The Promise
of Radically Moderate Christianity
Isaiah 42:8-9
and 46:8-9
Today’s passages from Isaiah were written during a time of spiritual despair, theological turmoil and ethical upheaval. Biblical scholars have noted that Isaiah, the book, appears to have been written in three different time periods, which they ingeniously refer to as Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah. There appears to have been an Isaianic “school” (Isaiah 8:16), with disciples of the original, eighth century B.C.E. prophet continuing his ministry well into later centuries. In the sixth century, disciples of this Isaianic school were among those taken into exile in Babylon. Whereas Isaiah (chapters 1-39), in the eighth century, was a stern voice pronouncing the Lord’s judgment (“Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt,” 1:4), Second Isaiah (chapters 40-59), in the sixth century, announced the Lord’s peace, hope and restoration (“Comfort, comfort, my people, says your God,” 40:1).
During Second Isaiah’s time the people’s spirit was broken through exile: how can they sing the songs of the Lord in a foreign land? They were the Lord’s people, the One who brought them out of slavery in Egypt into the freedom of the Promised Land; how could they find themselves now in exile? Second Isaiah’s message of the Lord’s peace, hope and restoration sought to bring comfort, renewal and guidance to the people during a time of uncertainty. Yet, in today’s passages, Second Isaiah seems to speak two, seemingly contradictory words:
See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare…(42:9).
Remember the former things, those of long ago…(46:9).
So, which is it? Should the people look at the “new things” the Lord is doing or focus on remembering “the former things…of long ago”? The answer, of course, is, “Yes.” Both “new things” and “former things” are needful. Without the former things, the people of God lose their foundation, their sense of historic identity. Without new things, the people of God are unable to blaze trails of faithfulness for a new era with its unique challenges.
*****
Today we live in a world similar to the time of Second Isaiah. Oh, we are not in exile in a foreign land, but we live in an age when our spiritual foundations are challenged and the certainties we thought we knew from before no longer prove stable. Those of you who were adults in Eisenhower’s America know what I am talking about. The nation has changed, hasn’t it? Of course it has. During the Eisenhower era most civic institutions, at the very least, could be counted upon to support the notion of faith such that the distinction between being a good Christian and being a good American were equivalent terms in many people’s minds. Now, of course, we see a clear distinction between being a follower of Jesus and what is supported by the wider culture. You may have noticed that not everyone agrees with the Christian worldview, folks!
Some people talk about this cultural shift as a move from the modern to the postmodern world, while others use the term post-Christian world. Whichever term is used, the idea is the same: we live in a world where spiritual, theological and ethical markers that we thought were fixed entities are now being questioned. In today’s world, what should a Christian believe about medical ethics, about international relations and the use of American influence in foreign affairs, about the use of advanced scientific technology? It may never have been easy to answer ethical questions, but it seems as if there is less certainty and therefore more conflict regarding how the Church should (or can) lead its people toward an ethical consensus. Simply put: we are living through a time of a new reformation and only God knows what the Church will look like as this reformation moves forward. How, then, shall we proceed?
As we seek to live into a reformation in which respect is the fruit of love between Christians of all varieties, what I have called being a radically moderate Christian, Second Isaiah’s sense of balance between different perspectives and his ability to weigh multiple values seems appropriate for us to heed in our conversations. It is never true that only former things must be heard. It is never true that only new things must be heard. Life, and the life of faith, is a balance between former things and new things, between what God has done and what is doing, between, yes, conservative and liberal. As Tony Campolo said during his visit to our church regarding the necessity of both liberals and conservatives:
Conservatives are those who draw lines that should never be crossed; liberals are those who erase lines that should never have been drawn in the first place.
There is plenty of evidence that Dr. Campolo’s sense of the importance of having both liberals and conservatives in a conversation and a culture is correct. Conservatives literally conserve vitally important societal values and practices, while liberals open society to equally important values and practices. Consider some of the contributions conservatives have made:
· Stood against early Christian heretics such as the Judaizers, Marcionites and Arians,
· Stood against the drug culture of the 1960’s and beyond,
· Are standing against the nonsense of the Jesus Seminar,
· Founded the conservationist movement and the National Parks system,
· Opened the door to economic and cultural exchange between China and the West,
· Created the first nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union.
Or, conversely, consider some of the contributions liberals have made:
· St. Francis was a liberal voice initiating reform of 13th century Roman Catholicism,
· Luther was a liberal voice initiating reform of 16th century Roman Catholicism,
· Democracy was a liberal challenge to the divine right of kings,
· Child labor laws initiated worker protection rights,
· Women’s suffrage and women’s ordination challenged society’s male hegemony,
· The civil rights movement corrected society’s racial bias in the law.
As the above examples demonstrate, conservatives and liberals both contribute to the societal balance necessary to bring both stability and renewal. Even more, while both conservative and liberal movements are each important in their own way, it is also liberating to see that they are necessary conversation partners and that only together do they allow us to embrace both the “former things” God has done as well as the “new things” God is doing. Consider some of the contributions conservatives and liberals have made – or could make – together:
· The Civil War (aka “The War of Northern Aggression”) had both conservative and liberal elements within its core conflict. Conservatively, Lincoln sought to preserve the Union; liberally, Lincoln sought to end America’s “peculiar institution” of slavery. The Confederacy, for its part, sought to conserve their “former” way of life through maintaining the social practice of slavery, while creating a “new,” sovereign state separate from the North.
· The environmental debate highlights two values, the need to protect the earth (liberals) and the need to facilitate business (conservatives), in such a way that the environmental movement’s current direction is oriented toward a healthy symbiosis of environmentally sound business practices.
· The immigration debate highlights two values, both of which should be political priorities: the need to secure our borders (conservatives) and the need to create the safe, legal means of allowing immigrant workers to maintain their ability to provide for their families while doing jobs necessary for the American economy (liberals). What sane person can argue against securing our borders in a post-9/11 world? Conversely, what sane person wants to pay double for their groceries in order to promote nativism?
We live in a society where a 55% political majority in a national election is considered a landslide and where most elections are much more narrowly divided. If we cannot learn faithful discourse with one another, we are doomed to ride the merry-go-round of talk radio and web logs that careen ever more out of control toward the abyss of demagoguery. This is true in the church as well as around the water cooler. It is my impression as a pastor that most American Christians are more comfortable using political language than ethical language, that we have been trained how to think politically as Democrats or Republicans more than we have been trained to think biblically as followers of Jesus. What will it take to nurture the mind of Christ in the Christian community?
The mind of Christ is nurtured through a commitment to radically moderate Christianity.
*****
What we have done here at First Presbyterian Church is nothing short of extraordinary. It may not seem as if anything new has happened: we come to worship (or not), we sing songs or hymns, we hear a sermon, we like the sermon (or not), we go to lunch or to the mountains or to yard work or to a nap. What is so different? What is so different is that over the last few months we, as a congregation, have confronted some of the most contentious topics on the political, religious and ethical landscape…and we have not divided! No one has removed their membership. No one has confronted me in anger. No one has written to the elders to complain. Indeed, just the opposite has happened. I have heard people begin to wrestle with issues in a more public way. I have heard people joke about their differences. I have received comments and notes telling me how helpful this sermon series has been in folks’ lives. How is it that we have been able to do what almost no other congregation is doing? There are at least three things that have made our part of God’s new reformation of the Church possible.
First, we have a framework for faithful discourse. Throughout this sermon series we have committed to a balanced, respectful dialogue in which as much emphasis has been placed on listening as on speaking. Whether we have been talking about the death penalty or poverty, the framework for discussion has been the same: one side, the other side; this is what is good about the one side, this is what is good about the other side; here are some questions for one side, here are some questions for the other side. We have then followed up the examination of these multiple perspectives with an attempt to frame the debate in the context of a spiritual or ethical virtue in order to glimpse a possible way forward together in unity.
This framework for faithful discourse liberated me, personally, as a pastor to speak about social issues. I’ll let you in on a little secret. Most mainline pastors are afraid to raise social issues from the pulpit because when we do we get grief no matter what we say. Someone is going to be angry! But what I have come to realize is that we raise issues in the wrong way. Essentially what most pastors do is take the approach that says: “Let me abuse you with my personal perspective, derived, of course, from Scripture and theology, and give little or no credence to opposing views.” Well, imagine that: parishioners are not pleased by such pontificating.
I hope that you will adopt this framework for faithful discourse in your personal lives as well as our corporate life. How many of you have a friend or family member who loves Rush (or Hillary) and you just can’t stand Rush (or Hillary)? How easy is it to write that friend or family member off as an idiot because they like Hillary (or Rush)? But if they are our friend or family member, isn’t it probably the case that they know something, that they aren’t a complete idiot? What would happen if, instead of shutting them out, we wondered why they like Hillary (or Rush), wondered what we might learn from them? I am not saying we have to agree with every crazy uncle in the family, but being willing to build bridges, and then building them, is often the path to personal growth.
Second, we have discovered that “journey” is a good metaphor even for ethics. Often the spiritual life is called a journey: of faith, of grace, of the Spirit. Ethics, conversely, is discussed using more rooted metaphors: the rock upon which to stand, the tree rooted against the wind. These more rooted metaphors were helpful when society was relatively stable and knowing the ethical way did not change from decade to decade or even century to century. However, we live in an age in which foundational societal structures may change from year to year in certain areas. For today’s world, a more dialogical discernment process is needed.
Some of you may be thinking, “Wait, are you proposing ‘situational ethics’?” Not at all. What I am suggesting is that the 21st century world is so complex as to require dialogue and discernment as the constant companions of ethical discourse. What must be avoided is having ethical discourse seek either a fixed position or be viewed as a free for all. A couple of metaphors may help clarify what I am suggesting. Ethical discourse should not seek to find the great oak tree that will stand for centuries, never bending in the storm, never changing from season to season, nor should ethical discourse seek to embrace a situation in which ethics are like the balloon one has blown up but not tied, and when one lets go of the balloon it flies hither and yon without sense of direction.
As human beings, we desire the fixed point. We want to know just where the line is over which we are not to step. We like the notion that the police won’t ticket us for speeding if we are only going five miles per hour over the speed limit. We desire the fixed point, but what happens when the situation changes so drastically that the fixed point loses its reference? The Church once allowed – and even advocated in some cases – slavery, the denial of women’s basic rights and the divine right of kings. Fixed points, although humanly desirable, end up as forbidden fruit; they look good and may even taste sweet but they lead us away from God.
Conversely, human beings do not like a situation without boundaries; if there are no rules, most people get anxious, for we want to know what is and is not acceptable. Robert Frost’s immortal words are true to the human spirit: “good fences make good neighbors.” We need to know that there is an ethical structure that exists, that doing what is right in one’s own eyes is the path to anarchy and chaos, and that even if we cannot see every step of the way forward, there is still a path upon which we can journey together.
For the above reasons, ethical discourse in a complex world must avoid both the fixed point and the free for all and instead seek a balance between them that honors the need for dialogue and discernment. In practical terms, this balance will be found by discerning that which is principle and that which is provisional in Scripture. What is required of us and of all people in every time and place (principle), versus what is provisional, a part of the social context of a distant century that does not apply to us? Love of neighbor is principle. Wearing hats in church is provisional. But here we can see why a dialogue is so necessary: who will decide what is principle and what is provisional? How can we make such distinctions when we disagree on basic premises? On this journey, conservatives are needed to ensure we do not go too far; liberals are needed to ensure we go far enough.
Third, we have discovered that issues are different than enemies. I am indebted to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist William Rasberry for making this distinction in a speech given at Indiana University at Indianapolis. Rasberry makes the point that we tend too quickly to move from issue to enemy, from dialogue with our “opponent” to demonization of our opposition. But what happens in the Church when we commit this sin? One question raised to me by one of our church members was this: “What happens to our sense of relationship with God when talking about these issues; how can people who disagree with the dominant position still have a relationship with God?” Consider.
If you are a woman listening to a pro-life rally and you have had an abortion, you may wonder what God thinks about you and if it is possible for God to love you. If you are a soldier, reading an anti-Iraq blog, especially if that blog is linked to a church, you may wonder if there is a place for you among God’s “community” and if you can connect to such a God. If you are gay and trying to worship, in most churches you will wonder if it is possible for God to view you as his beloved child? If you are in favor of the death penalty and other Christians are calling you a “murderer,” what might you wonder about the mercy of God?
In seeking a framework for ethical discourse to journey faithfully in the direction of God’s will, we must not forget that, above all else, God wills to be in relationship with his children. To make an enemy of one’s opponent builds a barrier from – rather than a bridge to – relationship with God in Jesus Christ. However, to fight fiercely for an issue yet fight more fiercely still to keep it an issue and not allow it to become an enemy, keeps one’s “opponent” a brother or sister.
Our teaching assistant for Old Testament in seminary was an interesting guy. He was raised in Oklahoma and grew up attending a Pentecostal church, getting his bachelor’s degree in Bible from Oral Roberts University (ORU). For those of you unaware of this fact, ORU is toward the conservative side of the theological spectrum. After graduating from ORU, my teaching assistant got a Master’s from Notre Dame. At that point, his parents were concerned: Notre Dame? A Catholic school? What on earth could he learn there? But his parents really grew to worry when he decided to pursue his doctorate at Princeton Theological Seminary, the bastion of mainline Protestantism. “Isn’t Princeton’s a Protestant school,” they asked, “can’t you find a better school, a less liberal school, to learn about God’s Holy Word?”
My teaching assistant went home for Thanksgiving his first year at Princeton. There the family was gathered around the table with dad at one end and mom at the other. Ordinarily dad would have said the prayer but as the family joined hands around the table, dad asked his son to offer the blessing. You see, he just had to know. He had to know if his son still knew the Lord. When the son finished praying, both his mom and his dad had tears running down their faces; they were so happy, for they were assured that their son was still of child of God.
As are each of us.
Return to Sermons Menu