“God Hates Visionary Dreaming”

“God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren.”

– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

Link to “God Hates Visionary Dreaming”

Recently our church announced an ambitious plan to acquire a nearby warehouse and turn it into a multi-use Healing Center. The center of their efforts is increased outreach to the people needing food and furnishings. Part of me lauds their effort and their ambition to expand their outreach to the local community. Part of me worries about the path and the consequences of visionary dreaming. When does visionary dreaming become another word to describe just another bureaucratic institution?

David Fairchild » 博客文章 » 10 Marks of the Early Church

10 Marks of the Early Church

09_011.jpgRodney Stark and other sociologists tell us there were 10 values of early Christians that stood in stark (no pun intended) contrast to the pluralistic pagan culture of Rome. Let’s prayferfully think through these values and match them to the witness of our own churches. Do we see the city existing for us or do we see our church and our lives existing for the city?

”¢ 1- They refused to attend blood thirsty entertainment. They wouldn’t go to gladiatorial events because they believed it defiled humans who were created in the image of God. This made them appear to be anti-social. Tertullian and Augustine both write about these events in a negative light.
”¢ 2- They did not serve in the military to support Caesar’s wars of conquest, which made them appear weak.
”¢ 3- They were against abortion and infanticide. In this culture, both were considered acceptable. To throw your baby out on the dung heap if you didn’t want it was not taboo.
Ӣ 4- They empowered women by showing their value and dignity in places of learning and service which had previously been exclusively for men. Christians held women in high regard and treasured them rather than viewing them as just a step above expendable children and servants.
Ӣ 5- They were against sex outside of marriage. This fidelity was considered odd and against culture. Sex was viewed as nothing more than a desire like eating or sleeping. Christians held a high view of the bed and kept it pure and would not engage in sex outside of marriage.
Ӣ 6- They were against homosexual relationships. This was odd in a time when same sex practice was not frowned upon.
Ӣ 7- They were exceptionally generous with their resources. They shared what they had with one another and welcomed others in with a hospitality that was unparalleled.
Ӣ 8- They were radically for the poor. In a time when the poor and downtrodden were viewed as getting what they deserved, they were aggressively committed to loving and serving people in the margins of society.
Ӣ 9- They mixed races and social classes in ways that were unseen in their gatherings, and for it they were considered scandalous.
Ӣ 10- They believed only Christ was the way to salvation. This was in a time when everyone had a god and could believe something entirely different and it was totally acceptable to be polytheists and pluralistic. Christians dared claim that Jesus was the only way and refused to bend to other gods.

Our city has yet to see a group of people that hold these practices simultaneously.

If we held the values 1-Refused bloodthirsty sports, 2-Refused militarism, 4-Empowered women, 9-Mixed races and classes, and 10-Were radically for the poor, we would be considered liberal by conservative ideology.

If we held to values 3-Were against abortion, 5-Forbid sex outside of marriage, 6-Forbid same-sex practice, and 10-Insisted that Jesus was the only way for salvation we would be labeled conservative by liberal ideology.

We don’t fit into the relativistic landscape of our time, nor rugged individualism or traditional hierarchical legalism. We simply don’t fit into current categories. We don’t fit neatly into conservative or liberal categories. This is because we are resident aliens.

Whenever Christians pick up the values of the Gospel and begin living them out in our city we are on the one hand vilified for our values and at the same time oddly attractive in ways that often confound our most vocal opponents. If we experience neither vilification nor attraction what qualities of our life are missing which mark Kingdom citizens through history?


About this entry

You’re currently reading “10 Marks of the Early Church,” an entry on David Fairchild

Published:
02.05.07 / 9pm
Category:
General
Tags:
No Tags

Source: David Fairchild » 博客文章 » 10 Marks of the Early Church

Why We Are Pro-Life

We believe human beings have a right to live ”“ because of who they are ”“ as image bearers of God ”“ not because of what they do ”“ as productive members of society. We do not judge the worth of a person by their usefulness to society. But sadly, our culture is beginning to do just that.

Human embryos are disposable ”“ maybe useful for future medical research. And thus an embryo’s value is found it what it can be used for, not in what it is.

The unborn have no voice. They cannot yet think or reason, so their rights depend on the circumstances of the mother. They have value only if they are “wanted,” and they can be terminated if they are “unwanted.”

The senior citizen battling dementia ”“ what useful purpose does she serve for society? Why not allow her to die? After all, euthanasia provides “death with dignity.” Society thinks the elderly have no value in who they are, as fellow human beings who bear the image of God, but in what they can do to serve society.

Link to Why We Are Pro-Life

Follow the link to read the rest of this beautifully written essay by Trevin Wax.

The Negation of Love:Abortion and the "Culture of Me"

Pro-life advocates often claim that we live in a “culture of death.” But most of us don’t believe it. Not really. We may use the phrase as a rhetorical tool but deep in our hearts we think that our family, friends, and neighbors wouldn’t knowingly kill another human being. We convince ourselves that they simply don’t realize what they’re doing. If only they could see the pictures. If only we could convince them that the “fetus” is a person. If only they knew it was a human life they were destroying. If they only knew, they wouldn’t — they couldn’t — go through with the abortion. But they do know. And the abortions continue. Not because we live in a culture of death but because we live in a culture of me. In the fall of 2003, Glamour magazine had an article about a group of abortion clinics called the “November Gang” who encourage women to express their feeling about the procedure by writing them down on a pink, heart-shaped sheet of paper: heart.jpg

Women: This is your life and your body. What you think is right . . . is! No matter what anyone else has to say about it. Look around you . . . many people sat in that same chair. Be strong. And if you think this is a “sin,” remember, God forgives!
For my little angel: Although I say goodbye to you today, you will always be in my mind, heart, and soul. Please understand that this wasn’t your time because you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment. My own creation, you are and forever will be beautiful and pure. I smile when I think of you, even if I cry. You have given me reason to be strong and wise and responsible. You will always be my baby. I will see you in heaven, sweetheart. I LOVE YOU! Always and unconditionally, Your Mommy.

And this one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

“I didn’t let your dad know about you, simply because I’m ashamed. In my heart I will miss you but physically I don’t have the means to take care of you and your older sister. I will never label you a mistake, because God obviously thought you should have been here, even though I beg to differ.”

Notice that all three of these examples mention God. God forgives. The baby is better off with God. But the last one best sums up the attitude behind the Culture of Me: God thought you should be born but I beg to differ.

But the repercussions aren’t as easy to dismiss as God’s will. Claire Keyes, the executive director of Allegheny County Reproductive Health Center, shared some of the question women ask before going through the procedure:

“First and foremost, the question is ‘Will I ever be free of guilt?’ ” Keyes says. “That’s followed by ‘Will I ever go to hell?’ ‘Will God take one of my other children from me?’ ‘What gives me the right to decide which of my children lives and which dies?'”

Keyes, who has been with the abortion industry for 25 years, says she doesn’t know (nor do the answers seem to matter to her). But in the late 1980’s she had an epiphany:

“We in the movement, those of us in the clinics at the beginning, were so caught up in the early euphoria about winning a right to an abortion, we weren’t listening to what the patients were saying. They weren’t talking about abortion in the same way we were. They weren’t talking about the constitution or women’s rights. And many of them weren’t talking about a bunch of cells, either. They might call it ‘my baby,’ even though they were firm about going through with the procedure. Many of them expressed relief, but many also talked about sadness and loss. And we weren’t paying attention.”

Just so you don’t misunderstand, when she says “we weren’t paying attention” she isn’t referring to the fact that there may be something immoral about helping women kill what they would refer to as “my baby.” No, what Keyes said the movement wasn’t paying attention to was the fact that women were having painful feelings about what they were doing.

Pangs of conscience are, of course, a natural reaction to the taking of an innocent life. But while the Culture of Me can accept an unborn child being ripped from the womb, having hurt feelings about such an action is unacceptable.

The end of the Glamour article closes with a feature called, “Women tell the true story of my abortion.” Not surprisingly, the women represented are more concerned about their own anguish than they are regretful about their decision to kill another human:

“I don’t want this to affect the rest of my life.” — Carla, 23
“There’s a great quote from the essayist Katha Pollitt that comforts me. She said, ‘A woman has about 30 years of potential fertile sex. That’s a long time to go without a slipup.'” — Lisa, 32

“When I finally confessed my abortion — after 25 years — I dreaded what kind of penance the priest would give me. He said, ‘I want you to say one Our Father and one Hail Mary. Then I want you to go home and make a list of the good things you’ve also done in all those years. Until you see the past wasn’t all bad, you can’t move into the future.’ I did, and it made all the difference in the world.” — Frances, 45

“There was never a doubt in my mind about [having the abortion]. … I was financially, emotionally, and psychologically incapable of dealing with motherhood — not to mention that I smoked a pack a day and my idea of breakfast was a KitKat.” — Donna, 38

But the most revealing confession comes from thirty-five year old Micaela:

“This may sound strange, but I felt I knew the being I was carrying. I felt he was my son. I even called him Ernesto. And Ernesto was my reminder that my life was significant and that having an abortion was putting my life first. I know it was really about me, about promising myself that now I get to be super thoughtful about my life, super intentional — and that’s what the last five years since the abortion have been about.”

While reading these quotes I was reminded of the words of Josef Pieper. In his book Faith, Hope, Love, the Thomist philosopher examines the various meanings and connections between the concepts we use to describe “love.” What, he asks, is the “recurrent identity underlying the countless forms of love?”

“My tentative answer to this question runs as follows: In every conceivable case love signifies much the same as approval. This is first of all to be taken in the literal sense of the word’s root: loving someone or something means finding him or its probes, the Latin word for ‘good.’ It is a way of turning to him or it and saying, “It’s good that you exist; it’s good that you are in the world!”

The opposite of love, therefore, is the attitude that says “It’s good that you not exist; it’s good that you are not in the world!” No matter what words they chose to scribble on a pink paper heart, this is the message being spoken to these unborn children. While these women were informed that abortion was a reasonable choice, no one told them they were choosing the negation of love.

[Note: This is article was originally posted June 20, 2004.]

Link to The Negation of Love:Abortion and the “Culture of Me”

Althouse: "We think the ad’s authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real."

“The disaster is the atmosphere….”

Source: Althouse: “We think the ad’s authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real.”

It is amazing that the professors have not embraced a bit more humility as the events have unfolded. The original letter written by the professors was an emotional outburst that showed little of the leadership or wisdom we would like to believe is prevalent in our college professors. A quick background check on the stripper would have confirmed that she is not the next Rosa Parks. Sadly she is a woman of questionable character. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King had great character and integrity. It was their character that continuously guided the civil rights movement to the higher ground. I am surprised that this higher ground so eagerly sought by the civil rights movement was so carelessly forgotten by these professors. In an effort to be sensitive to one side, they beat all of the Duke students over the head with the “racist” bat and are unrepentant about their actions. The professors’ actions inflamed public opinion, was demeaning to the students, embarrassed the alumni, and was catastrophic to those students involved in this incident. If these professors had taken a few minutes to think about their actions, they probably would have noticed the risks they faced if the stripper’s accusations did not survive careful scrutiny. A little humility and patience would have helped the professors avoid looking so childish. I find it ironic that the professors’ misguided actions continue to be the real “Social Disaster”. They just don’t get it!

Do Women like Pelosi?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. speaks to reporters outside the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007, after meeting with President Bush to discuss his revised Iraq strategy. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)My wife does not like Nancy and the ferocity of her dislike has me bemused. I have seen this behavior before in women. Her complaint appears to be focused on the red cape. Naively I assume there must be something else that “really” triggered this strong response but experience has taught me to not ask any more questions. I have been down this path before and I have learned not to go there anymore. Never is there a greater gulf in the communications between a husband and wife than on a subject like red capes.

The Christian Science Monitor | Life at America’s bottom wage

Drawing on government data on the American workforce, labor economists highlight several patterns in the low-wage workforce:

  • Most workers don’t work the minimum wage for very long. Of workers who are 10 years into their careers, only about 13 percent have spent half or more of their career earning within $1.50 of the minimum wage, according to a 2001 study.
  • Minimum-wage workers are concentrated in low-skill service-sector occupations, including food service, retail, and motel housekeeping. Among Labor Department occupations, “leisure/ hospitality” leads the pack with 14.3 percent of workers earning $5.15 or less per hour. (Workers in some occupations such as food service can earn less than $5.15 if they earn enough tips to equal the minimum.) By contrast, just 0.4 percent of manufacturing workers earn minimum wage.
  • Of the 6.6 million workers who would be directly affected by the proposed minimum-wage hike to $7.25 an hour, 61 percent are female, 29 percent are age 16 to 19, 21 percent are Hispanic, 16 percent are black, and 9 percent are single parents, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

    Those numbers are all higher than the share of those groups in the total workforce. By contrast, 16 percent of those affected will be married parents – many fewer than the 29 percent of all workers who are in that group.

  • Many low-wage workers also face a high level of job insecurity. People with low skills are more likely to be unemployed, according to government data. And many low-wage workers have only part-time jobs. Of those directly affected by the proposed wage hike, 21 percent work fewer than 20 hours per week, whereas just 5 percent of the overall workforce is in that category. In addition to low skills, barriers to employment can include substance abuse or mental illness and other disabilities.

Source: The Christian Science Monitor | Daily Online Newspaper

Some additional barriers I have noticed in Habitat families trying to get and keep a job are:

  • Credit card debt
  • Illness/Short term disability
  • Transportation issues
  • Amount of time needed for training to get a better paying job 
  • Children with special needs
  • Family members moving in

The Fine Line between Social Activism and Rumor Mongering

DUKE (NON) RAPE UPDATE: Lots of new developments at K.C. Johnson’s blog….

Link to

Over the last couple of weeks I have been reading some of the background material on the  Duke Rape case. The dropping of the rape charge coincided with questions about how far I was willing to go with social activism. I was particularly interested in with the level of involvement by the faculty and their path toward healing on this divisive issue. From one point of view this rape case described race relations at Duke as a festering wound that white students do not see. The quote best describes this position comes from the original Group of 88 statement.

“They don’t see race. They just don’t see it.”

In my investigation I found that Duke has set up a website to coordinate news release on the incident. It is interesting to note that the Group of 88 statement was removed from the original Duke website and is not available on this new site either. It is only available from the Google cache. The Duke site has a nice collection of documents and links that try to explain how Duke is dealing with the problems. I have not reviewed all of the documents and links  but the selection appears to be impartial. 

Although it is debatable how bad race relations were before the incident, they are definitely worse now. I was disappointed to not find many signs of healing on Duke’s website. It would be nice to see some signs of healing and progress but I doubt black and white students discuss the problem. The problem is far more complex now. White students who did not see race problems before the incident, have been given a whole new understanding of bigotry. From the evidence that has been released to public scrutiny there are two groups of victims, the woman and the lacrosse players. It is fascinating how quickly the black students and faculty gave up on “due process” and proceeded to presume the guilt of the lacrosse players. By all accounts the district attorney’s actions were over zealous.  All of the legal procedures that were developed over the years primarily to help black defendants get a fair trial were ignored because the defendants had a different color skin. Black students and faculty should have experienced a strange sense of deja vu. The white students will see a different story. They will conclude that the black students and faculty are exhibiting the same form of bigotry they are complaining about and that a white student’s rights to a fair trial are less than if they were a black person.  These are uncomfortable subjects for students and faculty to discuss so I doubt they will.

In my opinion the actions by the faculty is the most regrettable part of this incident. I would have expected that the faculty would have shown more humility and realized that the preliminary findings by the district attorney were the equivalent of rumors. The faculty had the intellect, experience, and sensitivity to make the wise decision and set an example of wisdom for the students. They failed. They took the preliminary findings as fact and lead the university down a regrettable path. A little humility would have gone a long way to preventing this catastrophe to the prestige of the faculty and Duke University. Rick Martinez of the News & Observer recently wrote an article that encourages Duke to look at itself. Hopefully they will find healing in the process.

I have learned that there are quite a few pitfalls when dealing with race related social activism.  Like the Duke faculty I will inevitably know less facts about the big issues than I am comfortable with but I will be confronted with the desire to move forward to improve pressing social issues. Managing this mix of facts, rumors,  latent prejudices, and social change is a great challenge. I have learned that I can do more damage than good if I am not very careful with the words I choose to repeat. I hope that if I keep an eye on humility as I develop my recommendations, then the changes I advocate will show more wisdom. If we are lucky this wisdom will contribute to an improving situation. If the wisdom is not accepted, I hope that it will be accepted as my best effort to make things better and that no harm was intended.