Author: Silva

COVID-19: lessons learned?

Silva

I recently asked on Twitter, “Has anyone given any thought to what idolatries COVID-19 is exposing in the church and our culture?”  Perhaps this is a better way to learn must-know lessons from all of this.  The number of articles on the web connecting in general terms this virus with God’s judgment are few and far between.  Two helpful ones I’ve found are by R. Scott Clark and Chris Gordon.  Both are worth reading as they are neither alarmist nor dismissive.

The bottom line is the coronavirus has simultaneously punched more holes into American evangelical idolatries than anything in recent memory (including 9-11).  Consider the impact of COVID-19.  (These are simply sketches or else this would be a very long post. It’s already long.)

Case #1: idolatry of isolation.  Sure, we’re complaining now because we have to maintain distance from each other.  But why?  Haven’t we learned over the last 15 years or so to be content with social distance?  In the years between 2007 (the first iPhone) and 2020, it’s become more than “OK” to confine our “relationships” to texts, Snaps, tweets, or posts instead of calls, visits or hangouts.  We’ve all seen the pictures of four young adults sitting at a booth at a restaurant each one looking at her phone.  You rarely catch anyone without a phone on his person or within her reach.  I remember reading what I thought was tongue-in-cheek but probably was more true than I realized, when courage for a millennial was defined as “leaving the house without a phone charger.”

Parents would harp on the dangers of time spent in front of a screen for the sake of the eyesight and health of our children.  But even that isn’t the greatest cost (buy some glasses, for heaven’s sake).  No: we were forgetting how to be human.  What has gone unseen is the tearing of the fabric of being human.  As a culture were forgetting we are not designed by God to be isolated.  In the church?  Our level of isolation while perhaps not as great is condemnably close.  For many in the church: out of sight, out of mind.

That is until now.  God’s providence is showing us the dangers, the loneliness, the pitiable condition a person truly is when he chooses isolation. We think human flourishing and social distance can really work.  At least we did.

Case #2: idolatry of health.  This one is obvious.  Perhaps in the church we wouldn’t admit that we idolize our health (which, I think, is easily refuted).  But what do we make of virtual-everything-church?  Yes, I know, now “overreacting” equals wisdom.  “Loving our neighbor” now means protecting him from getting the virus even if we know we don’t have it.  Wait: is that right?  (I tend to think it means going to Walgreens to get Mucinex for a sick congregant but what do I know?)  I think our forebears in church history would take us to task for a view like this.

Who knows really how deadly COVID-19 is?  That’s the problem, truly: it’s “novel” or new so we just don’t know.  Taking precaution is essential but it seems as if we are running for our lives.  “I’m not afraid; I’m just being cautious.”  I hope so.  That’s a really fine line.  I wonder if the virus works itself out in such a way that we are “burdened” by caring for each other exposed: what then?  Christian, is your health or your life more important to you than it should be?  Are you afraid to go out?  Are you looking over your shoulder to make sure you have 6-feet spacing?  That may be idolatry.  (Side note: if we truly get sick, when our idols are overturned and we’re sick anyway, is social distance what we need most?)

Case #3: idolatry of wealth.  Another straightforward one yet more complicated than our personal health.  Livelihoods matter.  People must work because God made us this way and it is the means He’s given to provide for our needs (mostly).  As in 2008, long term savings and retirements are now at risk.  Those on the cusp of retirement or those in fixed income situations are facing serious circumstances.  In cases when the basics of material living are in jeopardy, we must act in relief-providing ways.  All of us (who aren’t reeling from case #2) have the responsibility to stand in the gap for our neighbors.  Now more than ever.

I guess the questions this all forces us to ask are two-fold.  Are we now in financial or material jeopardy ourselves because our hopes were pinned to our accounts that now are being pillaged?  Are church members numbered among everyone else enslaved by debt (credit cards, student loans, car loans, etc.)?  Are our dire circumstances such that we cannot pay what we legitimately owe?  Or, is your lifestyle so exaggeratedly connected to material prosperity that the future scares you?  Treasures in heaven just don’t mean that much to too many people.

The second question to ask is, has the church prepared stockpiles of mercy for those in need?  As the leader of a church I confess ours has not.  Perhaps our own ministry azimuth has been slightly off.  We need to think about this.

Will we “waste” COVID-19 and hope and pray only for a return to sounder, more “normal” times?  Or, will we ask the Lord to show us in what ways we must change the way we view our lives and our faith so that it is God’s kingdom rather than our own that we pursue?

My Response to Mark Galli and CT

Silva

Yesterday (December 19, 2019), Christianity Today’s editor-in-chief, Mark Galli penned an editorial titled, “Trump should be removed from office.”  The hot responses are flowing freely ranging from those who “cry my eyes out” in agreement to those who want to remind the world Billy Graham (one of CT’s founders) voted for Mr. Trump.  These will continue, for sure.  I wonder if we might see some navigate the middle?

The “middle.”  That’s the problem.  What is the “middle”?  In other words, when we are confronted by leaders who are stupid sinners yet whose policies bring benefit to large masses of people, what do we do?  CT’s response is to toss the bum out.  This seems inconsistent to me.  Mr. Galli, in an interview with the Atlantic said they have always “catered” to the middle-left of the thought spectrum.  Isn’t that the demographic where mercy trumps justice (e.g., sanctuary cities)?  Where doing social good is a greater virtue than consistent moral turpitude (e.g., opposition to abortion)?  Incidentally, what does CT do with Christians who have consistently and historically voted for candidates who were pro-abortion?  Who justified their votes for such candidates with some other kind of reason such as a candidates pro-education or pro-woman or pro-racial justice position?

How does CT evaluate our national unemployment rate (lowest since 1969) due to decreased regulation and lower taxes by this Administration?  Or, the return of a more robust pro-life policy perspective from the Executive Branch?  Or trade policies with nations that correct unfair balances of power led by President Trump?  These efforts will, in some cases, literally save lives.  Is it that they’ll save the wrong lives?

Mr. Galli refers to the reserve and patience he (and, ostensibly others at CT) have exercised in trying to understand those who support Mr. Trump.  The editorial cites some common reasons evangelicals give for their support: Supreme Court appointments, tax cuts, growing economy, stronger defense, etc.  In the end, Mr. Galli and CT find those inadequate.  Would Mr. Galli and CT find the current crop of socialist-leaning Democratic presidential candidates preferable?  They are a bunch of radical pro-abortion, anti-free market, heavy-taxation, open-borders supporters.  (Those are easily verifiable from their debate performances, public proclamations or votes in their respective places of public service.)  If they are better moral people (dubious claim) but their policies will bring more harm to more people, is that a better route?

This is what makes Mr. Galli’s editorial not courageous at all.  Unlike President Clinton whose malfeasance was proven and whose impeachment did carry some bipartisan support because he committed crimes, President Trump’s impeachment was not based on facts and it contained no bipartisan support.  (I’ve wondered, does it mean nothing that not a single Republican supported the effort?)  I watched the committees do their interviews, put up their provocative slides and shut down the minority party from questioning.  What CT has done is align themselves not with some moral majority but with those who are willing to be as myopic as those they claim to oppose.  The hatred of Mr. Trump is not because he’s a bully or acts as an “abusive husband” (Mr. Galli’s words in an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep.)  They hate him because from day one he’s called out their abuses of power and pointed out their hypocrisy and has not played the “game” as he was supposed to by their playbook.  Of course, he’s done all this while carrying much of the same immoral luggage of others.

Why does Mark Galli and CT want the President tossed out?  “Blackened moral record.”  Have they applied a similar standard to Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Schiff or Mr. Nadler?  Are they in a position to exert moral authority over Mr. Trump?  What might happen if they were investigated for abuses of power (or former VP Joe Biden’s admitted quid pro quo with the Ukraine)?  In what ways have they demonstrated obstruction?  Are they more morally upstanding than Mr. Trump?

See, this is the problem.  They aren’t.  The impeachment of President Trump (whom I did not vote for) was itself immoral as it gave no verifiable facts, allowed no contradicting testimony and was perpetrated apart from any bipartisan support.  Aren’t Christians supposed to entertain two or three witnesses?  All of those talking heads that have said it would not hold up in court can’t be summarily dismissed, either.  Is every single one of them just a party hack of a different color?  If it is true that a case like this wouldn’t gain a conviction in a courtroom, then why do we think it is adequate to impeach a President?  Saying the impeachment was immoral for these reasons is not to somehow baptize the President’s behavior!

This is where Christians have to do better.  We have to work harder to find the “middle” (admittedly, not a great word).  Mark Galli and CT chose a path that will win accolades with the center-left of this country but will no longer provide assistance to those who fall in a different place.  Mr. Galli wasn’t terribly upset by that since he told Mr. Inskeep that side of the spectrum doesn’t read them anyway.  I guess I’m the only one.

He ends the editorial with, “Remember who you are and whom you serve.”  What a shockingly manipulative statement.  I couldn’t believe it when I read it: what does it mean in this context?  That if Christians don’t agree President Trump should be impeached we are going to suffer on Judgment Day?  If all don’t agree in the results of an immoral proceeding, we ourselves will be judged?  Hardly.

In context, Mr. Galli thinks our witness will suffer if we don’t join the impeachment bandwagon.  With whom will it suffer, I wonder?  Those who are willing to countenance injustice like this proceeding?  Perhaps.  I for one am not terribly concerned about offending those who are willing to be blinded from justice for whatever other reasons they might have.  I’m not perfect and I’ll annoy someone I shouldn’t or fail to understand something I should.  Unfortunately, this editorial resembles the same lack of nuance that is purports to challenge.

 

The (Non) Imitation Game

Silva

“One hundred and fifty-nine million, million, million, if you want to be exact.”  The impossible to crack Enigma machines in use by the German military in WWII had those odds in its favor.  Each day, you have 1/159,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of knowing what the Germans were going to do.

The history of Enigma and those who tried to break its code went from pre-WWI Germany, to Poland to England.  It was ultimately deciphered by Alan Turing and his team at Blectchley Park in 1943.  As a part of my curiosity in the whole thing, I watched the movie “The Imitation Game” starring Benedict Cumberbatch.  That movie’s title apparently came from a paper he had written of the same name where, among other things, he tries to explain how a “universal machine” (modern day computer) might work.

The story of Enigma, Turing team and England’s task force ULTRA is very interesting and, frankly, inspiring.  At the same time, once the movie ended, I recognized Turing was a particular genius in solving puzzles and an unrepentant, practicing homosexual.  Whether the movie depicted his life with accuracy or creative license I’ll know soon enough (as I study this in greater detail).  However its portrayal of Turing left me in significant turmoil.

One the one hand, it flashed back to scenes from his young school life where he developed a friendship with a classmate, Christopher, while, at the same time, he was horribly bullied by others.  Christopher appreciated his person as well as his giftedness; the bullies cared about neither.  Turing as a young student was isolated and clearly lonely.  I’m a parent and watching those scenes evoked great sympathy with young Alan and indignation towards those ignorant and mean students.

In the same vein, were two other circumstances.  First, Turing’s work on the “cryptology bomb” (the machine that would crack Enigma) was misunderstood and devalued by his British government bosses as well as the others on the team.  He was mocked, verbally assaulted and ignored by all.  Second, in the modern setting of the movie (set in 1951), a policeman called on to investigate a robbery at Turing’s home, instead pursued what he thought was Turing’s association with the Soviets as a spy.  That part played out in Turing being arrested not for spying but for soliciting a male prostitute for sex.  Whatever his work in the war, it amounted to nothing in sparing him from being charged with indecency and chemically castrated.  This left me feeling that significant injustice and blindness to humanity had occurred.

On the other hand, he was a doggedly tenacious genius determined to do what was necessary to crack Enigma.  His single-mindedness in that effort, his willingness to go it alone when, early on, his team didn’t understand what he was doing, and his courage to withhold the fact that they had cracked Enigma from the majority of the British military are truly inspiring.  Few would’ve been able to be a genius plus tenacious plus courageous.  That left me inspired and humbled.

The question is: to which do you give your heart?

In other words, as a Christian, does compassion for him in light of him being bullied and unjustly treated cause us to overlook his sexual immorality and the fact that homosexual behavior is, truly, indecent according to the Bible?  Do we rise up like the Queen of England in 2013 and congratulate him on his astounding achievement or do we give measured approval for him because he was actually a criminal according to British law at the time?  Do we shake our heads at how truly wickedly the British justice system treated him (chemical castration) or do we agree with the apostle Paul in Romans 1:24-25 that this was God “giving him up” to the dishonoring of his body?

The movie perhaps did what it was supposed to do: it made the murkiness of life, murkier.  It left me with the sense that morality is out of reach and it cannot be known.  What is right and true and good is not what I think it is, what God says it is.

In the end the movie’s agenda was clear: the text displayed before the credits ran spoke of the 47,000 homosexuals the British government convicted between the late 1880’s and the early 1950’s.  Likewise, it displayed the Queen’s posthumous royal pardon for him in 2013.  Whatever else might’ve been true about Alan Turing, the movie wanted us to see the injustice of criminalizing homosexuality.  It wanted us to see how utterly ridiculous it is to punish a man – a man of great achievement – for whom he chooses as a sexual partner.

But that’s the cultural narrative.  It drives us all to imitate its morality and its ethics.  It wants us to be convinced that there is no such thing as real morality; it is all situational and practical.  It wants our experience of shared humanity (our compassion, our indignation over wickedness, etc.) to always overtake God’s revealed will for us.  It wants me to be in turmoil over Alan Turing’s life so that I won’t be so quick to use God’s word to evaluate others’ lives.

No, life isn’t as murky as it seems.  When a follower of Christ steps back into the presence of God the Spirit, the right, the beautiful, the awe-inspiring is plain to see in and in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Who, by the way, chose His own death as the punishment for those who live in all the ways Alan Turing lived.  In this life, then, I must be human and extend my compassion as a member of mankind with all others to all others.  Jesus was a model of love and kindness and gentleness that He calls me to imitate.  And (and), I will stand holding  the plumb line of Scripture and hold out Jesus Christ to others as the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6).  I can not imitate the world in making sin confusing and salvation obscure for that is not the way of love nor the way of humanity.