Patrick Oden's Blog, page 5

The opposite of oppression is…

Oppressing is addictive, because it’s not about objective acts. It contains narratives of identity, and social status, and personal security, and family heritage.

Oppressing, in other words, isn’t just about what we do, it has become who we are. And also who we have been, who we want to be, and how we think we have to get there. It is an expression of our journey through space and time.

Ever since a guy was jealous about being rejected when his brother was accepted–which itself was built on the false hope that we could get all that we want if we are willing to cut out life-giving relationships–people have tried to make their way forward by pushing against each other, stepping on each other, minimizing each other.  We turned life into war, winners and losers and those caught in the middle, part of a millennia long feud.

We’re not free. Oppressed or oppressors.  Oppressors may think they’re free, but that makes it all the harder to discover real freedom. When we’re fighting for identity in ways that cause us isolation or keep us fighting for solutions that never really solve our needs for trust, hope, peace, joy, we’re doing a lot, but not getting very far.

Anger, loneliness, frustration, jealousy, conflict, hatred, injustice abound. And that’s just on my Facebook feed!

But we think that’s how life just is, how it has to be.  We’re not free.

It’s easy to eat a nutritious meal if you’re hungry and that’s what is on the table. It’s harder if you’ve filled up on twinkies and cheetos. You’re full, but it’s not good for you. And it’s not good for the people around you.

[image error]

Far too often in our culture, we are given plates of twinkies and rationalized that there’s some good ingredients in them, so they must be what we need.  We drink gallons of Coke and assume that since our thirst is quenched we are physically fit.

We have apparent choice, but we’re not free.  And we take out our lack of real freedom on others through oppressing, and against ourselves in states of anxiety, depression, fear, anger, and all those traits that we can rationalize as being right but are tearing us apart spiritually, mentally, physically, and spiritually. But to get what we think is right, to be heard in the face of injustice, we assume that we have to assert our power, and anger can feel very powerful indeed.

We are not free.  We are responsible, which Dr. King highlights is a key expression of freedom, but in making choices, and seemingly unable or unwilling to make different choices, even to our detriment, we’re not really free.

Jurgen Moltmann expands on Dr. King’s definition of freedom with three different expressions of how freedom takes shape. These reflect the tensions of our life in this world as well as the possibilities for a bigger vision of life together.

The first dimension is “freedom as domination,” which approaches freedom in terms of power and control. This is a dysfunctional, zero-sum, approach to freedom, in which some are free while most are not. It is a very narrow understanding of freedom indeed, and not primarily interested in thorough liberation.

The second dimension is “freedom as a free community.” This dimension includes the values of friendliness and kindness rather than competition, exercising freedom as “neighborliness.” There is a cooperative sharing, giving, and receiving; trust is maintained even as people may have very different roles.[image error]

This dimension begins the process toward liberation, though can become narrow in focus and limited in scope, even becoming defensive about changes. We can see this as tribal or nationalistic freedom, where freedom is for some, but not extended to everyone, because trust and commitment can only go so far.

The third dimension understands freedom as “the creative passion for the possible.” This is the dimension of transformation. Freedom is aligned toward the future, inviting movement that leads first toward reconciliation and then into new discoveries of human thriving.

This latter kind of freedom is what I’m wanting to pursue and invite other toward. Not by saying, “Stop it!” to others, seeing myself in the posture of wise judge above the fray.  I invite others to this freedom because I need it.  The opposite of oppression, the opposition to oppression, isn’t repression. It’s creative passion for the possible, not limiting to a certain place where everyone must go, or a certain group who everyone must belong to, but finding new life that frees me to pursue freedom with and for others.

Not everything is really freeing though. There are types of freedom that seduce us into bondage, and kinds of freedom that drive us into frenzy.  Real freedom is lasting. It is peace-filled and peace-making.

[image error]I need the peace, joy, patience, hope that the Spirit brings and I know this is illusive if I live in ways that intentionally alienate the thriving of others around me.

This is a road I seek to travel, and in my journey, I’ve wrestled with my own tendencies to dysfunction and the many ways I’ve been invited to compete with, demand from, or undermine those around me for my own benefit.

There has to be a better way.

There is. But walking it involves risk. Because if we give up oppressing, where will that leave us?  If we let go our privilege, how will we keep up our sense of self and purpose?

That’s why, as Moltmann first argued, that we can’t begin by telling people what they have to give up, because they won’t “Stop it.” Rather, what is there to be gained? If people have a vision of a better life, and an experience of it, they stop doing the things that interfere.

What is this better way?

 

Oppressing is not freedom

The scandal of suggesting that oppressors need hope is built on the idea that oppressors already have what they want and are preventing others from getting it.  There’s a lot wrong with that assumption, and throughout my book Hope for the Oppressor, I show how something that seems so obvious is actually not necessarily true.

The subtitle of the book is “Discovering Freedom through Transformative Community.” Discovering something implies that it needs to be found, and so isn’t actually in place.  In other words, my argument is that while privileged, oppressors are not actually free.

Indeed, that’s the problem we’re facing, and why it’s not enough to just say, a la Bob Newhart, to just stop it.



Even though this isn’t enough, it sure feels good if you’re the one saying it.  That’s how a lot of ethical and social conversations are really framed. Really simple message once you see through the 1000s of words describing the problem, why it’s a problem, and why people are horrible if they disagree.

“Here’s your problem, you stop it!” We could save a lot of trees and e-ink if books had different titles but just this one sentence in it.

Everyone is telling each other to stop the things they don’t like, while ignoring their own dysfunction.  Meanwhile, anyone who has the slightest experience with psychology, or children, or humanity in general, knows that just saying “Stop it!” never actually works.

So either has to be more incisive in addressing the reasons for the behavior or just rely on threats to force action, “Stop it! Or I’ll bury you alive in a box!” Which is basically what government is all about.  Who gets to choose what gets stopped? What happens if they don’t stop it? Well, now we’re arguing about which political party is in charge. Even religious do this, if they’re able. After Constantine took power, it was a lot easier to force people to stop doing and believing things rather than listen, learn, and convince.  It didn’t really work.

To just say “stop it!” isn’t just psychologically unhelpful, it’s also not theologically helpful. There’s a teaching on human behavior in Christianity that says people are going to be awful to each other.  Even when they know they’re being awful to each other, let alone when they don’t realize what they’re doing is wrong.

[image error]

Then people really are competing about who gets to be awful to whom. That’s a negative way of describing society, but it’s not inaccurate.  Our status is often defined by who we can be arrogant or dismissive with, and who we must be humble toward.  Even if life is full of troubles, at least we can treat a waiter or supermarket employee rudely, right?

In much liberation theology, it is stated that oppressors will never give up their power. That the only way oppressors will be liberated is by the oppressed rising up and changing society.  So we have revolutions of one kind or another, which only rarely actually results in widespread liberation.

Much of the time it just changes who is in power, who then has to be “liberated” by whoever lost the power.  Even if this isn’t objectively true, it sure seems to be true by those who are being treated badly.  Conflict continues, with no real reconciliation or transformation.

Saying that oppressors will never give up oppressing is admitting they are not actually free.  After all, there’s only a small number of actual sociopaths among us, so most people in oppressing circumstances may be aware of the dysfunction but are able to rationalize it away, or just ignore it, all while feeling compelled to keep feeding into cycles of privilege and abuse.  A cycle everyone using an Apple product, for instance, are very familiar with.

They’re not alone, of course. Oppressing is embedded at almost every level of our society. We might hate it, but we need it to keep going in this world.

Even people who make their living protesting oppression often do so from positions of power that depend on oppressing in order to be maintained. So politicians and academics deride structures of power while justifying their own status.  It’s those other people who need to change. Always those other people.

Oppressing is not unlike how an alcoholic can rationalize drinking even when aware of how destructive it has become. It may be destructive, but it’s fulfilling some demanding drive that cannot be ignored.

[image error]

That’s why it’s not enough to stay, “Stop it!” And even if it feels good and right, it’s not really all that effective either. That’s more my point. It might be right to call out oppressing, make people feel guilty, and feel better about ourselves in the process. But if it doesn’t lead to transformation, then we’re really just playing the same game. Systems of dysfunction are often happy to have critics. The critics let out some steam and the systems keep doing what they’re doing. Everyone is still caught in the cycles.  Not really free.

If oppressors are not really free, then there’s something that is enslaving and controlling the apparent freedom. Lying to us all the while, like the snake in the garden, that this is a better way of life.

Rather than the promised life, that way resulted in separation. Rather than freedom from God, it resulted in isolation, difficulties, even death. That’s the cycle oppressors are still in. Privilege isn’t freedom.  As anyone who follows celebrity news knows full well.

Where is the way of real freedom? That’s what I’ll keep writing about in future posts.

Hope for Oppressors

Last summer, Fortress Academic published my book called Hope for the Oppressors.

It’s an evocative even provocative title.  Oppressors, after all, already are in positions of power, it is thought, and privilege, it is assumed. Why do they of all people need to hear a message of hope?

It’s a good question. I spent 300+ pages answering that question using sociology, psychology, philosophy, Scripture, history, contemporary theology and ministry resources.

Not just answering that question, indeed pointing to not only why oppressors need to hear a message of hope, but what this message is, and how we can be people who live it out.

[image error]

I need hope, after all.  I am in positions of privilege, to be sure, but also experiencing how the privileges of others can cause my life to seem dimmer, and push me into more and more frenzy.

There has to be a better way than the idea that some are oppressed and some are oppressors and we have to fight about who gets put in each category.

The hope is that there is real and genuine liberation. Not for some, in contrast to others, but offered to everyone, with and for others.

That leads back to the question. Why do oppressors need to hear a message of hope? It seems obvious that the message to oppressors should just be “stop oppressing.”  If they don’t listen, they then need to be helped to hear.

This reminds me of a conversation Amy and I overheard on the day I proposed to her.

We went to the Huntington Library for the day. They have a very nice tea room there, all proper and elegant in a Southern Californian way.  We were seated at a table near the back. This wasn’t where I was going to propose, but it was certainly setting the mood.  And we started in a great mood.  I was about to begin my PhD studies in the Fall, and while the day out like this certainly wasn’t in my very meager budget, there are times to stretch and enjoy.

The place was filling up.  A small group came in, clearly of a higher social class, used to having their way. They were seated at a table in the corner, which was not too far from the bathrooms.  That would not do. They complained. Not quietly.  Made a little scene about service and expectations and all the rest.  The staff, clearly frustrated, quickly shuffled around some tables, and set this group up nearby our table.[image error]

As they settled in, one of them said, “First you let them do it right. If that doesn’t work, then, you help them do it right.”  Helping in this case was raising a stink so that their privilege upset the atmosphere for everyone in the room. But for this group their privilege and experience was paramount.

Amy and I laughed. It was a good day and we were in a good mood. We still say this line occasionally.  Not as a model for us but as a way of mocking those who don’t realize how their pursuit of privilege is making them look like boors to everyone else.  I was poor, but I felt sad that this is their experience of life.  Always on the lookout for validation and always ready to put others in this place if it didn’t happen.

That’s privilege. But that’s not freedom.  Well, it’s a kind of freedom, but not a life-giving freedom. Liberation, ultimately, is about freedom lived in life-giving ways.  Which brings us back to why we can’t just say stop to people and if they don’t stop, to help them (by which I mean make them).  In forcing people to do things against their will, we are becoming potential oppressors.

Of course there are times we have to force people to stop doing evil, but that stopping them isn’t itself yet liberation. The challenge for a liberative freedom is for people to come to terms with how they use their choices and to choose to live in a liberated way.

Martin Luther King jr. defined freedom as composed of three elements. First, freedom is “the capacity to deliberate or weigh alternatives.” Second, freedom “expresses itself in decision.” A decision makes a choice, cutting off an alternative for the preference of the chosen path. Third, freedom involves responsibility, the ability to respond to why a choice was made, and the responsibility to respond as no one else can speak for that free person.

Everyone wants this freedom for themselves, but oftentimes has trouble with this freedom being available for all. Why? Because what if I use my freedom in a way that interferes in your freedom? We tend to collide into each other when there’s unrestrained freedom. Literally so if this was applied to driving and intersections.

Liberation is having the ability to experience freedom, and freedom is the capacity to make choices in a responsible way. Oppressors have this kind of experience more than others.  Everyone wants this more than others. So, again, why the need for a message of hope?[image error]

Because it’s not real and thorough freedom, it’s something more temporary and artificial.

Because if we use our choices to oppress others we are actually undermining not only our experience of freedom but indeed our very humanity. That degradation of our humanity is called sin.

In his book on John Brown, W. E. B Du Bois highlights the issue: “The price of repression is greater than the cost of liberty. The degradation of men costs something both to the degraded and those who degrade.” Repressing others may provide privilege in societal sense, but not necessarily real freedom, and in indulging oppression, they are cut off from the possibilities of fullness and life that is promised in Christ, both now and in eternity.

This isn’t how it is supposed to be.  Is there a better way? Is this way actually possible?

That’s what I wrote about in my book and what I’m going to spend the next while talking about here on my blog. I feel passionate about what I wrote about, but frustrated by the $130 selling price the publisher attached to the book (which is not what I expected by any means).  Oddly enough, that very pricing exemplifies the very problem I’m trying to address in the book.

I indeed have hope there’s a better way and rather than feel stifled, I am choosing to explore this better way in this setting too, where costs are minimal and the invitation to chatting about this is open to everyone.

Stay tuned as I talk more about liberation and freedom in the next post. I’ll then follow up with what I think is a better model for describing what we’re dealing with in society.

Where does our help come from?

Read: Isaiah 61; Psalm 104; 1 Thessalonians 1

One of the big questions in pneumatology and Christian history is the direction of God’s work. Where does God’s help come from?  Where do we see the emanating presence of God’s activity? Where do we go to discover God?

In Exodus, we see God giving the Law to Moses, filling Moses with authority and wisdom, passing this on to Joshua. Later, judges are anointed to provide wisdom when needed, though we find the people often wandered astray.

The king, not God’s ideal, becomes a center of focus and God’s ordaining, though likewise without consistent faithfulness.

There is the Temple, which God filled with his presence. The ark of the covenant become a unifying symbol of God’s favor.

Even still, where did God’s help really come from? From the centers of power and influence?

Sometimes, not always.  Centers of power and control are where we seek validation and authority and influence.  We are, we might even say, addicted to leadership, if not the pursuit of it then at least the validation by it.

But God is not so limited. There is the gift of leadership, but it is God’s gift.  And when leaders abuse God’s mission, calling, values, dismissing his love and care for all people, then leaders find themselves countering God’s grace.  Which is not a healthy place to be.

When their privilege is put before God’s mission, then the Spirit is grieved.  But doesn’t stop working for the sake of God’s people.

Where does our help come from? How we answer that says a great deal about our understanding of God and especially our understanding of the Spirit.

God is not limited to the powers of this world because God is not limited to the systems of this world. Jesus did not concede to the institutional leaders, the religious leaders, the political leaders, or the zealots in adapting his mission to meet their demands and expectations, to meet their assumptions about how peace and hope are found.

God guides in a different way, and this way is a way from below, where the Spirit works to enliven people where they are at and to find an identity that transcends that which the world provides.  We are more than conquerors because the kingdom we participate in is everlasting and it is life-giving.

This is a message of hope and life and calling, pushing us to see past the immediate and to invest in God’s vision of this world and each other.

Are you discouraged? God’s Spirit is with you, leading you and not abandoning you. Are you weak? God’s power can work even in death, where there is by definition no hope.

The resurrection means that God is not limited by what we see or hear or assume. This power of new life always among us gives us hope in even the darkest places, to live in a new way, caught up in neither anger nor despair.

In this hope we become bearers of light to others, resisting that which claims death, pushing against that which seeks to minimize or anonymize each person.

We are called by name and we can live in a new way in the midst of our present circumstances, knowing the Spirit who works from below and within, a fractal transformation that envelops the world in new life. This is not fully realized but it is in play, and we can choose which way we live for.

Where do you see the Spirit working in your life today? Where is the Spirit working in your community? What can you do to participate in this more fully?

How can you spend time to cultivate this life? Let us live in the life of the Spirit who is with life and invites life to be fully awakened.

Let us enter fully into our present so that we begin to see that God doesn’t need the right election results or any other indications of power to do a magnificent work.

Let us be thankful that the Spirit works and works even among, especially among, those the world abandons or dismisses.  Let us be thankful because most of us are in this situation and God still, oddly enough, calls us to join in this amazing mission.

Where does our help come from? Where are you looking for help on this day?

Each week in my class on the Holy Spirit, I add a more pastoral reflection to the usual theological content. This was the one for the current week 3.

Faith and Depression

From what I can figure, I’ve been dealing with clinical depression for about 35 years.

I started taking an anti-depressant for the first time in mid-October.

I’m taking an anti-depressant because of the faith I have in Christ and the hope I have in God’s work.

I know there’s some pushback from folks about doing something like that. So here’s why I’m doing it.

God doesn’t ask us to prove our faith by taking on additional challenges. God calls us to be free in the grace we’ve been given in Christ, to have hope in God’s promise of salvation, and to be obedient to the calling we have been given.  As Samuel told Saul, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.”

[image error]

My calling is to help empower women and men for ministry, so that in the church and well outside the church, they express the fullness of the Spirit’s work, learning to deeply and broadly resonate the work of Christ wherever they go.

It is not my calling to prove my faith by adding then overcoming barriers that make life harder.  It is not my calling to prove my faith to others who make their relationship with Christ about competition, or evidence, or another ego-oriented comparision.

I am taking an anti-depressant precisely because I have faith, faith enough to “throw off everything that hinders” and to run with perseverance the race marked out for me.  Inasmuch as I see depression as itself my enemy or my cause, I’m weakened for what I can and should be doing.  Inasmuch as I see the bounty of Christ in providing a way forward for me now, to invite me to embrace what I can to better do what I should, I’m taking seriously the work of the Spirit in me.

My way is easy, my burden is light, Jesus says.  I’m not gaining any points with him by holding onto extra burdens and weights other people insist I carry.

I’m responsible to the Spirit.  So, over the years I’ve learned that is precisely faith that calls me to be proactive in addressing my failings and brokenness as I can.

That’s the quick version of why I’m taking an anti-depressant now. Here’s the longer version:

My first memory of what seems like depression goes back to a major move we had in 1983 or so, we packed everything up, moved to a really amazing city, Santa Barbara, but I had great friends in San Dimas, and the transition hit me hard.  Upheaval while there kept the settling in from settling down, and a number of ever more significant issues caused more upheaval and we moved back to eastern LA county in 1987 just when I was really loving the Santa Barbara life.

Deep financial problems along with all sorts of other issues caused me to spiral downward when I didn’t know what life was supposed to feel like.  My parents are, and were, immensely loving and yet my brain chemistry got locked into a bad place.  Depression continued to worsen in high school. I didn’t know it, or what to call it.

There were definitely real reasons for being frustrated with life, but the depression added a heavy weight to everything I did, undermining my participation, causing me to drop out of things that looking back likely would have been helpful.

Not to say I disappeared.  I was very active in assorted ways in high school, but the depression was ever present.

Some might say what I needed was Jesus, a good burst of faith. That’s what a lot of well-meaning and otherwise folks often say when the issue of mental health care is brought up. You need to believe more! You don’t need that

Trouble is, I had that.  I have always had a very committed spiritual life. I may have peeked over the fence at times, but I’ve never wandered away from the pasture.  I’ve taken steps of faith over the decades that through me into deep learning of both mind and heart, deepening my understanding, expanding my practices, ministering to people along the way with encouragement to press on.

In college, I encountered the highs of a blossoming faith, and the deep lows of a persistent clinical depression that robbed me of my sense of joy of God’s formative work.

I pressed on into seminary, delving into the depths of learning and ministry, finding great encouragement in ministry, but that clinical depression would rage and I’d find myself lost and lonely, knowing the way forward but unable to get back on track.

I had faith, but my brain chemistry was working against me. I kept walking forward, but carrying a heavy, friction-laden burden tied around my waist.

While in seminary I started realizing more about myself and my journey through life. Finding the language of introvert helped me see how time by myself helped my brain unknot.  Admitting, and naming, the reality of clinical depression helped me to understand it wasn’t about God not loving me or responding to me, or lacking faith, but it was something different I was dealing with.

I didn’t have insurance.  But that didn’t stop me. I’m a self-learner and once I had a sense of the enemy, I was able to do what I could.

I responded physically by understanding exercise, sunlight, and hydration alleviated depression.  I also realized sugar had a bad effect.

This has been my approach for the last 19 years.  For better or worse. When I could control my environment, I did better at it.  I wasn’t always able to do that. So, depression has been this ever present shadow lurking behind the scenes, sometimes covering me completely, sometimes just staying at my edges.

Depression hasn’t been all bad, I now know.  As I said, depression isn’t a sign of a lack of faith, it’s actually caused me to deepen my faith. When caught in the shadows I am drawn down, but have been persistent about clinging to hope, learning ever more when things that might satisfy others didn’t reach into my soul.

I realize depression also has a spiritual quality. I become very sensitive when I’m off track or a situation isn’t right. My theology training has helped me put these feelings into more developed analysis, but it often starts with that vague realization something is off in a situation.

Between my physical responses and my understanding how my emotional state has an element of discernment in it, I’ve not pursued anti-depressants even after getting good medical insurance not long after finishing my PhD.

Over the last year, however, I’ve hit a pretty big wall. Nothing new, just persistent uncertainty and busyness. I realized I wasn’t keeping up and my energy/focus was declining.  I realized depression was sneaking in and I wasn’t able to keep the shadows back.

What does faith do?  Pray more.  Study more.  All these are good. But in realizing my brain chemistry was becoming a barrier to my calling I know not to spiritualize everything. God has been gracious in providing a nice situation, albeit year-by-year in constant uncertainty.

In this case, I prayed and came to the conclusion it was time to stop pulling the extra weight and struggling with the added burdens. I have faith and I wanted it to be free as possible.

[image error]

I went to the doctor in mid-October for the first time in far too long. A checkup because I wanted to be faithful to my calling as a professor, a minister, a father, a husband, and as a disciple.

I didn’t want to falter because of issues that were not in Christ’s calling for me, but were things that God’s creation could address in the wonders of medical science.

The doctor was disturbed by my high blood pressure, so I’m addressing that with medication, diet, and exercise too.  I said I’d really like an anti-depressant too.

I didn’t say because of my faith, but it’s there. I want to do all I can do in making sure I’m tuned in right and if medicine can help, all the better.

Depression is a lot like a church with a leaky roof on a rainy day.  It doesn’t undermine the power of Christ, but it does disturb the focus in worship and calling. Just as a church would fix the roof if its able, because of a desire to be faithful, so too, I’m taking medication to sharpen my efforts in every way.

Faith means treating what stands in the way, not succumbing to brokenness and calling it good in order to prove something to others.

Faith means doing what we can in pursuit of the calling we have, listening to the work of the Spirit who sometimes calls us to bear difficulties but also quite often encourages us to find light and life where it is available.

I’m choosing the Spirit. I’m seeking life and it more abundantly. Thanks be to God.

Aspiring rather than Expecting

Among the problems of social media is the confusion between an aspirational post (“this is a good example and encouragement to me”) versus an expectational post (“You other people need to do this”) The first is helpful and a sign of seeking growth, seeing the problem of self. The second is pedantic and sees the problem as other people.

We bring our own experiences and frustrations and challenges, and then generalize, thinking everyone is posting something for the same reasons we might post it.

The challenge is that history is filled with both moral expectational hypocrisy and ennobling moral aspirations. Without knowing a particular person’s story, it’s hard to know which is happening.

But that’s hard work. It’s much easier, thought significantly less transformative, to assert what we think others are doing, and why, then judge them for not living up to what we think they should do. We make it about ego-competition, and that always devolves into anger, division, frustration.

We should make it about love.

Which is me being aspirational. I want to social media differently than the world demands, neither giving into the dysfunction nor retreating altogether.

Society and the Church after September 11

In late Summer 2001, I was 26 years old, and I was dealing with some wonderful ups and significant downs. I had traveled to Ireland in July, working at a center that sought religious reconciliation among youth.  I I was enrolled in one of my favorite classes during my Fuller MDiv years, “Faith and Human Development,” taught by James Loder (whose work I use extensively in my new book).

Meanwhile, I was getting more and more frustrated by church politics. In August, my car was stolen. By early September, I was deeply discouraged and depressed. My friend Peter did what only a really good friend would know to do, he invited me to go camping on a Channel Island and even paid my way. That was the balm I needed.  Then September 11th happened, and that was an even deeper wake-up call.

There’s much to be said, but what I’ve not seen too much about is how the church responded to this tragedy and wake-up call.  There was, of course, a lot of very appropriate mourning and commemoration over the years, but I wonder if the lessons of the aftermath have yet to be heard.

In December of 2001, I wrote a paper for my class on Mission to Modern and Post-Modern Society titled, “Society and the Church after September 11.” I re-read it again this morning after many years, and it got me thinking. Some of the issues I raise, I’ve recently addressed much more thoroughly in my new book Hope for the Oppressors , while other issues are still concerns I’m trying to work out as I continue in both church work and in the academy. So I thought I’d share it here (knowing it is not without its issues/weaknesses): 

Everyone has their own story.  What they were doing, who they were with, where they were when “they heard”.  I was getting coffee in the Fuller Seminary refectory.  As I walked in, a small crowd was gathered in the back of the room watching CNN.  While I poured some cream into my cup I overheard someone say that the Trade Centers had sustained major damage, the result of 2 planes flying into them.

Though I was only able to watch a few minutes of the coverage, it was very obvious how truly horrendous this event was.  I wandered down to my class, but ended up leaving early as the images and discussion left me rather incapable of any kind of other focus.  So I walked over to a friend’s nearby house.  There I found my friend, along with another friend who was sent home from work at JPL, watching the news.

Over the next two hours about six other people wandered in, their work also being closed down, not really planned, but simply because no one wanted to be alone.  So we watched the news, talked, and simply sat absorbing the unconscionable. This was unlike any other event in our lives.  What we had seen happen in the movies now was happening in reality.  A poignant moment came later in the day.  As night fell on the East Coast, the members of Congress gathered together for a press conference.  Seemingly spontaneously they, the leaders of our country, began to sing God Bless America.

The initial effect was to stir that cynicism that tends to dwell at some level in all of those in my generation, having grown up in baseless rhetoric and partisan politics (symbolized by the recent posturing during the Presidential crisis).  Politicians singing God Bless America?  They’re wanting votes.  This came up in our continuing commentary, but someone said, “This time though I think they really are sincere, they really are singing from their depths.”  Rhetoric was lost, sincerity was found.  The age of irony which had developed during the 1990s was if not over, certainly very wounded.

Although it is far too early to make any kind of definite statements, it may be worth looking at how the events of September 11, 2001 have impacted the culture in which we live, and thus how should the church respond and interact with this culture.  The goal of this brief paper is to look at basic underlying philosophies which were revealed or confirmed in the aftermath of this tragedy.

Having done this I will discuss how the church has responded, and how possibly the church should respond to this continuing crisis.  What was certain is that while the purposeful destruction was a surprise, it seems as though many cultural observers are just as surprised by our response and reactions, reactions which may in fact point to great areas of interest for those in the church to pursue.

In the light of this tragedy, insights have been revealed, I believe which show that the Christian witness has not been totally unsuccessful, though we may need to change how we understand this success, and understand new ways which would take advantage of the important cultural indicators.  The church must respond now by reexamining its own perspectives, by looking at its own faults and society’s qualities.

Prior to September 11 most of the discussions about postmodernism and this present culture involved what could be called less than endearing terms.  Tom Brokaw titled his best-selling book about WWII veterans The Greatest Generation, both as a reference to the exploits of the mid-20th century population and, less obviously, as a pointed commentary on what was seen as the present lackluster generation.   Those who had gone before imagined they had continued to blaze a perfect path to follow, a path which had led generation after generation to achieve more than those who had gone before.

The cultural commentators pointed to the general low voting patterns of young adults, accentuating seemingly both disgruntledness and apathy.  “The idea of public life,” sociologist Todd Gitlin writes, “—whether party participation or military intervention fills them with weariness; the adventures that matter to them are the adventures of private life.”  We were the generation of whiners who complained about all our parents gave to us.  A generation who put ourselves before the community, rejecting by indifference the institutions of society.

On September 11, however, an event happened which will cause those who reflect on such things to challenge their previous perspectives.  Assumptions were made which need now to be reexamined in the light of a new societal situation.  In the face of a real crisis what was seen?  A nation which went overboard in helping each other out, in giving, in volunteering.  A nation whose rallying cry for this time became “God bless America.”

Churches were filled to overflowing, Bibles were being sold at almost double their previous numbers, famous evangelists were being asked about the problem of evil on national morning shows.  Blood banks were turning away people, military recruiters were finding their quotas met and more, for the first time in years, charities were counting their received contributions in the billions of dollars.  Rather than abandoning the public institutions, society was revealing itself as united, caring, giving.

Society has changed, but not as radically as some may think.  While political activity was low, more than half of all 18 –24 year olds volunteer on a regular basis.   As a leader of a community organization states, “They consider themselves civic-oriented, but don’t define that through political activity.”  My assertion is that this present generation may not have been as “empty” and as “relative” as some may have thought.  Rather, the inability to question the institutions themselves brought on a critique of those for whom these institutions were no longer understood, or indeed were all that relevant.

This led to the attempt to change the perspectives of the postmoderns, rather than oftentimes looking at what was being rejected.  Understood missiologically, the previous generation was seeking to impose and restore a distinct cultural philosophy, looking at culture only in as far as needed to construct a critique or “approach.” Christiandom had no room for dissent.  Present apologetics, for the most part, seemingly first attempt to make hearers “moderns” and then Christians, mostly due to the fact that Christian thinkers have been successful in answering modernity’s issues.

So, while churches have continued to engage in evangelistic campaigns, developed new strategies for reaching “Gen-X”, and created a large market for apologetic materials, the general expectation is that we are fighting a losing battle.

The recent seeming resurgence of religious interest in the this country gave the Church an enormous opportunity.  Rarely have religious leaders been given as much freedom in public venues as they have the last couple of months.  Churches responded with prayer services, with patriotic fervor, with compassion and care.  Though some responded with apocalyptic paranoia, most had messages of love and courage.

The church had an opportunity to be the Church to the world, to proclaim what it knew was truth, to offer hope in the face of loss.  In the light of this George Barna commissioned a survey of religious and moral beliefs in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.  What he found was surprising and indeed disturbing.

It was expected that concern for the future would rise as his survey shows it indeed did, with 9 out of 10 people, 35 and younger, expressing concern, with substantial increases being found across the entire population.  The commitment level to the Christian faith remained statistically unchanged, except for those who are 55 and older, which rose 8 percentage points.  It is in the area of how society views moral truth where we find the most interesting insight.

Barna research asked similar questions in January of 2000 and compared the results to recent findings.  In January of 2000, about 40% of the adult population said there were absolute moral truths that do not change according to circumstances.  In the recent study only just over 20% agreed with this statement.  Those aged 18-35 dropped from a quarter of the population who agreed to 13%.  Christian practice has remained statistically unchanged as compared to the previous study.  There was a minor change in how people viewed God and the Devil, with 4% less people saying they believe in a “all-powerful, all-knowing perfect creator of the universe who still rules the world today.”

About 5% less people reject the idea that “Satan, or the devil, is not a living being but is just a symbol of evil.”  There was absolutely no change in the number of people who could be classified as being “born-again.”  Given the fact that church attendance increased as much as 25% in the weeks immediately following the attacks, this survey reveals a great deal about the state of the current church.

This is not an irreligious society, however.  This society believes in god, but the question is “which god?”.  This society prays, but to who?  Society is, it has been said, involved in a religious discussion, but the church has not been invited to participate.  John Douglas Hall identifies four areas which indicate this religious interest.  The first is “the quest for moral authenticity” in which there is a distinct morality, a sense of right and wrong, but this is not necessarily grounded in traditional sources.

There is also a “quest for meaningful community” in which the individualism of modernity is being replaced by the strong renewal of interest of true community.  Hall maintains there is also a “quest for transcendence and mystery,” seen in the explosion of religious exploration which defies the Modernistic rejection of the supernatural.  Finally, there is the “quest for meaning”, the seeking after something more than simply seeking, there is a quest to answer what life really is for, in the face of nonbeing there are questions of being in general.  The church has been asked these questions, though maybe not in an obvious way, and has not answered them apparently in any helpful way, leading those who ask to look elsewhere.

No other nation in the history of the world has been as interested in human rights, and participated as actively, though certainly not perfectly, in shaping the world to respect all people.  This is a society whose monetary provision to the needy has helped countless people.  This is a society who rather than forcing reparations upon Germany and Japan after WWII it came alongside and helped rebuild their societies, making enemies into the most ardent of allies.  People fight for each other in this country more than they fight against each other.

Those who are sick are generally fed, clothed, cared for as Jesus commanded.  The problem with all this, though, is that the Church is not at the forefront of this societal care.  In the leprosy of our day, AIDS, churches tend to declaim the immorality of the homosexual rather than opening up hospices.  As those who believe God made the world, Christians are often the most ardent anti-environment activists rather than the most ardent protectors of God’s creation.  Our divorce rates are the same, our financial decisions seem to be no different, our fear about crises seems to be indeed higher.

While these are generalization to be sure, with many exceptions on both sides, the fact is that in looking at the church from an honest perspective, what exactly do we have to offer to this world? Society has become caring towards each other, indeed more Christ like in many ways, reflecting that the Gospel has been received in part, but has done so without reference to the Christian Gospel as a whole.

We have, in the words of Orlando Costas offered “a gospel without demands” and made “demands without the Gospel.”  The Church has become indeed not counter cultural, as much as simply culturally irrelevant.  The church preaches The Gospel, but as David Lowes Watson suggests, does not even know really how to answer the question of “What is the Gospel?”.

George Barna, in response to his survey, writes:

After the attack, millions of nominally churched or generally unreligious Americans were desperately seeking something that would restore stability and a sense of meaning to life.  Fortunately, many of them turned to the church.  Unfortunately, few of them experienced anything that was sufficiently life-changing to capture their attention and their allegiance.  They tended to appreciate the moments of comfort they received, but were unaware of anything sufficiently unique or beneficial as to redesign their lifestyle to integrate a deeper level of spiritual involvement.  Our assessment is that churches succeeded at putting on a friendly face but failed at motivating the vast majority of spiritual explorers to connect with Christ in a more intimate or intense manner.

Barna continues by stating that “The September 11 tragedy was another amazing opportunity to be the healing and transforming presence of God in people’s lives, but that, too, has now come and gone, with little before it.”  He finishes by saying:

These situations, especially the terrorist attacks, bring to mind Jesus’ teaching that no one knows the time and day when God will return for His people, so we must always be ready.  These two events are a wake up call to church leaders, emphasizing the particular need to enhance their efforts in the areas of outreach and discipleship.  We may never again have such grand opportunities to reach the nation for Christ –but then, we may have an even greater opportunity tomorrow.  How many churches have leaders and believers who are poised to take advantage of such a pending opportunity.

G.K. Chesterton once said that “Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.”  In our context, however, I would suggest that indeed churches have been tried and have been found wanting.  In the absence of a societal expectation for religious expression, the population has been voting with their feet the quality of church life, and they have been voting that it is mostly irrelevant.

The task now is not to simply reject such people as having dismissed the Gospel.  Rather the task now is to take a look inward and ask whether we are preaching Good News in a way which is in fact vital to people’s lives, or even if we are preaching Good News at all. We need to ask whether we are answering the questions which are being asked of us.

I am not among those  who believe this religious decline is either inherent or irreversible.  It is we within the church, I believe, who have found Christianity too difficult, so we have resorted to technique, salesmanship, and shallowness while declaiming society for not responding to our anemic message.

History has shown that the church loses as much territory as it gains.  An army which can not hold onto territory is not winning a war.  The response to this, however, is not to simply continue on in the same pattern as has been previously useful simply out of tradition.

Modern ecclesiology and much popular missiology are equivalent to a cavalry charge in WWII, full of bluster and even courage, but shockingly irrelevant for actually making a difference.  We are not a church simply to exist as an institution, but rather we exist as light for this world.  There has been a tendency to blame those in darkness for not seeing the light.  But maybe the problem is that we as the church are not very illuminating. The remainder of this essay will be an exploration into how we can turn the tide, how we can actually fight the trend which is seen throughout Europe and North America.  If we can change, as the church, maybe Africa and Asia will not have to deal with the same “post-Christian” issues with which we are now faced.

We are not suffering from a dearth of voices seeking to turn this tide.  There are many whose passion has turned towards a renewal of the church, and sought direction and insight into a new overall strategy.  The difficulty for the most part is that just as in other areas of Christian scholarship there is an increasing divide between academic and popular theology.

There is simply little dialogue which would spur actual change.  This is possibly one of the first areas of church life which needs to be addressed.  Academic work needs to be translated into approachable language, and popular authors need to regard academic sources.  Peter Stuhlmacher stated in a conference a few years ago his pessimism of much academic work by saying, “The renewal of the church will not come from academia.”  Those involved in leadership in church settings need to be reminded of their responsibility to teach, and continue to learn, truth in way which has oftentimes not been very evident.

The key to real renewal in the church is to first acknowledge we are not dealing with structural problems.  This crisis will not be solved by new hermeneutical techniques or multimedia presentations.  We are in the midst of a Spiritual crisis, in which the soul of the church is being attacked.  Traditional ecclesiology has a set form.  While the Reformers adapted much of the theology, the basic model of church was not very different.  For the most part, professional Christians facilitate an environment where the faithful can come and learn, worshipping together in a fixed setting.

While theologically attentive this pattern has encouraged a passive understanding of faith.  Rather than being an inspired dialogue, the choice is whether to accept what one person says is true, or to go with one’s own opinions.  When the clergy tended towards being the most educated people in town their authority was assured, but the combination of conservative Christian anti-intellectualism and the general higher state of education for society in general has all but erased that distinction.

The church must address those specific questions which Douglas Hall raised, but it can not do so by relying simply on a professional clergy, who are expected to fulfill the tasks of all the spiritual gifts, and whose passions are expected to shape, and limit, the whole direction of the church.  The tendency has been for too long that those within the ministry have been the guardians of the Spirit, saying how and how not the Spirit works.

It seems as though the interest is more in how the Spirit can not work, then in working with how the Spirit is working.  The Church has seen itself as the arbiter of the Spirit, rather than a participator in what God is doing in this world.  Increasingly the church must be willing to acknowledge how the Spirit works in all Christians, and be a place which facilitates these gifts, rather than constricting and directing, understanding “diversity as God’s gift rather than as a problem to be solved.”

We have been led to a situation in which Evangelical Christianity is simply about telling people about Jesus, so that they could eventually join in on the process of telling more people.  It is a club in which the only responsibility is to get others to join the club, prompting many to discover that “much of American evangelism is shown to be defective in content.”

Lesslie Newbigin, however, rightly notes that “mission begins with an explosion of joy” with the “mission of the church in the pages of the New Testament more like the fallout from a vast explosion, a radioactive fallout which is not lethal but life-giving”  When evangelism is a goal rather than a result the church gets so focused on answering specific questions that it loses the originality of its own message.

It is not our mission to convert this world, it is the result of the Spirit of God in our midst, who seeks the salvation of the world with a passion we cannot begin to approach.  The Spirit has given the gifts to facilitate this growth, in size and maturity.  By resisting what the Spirit is doing, oftentimes with the excuse of seeking what the Spirit should be doing, we get in the way of this salvific work.

With this in mind, it seems as though one of the primary tasks of mission in our society, at this present time, should be to recover that depth of wisdom, insight, and compassion which should mark the Church of Jesus Christ.  Peter commissioned the church to always be prepared to give a response to the hope that is in us. To do this we must again learn to both be prepared and to have hope.  Newbigin gives us some guidance on how a community should be shaped in order to facilitate this.

The first aspect is that the community will be one of praise, including reverence, thanksgiving, full of gratitude, grace and love rather than of judgment and moral crusading.

It will be a community of Truth, a community that does not just proclaim truth, but also lives it. This community should be active in the wider community in which it exists, involved in the “concerns of the neighborhood,” existing for the neighborhood.

There will be men and women being prepared to live out their Christian lives in the midst of the world, using their gifts not only in the specific church, but in all that they are involved in and with, letting the Spirit work through them to minister to the needs of those in and outside the church.

And finally, it will be a place of hope, recovering the distinction that the Spirit should be making in our lives, trusting and believing that God is active, working, and faithful.  By truly letting these characteristics become part of who we are we will lose the anxiousness which the burden of evangelism for its own sake raises.  We will become instinctual in our ministries, and we will find we are able to truly be a light to this present world.

The events of September 11th were horrible and awful.  They were also a wake-up call, reminding us of our precarious existence.  Agencies throughout this country were charged with renewed diligence in their duties, understanding that this happened in part due to our own lax standards.  In this atmosphere of re-evaluation, the church must also participate in looking at its response and role.

Surprisingly to most people, society turned to the church at its moment of crisis, seeking wisdom and answers, hope and direction.  It did not take long, however, for society to turn away again, with the church again relegated to irrelevancy.  People have adopted certain aspects of the Gospel message, discarding much of  the shallow moralism which so often is the public face of the church.

Society showed itself to be more compassionate, more giving, more loving and involved than was expected throughout this crisis, showing that the Spirit is involved actively throughout our midst.  The church, however, in many cases, revealed the shallowness of its own being, not able to adequately respond to the deep questions which were being asked, unable to bring transformation to those who eagerly sought it out.

The church must learn to acknowledge the full work of the Spirit of God, becoming places of true hope and light, places where people become filled, truly filled, with the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus, becoming avenues through which the Spirit can work wonderful things, now and throughout eternity.

Of course the fact that the so-called “greatest generation” created a society for their grand-children in which education and homeownership required lifelong debt as well as other present societal difficulties is not ever mentioned.

Todd Gitlin,  “The Postmodern Predicament,” World Quarterly (Summer 1989): 75.

It is highly doubtful any other country in the world would use such a religious phrase/song as its public motto.

A fact which certainly shocked those who thought to terrify us.  This is in many ways reminiscent of Hitler’s disdain towards the flabby, rich American youth prior to WWII which gave him confidence in waging his own terror war.

Sealey, Geraldine.  “A Transforming Moment,” http//www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/

Dailynews/WTC_youth011001.html.

ibid.

Which mostly involved using a “grungy” look and popular culture like videos or music.

God Bless America was not sung just at baseball games.

It is always interesting how Christians oftentimes are the most fearful about the end of the world when they supposedly have the most to look forward to.

The survey results are attached to the back of this essay.  The survey and its analysis are also found at  “How America’s Faith Has Changed Since 9-11”  Barna Research Group.

http//www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressReleas....

Joining the young adults as least likely to believe in absolute moral truth were “adults who are not born again” at 15%, and Catholics at 16%.

Including Sunday service, mid week participation in a religious setting, and personal devotional practice.

John Douglas Hall,  “Ecclesia Crucis:  The Theologic of Christian Awkwardness,”  The Church Between Gospel & Culture,  edited by George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), 206ff.

the care and help given to the victims and the outrage towards not only Bin Laden, but also those who would take advantage of this tragedy are signs of this.

not simply stated “community” as many churches have become.

It is interesting that more investment and money related commercials are found on Christian radio stations than on any other “secular” stations.

i.e. Christian broadcasters were some of the most vocal supporters of hoarding supplies for Y2K.  And every war or technological advance spurs fearful apocalyptic messages.

For example, present society is more “Christian” as regards to racial equity, as well as other areas.

Quoted in David Lowes Watson, “Christ All in All:  The Recovery of the Gospel for Evangelism in the United States,” The Church Between Gospel & Culture,  Edited by George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), 179.

Watson, 189

Barna, 3.  Though the 8% change of religious increase found in those 55 and older may reveal exactly to whom the church is now currently philosophically directed.

ibid.

ibid.

See Douglas D. Webster, Selling Jesus:  What’s Wrong with Marketing the Church (Downers Grove:  IVP, 1992); It is indeed sad when we, as those supposedly filled with the Spirit of the Almighty God, and thus led by Truth look to the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses as models for evangelistic technique and equate hamburgers and Jesus in our attempts to market the Gospel.  See George Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society, revised edition (Thousand Oaks, CA:  Pine Forge Press,).

i.e. our gains in Africa are belied by the situation in France.

As the Polish Army found out when the Germans invaded.

Craig Van Gelder .  “Defining the Center – Finding the Boundaries,”  The Church Between Gospel & Culture.  Edited by George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), 28ff. identifies 3 main issues which are needing to be addressed: 1) globalization 2) postmodernism 3)radical modernity (defined as being a fundamentally changed condition of modernity).

i.e. the difference between most seminarians’ view on Revelation and the Left Behind series (which has sold over 45 million copies).

i.e. in women, in social issues, in married folk, in singles, in gentiles, in vernacular language, through miracles, in the poor, in the sick, in other ethnicities, in other denominations, in older denominations, through learning, without learning, etc.  Even the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has suffered from this, signifying certain “traits” which are required, such as speaking in tongues, to show the presence of the Spirit.

Van Gelder, “Defining the Center”, 30.

Watson, 189.

Lesslie Newbigin,  The Gospel in a Pluralist Society  (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1989), 116.

Newbigin, 119ff.

1 Peter 3:15

These are found in Newbigin, 227ff.

Newbigin, 229.

Craig Van Gelder expands on these characteristics of a “successful” church, giving 18 aspects as a response to our present ecclesiastical crisis in his article “Defining the Center”.  Briefly stated they are: 1) de-ideologizing the Gospel, 2) Developing a theology of unified diversity 3) building communities of faith, 4)addressing fragmentation and brokenness, 5) constructing communities with a historical consciousness [see also Robert E.  Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, (Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1999)],  6) creating relevant forms, 7) re-negotiating historic models of interpretation, 8)developing a theological method of process, 9) dealing with a multitude of stories, 10) rediscovering God’s narrative, 11) developing confidence in the wider rationality, 12) developing skills in the wider rationality, 13) accepting a changed status, 14) developing a public theology, 15) rethinking the principle of denominationalism, 16) practicing the principle of unity, 17) developing a kingdom-oriented ecclesiology, 18) developing alternative church styles.

 

 

The problem of “a good heart”

Saul’s excuse to Samuel in 1 Samuel 15 was, “But I have a good heart.” He claimed his devotion to God was what excused his disobedience to his calling. Having “a good heart” is one of the chief ways we excuse our own and other people’s deep dysfunction. It’s the co-dependent mantra.


 


Claiming “a good heart” as a reason to keep someone around keeps abusers abusing and it keeps the abused excusing.


 


It’s not just a distracting excuse, it’s also not even true. Someone with a good heart is passionate about others and fulfills their obligations, showing their heart by what they do. They empower others, free others, not demand and constrict others for their own gain.


 


If they cause hurt, diminish others, always need excuses for not doing what they should, they don’t have good heart. They need healing and they need to removed from places of responsibility.


 


God doesn’t, as Samuel reminds us, want sacrifice. God seeks obedience, because the way of obedience is a way of transformation. Saul claimed a good heart, but he was disobedient to what he was called to do, leaving chaos all around, and God said to him, “No more.”


 


Heaven save me from just having a good heart. I want to be someone who loves and shares and gives in ways that empower the people around me.  I want to be obedient to what I’m called to do, in the big things and in the daily, little things that are really what shows what kind of heart I actually have .

Hope for Freedom’s Ring

The Salvadoran theologian Ignacio Ellacuría writes, “The goal of liberation is full freedom, in which full and right relationships are possible, among people and between them and God.” This emphasis on liberation as freedom was the core of Martin Luther King Jr.’s message, as expressed in his famous 1963 speech:

“And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we’re free at last!”

Freedom, of course, is likewise a tricky proposition and an imprecise term. King defined freedom as composed of three elements. First, freedom is “the capacity to deliberate or weigh alternatives.” Second, freedom “expresses itself in decision.” A decision makes a choice, cutting off an alternative for the preference of the chosen path. Third, freedom involves responsibility, the ability to respond to why a choice was made, and the responsibility to respond as no one else can speak for that free person. These elements shape a wonderful ideal of freedom. We like the idea of it, the pursuit of it for others, and we definitely like our experience of it. Freedom as a lived reality is much more complicated.

Ignacio Ellacuría, Ignacio Ellacuría: Essays on History, Liberation, and Salvation, ed. Michael E. Lee (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2013), 244.
Martin Luther King, Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. James M. Washington (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 220.
See Martin Luther King, Jr. “The Ethical Demands for Integration,” in Testament of Hope, 119-120.

excerpt from Hope for the Oppressor: Discovering Freedom through Transformative Community.  Sadly, this book was given an academic textbook pricing. Ask your library to buy a copy for your us, request a review or an exam copy from Rowman & Littlefield, and let them know you’d like a paperback version at a reasonable cost.

On the possibility of Liberating Oppressors through a $130 book (and a free look at the introduction)

What does it mean to liberate oppressors? What would this look like in practice? Why would we even want to do so?  In the introduction to Hope for the Oppressor I write about my goal and approach:

This book is an attempt to reboot the conversation, to enter into this longstanding discussion with a theme of hope, hope not only for changing contexts but hope for the oppressors themselves. It is a strange idea that the oppressors who already have privilege need hope, but that is exactly the problem we face. In his book on John Brown, W.E.B DuBois highlights the issue: “The price of repression is greater than the cost of liberty. The degradation of men costs something both to the degraded and those who degrade.” Repressing others may provide privilege in societal sense, but not necessarily real freedom, and in indulging oppression, they are cut off from the possibilities of fullness and life that is promised in Christ, both now and in eternity. The cost is hope, trust, and community, which are the cornerstones of life .

I propose a model that can more adequately define the context of oppressing, diagnose the underlying motivations and inclinations, and provide a theological analysis that gives both a Christian perspective and response. In doing this, I hope to offer a way of liberation that leads to a new pattern of life in our society, reflecting the values of the kingdom of God, one that is the task of individuals and churches to live out in their particular communities. In light of this latter goal, we discover themes that illuminate how liberation is, or should be, universal, diverse, and unifying. In expressing this more thorough understanding of liberation from both directions, the church can pursue its mission as a truly catholic church, working to actualize this liberation everywhere, in diverse situations and environments, pointing toward the Spirit of renewal that is infinitely complex and working in every setting and person. Starting with each of us.

Read the whole introduction.

[image error]

I had expected my book to cost about $40 or less. The publisher decided to price it at $130 because that is the model for academic books with very narrow themes. The market isn’t to people for those kinds of books, it’s to libraries, and certain kinds of academic libraries at that. Many international libraries can’t afford it, regular folks like you and me can’t afford it.

I didn’t set the price, and I don’t like the price. I think the price reflects the very concerns I address in my book. There is a publishing system and this system doesn’t care about me, it doesn’t care about you, it cares about perpetuating a model of business that relies on bloated budgets of Western academia and the load-crushed funding of the textbook market.

In dealing with a $130 dollar book that locks me out of buying let alone marketing my own book, it confronts me personally and professionally with the very problems I’m trying to address in the book.

That’s not to say there’s no justification for prices like these in some situations. Some books really are the sort that are limited to libraries. Very narrow themes within already small areas of discussions have a narrow set of scholars that probably could, and often do, fit into a single hotel conference room. This level of pricing helps those kinds of books get published, and uses the library system to get the book to their narrow markets.

That, however, doesn’t characterize my book. I suspect, and I don’t think I’m alone in this, that the theme of “oppressing” is rather wide in this world.  Like “as far as the eye can see in every direction” wide.

My book is an interdisciplinary attempt to address the wider issues of oppressing and how Christian theology in particular can respond to this deepening reality. I enter into discussions with sociology, psychology, church history, Biblical studies, as well as drawing from practical and systematic theologies.

[image error]To get discount, use code LEX30AUTH19

It is categorized as “liberation theology,” but I approach liberation theology from an entirely different theoretical foundation, that of systems theory. Meaning it offers something new to the field.

It’s educated in approach but not limited in scope to only be of interest to a small subset of scholars.  Indeed, Moltmann–one of the most important theologians of the last sixty years or more–notes in his foreword that I superbly carry on a task he has pursued throughout his career.

After six years of working on it, now I find myself stymied by the very people who were committed to helping this see the light of day.  I don’t blame them, or at least I don’t blame any particular people. I really liked my editors and I value the invitation they gave me in publishing it. Though I would have gone with someone else had I known the price they would set, I still have hope that this very challenge offers an opportunity for this book to do well.

I can’t do this alone, however.  The theme of this book is community and that liberating the oppressor takes a ‘bottom up’ community approach. I think it has a broad appeal and speaks into deep systemic problems with a unique perspective that bypasses much of the current entrenched political powers, and invites both conservatives and progressives into a new kind of conversation.

There has to be a better way.  I want to find this way.  I want to invite others to find this way. And in this book I get into how this might be done.

If you’re interested in this goal, and if you’re able to buy the book, here is the publisher’s book page.  Apparently they did not provide enough copies to Amazon, meaning they are entirely uninterested in people buying the book, but it is still possible from their site. Use LEX30AUTH19 for a 30% discount.

If you’re interested in this goal, but can’t afford the price, or can but also think others should be able to as well, ask Rowman & Littlefield to release a paperback version.  And in the meantime request any libraries you’re connected with to purchase the book. Yeah, it feeds into the dysfunctional system but with a message that argues for a better way.

If you’re an academic or have a public forum, ask for a review or exam copy to show there’s interest in the book.

If you have any more questions or want more information about it, let me know in the comments.

 

W. E. B. Du Bois, John Brown, ed. David R. Roediger, new edition (New York: Modern Library, 2001), 4.