Thoughts on faith

What is faith? It's ultimately a relationship between two people. Where a relationship exists, faith exists. Even strained relationships presuppose some type of connection, even if it's less than ideal.

Jesus lifts up the faith of a child as a model. What does that faith look like?

I doubt there are many people, especially parents, who would doubt the reality that young children have faith in their parents. From infancy to toddler years that faith is nearly absolute. It's utter and complete dependence and reliance on the parent. They believe that the parent will always be there for them. This belief isn't based on any cognitive assertion or rational argument, it's part of the fiber of their very being.

As the child grows into the pre-school years that faith matures. They begin to assert their own ideas that may at times be totally at odds with the parents'. But even at times of flagrant disobedience, the child is still ultimately faithful to the parent. They reside in the parents' home, and they assert their own ideas only because they unconscientiously believe that no matter what happens they won't be thrown out on the street. They assert themselves, but only because they ultimately believe that their parents will keep them safe and keep up their end of the relationship.

As a child gets older, more and more of their thoughts and beliefs about the world come from sources other than their parents. The child must weigh these new worldviews in light of their currently-held view which largely came from their parents (or the media the parents encouraged the child to watch).

It is the hope of every good parent that as their child matures the child will retain the set of beliefs they were taught as a child. Doing so, in effect, is affirming the primary position of the child's parent as the wise and correct teacher of the ways things are.

It is obviously, very sad if a child leaves their parents' worldview and adopts another by, say, dating someone whose values run contrary to the values taught by the parents. The child's relationship with their parent is broken. But even though trust is broken, it is not accurate to say that the entire relationship is lost. The parent is still active in the relationship, seeking reconciliation, praying for change, seeking the betterment of the child.

Every good parent yearns the opposite to happen. They hope that when their child comes of age that they will not only continue to walk in the footsteps of the parents, but that the child will do so as an act of conscience free will and not simply like they did as an infant, trust merely because it was a innate impulse.

When that day comes it is glorious. It welcomes a new dawning of the relationship between parent and child. With the addition of free will into the relationship, new possibilities open up as the talents and interests of the parent and child can now interact in new and exciting ways as they treat each others in some respect as peers and not merely as parent and child.

This is wonderful, and there is a temptation to say, "there is a new relationship between us." But to say that is to inaccurately describe reality. Although the relationship looks very different, it is not an entirely new relationship, as though it were preceded by no relationship at all. The child's faith and trust in their parent looks entirely new, but it's not, its just more mature.

In this ideal scenario, the child had continuous faith in their parent, it just looked different at different points in the child's life. It's easy to celebrate the later stages because unlike earlier stages the child has used their free will to become more of an active participant in the relationship, but the earlier parts of the relationship are just important, if not more so. To elevate this later portion of the relationship as the only true part of the relationship is to glorify human free will and to slap the face of a parent who faithfully nurtured their child through the means of a relationship that spanned infancy to adulthood.

Afterthoughts--

Those earlier days when the child trusted the parent blindly allowed for a foundation to be built that the child could later stand on. As an adopted child who has recently found their birthparent will tell you, it may be exciting to discover your birthparent, but it will take years to have as much faith in them as they do of their adopted parents, a process prolonged by the fact that it is happening at a time when the child can think critically about a parent's intentions, whereas had the relationship began in childhood the child would have trusted them implicitly.

Obviously, God wants us to see a connection between the nature of our relationship to our parents and our Father Above.

Modern American Evangelism

The problem with traditional approaches to evangelism is that most Americans do not find it hard to believe that God loves someone like them. The typical Americans has internalized the God is love concept as well, if not better than the typical evangelical Christian.

Therefore, if a Christian approaches a non-Christian and says that God is going to condemn them to hell if they don’t accept Jesus, what the non-Christian is going to hear them saying is “God is not as loving and forgiving as you think. Christians believe that God is not all-forgiving love, but rather a wrathful God.” The non-Christian will immediately reject this message as categorically untrue, since they know the truth: God personally takes Love as His primary identity, not wrath.

If the conversation continues the evangelical will continue to convict the non-Christian of their sins because if they don’t God will condemn them to hell. If the Christian is successful in their arguing and the non-Christian converts, the new Christian’s new view of God will be one who’s primary concern is the holiness of people. Therefore, this new Christian, like the Christian who converted them, will be more concern about being holy and legalistic than being loving and kind.

Instead, the Christian evangelizing to the typical American should not focus on God’s wrath, but rather God’s love. Instead of trying to call the non-Christian’s mind to their sin, they should call attention to their pain.

Pain and stress is the ache in our modern lives that doesn’t jive with our notion that God is love. The Christian message in modern times shouldn’t primarily be “If you don’t believe, you’re going to hell after you die,” but rather “If you don’t follow Jesus, you’re going to miss out on the fullness of the loving God’s mercy and compassion.” In short, instead of convincing people that “God is wrath” we should be convincing them that “God is even more loving than you think.”

Christians believe that the answer to pain is found in the life and death of Jesus. Jesus died in an act of God’s love so that we may have life and have it abundantly. Not just so we can go to heaven, but that we can be transformed into new creations where the pain and suffering we and those around us experience is confronted and undone through acts of sacrifice and forgiveness.

So instead of using scare tactics which innately turn the evangelist into a judgmental dogmatic, we should be meeting people where they’re at and share with them a message of hope and love that, if accepted, can offer the non-Christian a life of meaning and purpose.

A Biblical Worldview

I often times have a hard time explaining to friends and family what it means to have a biblical worldview.

So many Christians simply think in terms of What Would Jesus Do, and that's not a bad question to ask, but being a Christian is much more than simply using Jesus as a moral guide.

Daily Bible reading (and reading other good Christian works) helps shape the way you think. The more you read the Bible the more you will think like a biblical author.

I'm thinking thematically...like with Star Wars and other movies you're familiar with. When I drive through a tight construction zone with high walls I find myself thinking, "just like Luke on his Death Star run"...that's because I've infused myself with the Star Wars experience. Likewise, when I walk down a row of cubicles I sometimes find myself thinking, "just like Balaam on his way to deliever an oracle."

It's the difference between living scripture and knowing scripture. The advantage of living scripture is it will make your life more meaningful as you see yourself as a real member of the Body of Christ in a real and meaningful way. bY giving yourself over to Christ and his Word, you will find a whole new way of experiencing God, life, and discipleship.

An article I read on Lincoln makes this very clear. Lincoln, although he was likely not a professing Christian, read the Bible daily. Consequently, his thoughts and words were shaped by the authors of the Bible. I don't believe that Lincoln used the Bible to attain his political purposes, but rather his encounters with the biblical texts were so regular and intimate that he could not help but have it shape him.

Gettysburg's Good News: "And yet, whatever expectations he may have taken to Gettysburg, however reluctant he was to make a personal profession of Christianity, much of what Lincoln said carried the sounds of the Bible. This was the music of the ancient Hebrew turned into King James's English. This was the language he was raised on. 'Four score and seven years ago.' Psalm 90: 'The days of our years are three score years and ten'; one of the best-known sentences of the Book. 'Brought forth' is not only the biblical way to announce a birth, including that of Mary's 'first born son,' but the phrase that describes the Israelites' being 'brought forth' from slavery in Egypt.

Birth, sacrificial death, rebirth. A born-again nation. At a less-than-conscious level, Lincoln weaved together the biblical story and the American story. 'Fathers.' 'Conceive.' 'Perish.' 'Consecrate.' 'Hallow.' 'Devotion.' The devout in the cemetery heard Lincoln speak an intimately familiar and beloved language. His words pointing to rebirth went even deeper than the Christian message, reaching the primeval longing for a new birth that humankind has yearned for and celebrated with every spring since time immemorial."

Protect Tithing?

This is pretty interesting. Not too sure what to make of it. Part of me says that allowing people to give even after bankruptcy is the right thing to do. But then another part of me wonders if the state should be giving tax exemptions for charitable giving at all. Once they say it's OK to donate to the Methodist church down the street, we have to allow bankrupt people to give to other crazy churches that may or may not be legit.

Will the Democratic Congress protect tithing?:
If the Democrats really want to reach out to religious voters, a New York Times article suggests one place to start: fixing the 2005 bankruptcy bill provision that makes it illegal for many debtors to tithe. Noam Cohen notes that a bill to allow tithing passed unanimously in the Senate, but didn't make it to the House by the recess. Cohen writes:

[Republican Sen. Orrin] Hatch's plan was to get the legislation done during a lame-duck session, but with the election and change in leadership, the Democrats may want to revisit bankruptcy legislation comprehensively. Mr. Hatch and other Republican senators late last month wrote to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to instruct trustees to allow tithing and other charitable giving. But a senior official at the Justice Department, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because litigation could continue, said last week that the department was not giving such instruction, noting that trustees had a fiduciary responsibility to 'look under every rock, even the church's rock.' But he added that the department wanted tithing protected, and that it had even helped Mr. Hatch draft the corrective legislation."

The Inherent Problem with Big Box-style American Consumerism

God forgives his family for each $15 pair of new pants they buy. As Solomon says in Proverbs, paying workers for the hard work they do is important since hard work is supposed to lead to prosperity (Prov 14:23).

People are struggling in poverty even though they work very hard at their jobs. Why? Because as Americans we want to spend less on products (like pants) so we can have more money left over to spend on other things. This materialism leads us to take advantage of those anonymous manufacturers who work very hard but get paid very little. That is certainly not the way it's going to be in the Kingdom of God.

My Prayer:
"I thank the Lord that God is gracious enough to forgive me for my continuing sin, and I continue to pray that God will give me the fortitude to overcome my materialism in all its forms. May my actions help workers receive the wages that they have earned, and when they don't may God grant mercy on those who are continually hurt because of my selfish desires to consume more and more cheap crap."

11/16/06 19:37
ed- I originally composed this post after a conversation with my wife. At the time I was feeling pretty passionate and confident about my beliefs on this matter and unfortunately, my passion spilled over into a very arrogant tone. I'm deeply sorry if my original post offended anyone. It was very inconsiderate of me to write so forcefully.

Wal-Mart: Setting the Expectations

Just for fun, let's look at the world of box-box retailers from the vantage point of the knitted hats. I have a friend who sells knitted baby hats for about $12. These hats are made out of some of the best yarn money can buy, even so the material cost for each hat is only $3. That means my friend, who spends about three hours knitting together a hat, gets paid $3/hr for her hats. That’s crap!

She’s providing a service that most people don’t have the time or the knowledge to do for themselves and therefore she should get paid at least, say, $20/hr. So, in a world where she got a fair American wage, she should sell her hats for $63. But she can’t? Why? Because no one is willing to pay $60 for a knit hat anymore when they can find a comparable one at Wal-Mart for $5. Sure they’re willing to spend $12 because they’re willing to pay extra for the quality yarn. But people are not willing to pay extra for the high-quality craftsmanship of an American knitter.

Without even knowing it, my knitter friend has to compete with Asians because Americans aren't willing to pay American wages anymore for garment construction. Wal-Mart and Asian manufacturers have set American expectations for prices and consequently, quality craftmanship gets the short end of the stick. Americans craftsmen like my knitting friend have to make a decision. Either they have to make their garment quicker and therefore of poorer quality or they have to pay themselves less for the good work they go.

The big problem here is that the potential buyer doesn't see any problem at all. In fact, since they’re buying a hat for $12 they think they're being generous because they're paying $7 more than they would if they bought the comparable hat from Wal-Mart. In their mind it's like giving $7 to a worthy cause (i.e., a hardworking American craftsman) when in reality, the price the buyer is paying the craftsman is an insult.

Now here's another odd situation caused by this retail dynamic that might further shed some light on this. My wife always finds herself in a bind when people ask her to do sewing alterations. My wife, a former professional seamstress, struggles to figure out how to respond to their "I'll pay you for it" comments when friends ask.

Here's the problem. Her sewing is skilled labor of a professional...not just an amateur...as such, they should expect a decent hourly wage, say $20/hr. But, she doesn't want to charge friends full price for her work...but she doesn't like hemming pants, so she doesn't want to do it for free either, so she's inclined to charge half price...sounds reasonable, right?

But, here's the problem. People hear her request for $10 for a 60-minute hem job and they think that she's being greedy or not cutting them a deal. Why is that? Well, it's because her friend bought the pair of pants from Wal-Mart for $15, so obviously to them, the cost of hemming a pair of $15 pants must certainly be significantly less than $10.

But why are the pants only $15? Well, no pants manufactured in America are selling for $15. They’re $15 pants because they’re made in a place were Wal-Mart can pay someone pennies for hemming, heck, constructing the entire pair of pants. Consequently, by having garments made in China, Wal-Mart has convinced people that the cost of sewing together an entire pair of pants is less than $15.

The manufacturers in Asia are setting American's perception for what something should cost. Neither my wife nor our knitter friend, can get a decent wage for their quality work because big box retailers have convinced Americans that their craftsmanship isn't worth a living wage...no matter how much better it is than the craftsmanship coming out of Asia.

Time Traps

From, of all places, marthastewart.com

Time Traps: "When it comes right down to it, that luscious abundance of time we crave reflects a basic desire: to savor life. We want to drink in the rich connections we've created with our family, our community, our friends. We want to sit on the dock and throw stones in the water. Linger at the table. Hold the baby for hours, just to watch him nap. We innately understand that, when engaged in life this way, we'll find a measure of peace.

Unfortunately, this kind of time—expansive and utterly unscheduled—is at odds with our calendars, which have come to dominate our lives. And what fills them up? For most of us, the answer is simple: work. Americans spend more time earning a living than people in most other industrialized countries...

'The basic things we once took for granted—a decent house in a safe neighborhood with a good school—have become increasingly expensive,' says John de Graaf, national coordinator of Take Back Your Time and author of Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic...

Time gurus point to consumer choice as yet another modern time bandit. Go to the supermarket in search of breakfast and you'll find 48 different types of cereal and 15 incarnations of milk. Sign up for cell-phone service and you'll wade through dozens of calling plans, phone styles, and accessory packages. Whether you revel in shopping or loathe it, "the massive amount of choice in the marketplace is incredibly time-consuming," says de Graaf. "These are all decisions we used to not have to make." The answer, he says, isn't to stay home and take a vow of no shopping. It's to wake up to the realities we face, and then acknowledge how our own actions help or hurt our chances of reclaiming our time."

This whole article is pretty good, and you should probably read the whole thing. My impression, however, is that the article leaves the reader with the assumption that the problem is time management and not our consumer desires. Sure making decisions to decide whether or not to buy Frosted Flakes or Frosted Mini-wheats takes time...but the very fact that we crave such things is the real problem. If we weren't so consumed with keeping up with the Jones middle class Americans wouldn't be driven to become two income families.