Archive for the ‘Systematic Theology’ category

Big Government Faith

September 26th, 2009

In my last post, I shared a favorable review of Skye Jethani’s exhortation for the church to abandon the “Daisy Cutter Doctrine”.  Jethani was right on.  But at the end of my post, I shared my concern as well. I wrote;

The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine”

My concern about Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” is raised because of his views espoused in another post entitled, “Pro-Choice but Anti-Healthcare?” In truth, while Jethani rightly points out that Big Mission using Big Solutions form Big Corporations is not good.  He, like many other well intended Christians, seem to believe that Big Government is the solution to our Big Mission. Is Jethani’s post on Healthcare, when compared to his Daisy Cutter Doctrine, a demonstration of hypocrissy?  Cultural blindness?  Pandering to help sales for his magazine?  Or something else?  I don’t know because Jethani wont discuss the seeming contradiction of his two posts.

In response to his post, I posted the a comment on his blog.  Yet despite Jethani’s rhetoric about “entering the debate” Jethani was never willing to post my comment.  I attempted several times over a week long period to engage jethani, but it seems his definitino of “debate” is different from the one I read in Webster’s Dictionary.

So I decided to post my comment as “An Open Letter to Skye Jethani“.  Even if he is unable to offer a coherent defense of his position, then I am hoping someone who is better informed can help me out.

Hi, Skye. may I call you Skye?

My name is Joe. I am new to your site. I apologize in advance for the directness of some of my questions below, but I am truly hoping to get direct answers in return if you are willing to engage on this with me. You seem an intelligent writer and thinker, and I hope to get some insight into how you think on this issue since it is quite differently than me.

Your post begins with the assertion that those who are pro-life and oppose govt. run healthcare contradict themselves. I don’t know anything about the group you mention, and maybe they do have the flaws you write about, but on a personal level I would humbly submit my disagreement with your assertion that the only pro-life position includes govt. run healthcare.

I came to your blog when a friend referred me to your post on the “Daisy Cutter” Theology. It is very well written and I plan on writing favorable a post on my blog with some quotes [which is my previous post]. However, if you stand by what you wrote in that post, then I think you should apply it not just to missions, but to all aspects of your life as a follower of Jesus. There is no secular or sacred in our life, only the mission of the King.

Here is my concern Skye, in your other post [on the Daisy Cutter Doctrine], you write, “We have incorrectly made the scale of our methods conform to the scale of our mission. We have assumed that the magnitude of the ends should be proportional to the magnitude of the means. And in the process we’ve revealed how captivated our imaginations really are to consumerism.
I think that is exactly what you are doing here. You are wrongly assuming that the scale of your “compassion:” must be met by a massive systemic overhaul–not church-run but govt. run. Interesting how the “massive program for massive impact” solution is acceptable when it is the things we value and “consumerist” when it is something someone else values. Interesting how we reject “systems” in one area of life, but promote them in others where we think it serves our goals. And I say, “we” because I am prone to the same things Skye, if I do not take the wise council of brothers and sisters into my life.

Before I move on, let me give a little background on myself. I am a church planter and have been on a State run healthcare plan for the past 3 years. You have a good job Skye, so I assume you have healthcare from a private insurer. Do you have some personal experience with a successful govt. run healthcare system? My guess is that you would not trade in your private health insurance to be on my State insurance, would you? Based on my experience with both systems, I would trade insurance coverage with you any time.

You write, “But our conviction about life should also lead us to care about the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance and therefore receive inadequate care.”
Can you give me the breakdown of who is in this group of 45 Million? Your latter comment seems to indicate you think this number reflects the poor and unemployed. Do you really think that is the demographic of the total 45 Million? Just curious to know if you really understand this number or if you are just repeating what you read somewhere?

You wrote, “Our belief in the value of life should drive us to seek a system that will care for our brothers and sisters after they are born and not just before.
Over the past few years, I have been without insurance a few times (mostly when the State messes up my paperwork and we lose it until we file again). We have several friends, and churches around us, who support a state run system and say, like you, that “no one should be without insurance.” Yet interestingly enough, when we were without insurance not one of these people, or churches, offered to help us pay for insurance, or pay for some of our medical bills. So, since this is your value, please tell me how many people who lack insurance do you personally assist Skye? Or is it that you just want other people to pay for your compassion? I see from your site, you are invited to speak at a lot of conferences. How much does it cost to go to one of those and run one? I wonder, if that money was better prioritized to help people instead of promoting careers or sell books or magazines, if the church could not do more for the Gospel? I wonder why the church needs the system of the State to care for people, when that is our mission not the mission of a secular world?

I am also interested to know, can you tell me exactly how much this new system will cost? Do you know how it will be paid for? Who will pay for it? The Bible speaks about indebtedness and its destructive power. Do you think massive debt and deflationary spending is a good solution and demonstrates compassion for the next generation who will be forced to work and pay for it?

You also wrote, ” We should care that the uninsured are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer than those with insurance who are diagnosed and treated earlier.”
You are right, we should. The problem, however, with your comparison Skye is that you are using the wrong statistic to make your point. The 1.6% statistic you cite demonstrates that people who do not have the Private healthcare system (the one you think is completely broken and needs replaced) are more likely to die from cancer. In other words, the private healthcare system in America is successful in keeping people with cancer alive who would otherwise die. So clearly the system of healthcare itself is not broken if it is saving lives. Skye, if you want to make a statistically meaningful argument, you need to compare for me the rate of death from Cancer for the “fully” insured person in the Canadian and European healthcare systems vs. the Private US system? That is the correct comparison. Please look this up and then tell me. Do more people in the State run systems die of cancer or in the US private system? Which is more successful and caring for people? Do you know? I actually don’t know either, so when you find out please reinforce your argument with the right statistics.

You wrote, “We should care that we have a system that discriminates against those with preexisting conditions, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.
I agree 100%. My wife and I are in this boat if we try and get private insurance in the future when our income is higher and that scares me. But, this is also a red-herring (either that or it demonstrates a lack of understanding about the issue itself). The US Govt. can force private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, AND force them not to drop people who cost “to much.” This law wont cost the taxpayer a single penny in Govt. bureaucracy.

Do you also know Skye that in many states, the government prevents a person from carrying their insurer from one job to the next. It is the govt. that prevents insurance portability.

There are many practical and meaningful solutions to the problems with healthcare that don’t include a State run system. but do you understand why these solutions wont pass? Because politicians want power. Power over people. Power over their lives. Power to control things. I think those Christians who are in favor of a State run system (and I do realize you are on the fence here brother), have an inherent misunderstanding about why govt exists (not just in the US, but the systems of govt itself). If you care to read further, I offer you these couple links.
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/03/one-blood-many-governments.html
http://www.morethancake.org/2006/09/laws-demonstrate-immorality-not-goodness.html

You seem wiling to wait and see how the govt. runs GM before deciding on healthcare, but that is not the indicator you need to look at. Think about this, why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL now before the US House or Senate mandates that our Congressman must lay aside their Gold Plated healthcare plan and move to this new Government system? Will Barack Obama get the same plan as me? If this solution is so wonderful, why is the political class not willing to receive healthcare under the same system they propose for all other Americans?

I judge leadership Skye by actions, not rhetoric. You write for a magazine on leadership. Is this the kind of leadership you value and put your faith in? Leadership that forces others to do what the Congress itself is unwilling to do? I trust and value leadership that says, “follow me” not leadership that says, “you jump first” How do you define leadership Skye?

Finally, I would suggest that any desire for a “system” that forces compassion is not compassion. For the Christian, the solution is not private insurance or state insurance. I think the solution lies with individuals and churches who must demonstrate compassion by caring for the sick. May I ask your indulgence to read this parable I wrote that expresses my own view on this issue?
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/09/a-parable-of-political-compassion.html

Wow, that got long. I am sure my post reads with a lot more judgement than I truly intend Skye–I fear it is a shortcoming of the intent and probably my own failings as a writer. My apologies in advance, but I do hope you will consider a reply.

Thanks and God bless.

So what do you say?   Is the Daisy Cutter Doctrine alive in well among the Christians who seek Big Government solutions instead of Kingdom solutions?

  • Share/Bookmark

Daisy Cutter Doctrine

September 21st, 2009

skye_nov_08

Skye Jethani

My friend Paula showed me a recent blog post from Skye Jethani where he writes about his “Daisy-Cutter Doctrine.” Jethani is the managing editor of Leadership Journal which is owned by Christianity Today International.

So what is this new Daisy Cutter Doctrine Jethani writes about? It is named after a military weapon designed to do intimidate the enemy with an explosion so massive, that their desire to fight is stripped away. Jethani allegorizes this weapon to the the approach many churches take toward missions. He relates his own experience with speakers at large conferences aimed at energizing the audience for the “big” mission of the Gospel. Jethani writes about these popular conference presenters this way…

Throughout the stump speech, the presenter will wax eloquent about the fate he or she foresees for the new generation of church leaders in the audience. “Your generation will do what mine could not.” “The young leaders in the church are leading the way by throwing off what’s come before.” “You will be the generation to change the world.” Convinced of their manifest destiny, the twenty-somethings will head off to breakout sessions where they will learn the skills to impact the world-usually from other twenty-somethings.

In my study of Church history, this generational bigotry has, in my opinion, been one of the biggest barriers to fulfilling God’s mission for the world. If we are going to really fulfill the Gospel mission, then it must be done by recognizing it is not the task of one “chosen” generation or one “chosen” leader. It is the task of all God’s saints working together in the unity and power of the Spirit. Jethani, goes on to explain why the Daisy Cutter Doctrine is so appealing.

The shock and awe approach to mission is extremely appealing to people shaped by consumerism. It taps into our consumer-oriented desire for big impact and feeds the assumption that large equals legit.

But there is a less incriminating [I think Jethani means "obvious" not "incriminating"] reason why we are attracted to the Daisy Cutter Doctrine-a big mission seems to logically demand a big strategy… So we ask, how does Coca-Cola impact the world? How does Disney impact the world? How does Starbucks impact the world? And we forget to ask the only question that really matters: How does Jesus impact the world?

…through much of its history the church in Europe employed conventional (worldly) means to advance its spiritual mission. This resulted in the gospel being spread by the sword. We now look back at the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas mournfully. Centuries removed from those atrocities we wonder-how could people do such things in the name of Christ? Did they not see how inconsistent those methods were with the ways of Jesus? At the time, of course, they did not.

Jethani makes an excellent point. Let me extend his comment. I believe that each generation has its own methods to fulfill the Gospel mission. Each generation has some inherent blind-spot which feeds the mistaken notion that their methods are the enlightened path to achieving God’s call. Cultural bias is one reason why we need the wisdom of every generation to overcome our blind-spots.

The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” in the next post and you can decide for yourself.

In the meantime, I want to leave you with a great quote from Phil Vischer of VeggieTales fame. Vischer’s blog is the newest link on my blogroll and his quote is the perfect shield against the Daisy Cutter Doctrine.

phil-vischer

  • Share/Bookmark

William P Young is One Voice for the Generations Pt 3

June 30th, 2009

This is the third and final part of my interview with William P Young, author of the Shack.  This post begins with a good discussion of the Gospel and the resurrection of Jesus… does it really matter if jesus raised from the dead?  What Paul Young has to say will surprise some people.

Let me know what you think of this interview and what other folks you would like to hear me interview.

  • Share/Bookmark

I used to believe, but now…

April 29th, 2009

My brother in Christ, Alan Knox, recently posted a blog outlining what he used to belive about the church and what he now believes. Reading his former beliefs, I am happy to see how he moved away from a very unhealthy theology of church.  I hasten to add that his new theology is not the only possible alternative.  I think Alan’s post provides a golden opportunity to share some contrasting views on these “hot-button” issues. Alan’s thoughts are in quotes, and mine follow after each section.

I used to believe that preaching a 30-45 minute sermon on Sunday morning or night was the epitome of the Christian life. Now I believe that neither preaching nor listening to a sermon on Sunday morning should be the center of a Christian’s life. Instead, serving and loving others in the name of Christ is much more important. Plus, many times, a five minute personal exhortation is much more effective than a general sermon.

I never thought sermons were the center of the Christian universe or the penultimate of our faith. I do believe the sermon can be a positive outlet for those to whom the Spirit has given the gift of teaching and the sermon, in proper perspective, can be a great asset to the church Family.

I used to believe that leadership was the greatest type of service. Now I believe that service is the greatest type of service. However, I do believe that we should follow those who serve. But, those who serve are not so concerned about gathering followers. Instead, they are concerned with serving.

I have never been one to make an idol of leaders.  But at one point in my life I did see leadership as something reserved for a certain few. Now I see leadership as a mark of maturity in every believer.  I also agree with Alan that serving is the ultimate kind of leadership. Finally, I have moved away from the “Senior Pastor” model of leadership.  Now, within the diversity of Christian-leadership, I see a place for the kind of leadership that gathers together the saints under the guidance of Elders.
I used to believe that the 501(c)3 organization was the church. Now I believe that the people are the church… really… no, really. The church can organize, but the organization is not the church.

The idea that a 501c3 IS the church seems totally foreign to the way I grew up in the church.  I am glad Alan, and others like him, have put off this silliness.  The church is a Family.  Structure is a necessary part of any family, so I agree with Alan that organization within the church should not be feared by those moving away from their unhealthy addictions to 501c3 structures.  

I used to believe that the senior pastor (and the staff under his direction) was responsible for all teaching and discipleship. I now believe that while elders (pastors) should teach and disciple, this responsibility is for every follower of Jesus Christ, regardless of the education, gifting, training, abilities, positions, etc.

The more I read this kind of stuff, the more I am thankful for my upbringing under good pastors and my experience with Campus Crusade for Christ at Penn State.  Still, I have a lot to learn about helping others become disciple makers and I am glad for the voices of folks like Alan who are moving this agenda forward.

I used to believe that discipleship was a 1-2 hour per week class with a workbook to be completed by those who were very spiritual. I now believe that biblical discipleship occurs 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. We must live life with one another in order to disciple one another. This cannot happen in a classroom alone, or in a programmed event alone.

I was close to Alan on this one during my college years.  I don’t regret any of the discipleship classes I took, but I am glad there is so much more to the Christian faith beyond the classroom.  I agree with Alan, classes can be good, but the way we structure our classes should more about developing relationship and accountability and intimacy.  I have put these principles into practice while writing my own Bible-study materials and I would love to see more of this kind of work from publishers.

I used to believe that it was the leaders’ (elders/pastors) responsibility to “run” the church meeting so that the church benefited. I now believe that it is every believer’s responsibility to think about the others in their community, and speak/serve during the meeting in a way that encourages others towards love, good works, and maturity in Christ.

I can see how this kind of thinking is a struggle for people like Alan who built their entire Christian life around the Sunday service.  I also see how this confusion about the nature of church has led some to think the Sunday service is dysfunctional.  But the truth is that the church needs to gather on many occasions for many reasons.  Not every believer will use their Spirit-gifting every time the church gathers, but every believer must create opportunities to use their Spirit-gifting to edify the church–if it is not on Sunday morning, then each disciple of Jesus must find their opportunity to build the Body stronger!

I used to believe that education and knowledge were the same as maturity. I now believe that education and knowledge often have very little to do with maturity, and can be a source of pride and immaturity.

I am with Alan on this one!

I used to believe that if I could sit quietly during and learn from the pastor’s sermon, then I was spiritual. I now believe that if I can listen to the Holy Spirit and obey him, then I am spiritual.

There were several periods in my life, in total about 12 years, where I got NOTHING from the sermons I was hearing.  I used to feel guilty, but then I realized that the Sunday sermon was not about me or for me.  The sermon is for the church and there are some people who need to hear the sermon.  When I listen to a sermon, I look for ways to build on what the speaker is teaching and pray the Spirit will help me find discipleship opportunities.  What a change from the sefl-centered view of preaching to the other-centered view of preaching.

What are the changes you have gone through in your life as a disciple?
  • Share/Bookmark