essay #2 – the fallacy of american exceptionalism

During the week of February 16th, 2015, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani questioned President Barack Obama’s love of the United States, in large part due to what Giuliani perceives as a primary focus on criticism: “…from all that I can see of this president, all that I’ve heard of him, he apologizes for America, he criticizes America… I believe his initial approach is to criticize this country, and then afterwards to say a few nice things about it.” (FoxNews.com, 2015) While some of the rhetoric can be categorized as partisan mudslinging, both reactions to what Obama said point to a troubling precedent – reasoned, balanced criticism of cultural ideals is inappropriate, and doing so brings into question one’s appreciation and dedication of the ideals. Christians should take umbrage with hubris that ignores the broken and imperfect nature of the world, and instead look to hold both the good and the bad in mind together. However, these issues are nothing new – they are, in fact, illustrative of many of Reinhold Niebuhr’s ideas about Christian Realism. A more balanced and reasoned solution can be found through the work of Paul in Acts.

Deeply seated in the United States is the concept of exceptionalism, which Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as a perception that America is qualitatively different from any other nation because of the ideas it was founded upon. As GK Chesterton noted, “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence…” (Chesterton, 1923). A foundation on creed as opposed to a birthright means that while any individual may become American by adhering to the values espoused by American creeds, conversely by rejecting those tenets, someone may become just as un-American (Lipset, 1996). However, if someone still espouses American ideals, yet is willing to criticize those same values it does not permit a simple dismissal of the criticism. Instead, it forces a strict adherent of American exceptionalism into cognitive dissonance, and given for many the sheer importance of American exceptionalism, may cause significant distress. This is why, when Obama has suggested that America has a share of faults, individuals like Rudy Guiliani have been so vociferous and critical, completely rejecting Obama’s remarks as un-American.

However, Niebuhr, who himself was proponent of a more nuanced view of American exceptionalism, argues that this rejection is sin, where “man is ignorant and involved in the limitations of a finite mind; but he pretends that he is not limited. He assumes that he can gradually transcend finite limitations until his mind becomes identical with a universal mind. All of his intellectual and cultural pursuits, therefore, become infected with the sin of pride.” (Neibuhr, 1996, pp. 178-179) This pride has been on clear display, as a myriad of individuals have been critical of Obama’s remarks, but perhaps none more than Giuliani, who continued to argue against Obama’s departure to unwavering American exceptionalism. When coupled with other polemics around Obama’s upbringing and affiliations with Islam and Communism, this pride inevitably creates division of the perceived good and evil in the world that has only increased since the rise of extremism and terrorism post September 11, 2001. Niebuhr, though writing in his time about the Soviet Union, warns against this pride in a way that is still valuable today. By eschewing a more modest and circumspect perspective on American, Niebuhr feared that the nation would be destroyed, “directed by eyes too blind to see all the hazards of the struggle [of conflict]; and the blindness would be induced not by some accident of nature or history but by hatred and vainglory.” (Niebuhr, 1952, p. 174)

This poses a difficult question – how does one provide reasoned response to the critique of national policy, yet do so in a way that does not inflame polemic arguments? A helpful response can be found in Acts, as Paul speaks to the scholars on the Areopagus.

When Paul entered Athens, he found himself apoplectic – the word used in the Greek, παρωξύνετο, connotes a seething anger at the level of idolatry that he noticed (BibleHub.com). However, from the perspective of the typical person in Athens, the statues represented the culture at the time. Many Roman emperors desired to continue Greek traditions in an idealized form, and continued to strengthen cultural institutions like the Areopagus (Wilson, Nigel, Editor, 2006).

Paul may have been incensed and viewed the Athenian culture as idolatrous, but he did not launch directly into attacking the Athenians. Instead, he engaged with the population in the ἀγορᾷ, or town square, busy with people learning the news of the day and engaging in thoughtful dialogue. Paul eventually caught the attention individuals who felt it wise to bring him to the Areopagus and who expressed an interest his countercultural ideals. The Areopagus was comprised of the elite of Athens, and so by engaging the public in their space, Paul managed to present his case to those who had greatest influence on the culture (Wilson, Nigel, Editor, 2006). Moreover, these were individuals who had interest in this dialogue, spending “their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.” (Acts 17:21, English Standard Version).

Paul’s address to the Areopagus is defined primarily by his knowledge of the Hellenistic culture, noting where he and the crowd can agree, yet providing a thoughtful critique of where they disagree by appealing to the crowd’s intellectual curiosity. Paul begins his statement by complimenting them for their religiosity – something that Paul clearly shares with the people. This allows for a commonality with his audience, reducing initial tension caused by the audience being engaged by a new idea. Secondly, Paul refers to the statue dedicated to an unknown god. This acts as a good entry to explaining Jesus and the resurrection, which he does elegantly and succinctly, referencing Hellenistic literature in order to connect further with his audience.

Towards the end of the address, Paul begins his criticism of the Areopagus audience and their idolatry, expressing that “we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or

stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man” (Acts 17:29). Paul is far from enraged, but certainly gets the point across. He also seems to have been received well – when the audience disagreed, they focused on the resurrection, not idolatry. Finally, Paul explains the consequences of not listening to his critique. Now that Athenians have the appropriate knowledge of Jesus and the resurrection, they could not claim ignorance, and would not be spared the need for repentance.

Paul’s address illustrates Niebuhr’s encouragement for balanced perspectives, and is helpful for a modern critique as well. In Luke’s description, nearly 70% of the discourse is related to how Paul makes a connection with his audience, while 30% of the time is spent on Paul’s critique. Given Paul’s apparent fury about the circumstances in Athens, his was a calculated and reasoned approach. The audience’s response went as well as one may expect – some people thought Paul’s remarks were laughable, while others wanted to learn more and eventually changed their perspectives. That seemed to be acceptable to Paul – Luke writes that after the encounter in Athens he left, with apparently little else occurring. In the end, Paul is more focused on helping the Areopagus audience understand where God fits within their worldview, and subsequently provides a reasoned basis for change. It is worth noting that Paul did not question he Athenians’ commitment to their gods – in fact, he compliments them on their religiosity – but he does explain how he believes their commitments are misplaced. Furthermore, Paul does not seem shaken by the apparent mockery by some of the audience. He simply worked with those who wanted to learn more, and eventually left when it was time.

When an ideal is so coveted that it cannot be criticized nor be adhered to by every person who adopts it, it is dangerous, as Niebuhr warns us over and over again. Many of the most trying moments in human history are borne out of ideals that were not debated by those who disagreed in a safe space. President Obama must be willing to bear criticism for his beliefs and at the same time find common ground with his critics. However, those who disagree must also respect an alternative perspective, and provide space to debate freely. If his critics do not provide that space, it sets a dangerous precedent towards sinful pride. Paul, one of the greatest evangelists for early Christianity, was willing to be mocked for what he believed and found common ground with those who did things that incensed him. Herein lies the irony of American exceptionalism – that a temporary and imperfect institution of human creation could be less able of managing criticism than the forever and perfect Creator.

Immediately questioning someone’s appreciation of the nation simply because of a disagreement in perspective, as in the case with Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama, sets a dangerous precedent towards sinful pride that will do more to destroy the nation than to help it. Instead, thoughtful dialogue as Paul demonstrated at the Areogapus can allow individuals to make reasoned decisions. While not everyone will immediately agree, it allows for individuals to find common ground. This common ground, at the core of democracy, is the truly exceptional part of America, and by fostering that space in all that is spoken; it will allow America to continue as a leading nation.

what the pc(usa) means to me

Presbyterian_Church_%28U.S.A.%29[1]So in case you hadn’t heard, I’m starting the process to work towards seminary.  I decided now would be the time.  I’ve wrapped up my application to Austin Presbyterian Theological, and thought “hey, I’ve got some good essays that are a good reflection on what I believe”, so I thought I’d share them here.

The first is about the PC(USA) and my thoughts as I would become ordained in the denomination.  Enjoy!

I believe that the PC(USA) has an opportunity to speak anew to people who desire to hear the Good News, and to provide council to the systems that move the world forward – it just needs to get out of its own way.

Since joining the denomination in 2008, I have found real comfort in the Presbyterian style of governance, and how it affects decisions by the church. Growing up in a congregational church, I found myself concerned about the ability for a pastor to focus more on his or her style, less on substance, and how a church can then become a cult of personality – one simply has to look at the collapse of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll to see the consequences of an unchecked leader.

By having the session and other bodies of leadership all the way through the General Assembly, the PC(USA) takes a critical and Spirit-immersed look at present issues that affect its members together. While this may mean that change may be slower, it is grounded in serious and diverse thought from across the nation. Even reviewing the last General Assembly’s decisions from divestment to same sex marriage, it is clear that the denomination is grounded in nuance and a deep desire to interpret what God is speaking to us today.

This kind of integrity speaks deeply to people – and I believe my generation more than most. The Millennial generation has come of age in a time of deep partisan divide, fear of terrorism, and general sense of dishonesty for selfish gain. Social media has at the same time increased vitriol in public debate while also anonymizing individuals, decreasing the ability to have reasoned, thoughtful conversations. By not being reactionary, the PC(USA) can make firm decisions that stand in contrast to the milieu that constitutes current public discourse.

However, I believe that at times the PC(USA) hides the best part of itself away, and allows the consequences of actions speak louder that the actions themselves. As a mainline church, I realize it stands at a disadvantage in a culture that lacks faith in institutions. However, by allowing messages to focus on how churches and congregants are leaving, including the well thought out decision of same sex marriage (including the process by which the decision will be ratified throughout the church) be marred in half-truths, the church allows itself to be battered by the same culture it could save.

Contemporary society thrives on sound bites – 144 characters, one tweet at a time – but it desperately seeks paragraphs that weave their way into a comprehensive and life-encompassing story. The PC(USA) speaks in paragraphs, built upon the sentences of the church, Presbytery, Synods, and General Assembly all living out the stewardship of God’s Kingdom every day. Instead of conforming and defending our decisions on terms that will never capture the deeper meaning of why we do what we do, we need to work to invite people into a deeper and more thoughtful dialogue, starting with our own congregations. This is the ministry I cultivate now, and plan to continue as a pastor. God and the church do not need one more Twitter feed and Facebook page – one more hip yet pithy and self-righteous answer to what a broken world claims is needed – they need people with depth, grace and understanding who strive for more than just the loudest voice in the fray. Our governance thrives on those people, and I believe those individuals are a balm for the hurt caused by a fractured, deeply broken world, especially young adults who are still desperately seeking their own identity.

how deep we mourn

Over the last few months, I’ve found myself struggling with all of the violence that comes up in the news over and over again.  How so much of it is related to the deep injustices that folks my age and my color were raised to think we’d gotten past.  Racism is dead!  We’re colorblind!  We have people of all sorts of different colors in different positions… we elected Obama!

First, I remember 2001.  And lots of people told me I needed to be scared of people who are Muslim.  Turns out that’s not good – I’ve met and loved lots of folks who celebrate the Islamic faith – my next door neighbors, students I taught in my classes.  Good, hard working, thoughtful and giving people.  I learned more about the tradition, and found beauty in the words of the Quran.

Then 2008 came.  And lots of people lost their jobs and livelihood.  I was told over and over again not to be scared.  And yet we lost 8.8 million jobs, and there’s another 7 million who have just thrown in the towel.  And so now there are even more people hoping that their fast food job will be sufficient, and hoping that when things got better, they’d get better, too.  They haven’t.

And then came the deaths.  Trayvon Martin.  Eric Garner.  Michael Brown.  Tamir Rice.  And those are the ones that get the most airplay.  And so many more young black and brown boys not getting the opportunities they deserve.  AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN NOTING THIS FOR NEARLY 40 YEARS.  And if we’re honest, even longer.  But again, we are in an era of new thinking!  Civil Rights!  Colorbindness!  And equal justice for all… of a specific color, or of a particular profession.

And yesterday, two NYPD officers lost their lives from a man who felt it was his place to dispense his own version of justice.  And I mourn and find myself as angry at this as I do every single other circumstance in 2014 that has led to this general disarray.

Amos was a prophet in a time of incredible prosperity in Israel.  It’s one of my favorite books of prophesy (in part because of one of the best slams in all of Scripture), because of this:

Amos 5:18-25

Let Justice Roll Down

18 Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!
    Why would you have the day of the Lord?
It is darkness, and not light,
19     as if a man fled from a lion,
    and a bear met him,
or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall,
    and a serpent bit him.
20 Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light,
    and gloom with no brightness in it?

21 “I hate, I despise your feasts,
    and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
    I will not accept them;
and the peace offerings of your fattened animals,
    I will not look upon them.
23 Take away from me the noise of your songs;
    to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
24 But let justice roll down like waters,
    and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

25 “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—your images that you made for yourselves, 27 and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.

Repeatedly, Amos calls out those who thought they were living a faithful life through loud and showy displays of piety.  God saw it all as sham, and Amos made sure that they knew it.  God (and I believe this is the actually the official commentary) did not give a shit about anything people were doing – the fattened calves, the songs, the things that were part of the law that was guiding the people for years that God commanded… any of it.  So everytime some white kid wants to protest because it’s a chance to tell a story to their kids or that they’re “just trying to do some good” and making sure folks see it and doing any of it as a form of worship?  My guess is if it’s not attached some deeper sense of Justice, God doesn’t care.

God cared about justice.  For the poor.  For the oppressed.  For the innocent.  For the ignored.  For the folks who no one really liked.  Otherwise, everything the people of Israel were doing was simply noise and distraction.  And this was not meant to be a violent, vigilante justice, but one that brought peace.  It’s why people were called to leave wheat for the poor and foreigner.  It’s why debts were supposed to be cleared every seven years.  It’s why Jubilee exists.

Justice is not fear of whole people because of the few who may do wrong.

Justice is not excusing the few who may do wrong because they are wealthy or powerful or supposed arbiters of justice.

Justice is not vengeance.

I write this because I’m a tired, disillusioned man.  I was raised in a promise that things were better, and that we were better.  It isn’t and we’re not.  And I have a son that I watch playing with pure joy, surrounded by love, and I think how I’m going to protect him while showing him that he needs to do what he can in his own way to seek the betterment of those who were not protected.  And in spite of all of this, I believe even more in a God who deeply loves this world and wants the justice of Amos to roll mighty through the land, overwhelming and sweeping away structures that cannot withstand the flood.

I write this because I all too often lack the belief of shalom, but still hope it in day after day.

Maybe you do, too.  And to the folks who do – please keep walking.  Don’t let any of this stop you from your current Emmaus.  There continues to be so much that God will teach and show, and Jesus is with us despite our inability to see him.  We know the story, and we need to continue to tell it to everyone walking with us.

Because on days like today, I need to be reminded of the story.

6 Reasons Millennials Aren’t at Your Church

After reading this article, it helps me make sense as to why we’re starting to see more folks my age in our church – I think we’re a church that demonstrates real community in an honest, unscripted kind of way. But, that being said, you want to know from my perspective the #1 reason why Millenials aren’t in your church? Because this generation is scrutinized and treated like a foreign object in a way that is unnecessarily. How about love God and serve people? That attracts me to church. That will attract everyone. Millennials are not a prize to be won; they’re broken people that need to hear the Gospel. And last I knew, that’s a description indicative of everyone.
http://ift.tt/1jXO8uz

A Long Obedience

A wonderful essay by David Brooks, and I think is a great reminder that “freedom” as a concept is not the ultimate end for humanity, but that freedom is bound by the commandments (in the OT) and the Holy Spirit (in the NT, Gal 5).

That willing binding (as much as an oxymoron as it is) is what gives me a sense of richness, and a reassurance that I am not the be-all-end-all navigator of my own existence.
http://ift.tt/1gCEbzT

The Money Behind the Shutdown Crisis

“…Brian Walsh, a longtime Republican operative, recently noted in U.S. News and World Report that the right is now spending more money attacking Republicans than the Democrats are. ‘Money begets TV ads, which begets even more money for these groups’ personal coffers,’ he wrote. ‘Pointing fingers and attacking Republicans is apparently a very profitable fund-raising business.'”

So two things:

1. I thought we all thought of cannibalism as something that is not ideal, and;
2. Did the GOP not realize what this did in ’08 and ’12?
via Facebook http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/the-money-behind-the-shutdown-crisis.html?smid=fb-share

These Songs Could Have Changed Your Life: The Best Rejected Songs of the Millennium

For anyone who have some degree of sentience between 2000-2010 (Not included: anyone that has posted #yolo or #swag to twitter un-ironically), enjoy this great set list of songs that didn’t make the songs of the millennium list. The shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
via Facebook http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/84949/these-songs-could-have-changed-your-life-the-best-rejected-songs-of-the-millennium

Controlling Health Care Spending, Revisited

“Employees who worry about keeping their jobs or unemployed workers desperately seeking jobs are more likely to accept limits on their health insurance, along with higher levels of cost sharing, including reference pricing.”

So how much of the economic recovery we are plodding along is a result of people accepting less-than-ideal circumstances? This is where I struggle with deregulation – the whole point of government in my mind is to protect its citizens from less-than-optimal situations through thoughtful saving in more-than-optimal times.

Unfortunately, it’s only a statistic until it happens to you or someone close to you.
via Facebook http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/controlling-health-care-spending-revisited/?smid=fb-share