Burkean questions

Leon Wieseltier, writing in The New Republic, brings up Edmund Burke's philosophy in relation to the topic of 'change.' [October 7, 2009, "With Respect to What"] Burke has been the champion of conservatives and traditionalists. But Wieseltier says 'not too fast.' Burke is more complex than that. The author says, "If Burkeanism means a hostility to change, then Burke was himself not a Burkean." He was more dialectical than that. Burke said, "mind must conspire with mind." Wieseltier writes, "The Burkean retort to the call for change is, with respect to what? The idea of changing everything and the idea of changing nothing are both merciless."

So, in regard to change, the answer is yes and no. You can't not change. Change happens. To be against change is to be for death. The questions are: What kind of change? How much change? Change for what reason?

For the church, the question may be: Will we keep changing the way we have been changing, or will we change in a more life-giving way?

The way we are now changing is to become older and more traditional and less open to the new. The way we could be changing is to be more open to younger ideas, more open to different ways of doing things, and more willing to hand over the direction of the church to another generation.

To hang onto power looks like a way of not changing. But it actually means to change in the direction of non-growth. Corpses change. They decay. Expensive caskets and steel vaults do not stop change. Babies change too, but in the opposite direction.

To share power is to be willing to loss something in order to gain something. We give up 'our way' in order to assimilate 'their ways' into the system, so that new life is allowed to ferment.

Burke's notion of 'at once to preserve and to reform,' is a realistic way forward. What kind of change do we need? In Burkean terms 'change' cannot be some theory held only in the mind. We must put wheels on it. For example, the Nominating Committee needs to be made up of people who wish to bring new people into the structures of power and ministry. The Session, Trustees, and Deacons have to have much more representation from the under 50 age group. Groups for people in their 30s and 40s need to be established for the purpose of getting to know one another and giving support in parenting, marriage enrichment, and entertainment. A pastor who is an extrovert and has entrepreneurial tendencies can whip up interest in activities, events, and missions that involve younger families and their friends. Subtle sifts in planning, worship, and decision-making can initiate a steady movement toward more openness, flexibility, and enthusiasm.

The Church has institutional form. In order to survive the Church has to be packaged in some kind of institution. But forms can be transformed. But only if individuals have been transformed first. To follow Jesus is to be led down the Way of self-emptying. He who did not 'grasp hold of divinity' (Phil. 2) leads us toward painful letting go.

Burke was a Christian gentleman of the 18th and 19th centuries. But Jesus is no gentleman. He is a rebel. And that's the problem. His ultimate commitment is not to institutions, but to abundant life.

Eating peas

Paul Lindbergh says this: "Sometimes I feel like a man who practices eating peas with a knife. I'm losing too many. I'm dying of starvation. I can either sit here shoveling peas as fast a I can, trying to stay alive, or use a spoon."

I wonder--what is the church's 'knife'? What is the church's 'spoon'?

T-shirt theology

Did you hear about the students at a Florida high school that were wearing T-shirts with the words "Islam is of the Devil"? Those students were sent home. Some people argued that it was a free speech issue—that the students have the right to express their opinions, no matter what they are. Other people argued that clothing with that kind of message was disruptive to the educational environment.

I shall now pontificate. Free speech: yes. Why can't we use situations like that to educate? Isn't that what a school is for? What are we afraid of? That someone will learn something? That we might actually teach young people how to rationally debate subjects? This could be a teachable moment.

I shall pontificate the opposite viewpoint. Free speech: yes. But irresponsible speech: no. Just because we have the right to say anything doesn't mean that anything is beneficial to say. (Does that sound like something is Paul's letters?) It seems to me that the message on those students' shirts (Islam is of the Devil) is not a helpful statement to make if you want to show love to people of a different religion. (I know—you might say that telling the truth is a loving thing to do—assuming you believe the statement is true.)

My own feeling is that a Jesus-way to engage people of different beliefs is to begin with respect. Why be belligerent? Those T-shirts convey to me a sense of arrogance. The students may have felt that they were being courageous and truthful in bearing witness to Christ. I hope they grow up. I hope they will learn from Jesus that he is gentle and meek and humble of spirit (cf. Matt. 11). Young people can get a kick out of being in-your-face. But I hope they find a more excellent way.

What about a T-shirt that says, "God loves all people"? What about going to your Islamic neighbors and ask if you can rake their leaves? I think love packs a punch.

Random Randian Thoughts

It was years ago when I read Ayn Rand's large novel, The Fountainhead. I loved it. At that time (back in the 80s) I didn't realize that it was written by a philosopher of selfishness. Rand has been one of the most important foundational writers for the Libertarian movement. Now, there are some things about Libertarianism that I like. But the Randian emphasis on self-interest to the point of praising selfishness is too much for me. Alan Greenspan was a disciple of Rand, but I don't know how much her philosophy influenced his economic theory. Certainly his belief that the Market should be left alone is consistent with her viewpoint.

Ayn Rand was influenced a great deal by Nietzsche. Part of the pull of her writing is its emphasis on individualism and non-conformity. Those are American values to some extent. But Rand's atheism gave her no foundation for a transcendent guarantee of her values. It's one thing to affirm individualism; it's another to go to the extreme of neglecting the need to share and care for one another.

Ayn Rand called her philosophy 'Objectivism.' It was supposedly totally scientific and based on reason alone, without emotion. The trouble is that when you absolutize reason you are left with only a partial view of reality.

Rand has influenced the contemporary debate about economics by her theory that the rich have no moral obligation to share with the poor. We hear her philosophy repeated by Rush Limbaugh and others when they claim that liberals want a class war. Any talk of distribution of wealth is quickly kicked out of the discussion with a strong Randian objection to requiring any reciprocity from the well-off toward the economic system that has rewarded them with wealth. In Ayn Rand's thought capitalism becomes a god. Sharing is an evil, socialist idea.

Reason is important. Individualism in proper perspective is good. Capitalism is a wonderful invention. But the lack of balance in Ayn Rand's system of thought is dangerous to our society, and to an individual's spiritual health.

The Sunflower

I've just finished an evocative book. Simon Wiesenthal's book, The Sunflower, recounts his experience in a concentration camp during WWII. But the book is not just a story, it's a question. Wiesenthal tells the reader about an unusual encounter he had as a prisoner and asks the reader to respond.

Wiesenthal was brought to a hospital in a town near the camp and taken to a room where an SS officer lay dying. The officer had asked for a Jew to be brought to him. He asks Wiesenthal to sit down next to him and begins to confess his murderous actions as an SS officer. Then he makes an extraordinary request. He asks the Jew to forgive him—to be his 'priest' as it were and give absolution before he died. Wiesenthal responds with silence—then walks out of the room. He ends the story by asking the reading, "What would you have done? Would you have forgiven the contrite Nazi?"

The second half of the book contains the answers of 53 people. Each writes anywhere from one to five pages in response, analyzing the situation, and giving reasons why they would or would not have forgiven the officer. Approximately 24 of the respondents are Jews. Not one of them would have offered forgiveness to the Nazi officer. Other respondents are Protestants, Catholics, a couple of Buddhists, one Native American, and one Muslim. As far as I can discern, eleven of those said Yes, I would have forgiven him. Which means that there were about 11 yeses and 41 nos. (I say 'about' because some answers were not completely clear in terms of the question posed.)

I gained some new insight into Jewish theology as contrasted with Christian theology. But each person's brief essay gave various rationales for their viewpoint or emotional reaction. The analyses open up many questions about the meaning of forgiveness, repentance, responsibility, accountability, etc.

Wiesenthal's story has more detail than I have given, which makes the analysis of the situation more complicated than it might seem. I think this book would make a very useful study for discussion in a Sunday School class or small group.

I found myself empathizing with differing responses. Some of the Jewish writers had gut-wrenching hostility toward the SS man. This is understandable. But having just read Golda Meir's book recently I think I understood the anger more clearly. The Jewish people are fighting for their lives. The Shoah ('holocaust') was an attempt to exterminate their whole race. Millions of Jewish children were thrown alive into furnaces. It was such a barbaric experience for Jews that the newly formed nation of Israel and Jewish life elsewhere cannot afford to be 'tender' toward anyone who smells of anti-Semitism. The Jewish consciousness has been changed forever. They cannot forget or forgive. I empathized.

Yet, I found myself still leaning toward the rightness and wisdom of forgiveness. I don't know if I could forgive under those circumstances. But given the opportunity to be at a distance and reflect on it, I come down on the side of mercy. Still, I wouldn't presume to tell Simon Wiesenthal that he was wrong in that situation. It would be like telling an abused wife to lighten up. The Jews have been forced into a corner, so to speak. And like a scared animal, they have their defenses up. Survival is what matters in their minds.

I recommend The Sunflower as a thought provoking book. It evokes spiritual emotion and ethical rumination.

Kennedy vs. Graham

The celebrity pastor, Dr. Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (PCA), died last year. The church called a grandson of Billy Graham as the new pastor. But some of the flock balked at the new shepherd and left--starting their own church. Charismatic pastors do not a church make. An intriguing plot thickens...

See the story.

Goodbye, TNIV

I am upset by what I've just read. It seems that the TNIV is not going to be published anymore. Instead, a revision of the NIV is going to be done (which will come out in 2011). Dang! I love the TNIV. I use it as my primary version. I don't quite understand if the revised NIV (last updated in 1984) will keep the good attributes of the TNIV or throw them out. The language of the TNIV (which came out in 2002) is more accurate. This whole thing is because of pressure on the publisher from evangelical leaders who are afraid of inclusive language, i.e., when the generic word 'man' is changed to 'people' – as in "let your light shine before people" (instead of 'before men'). This is a scandal.

I may have to revert to the NRSV, which is a fine translation. For some occasions (particularly for public reading) I like the CEV. And of course The Message is very useful for reading and reflecting on the Bible's meaning.

I also like the REV, the NCV, and the NJB. I also sometimes watch NBC, and I belong to AARP.