Non-Assertive Evangelism

/in /by

I assume we all know the story of the assistant coach, Joe Kennedy who, after every Bremerton High School football game, walked out to the 50 yard line and knelt to pray. Much has been made of the fact that Kennedy didn’t ask anyone to join him; he didn’t recruit anyone, he was just fallowing his passions. I wish following one’s passions was enough of a reason to do something but it isn’t. Passions always need to be tempered by reason. I don’t know Kennedy’s intentions, but I do think that in spite of what he meant or didn’t mean by praying, it was seen and interpreted as an assertive act. Anything that is that public and visible is not just a matter of a person’s feelings. Steve Largent (the famous Seahawk) wrote an article in The Seattle Times defending the coach, sharing that in his life, coaches like Joe Kennedy, became father figures for him and were instrumental in forming him. There was nothing in Largent’s article I couldn’t agree with, but after reading it, I said to myself, “but what does that have to do with the 50-yard line?” Largent and I suspect most people seem to miss this point.

For all of our claim to be biblical, I couldn’t help but wonder why there has been not mention of what Jesus says in Matthew, in the Sermon on the Mount, as an introduction to the Lord’s Prayer: “…do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others…” What could be a more central and public place today than a football field? On such a stage, Coach Kennedy’s act can be nothing but a public declaration of faith implying that he is faithful. It doesn’t help that the spirit of the venue is competitive either. People will easily experience his act not as devotional, but as declarative and competitive. This greases the stereotype that many unchurched people have that Christians are self-righteous and pushy. Again, Kennedy probably didn’t feel these things, but a little thought could have helped him to see, I hope, that in spite of his passions, sincere as they may be, what he communicated was not the passion he intended. It is almost an invitation for someone else who disagrees with him to take the stage – and along came the Satanists. Ironically it was the Satanists who benefited the most from all of this. Personally I would rather they get as little publicity as possible. Whether we like it or not, the law of the land is equal opportunity for religions to speech and evangelizing. If a school has a bible study, a Buddhist group must be welcome to do so too. Well, we don’t mind the Buddhists so much but what about the Scientologists? It’s a sticky wicket that I think is best left alone. How would Steve Largent feel about a Satanist coach?

I don’t like the stereotype of Christians being self-righteous and assertive. When I am on a plane or in a new crowd and I introduce myself as a pastor, I can feel the response – either they are enthusiastic to know that I’m not like all the bad folk in the world or that I am one of those judgmental Christians who will try to convert them. That’s when I order a beer and send them into a quandary. One of our jobs is to enlighten people in a predominantly unchurched world that Christians are not full or ourselves and ready to judge them. I believe that we evangelize best in the context of relationships. We first work on a relationship, finding out people’s stories and sharing our own, and as we share our story our faith is a part of it – not an abstract set of beliefs but a growing, changing, living sometimes struggling part of the story of our lives – vulnerable, imperfect and reticent to judge anyone. At the General Conference before the last one, we added the word “witness” to the membership vows for joining the church. I agree with that and want to live that out. I just don’t think the 50 yard line is the place. P.Jim

No Single Thing

/in /by

I want to reiterate something I have said in worship most recently in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, and that is there is no single cause. I think it is a part of our nature to want there to be a single reason, not just in the case of tragedies like terrorism, but in most things. When we go to the doctor, we want to know the ‘cause’ when the reality is our bodies are complex. If someone smokes, we can say that is a major factor in someone getting cancer, but it isn’t the only cause; and not everyone who smokes gets cancer. If we could isolate a single reason for something then we believe we would have more control over it. But alas, that is impossible and then frustrating.

When students were shot and killed at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, I mentioned three factors that I believe encourages such events: mental illness, guns and emotional health of boys in America. Another reason we try to find a single reason is so that we can say what is not involved. If we say that the cause is mental illness, then we can also say guns are not a part of the increase in violent events. This is simply a rationalization. And it would be equally wrong to claim that guns are the sole cause.

Regarding the recent events in Paris, as well as in Beirut and Baghdad, my fear is we will rush to blame religion, and more specifically Islam. This can lead to generalized prejudice and a disregard of other factors, particularly any that might implicate us. Serendipitously, I found a new book by Karen Armstrong in the library entitled, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence. Armstrong has written many books on religion; she is considered an expert in the field. The thesis of her book is that religion is not the (sole) cause of the kind of violence we see around us. As an historian she makes her argument by looking at the past, but the purpose of her claim is to refute people who disparage religion as innately violent. (Bill Maher please read this book.) I offer these quotations as examples of what she says:

Many view religion…as a byword for irrationality, to be the ultimate cause (of violence). One of the most prominent is Richard Dawkins, who has argued that “only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people.” This dangerous oversimplification springs from a misunderstanding of both religion and terrorism. It is, of course, a familiar enough expression of the secularist bias of modernity, which has cast “religion” as a violent, unreasonable force that must be excluded from the politics of civilized nations. Somehow if fails to consider that all the world’s great religions traditions share as one of their most essential tenets the imperative of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself. This, of course, is not to deny that religion has often been implicated in terrorist atrocities, but it is far to easy to make it a scapegoat rather than trying to see what is really going on thin the world.

As an inspiration for terrorism, however, nationalism has been far more productive than religion. Terrorism experts agree that the denial of a people’s right to national self-determination and the occupation of its homeland by foreign forces has historically been the most powerful recruiting agent of terrorist organizations.

It is not as if everyone who is Muslim tends toward being violent. It is, rather, about people who have been hurt, who’ve watched people they love killed, who are angry about what has happened to their people and they frame their violent rhetoric religiously because that is who they are. Christians could do the same – and have; secularists are not innately righteous either.

At the recent annual dinner for Faith Action Network an imam from the Tri-cities was given an award for Interreligious relations. I did not covet him having to speak in the wake of what happened in Paris. He was clear that in his mind as well ISIS is evil; he said anyone who kills another is not doing so by following God.. I was thankful for his words. See you in worship. P.Jim