Going Beyond Telerance

N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham (and one of my favorite theologians) recently addressed the British House of Lords on the topic of laws that restrict "hate speech." You can read the whole speech here:VirtueOnline-News Moral Climate Change in Britain - by N. T. Wright

Here's two excerpts, one from the opening and the other near the end:

I think it would be a mistake to confine our attention today to the Danish cartoons and their aftermath, regrettable though all that is, or indeed to the recent court cases. These fall within a larger moral and social landscape. We are faced with moral climate change, which is comparable to other forms of climate change and equally dangerous.

The 1960s swept away the old moral certainties, but getting rid of them has not made us happier or safer. Hence, the invention of new quasi-moralities out of bits and pieces of moral rhetoric; the increasingly shrill language of rights; the glorification of victimhood, which enables anyone with hurt feelings to claim high moral ground; and the invention of various "identities," which demand not only protection, but immunity from all critique. It was this messy but potent combination of neo-moralities that generated the religious hatred legislation, of which your noble Lordships, rightly in my opinion, took a dim view recently.

It is not just the invention of new moralities that should concern us; it is the attempt to enforce them-to enforce, that is, newly invented standards that, in some cases, are the exact opposite of the old ones. How else can we explain the attempted ejection of protestors, whether from a party conference or even, yes, from Parliament Square?

How else can we explain the anxiety not only of religious leaders but also of comedians when faced with the proposed religious hatred legislation? How else can we explain the police investigation of religious leaders, such as my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester or the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain for making moderate and considered statements about homosexual practice?

And the crux of his closing, which I think makes a particularly excellent point on the difference between tolerance and true freedom:

I can tolerate someone standing on the other side of the street; I do not need to engage with them. Tolerance all too easily supposes that all religions are basically the same and that they can all be discounted for purposes of public life. Thanks to the 18th century, that is what many people still believe. But tolerance is a parody of something deeper, richer and more costly for which we must work-a genuine and reciprocal freedom. It is a freedom properly contextualised within a wise responsibility. It is freedom not to be gratuitously rude or offensive-I totally agree with what the noble"

The School of Suffering

I heard a story tonight about a Romanian Pastor, Joseph Tson, who was arrested for propaganda. It was a great story which I'll share once I find a good reference to it. In the mean time, I found this article by Pastor Tson on how God uses suffering to strengthen us, comfort others and bring him glory. Well worth the time to read...The School of Suffering

BBC NEWS | Middle East | What the Muhammad cartoons portray

With all the furor over the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, I thought it was of interest to read some background on the situation and learn just what the cartoons depict. This article from the BBC does just that without reprinting the cartoons themselves. BBC NEWS | Middle East | What the Muhammad cartoons portray

It's not about charity. It's about Justice.

Jesse's blog referenced Bono's homily to the National Prayer breakfast yesterday. It's well worth viewing or reading but here are some highlights I especially resonated with...

It’s not about charity, it’s about justice.

And that’s too bad.

Because you’re good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can’t afford it.

But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment.

6,500 Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about Justice and Equality.

Because there's no way we can look at what’s happening in Africa and, if we're honest, conclude that deep down, we really accept that Africans are equal to us. Anywhere else in the world, we wouldn’t accept it. Look at what happened in South East Asia with the Tsunami. 150, 000 lives lost to that misnomer of all misnomers, “mother nature”. In Africa, 150,000 lives are lost every month. A tsunami every month. And it’s a completely avoidable catastrophe.

It’s annoying but justice and equality are mates. Aren’t they? Justice always wants to hang out with equality. And equality is a real pain.

You know, think of those Jewish sheep-herders going to meet the Pharaoh, mud on their shoes, and the Pharaoh says, “Equal?” A preposterous idea: rich and poor are equal? And they say, “Yeah, ‘equal,’ that’s what it says here in this book. We’re all made in the image of God.”
...
Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market… that’s a justice issue. Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents… That’s a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents… that’s a justice issue.

And while the law is what we say it is, God is not silent on the subject.

That’s why I say there’s the law of the land… and then there is a higher standard. There’s the law of the land, and we can hire experts to write them so they benefit us, so the laws say it’s OK to protect our agriculture but it’s not OK for African farmers to do the same, to earn a living?

As the laws of man are written, that’s what they say.

God will not accept that.

Mine won’t, at least. Will yours?

[pause]

I close this morning on … very… thin… ice.

This is a dangerous idea I’ve put on the table: my God vs. your God, their God vs. our God… vs. no God. It is very easy, in these times, to see religion as a force for division rather than unity.

And this is a town—Washington—that knows something of division.

But the reason I am here, and the reason I keep coming back to Washington, is because this is a town that is proving it can come together on behalf of what the Scriptures call the least of these.

This is not a Republican idea. It is not a Democratic idea. It is not even, with all due respect, an American idea. Nor it is unique to any one faith.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.’ (Luke 6:30) Jesus says that.

‘Righteousness is this: that one should… give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for the emancipation of the captives.’ The Koran says that. (2.177)

Thus sayeth the Lord: ‘Bring the homeless poor into the house, when you see the naked, cover him, then your light will break out like the dawn and your recovery will speedily spring fourth, then your Lord will be your rear guard.’ The jewish scripture says that. Isaiah 58 again.

That is a powerful incentive: ‘The Lord will watch your back.’ Sounds like a good deal to me, right now.

A number of years ago, I met a wise man who changed my life. In countless ways, large and small, I was always seeking the Lord’s blessing. I was saying, you know, I have a new song, look after it… I have a family, please look after them… I have this crazy idea…

And this wise man said: stop.

He said, stop asking God to bless what you’re doing.

Get involved in what God is doing—because it’s already blessed.

Well, God, as I said, is with the poor. That, I believe, is what God is doing.

And that is what He’s calling us to do.

Faith, Hope, and Love

Reading 1 Thessalonians the other day I noticed for the first time how Paul combines faith, hope and love in his greeting to them:

We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thes 1:3. NIV.

.
What an elegant way to describe the way of Jesus. We don't work and labor to earn God's love. Our work springs from faith, our labor from love and we endure the hardships that inevitably come undergirded by the hope we have in Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, in our performance oriented culture, many of us struggle to understand grace. We do in order to please and work to earn recognition.

But too often, our attempts to overcome this result in no work, no labor, no endurance.

More on Exclusion and Embrace

As I continue to work my way through Volf’s “Exclusion and Embrace” I am struck by both the clarity and complexity of the challenge he tries to resolve. Clear in so much as Christ has demonstrated a simple challenging way for us to follow…the cross, where he embraced all of us, sin and all, and excluded only the powers of darkness and, I suppose, those that cling to darkness as if it were light. Complex in so much as the practical outworking of the crucified life in our lives is complicated by the complexity of society today.

I suspect that in many regards, I am over complicating things. So often complexity is a foil we create to avoid facing simple, but painful demands on our lives. Yet the problem is not just a matter of me individually, but rather me within my community (in the broad sense of the term). Is it enough to just “take up my cross” within the context of my little corner of things? No. We are called to “go” and make disciples and announce the Good News that Jesus is Lord along with all its many wonderful implications.

Which brings me back to my wrestling with the various frameworks now being used todeal with the problems of the world such as family, church, community, nation state, etc. Most would agree that Jesus taught the fundamentals of non-violence (eg. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy). But did He mean to apply it universally, from the individual up to the nation-state. If not, where is the line drawn?

How does Paul’s admonition to the Romans about the state wielding the sword fit in? Does it matter that Paul was writing early in the history of the church. The Romans brought peace, but not in the way that Jesus brought peace. As Christ’s ambassadors are we not called to help extend His kingdom using His kingdom principles?

Which brings me back to the use of “non-violence” in socio-political situations. I’ve never looked into it in any depth but I found the Nobel acceptance speech Martin Luther King Jr. gave to be a fascinating read. He succinctly describes the problem of modern man as a “poverty of spirit” where the “internal life” has been lost in the “external life” or, quoting Thoreau “improved means to an unimproved end.” He then goes on to describe the principals of non-violence and then points out one of the greatest challenges of its proponents:

Nonviolence has also meant that my people in the agonizing struggles of recent years have taken suffering upon themselves instead of inflicting it on others. It has meant, as I said, that we are no longer afraid and cowed. But in some substantial degree it has meant that we do not want to instill fear in others or into the society of which we are a part. The movement does not seek to liberate Negroes at the expense of the humiliation and enslavement of whites. It seeks no victory over anyone. It seeks to liberate American society and to share in the self-liberation of all the people.

On a related note, I thought the NYT article on pregnancy counseling centers did a good job of highlighting a non-violent, even non-political way to address a pressing social issue.

The Lure of Cyberspace for Youth

As the father of a young boy who loves to play on his computer, I'm sensitive to the dangers that lurk in "cyberspace." Even a simple search for a website that links to one of his favorite online games—Mini Putt III—is complicated by the many sites that host both innocent and tawdry games along with various online banners innappropriate for a five-year old.

Indeed, I sometimes wonder if any computer usage is appropriate for one so young. I see how addicting it can be among teens, even how addicting it was for me when I was young (though of course when I was teen Asteroids was "hot" and the only computer games I played early on were flight simulators). For now, I trust the limits we place on the time he spends and games he plays will engage his mind without stunting his creativity.

I'm also glad I have a few years to prepare my son for navigating the world of MySpace and webcams. What prompted this post was an article from the NYT. It was one of the top-10 read articles last year. WARNING: it contains discussion of an adult nature about a very sad phenomenon—young boys who get paid to pose by predators in front of their webcams. On the other hand, there is a happy ending, of sorts, as the focus of the article has left the "business", turned state's witness, entered the witness protection program and returned to the faith of his childhood.

Regardless of whether you decide to read on, please consider lifting up Justin in your prayers. It will not be simple for him to overcome the scars of his coming of age in such a perverse environment.

Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World - New York Times