Reformation Spirit

Joseph Stalin once observed, “When we hang the capitalist they will sell us the rope we use.” I think Stalin accurately predicted the posture of many Americans and unfortunately many Christians living in the 21^st century. If the current economic woes are any indication Americans are coming to terms with the excesses of corporate greed and consumer debt. This philosophy has now produced a bill which has come due resulting in a $700 billion bail out, with the promise that other creditors are standing at the collective door of the American economy. This culture of consuming has also plagued the American Christian Church and not just in economic terms. Consider that the best-attended churches in America are “Mega-Churches” which resemble Wal-Mart, where every day items are stocked high and sold cheap. This is often duplicated in the church where congregants are told that they should feel better about themselves, by pastors who write books with titles like Love your life.  Lest I am misunderstood, I have no disagreement with success and I do believe that Christ’s church should be a growing and thriving one, my disagreement is with the misrepresentation of what it means to be a Christian. Too often Christianity in America has been identified with patriotism, nostalgia and prosperity instead of the tenets of Biblical Christianity. I love my country and value my childhood as much as the next person, but this does not identify me as a Christian. Furthermore, just because it is part of my culture to attend church on Sunday, this does not identify me as a Christian. The Bible reports that followers of Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26), a derisive term of mockery because they so resembled Christ. I wonder could the same be said of 21^st century disciples? First century disciples were characterized by their love for the Word of God and their love for one another. Modernity has produced a very different kind of Christian. When examining the modern counterparts of Christianity some statistics may be helpful, according to the Gallup Organization, most Americans own a Bible, but Bible ownership does not equal Bible literacy. A study conducted in October of 2000 indicated that 59% of Americans read the Bible occasionally, down 73% from the 1980s. Taking it a step further only one in seven Americans report an involvement that goes beyond just reading the Bible.  Granted this particular study did not measure Bible literacy among confessing Christians, but the fact remains that Biblical ignorance is widespread. Consider that according to Gallup,

• Only half of adults interviewed nationwide could name any of the four Gospels.
• Just 37% of those interviewed could name all four Gospels.
• Only 42% of adults were able to name as many as five of the Ten Commandments correctly.
• Seven in ten were able to name the town where Jesus was born, but just 42% could identify him as the person who delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

Even more amazingly, Christian researcher George Barna points out “twelve percent of adults believe that Noah’s wife was Joan of Arc, and seventy-five percent believe that the Bible teaches that God helps those who help themselves.” Some might deem this insignificant due to the trivial nature of the information, but I wonder if Americans are mistaken when it comes to material that should be taught in Sunday school how would they be expected to respond to the more complex themes of Scripture such as justification, penal substitution and the nature of God?  As to the second characteristic of early Christians, their love for one another, even a cursory survey of the Christian landscape reveals churches and Christians still persistently divide along racial, political and denominational lines.  Perhaps a new reformation is needed, where Christians are challenged to return to acts of service for one another and systematic study of the Bible. As Christians we do not want to be guilty of weaving the tapestry of our own demise. We must answer the call to return to a relationship with God that is centered in a clear understanding that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth and as such must be read, understood and lived. Too easily many have adopted the attitude of the man applying for church membership, when the gentleman was asked what he believed, he responded, “I believe what my church believes.” Naturally he was then questioned as to what his church believed, to which he responded,  “They believe what I believe.” America is currently paying an economic price for a generation that attempted to finance the excesses of today on the promises of tomorrow, we must not make the same mistake in the church, attempting to sustain a spiritual existence with a depleted diet of junk food masquerading as solid food for the soul.

Presidential Debates: Think as you watch

A wise debate coach once recognized that those who enjoy pancakes for breakfast will quickly understand that arguments, like pancakes, are never so thin as to not have another side. The wise man of Proverbs understood this when he wrote in Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until another comes and examines him.” We find ourselves in Presidential candidate debate season, the time every four years when the major candidates for President of the United States stand face to face and spar with one another over the philosophies they believe should guide the direction the country. As consumers of these debates, and all of the philosophical, moral, and cultural arguments that surround us every day, it is important to engage our minds as well as our hearts when evaluating the rhetoric coming from both sides. With this in mind, history has not left us without some guidance.  Aristotle pointed out that there are three factors that contribute to persuasion, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. 

Ethos is the goodwill generated by the speaker, pathos refers to the emotions elicited by the speaker, and logos or the logic employed by the speaker in the art of persuasion. By all accounts ethos is in deficit supply this year. According to polling, the two major political parties have selected the most undesirable candidates in history. And although we are not selecting a Pastor, but a President, it is important to remember that character still counts.  The debates can prove helpful in this matter.  The debates squeeze the candidates, reveling true thoughts and intentions. What is in the well comes up in the bucket, or as Jesus put it “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” When examining speech in general and political speech specifically, sensitivity and complexity are important factors in determining the contents of the “rhetorical bucket”. 

Rhetorical sensitivity may give us insight into the direction each candidate intends to take the nation. Rhetorical sensitivity is the idea that the most appropriate words will be employed without the intentional use of offensive words or symbols. Sometimes this is ridiculed in our society as political correctness, but perhaps it is better understood as an attempt at being persuasive without causing undue discomfort to those listening. During the debates it is often easy to discern the candidates’ true feelings based upon their verbal and nonverbal interactions with one another and the audience. Consider how the words and body language of the candidates make you feel and what thoughts they inspire as you listen to them. If a given candidate is being intentional they purposely employ words that evoke feelings and thoughts, if they are not being intentional, this can also be instructive, giving the audience a glimpse of their authentic disposition towards the people, groups, issues and ideas shaping the election. 

Another important characteristic to watch for during the debates is that of cognitive complexity, which gives us insight as to the candidates’ constructs for interpreting information and events. Cognitively complex individuals are better equipped to synthesize more information and to think in more abstract and organized terms than those who are cognitively simple. As you listen to the candidates, consider the answers that are given, are they simple or complex? Also remember that sometimes the best answer is a simple answer, and that complexity may serve as a disguise of the non-answer. However, in most instances, the answers to complex questions that challenge our society are not simple, but require sound analysis from our leaders who are willing to engage in the hard work of identifying and correcting systemic problems. 

The political season yields itself to simplicity, but governing requires navigating complexity. Words are the currency of ideas, and in these debates both candidates are known to trade excessively and spend wildly. For the critical consumer of political debates, it important to spot the counterfeits and to discern who will be the best investment, or the most dangerous gamble, for America’s future.