Category: Culture & Society

19February2016

How Would Jesus Govern?

Written By robfaircloth

Christians and the societies we populate have debated for centuries the extent to which we should be involved in the political process and in government. The wider culture also debates how much influence Christianity, and religion in general, should influence government, as evidenced by the near universal recitation of the “separation of church and state” mantra.

Despite all this, or because of it, politicians increasingly guilt the populate into either supporting or rejecting proposed government initiatives by telling us what Jesus or the Bible requires us to do.

Christians, too, maintain a vigorous intramural debate over what particular form of government and what sorts of rulers we should prefer. That is, Christians cite the Bible to one another as proof that Christians can’t vote Democrat, or Christians can’t vote Republican, and to resolve questions such as whether we should be conservative or liberal, right or left, capitalist or socialist, as well as to rally support for particular government causes, laws and programs.

Rather than approach this brier patch of issues head on, it might be better for the believer to understand what the Bible might says about goals for governmental  and personal action, and the differences between them. Accordingly, I plan to post a series of articles about how the Bible guides the Christian’s preferences for government, and how those core goals or priorities then affect the various issues we might face.

Operating Assumptions

I will operate under a couple of assumptions. First, I will be speaking to those who agree that the Bible is the Word of God, and is our functional authority for faith and life. Where it speaks to issues of government, or where reasonable inferences can be drawn, our thought and practice should yield to its direction. I hope that those who do not see the Bible this way will nevertheless find the discussion beneficial as a window into the manner in which the typical believer might navigate matters of faith and citizenry.

Second, I assume that we agree that the believer should maintain some level of involvement with the broader culture, specifically government, even if it is merely to wisely steward the privilege of participating in government through voting in an informed fashion.

For those who fear (or hope) that I might advocate for some kind of “Christian rule,” a word of comfort (or correction): it is not necessary that government officials — our “rulers” — be Christian. Neither is it prohibited. To paraphrase the late Justice Antonin Scalia, there is no “Christian way” to govern, or to flip a hamburger.

In fact, I submit that it is terribly difficult for the average Christian voter living in Alabama or Wisconsin to discern, from a distance, the legitimacy of a Washington politician’s profession of faith, or the bona fides of his theological acumen. Those determinations are not off limits for everyone, but they are instead the responsibility of the professing Christian’s local church. It would certainly be relevant, however, if one who desires us to submit to his governance does not submit himself to the local church, for it to make those determinations.

The goal for the Christian voter is not to enter the misty realm of determining whether the ruler is a good Christian, but to assess whether what he proposes is consistent with good government.

In other words, it is not required that a man be a good Christian — or a Christian at all — in order for him to be a good governor. What I hope to demonstrate is that there are, for the Christian citizen-voter, there are other biblical concepts that are better indicators of both good government and good governors.

What I will propose here are preferences — informed by the Bible — that equip the believer to vote and advocate for good government in a godly fashion.

13July2013

facebook demonstrates the need for church discipline

Written By robfaircloth

The power of the social media phenomena is amply manifested by the fact that what once were merely proper names are now used as verbs, replacing such old-school phrases as “call me” with “facebook me,” although there is no small bit of confusion over whether the proper term for the 140-character version is “tweet me,” or “twit me,” or “Twitter me”, and, depending on the audience, any such variation carries the risk of earning a raised eyebrow or at the possibility of what has just been requested.

Social Media Outposts
Social Media Outposts (Photo credit: the tartanpodcast)

Similarly, should I decide to send you a text over the phone (even the “dumb” ones can do this), you would likely know immediately what I meant if I included abbreviations like “bff” or “idk” or “lol” or “jk”.

There is much to commend about social media, particularly the powerful manner in which information can be disseminated quickly to vast audiences. Try that with carrier pigeons or smoke signals…

There are, equally, dangers of being “social” via the Internet, among them the very real peculiarity of a human being maintaining hundreds of “friends” without ever emerging from his home and seeing any of them face to face, or, for that matter, wearing any garment but his pajamas.

Those benefits and costs have been explored elsewhere, as have questions related to how social media affects the church and individual followers of Christ. This is not, however, a screed about how believers should unplug from facebook because reacquainting with high school sweethearts leads to the destruction of marriages (though it might).

Instead, social media might pose a less direct threat to the holiness of individual Christians for another reason.

Facebook, in particular, appeals to our emotive side by offering the ability to instantly express our feelings about a friend’s particular post or photo by simply clicking the “Like” button. Given the watching eyes of hundreds of our closest “friends,” there is no small pressure to join the chorus of “Likes” and go even further by typing a few words — almost certainly words of approval — in the comment lines.

What, you ask, could be wrong here? Imagine the following, unfortunately familiar scenarios:

Scenario 1:  A married couple in the church presents the picture of spiritual health and vitality, between the two of them teaching and leading men and women in various ministries. Behind the scenes, their marriage fails, but they keep it to themselves and maintain the facade. Yet appearances cannot be maintained, and the truth comes out and the husband moves out, leaving the wife and children, who had depended on the husband’s provision, in hard conditions. It becomes apparent that the husband had no biblical grounds to divorce, and eventually re-marries shortly after the couple’s divorce is finalized.

You might astutely recognize that social media did not have a role in the couple’s marital problems. The difficulty arises when the husband posts photos of his second wedding ceremony on social media, which is seen by all the mutual friends he and the former wife had accumulated, many of which remained members of the church with the former wife. Those mutual friends post congratulatory comments, including such things as “You look so happy now!”

Church discipline, as well as the integrity of the church’s witness as God’s holy people, is undermined in such an event. Regardless whether he ended up re-marrying, the husband’s first order of business is being reconciled to the wife he abandoned and the church he betrayed. Repentance, contrition and forgiveness should characterize the aftermath of the separation and divorce, and where the husband does not initiate reconciliation, his church should take appropriate disciplinary action (Matthew 18).

Where there is no such reconciliation initiated by the offending husband, or discipline initiated by the church, social media provides too easy a forum for church members to affirm sinful behavior. In doing so, they neglect the image this presents to the wife and children remaining in fellowship, and leave the world to assume that they believe both the husband and wife are equally at fault, or that neither of them is at fault.

Scenario 2:  A female young adult posts photos of her and her fiance online that can leave viewers with no other reasonable conclusion but that the two of them are living together and occupying the same bed prior to marriage. Both of them profess to be Christian, as do the parents of the fiance. Comments posted under the photos are all fawning, including those of the fiance’s Christ-professing parents.

The lack of consistent church discipline, both in the church at large and in individual church, leaves believers with no guidance regarding how to identify immoral behavior and what to do when they see it. In Scenario 2, the professing believers who approve of the female’s photos are giving to the entire social media audience implicit approval of fornication.

Church discipline does not merely aim to reform a believer’s behavior and effect reconciliation with his church home, though it does that. It also seeks to preserve the witness of the church and protect it from legitimate accusations of “hypocrisy” which frequently come from the watching world.

How, for instance, can a local congregation express its devotion to biblical standards of marriage as between one man and one woman — over against the culture’s vigorous war against that standard — when its members simultaneously approve sinful divorce and pre-marriage fornication?

If you profess the name Jesus, believer, take care that you do not approve sin (Romans 1:32) in social media.

11February2013

The Good, the Bad, and the Hopelessly Inconsistent

Written By robfaircloth

No one ever accused American society of being consistent.Even so, recent manifestations of our tendency toward thoughtless contradictions in public life are worthy of mention. Here are a few:

SUPER BIG GULP
SUPER BIG GULP (Photo credit: Majiscup – The Papercup & Sleeve)

BAD for adults in New York to purchase a Big Gulp; GOOD for minors to receive an abortion without parental consent.BAD for an adult to have more than seven bullets in his gun; GOOD for Homeland Security to have a billion bullets (and counting), and the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt to have U.S. tanks and weapons.

BAD that a woman wouldn’t have control over her “reproductive health”; GOOD that U.S. citizens won’t have control over their own health under Obamacare.

BAD for citizens to take on more debt than they can repay; GOOD for government to spend like druken sailors and take on more debt than our grandchildren can repay (my apologies for the insult to druken sailors).

BAD for citizens to have more money than is necessary for basic provisions; GOOD for other citizens to demand more than basic provisions from them.

BAD for Americans to use excess fossil fuels; GOOD for Al Gore to sell Current TV to Al-Jazeera.

BAD for public school students to learn about the Christian religion, which teaches absolutes, the judgment of God, service to others and “thou shalt not kill”; GOOD for those students to curse teachers with impunity and be expelled for making finger guns.

17December2012

What To Do In A Tragedy

Written By robfaircloth

Events in Newtown, Connecticut last Friday were certainly tragic. When there is no worldview sufficient to explain, and then deal with, such tragedy we are left with immediate 24-hour coverage of the explanations and recommendations of mental health experts and social theorists, and of the proposals and strategies of law enforcement officials and security specialists.

It is into this competition of theories and solutions that those with a Christian worldview — those who are followers of Jesus Christ — can, and should, speak.

Others have ably addressed the theological and worldview implications raised when people endure such suffering, and how those who might have answers should answer, such as Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and David Platt.

To their treatment of those issues I would add a few practical suggestions for those of us who observe suffering happen.

First, Don’t Speak Too Soon (if at all)

In the book of Job, his friends sat in silence with him for quite some time before ever uttering a word, which was welcome comfort for Job. It was when they offered verbal counsel that they ran into trouble. We’re told in Ecclesiastes that there is “a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” and that there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:4, 7).

The existence of instant communication via social media is not a justification to race to use it. While quick notice is useful, helpful and even in some occasions life-saving, a quick flood of uninformed opinion is not.

Second, Acknowledge Our Ignorance

Followers of Jesus Christ believe that our God has revealed answers to even the greatest of life’s problems. Yet we acknowledge that he has not revealed everything to us, those things the Bible calls “the secret things of God.” While we believe that the underlying reason for suffering in the world is the decaying effects of sin, the curse of Adam, we don’t know the specific reasons that a specific sinner sinns in a certain way. We don’t know specifically how God is glorified in specific suffering, nor do we know exactly how He will accomplish justice for those who suffer wrongly at the hands of others. We just know that He will.

Third, Acknowledge Our Knowledge

We don’t know specifics. We do know that men commit heinous acts that inflict suffering and death on other people not because their medications are out of balance, or because professionals don’t see warning signs, or because they have troubled childhoods, or because security is lax. Men commit heinous acts because they — because we — are sinners. Neither drugs, nor precautions, nor barriers can do anything to solve that problem.

Jesus Christ can.

8March2012

Intolerant ‘tolerance’ hits the chicken sandwich

Written By robfaircloth

One would think that the draw of an almost perfect chicken sandwich would override philosophical abstractions in the hearts and minds (and bellies) of college students.

Apparently not.

Chick-fil-A has encountered opposition from student groups opposed to the company’s philanthropic leanings, claiming that it is “anti-gay.”

Most revealing is the NewSpeak that otherwise allegedly intelligent administrators adopt in catering to a fraction of the student body:

School administrators supported the decision, saying the company’s principles contradicted Northeastern’s respect for diversity and support for the gay community: “We are proud of the decision that affirms our university’s commitment to be an inclusive, diverse community that is respectful of all,” college spokeswoman Renata Nyul said in a prepared statement.

Inclusive, diverse and respectful to all, that is, except for those who disagree.

The blatant hypocrisy and perverted logic in this sort of pabulum would be funny if were not becoming increasingly problematic not just to free access to a good chicken sandwich, but to religious liberty.

20January2012

If Christian diners should tip well, should Christian restaurateurs pay well?

Written By robfaircloth

It has become proverbial that Christians don’t tip well.

The picture of this sad reality is the now-stereotypical scene: family enters a restaurant for Sunday dinner; Dad makes a show of bowing his head and praying before the meal; the waiter is treated  indifferently, if not harshly; and on a bill of $50 Dad leaves a ‘tip’ of merely a gospel tract printed to resemble real money.

Christian eaters have been excoriated for impugning the name of Christ with our paltry tipping, and rightly so. Yet I am not interested in piling more on in that regard.

My interest is in the system as a whole that permits one type of employer to pay below market wages and rely on the gratuity of patrons to obtain a decent wage for employees. Specifically, how should Christian restaurant owners handle setting wages for waiters?

The Scriptures are replete with admonitions for people to pay decent wages to workers, and to pay them on time. Only by modern moral stretching can this place the burden for a decent wage on the patron, rather than the owner. Legally, Christian restaurant owners can pay a low hourly wage to his waiters and expect them to earn tips to supplement that low wage. But should he?

Would it be better for Christian restaurateurs to pay their employees a regular wage, charge for food accordingly, and tell patrons they aren’t expected to tip unless they want to? Or, would it be better for such employers to guarantee a wage level that tips don’t accomplish?

While we have a gratuity-oriented restaurant system, Christian diners should tip with grace. But Christian restaurateurs are not exempted from the ‘requirements’ of grace, even if the law exempts them.

22December2011

Tattoo the wise men on your big toe

Written By robfaircloth1 Comment on Tattoo the wise men on your big toe

It’s possible that our manger scenes are wrong.

Not that I’m engaging in biblical criticism (higher or lower). I’m embarking on transactional questionism. Alright, that sounds a bit highfalutin: I’m pointing out the time compression that may be evident in our manger scenes.

The traditional manger scene is etched on our collective memory: Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus, surrounded by animals lowing, in a bucolic scene accompanied by shepherds and three (not two, not four) wise men/magi/kings. But perhaps the wise men shouldn’t be there…yet. The wise men were led to Bethlehem by a star, and Herod, you might remember, ordered that all male children in Bethlehem aged two and under be killed. This might mean that the star appeared to the Magi two years prior to Jesus’ birth, or that it appeared at the time of Jesus’ birth and it took the Magi two years to trek over there (without the benefit of jet travel and airline food). Herod was simply covering all the bases in his ego-induced murderous rage.

But, not to worry. For those of you interested in reflecting the possible historical reality in your creches and manger scenes and Christmas cantatas, I have several possible solutions:

1) Public Creches

If you are responsible for setting up nativity displays on behalf of your city, town, or hamlet, put Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus, the animals and the shepherds at City Hall. Put the wise men three blocks away at the downtown fire station.

2) Church Cantatas

For the dramatic final scene of your Christmas performance, in which all pay homage to the infant king, parade the animals and shepherds before baby Jesus with Mary and Joseph. Wait thirty minutes, then show slighter older Mary and Joseph at home with toddler Jesus, visited by the wise men.

3) Home Nativity Scenes, Option 1

Put the fam + animals + shepherds on your front lawn. Put the magi on your neighbor’s porch.

4) Home Nativity Scenes, Option 2

Put Mary, Joseph, Jesus, animals and shepherds on your front lawn in December, as usual. Put the three kings of Orient on your front lawn…in March.

5) Body Art

If you are into (almost) eternal ink — not that I am either approving or disapproving of such — tattoo the manger scene proper on your shoulder. Put the wise men on your big toe.