To Denounce or Not to Denounce

There has been a fair amount of debate and discussion recently about the issue of “denouncement”. When (if ever, and under what circumstances) is it appropriate to denounce another human being – even one we’ve had relationship with – when a person’s actions or words appear out of line. Of course, this very issue has had plenty of play in the media following the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments. Obama did a very good job (I thought) of working his way through that particularly thorny patch of the campaign trail.

But even within the emerging blogoshpere this issue has arisen, and not just in relation to Obama and cohort. Tony Jones has said that John Piper asked him to denounce Brian McLaren- mainly because Brian quoted certain figures that Piper sees as “beyond the Pale”. So I guess that would be kind of like a denoucement- two steps removed. Tony responded by asking why Piper hadn’t denourced Mark Driscoll after he was particularly (and very publically) uncharitable and mean-spirited in his rebuke of people such as Doug Pagitt. Not surprisingly, Piper responded by suggesting that comparing sound theology and Christlike behavior is to compare apples and oranges. Piper just doesn’t realize how tired so many of us are of that modernistic, insanely, false dichotomy. He declares these kinds of things as if they make all the sense in the world; as if these distinctions should be wholly self-evident to any Christian walking the face of Planet Earth.

So why is it that someone like Piper (and so many others like him) are willing to forgo all sense of human dignity (let alone Christlike behavior) when critiquing (or should I say character-assinating) people who differ over certain (even secondary) theological points?
A certain fellow (who definitely resides in Piper’s court) gave us a clue in his response to this topic thread on Tony’s blog. He wrote


Don’t you just love it when people such as this make the a priori assumption that the passages of Scripture warning of false doctrine and false teachers must be referring (somehow prophetically to be sure) to the “end-times decievers” who come to question the soundness of an “inerrant”, 16th century gospel? Of course, they don't recognize their particular formulation of the gospel dates only a few centuries back, but it does.

I took it upon myself to respond to this comment thusly

I figured I would give this person the benefit of the doubt. He came back and called me typically emergent, in that I was arrogant and perhaps even a little too educated for my own common-sense. Yet another one of those fabulous false dichotomies.

Still, even after these points and counter-points, the question remains: why is it some factions within (mostly American) Christianity are so quick to slander and character assasinate those who surely should be considered brothers and sisters in Christ?

I think it's important to remember that - to those of a more fundamentalist perspective - what’s being defending is an entire superstructure of Christian belief. And from this mentality comes the idea that any difference in belief is considered a chink in the armor that will necessarily have devastating consequences.

Those of us in the EC (as well as many other movements, for that matter) don’t see it this way. It seems a little preposterous to us to expect that any two people- let alone an entire movement of people - are going to agree on every matter. And we don’t fear the apocalypse when two different opinions co-exist.

The bottom line is that the fundamentalist has a much longer, much more defined list of issues that must be agreed upon.
And because of the Hell question- taken in its most literal, extreme form - these people think that friendship and worldview agreement must necessarily go hand in hand. For them the consequences are just to dire to think otherwise.

Strange, but true. This is where the denouncement issue comes into play.

Six Degrees from Oblivion: Framing the Global Warming "Debate"

I caught most of a sobering interview with climatologist, Mark Lynas, on the program “After Words” the other day. Lynas' book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet details our best understanding of what to expect with each degree of increase in average global temperature. Lynas starts with one degree increase and works up to six. Why stop at six degrees? Well, believe it or not, at that point - which is the worst case scenario we could face by the end of this century - we'd have what Lynas describes as a completely unrecognizable planet. While one, two, or three degrees might not seem like much to us, a fragile global balance is extensively shifted as a result. Curious as to what each degree of increase means? Lynas writes that at one degree increase

Sobering, yes? Just wait, look at what we can expect at two degrees increase:


And it just gets worse from there. And not just in added consequences, but with a compounding, domino-like effect. Lynas makes note of this key tipping-point, somewhere between two and three degrees increase, where all sorts of issues combine to create a much more nightmarish situation. Lynas warns that at this point


What I found interesting, not to mention disturbing and embarrassing, was Lynas’ contention that the U.S. is really the only remaining western country that still debates whether or not global warming is even occurring, and whether or not humans are the chief cause. Seriously, in every other developed nation this is largely a mute point. Lynas also contends that the American scientists who question global warming are not really specialists in climatology. But of course, these are the few “experts” that the Bush/Cheney administration has chosen to hear.

Where do go from here? Lynas says that the upcoming summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 is when and where we need to see a ratified agreement amongst all of the major developed and developing countries of the world. Only with aggressive, agreed-upon targets for reducing carbon emissions at that conference can we hope to avoid the 2 degree consequences outlined earlier. Why? Well, because it takes time for these changes to take hold and be applied within industry around the world. We have about a decade to work with, Lynus says. But to turn it around within those ten years we need Copenhagen to be the proverbial line in the sand.

A couple positive notes in all this: All three of the leading U.S. presidential candidates have pledged strong action on the global warming front. And furthermore, even while the Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto Accord- that virtually every other western nation agreed to - many cities across the U.S. have decided to adopt them locally anyway.




Brewing a Great Awakening: Assessing a Changed Religious/Political Landscape in America

In the opening of his new book the Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, Jim Wallis makes note of what he sees as a changed religious/political landscape in America. That’s right. Not changing, but changed. He writes,


A couple of interesting questions arise here:

1.) Is this true? Has everything changed in the arena of American religious/political thinking and action?

2.) If so, how did it happen?

To answer the first I’d say, its too early too tell. I think even Wallis will admit that much of his evidence is anecdotal. Still, he’s an insider with a uniquely broad perspective on these kinds of things. He might be taking the pulse on something that we will begin to see worked out in larger context over the coming months and years.

My guess is that he’s right- at least in part. Because, if nothing else, the rules of engagement have indeed changed. And Wallis hints at it in the quote above. For the Democrats, a new found appreciation for religious language and underpinning is now in play. Only a few short years ago Democrats were expected to keep their religious affiliation a private matter and get on with speaking about public policy- as if the two were mutually exclusive, which of course, they're not. This left things wide open for conservative Republicans to come in and dominate, and even- frame, the conversation. So, in such a milieu, perhaps it should not be surprising that the discourse was a truncated one focused on two issues: gay marriage and abortion.

In all honesty, its only after the Democrats really took a dive in national popularity (in terms of perception and electability) that they began to change their tune about the mixing of religion and politics in the public arena. Today, as Wallis points, out, things look vastly different. Democrats call on religious conviction (as they should) to fight against poverty, racism, environmental-degradation, etc.

And on the other side of the aisle, many evangelicals began to take notice of, and speak up for, issues that weren’t originally on the radar for the Republican/Evangelical juggernaut that won George Bush a couple of elections. Figures such as Jim Dobson and Chuck Colson have lost much of their stranglehold on the debate as a result of the Web revolution. This online debate as to what constitutes Christian justice has exposed millions of sincere, seeking evangelicals to all sorts of new voices. While Christian Radio (read: conservative, fundamentalist-leaning radio) is still a major player, it is not what it once was in terms of influence and impact.

So, with all of these factors put together, along with a new sense of urgency around issues such as Global Warming – issues that will not be ignored – the discourse has indeed, changed… and is… changing. Now comes a season – the next five years or so - when we will see what the fruit of this new dialogue can produce- in terms of real, tangible, on-the-ground shifts in public policy, and as a result, public experience. But perhaps we’re on our way to something truly hopeful. It can all begin with a conversation… when it’s honest, when it’s sincere.

Context Will Set You Free to Be Set Free

Back in the day, when I was studying biblical studies under very able-minded professors at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, one of the first expressions we became familiar with was “context is King”. It’s a simple, yet timeless perspective on biblical studies - and for that matter, any other sort of historical endeavor. Whether you’re trying to figure out why Jesus spoke in parables or why John McCain keeps saying “the next American president” so often in recent speeches, context is what you need to consider. Context frames events so as to make them understandable to those removed in time and space.

In the latter case of my two examples, historical context will tell you that McCain uses this phrase - emphasizing the word “next” - because he is trying to distance himself from present Republican president George Bush.

Now, many Christians (especially of a more conservative frame of mind) grow frustrated with people dedicated to getting to the bottom of a seemingly endless barrel of correct historical context. But getting to the bottom (or at least trying to) really is essential if we’re to take seriously the idea that Jesus is someone we know and understand. The less we really understand the history the more likely we are to read our anachronistic leanings into ancient sayings and events. Those critics who claim that this emphasis on historical context is just a means to re-writing our understanding of Jesus really have it backwards. We study context so as not to re-write Jesus into a mythological figure customized to our contemporary whims.

In Jesus and the Victory of God N.T. Wright makes an interesting point in this regard. Wright states that

And speaking of context, Wright raises one of the essential pillars of contextual understanding here: namely that we must not only consider the speaker - in an historical event - but also the audience. We have to make sense of how they would have received and understood a statement before we can fully grasp the point of the speaker in the first place. Now, one can say that Jesus (perhaps secretly) new more than he was letting on, that he was more than a Jewish prophet. But he was certainly not less than this.

Now regarding Wright's point that Jesus was not (at least first and foremost) a speaker of timeless moral truths, what does that mean for our biblical understanding, and specifically our biblical application, for today? Its certainly not the simple cut-and-paste method we've often made it out to be in the western Church, is it?

So there you have it: context is king, still. And not just for academics obsessed with historical-critical trivial pursuit. But also for those who claim to love and know Jesus and would like to known and love him more.

Current from: February 2008 - January 2008 - December 2007 - November 2007 - October 2007 - September 2007 - August 2007 - July 2007 - June 2007 - May 2007 - March-April 2007 - January-February 2007 - November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005