Perhaps you have heard about "trigger warnings," and wondered why college students need shielding from uncomfortable ideas and images. Isn't college all about the courageous search for truth?
The power imbalance is obvious. The truth issue is clear. We should see an end to abortions in America, just like Wilberforce and his cohort brought an end to the slave trade, right? I hate to rain on our parade, but in this case I get to play our Eeyore.
The Academy's executive director, Dr. Robert Osburn, recently reviewed, for First Things (widely considered America's most important journal on religion and public life), Professor Tim Clydesdale's new book The Purposeful Graduate (2015).
When most of us turn 60, or thereabouts, memory fires up at thoughts of college days: romantic walks about campus, inspiring professors and books that opened our eyes, big games against rivals and stirring calls to “come help change the world!” A recent symposium at the University of Minnesota sparked the same urge to reminisce, but this time the thoughts were entirely different. It was a sad, weary, frustrating stroll down a memory lane made for old radicals.
Over the past 30 years, thousands of international students and visiting scholars like you have brightened our lives and challenged our thinking. Some of you have become followers of Jesus Christ, others not, but all of you agree that the exhilarating freedom to choose whom and what to believe is one of America’s great virtues. I am sorry to tell that this freedom, which you so richly and justifiably cherish, is now at risk.
I have only fuzzy, hazy memories of our first meeting on the University of Minnesota East Bank campus in front of Coffman Union almost 30 years ago. I had just departed a part-time pastorate among farmers in the wheat fields of Western Kansas for a campus ministry amongst international students in the marketplace of ideas (or so I thought). At any rate, bearded, lanky, and warmly engaging, William Monsma’s reference that day to Francis Schaeffer was all I needed to know that I had found a campus minister cut out of the same cloth. I needed to get to know him and, perhaps, see what I could learn from him.
If we accept these axioms, where do they lead us? If God exists and is perfect and we aren’t perfect, and that is a problem for both us and God, what should we expect to happen next? It seems to me that there are five corollaries of the four axioms.
I start with a set of basic axioms. Interestingly, many of them are not specifically Christian in nature. The axioms could be presented as undefended assertions, an approach that is perfectly acceptable from a logician’s point of view. Instead, I offer a few real-world experiences and observations to defend their reasonableness.
“Axiomatic Christianity” — what an awful name for a paper. Why not give it a name that will attract some attention like “Christianity: The Shocking Truth” or “Steal This Manuscript”? Perhaps a better name would result in wider readership, but at the time of writing, it seemed to me that wider readership would be of little benefit if the wider readership’s intelligence was insulted in the process.
© 2015 Robert Osburn
I thought about titling this essay “The Magnificent Church,” but, to some folks, calling the church “magnificent” is like calling a trailer court an “estate.” “Fractious, stumbling, squawking” may seem like better adjectives for an institution in which Americans have declining confidence. One reason for the decline may be that, although only a tiny percentage of church leaders abuse, sexually or otherwise, their flocks, the media widely report about such abuse. But, there is something going on inside of our churches, at least evangelical churches: While in most of the world, especially the Global South, the evangelical church is vibrant and growing, by contrast, a weary, cautious, shrunken spirit has infected North American evangelicalism.
The church muddles along.
But, then, like a diamond that stubbornly glistens on the cloudiest of days, Ephesians 3:10 declares:
[God’s] intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.
Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, precedes this declaration with the stupendous claim (believe me, it was utterly shocking at the time it was written in about AD 60) that Gentiles are now “heirs together with Israel” in a completely new institution, the church. By its presence and practice, the church stuns the world by revealing that God has more wisdom than the gangs of professors that roam the halls of academia. God intends it to be a model nation.
The way God shows He has a much better grasp on reality than Oxford’s dons and Harvard’s robed gods is to craft a Body (v. 6) whose Head bled to death so that He could end the hostility between ethnicities that are now reconciled by His blood (2:14). God’s wisdom is not only multi-faceted (“manifold”), but He intends to make that wisdom known to those who are both spiritual and earthly leaders and authorities. (Please understand that the phrase “in the heavenly realms,” in this passage and Ephesians 1:21, was likely a metaphor for powerful authorities who reigned imperially over their subjects, though it probably also has secondary reference to the spiritual powers that animate much leadership in our world.) Those with imperial authority desperately need a wisdom greater than theirs that is on full exhibition through the church that is envisioned as a model nation. As such, the church has replaced Israel’s previous role as a model nation (Isaiah 60:1-3).
My friend Dr. Bob Moffitt of Harvest Foundation (and a co-founder of Disciple Nations Alliance, of which the Academy is a member) declares around the world that the church is God’s instrument for healing communities and nations. But I think it is not only that the church, whether in its universal or local expressions, is the most effective institution for solving community problems; it ought also be a meaningful institutional example of how leaders should organize public affairs.
When I spoke over a month ago in the troubled northeastern Indian state of Manipur, I told churches there that the leaders of Manipur aren’t finding solutions to the multiple systemic dysfunctions that plague their region. I said that the only way Manipur’s leaders will find lasting, genuine solutions is by learning from the church (which is very pervasive in that part of India). What prevents Manipur’s churches from being effective models to government officials is their disunity.
For too long, the church of Jesus Christ has pictured itself as either a social club or a social agency (mostly liberal denominational churches), or, in the case of 20th century American fundamentalism, a refuge from society. In the former case, theological liberals have made themselves virtual appendages of government (as have many Christian social service agencies, for example); in the latter, fundamentalists made themselves irrelevant to government by solely teaching the personal dimension of Christian faith. The former is the ever-shrinking mainline church, the other a marginal church. I am suggesting that Paul’s vision in Ephesians 3:10 was that the church would be a model to the nations of the world.
Imagine a church whose vision is inspired by this verse in Ephesians: “We exist to demonstrate God’s multifaceted majestic wisdom to the leaders of our community.”
How will they impact the “rulers and authorities” in their communities? Through them, political and other leaders will discover that leadership is best done by serving the community, that the central problem facing the community is spiritual (lack of forgiveness, reconciliation, and regeneration), and that politics is a necessary but insufficient system for solving community problems. As did America’s founders, they will also learn from the church that a federal system of government best balances local, regional, and nationwide concerns and interests. They should learn from the church a vision for public justice that takes account of both individual and collective needs by means of what is often called principled pluralism. And, finally, they must learn that religious freedom, or freedom of conscience undergirds all other human freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. In the final analysis, by proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ, our churches will remind our international, national, regional, and local leaders that there is One Just Ruler after whom they should model their own leadership.
If our churches catch the vision as model nations, the church will increasingly be known as magnificent, not muddling.
International student ministry beckoned me 30 years ago: Help international students discover Jesus and why He deserves their devotion. I had no idea that I would re-discover my own country---America---by seeing it through their eyes.
New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has uncovered, through his research which he reports in the 2012 book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, a stunning insight into the very different ways that American liberals and conservatives imagine reality as seen through others’ eyes. Conservatives, he found, are very adept at imagining the lifeworld of liberals. By contrast, liberals are stunted when it comes to imagining life through the lens of a conservative.
This week's blog post takes the form of an essay by Bob Osburn that was recently published by the Center of the American Experiment in a fascinating symposium, entitled Fragmented Families and the Silence of the Faithful: How Religious Leaders and Institutions Must Speak Up and Reach Out.
In the next few weeks I will introduce professors, pastors, and other leaders in the northeast Indian state of Manipur to the story of Christianity’s contribution to the development of nations. One topic I will address is finding the proper balance between entrepreneurship and environmentalism, a balance that, in the gloomy twilight of the early 21st century, clearly tips Green in the post-Christian West. Finding the right balance not only concerns development, but has everything to do with what it means to be human.
Imagination is one of three “i” words that have special places in all our lives and especially our thinking and, in my view, do not get the attention and respect they deserve. In addition to imagination, the other “i” words are intuition and inspiration. (We might add innovation, since innovation often is the product of imagination, intuition and inspiration.) We use these words frequently when admiring creative genius, but less often when we we’re referring to “rational” thought processes. That strikes me as odd.
I am a big fan of World magazine, but on one issue however, I part ways with them---not mildly, but strongly. The issue is pluralism, and to put my difference as clearly as possible: Columnist Janie Cheaney and World’s founder Joel Belz believe pluralism is an ideology floating under the banner of tolerance, whereas I think that the term more often describes a social reality where religious and philosophical differences can genuinely cohabit and thrive without compromising the passion for truth.
President Obama declares terror the enemy, not Islam. As the US president, he may be strategically avoiding the obvious truth that Islam is the central cause of terror in the 21st century. Christians who engage our Muslim neighbors have only one strategic orientation: Speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
In Part One, I proposed that key themes in a Christian vision for national development include the idea of God's reign over the nations (He is not a tribal God), the Kingdom of God (which is a “now, not yet” reality), and the cross and crown of Christ (courageous, gutsy servant leadership points to Christ’s Lordship over nations). In Part Two, I suggest there are four more themes.
Over the past week, I have spoken with two groups of students on the University of Minnesota campus, answering the question “Does Religion Help or Harm?” It’s one of those trick questions that I wish had handled more deftly when I debated the same question a decade ago with Dan Barker, the atheist co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Unless we first define religion, and, secondly, develop criteria for identifying what makes a religion “helpful,” we’ll argue in circles.