighorhood.

As citizens, we have a responsibility to wade through the mud and make the best decision we can. 

As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, those who claim to be Christ-followers have a greater responsibility. The difficult fact of elections is that someone (sometimes several someones) losses. The Body of Christ, however, Democrat, Republican, Independent, abstainers, etc. goes on. In the final analysis, it is the church that will make the ultimate difference in this world. Read John 13:35, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1-3 as examples of what the church can, and should, do.

Lance Witt offers some thoughts on honoring one another within the church. It is a needed reminder. Let's put brotherhood above partisanship.

I May Not Live on Mars Hill, but

 I am in the neighborhood. 

The CT (Christianity Today) podcast series, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. Is a powerful piece of work. I have listened to all of it, nine episodes at this point, and have found it compelling. I find it so from a historical viewpoint, as one of the greatest demonstrations of hubris I have ever seen, as an illustration of the reality that sin is often very much at home in the pulpit, but, most significantly, as a warning. We little guys can take as much pride (used in the clearly negative sense) in our 50 or 100 as Driscoll did in his thousands. Numerical success can be--please note that I said "can be," not "is"--a curse.

Trevin Wax offers an insightful commentary on how the hunger for a real father may have--I think does--motivate especially young men to gravitate to the likes of Driscoll. It is worth the read.

For decades I was privileged to spend a morning a week with some pastoral colleagues who served with me in my small town. Frequently, the conversation would go to a search for, or a discussion of "the key"--What is it that makes a ministry succeed? I have no doubt that hundreds, if not thousands, of young pastors thought they had found the key by learning to rant and even cuss like Driscoll. In any worthwhile sense they didn't succeed. I would make the case that they hadn't even located the doorknob. 

Our calling as pastors is not to build the biggest church in town. It is to be faithful to God's word. 

I can't begin to tell you how many times I have heard someone with a shiny new key in hand ridicule that truth. Perhaps you chuckled or sneered when you read it just now. You ignore it not only at your own peril, but you endanger the souls of those God has called you to shepherd. There is a strong warning that comes from Mars Hill.

DON'T.

Why Can't We Just All Get Along? Maybe we can't , or maybe we don't want to.

 Not out of a voyeuristic urge but out of concern for the church in general, and, in particular, for those churches with which I am involved, I took time this morning to read the report of the difficulties being faced at Bethlehem in Minneapolis. (The church where John Piper was the longtime lead pastor.) I fear and think that their issues are shared broadly among Evangelical churches.

If you are a subscriber to CT you can find a report here. If you are not a subscriber I would imagine a web search will reveal other articles.

The CT article pointed me to two other articles that attempt to classify the fault lines along which Evangelicals are dividing. One by Kevin DeYoung categorizes four responses to current social conditions. The article includes two charts that describe how those who from contrite to courageous tend to respond to various issues that present themselves in our world today. The other by Michael Graham, looks at six factions within Evangelicalism and then goes on to predict what the author sees as the way churches will be sorted. He sees three kinds of churches emerging.

As I read the article about Bethlehem and the other two articles I linked, I saw a probably over-simplified tension between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Not that middle of the road is always best, but clearly in this case we need to work hard to both believe right and to behave correctly. 

It's tough.