Now I know that God is not a Bills fan!

Buffalo Bills' wide receiver Steve Johnson blames God for his overtime drop.

Jesus Coming to America

One of my favorite comedies of all time is Coming to America. If you haven't seen it, here's the basic plot. Prince Akeem (Eddie Murphy), of the ficticious African country of Zamunda, rebels againtst his parents arranging his marriage. He plots with his servant Semmi (Arsenio Hall) to go on a journey so that he can authentically find a wife who he loves. They look on a map and happen to stumble on a place in New York called Queens. Akeem says, "What better place to find a queen than in the city of Queens?" They come to New York City, and of course they want to blend in, so they try to look and act just like New Yorkers and not reveal their royalty. As you can see in the photo, they look just like the locals, don't they?

Something very similar happens with Christians.  In an attempt to relate to our neighbors, we often come across more as tourists than as locals. We have a hard time sharing the love of Jesus in an authentic and valuable way.  And after seeing that guy with the megaphone on the street corner or that over-the-top televangelist, many mindful Christians tend to shy away from sharing their faith for fear of being inauthentic. If that's what evangelism is all about, then I also would feel better keeping my mouth shut.  But we really are are supposed to be a blessing to the world around us. So what does it look like to share our faith?



In our church, one of our core values is to Be Incarnational. The incarnation of Jesus (God coming to live among us) gives us the best clue as to what "evangelism" should look like. And in Luke 4:14-21, Jesus lets the world know what his "Coming to America" was all about.

He officially innaugurates his ministry by quoting from the prophet Isaiah, saying...

   ¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
   because he has anointed me
   to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
   and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
   ¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (bold added)

 ²⁰ Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. ²¹ He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

That's Shalom talk.  Shalom is the Old Testament word for peace and it's the major thread that holds the story of the Bible together. It's Jesus' "MO". But it's much richer than a simple English translation of peace. Shalom is what Luke 4:18-19 is all about - restoration, wholeness, reconciliation, healing, justice, freedom, fulfillment, and a fresh start. It's the vision of hope for how God is going to make the world right.  So Jesus (aka Immanuel) shows us what it's like for God to be among us.

Now here is where the rubber hits the road. The church as the "body of Christ" displays what Christ is about to the world. The church shares the good news of Jesus by being Jesus, by rubbing off shalom on the world around them.  It's an integrated evangelism that is more about actions and posture, than it is about talking. It's about about letting people experience God by being with them, building relationships, and adding that shalom value to their lives.

I think that we'd be able to fit in with our neighbors really well if we practiced that a little.

Breakthrough's Christmas Store, 2010

 Breakthrough is hosting its annual Christmas Store on December 18 where families are able to come to Breakthrough to get affordable gifts for their loved ones.

I love the Christmas Store - not just what we do, but how we do it. Basically, we ask people to donate brand new toys to Breakthrough, and then we set up this rockin' store where community members can buy gifts at about 10 cents to the dollar, and then we just turn the proceeds back into blessing the community through our ministry.  It's just so much more dignifying than if a strange family comes into the neighborhood from out of town and gives presents to a poor family. No handouts, but definitely a hand up. We didn't come up with the idea, but it's genius and that's why we use it.

If you'd like to get involved, check out this link: Breakthrough's Christmas Store. We want to serve about 300 families this year!

No More Mr. Nice Guy

This last week's episode of The Office (The Christening) was about Jim and Pam baptizing their baby girl Cece. It was an ok episode, humor wise. But it was interesting, for me at least, because most of the episode was set in a church and it really drew out some churchy/religious themes. Knowing Michael Scott's character, that he is almost desparate for relationships, it was funny to see how the church people were so nice to him and how he started responding favorably to them. For a moment it left you wondering if he finally found a place that would accept him for who he was - Michael Scott is going to church!

But really, everyone in the church was really nice. Really, really nice. Everyone said hello, and had great manners, and were just so agreeable. And the youth group was so enthusiastic and well behaved, and they were fired up about going to serve in Mexico, and the parents were all so proud of them, and everything was just so "Hey, Alright!"

It's a little unsettling to me that the perception of Christians is that they are nice people. Think Ned Flanders. It's not so much that being a nice person is a bad thing, but it's this perception that "being nice" is the only real value that Christianity offers.

I don't think Jesus was nice. He was good, he was well-mannered, he was gentle and compassionate, yes. But the lasting image of Jesus that his followers should emulate is not nice. Like this image that we have of him cuddling babies and toting lambs. Aww. 

But nice doesn't confront injustices. Nice doesn't battle addictions and abusive relationships. Nice doesn't hit the streets to reach prostitutes, drug dealers, and gangbangers. Nice doesn't get the job done. And nice doesn't capture Jesus.

I think Jesus was more like my friend Juan. He is a pastor in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago. He's an old school guy who grew up in that area, lived a very rough street life, and eventually began following Jesus. One time after a service at his church he went to take out some trash in the alley and a guy was waiting there to mug him. When he attacked, Juan manhandled the guy and then threw him to the ground and pinned him there.  The mugger was stunned and yelled at him, "Man, I thought you were a Christian!"  Juan replied, "It's because I'm a Christian that you're not dead right now."

See, now that was nice of him.

Is it ironic for a church to be a polling site for voters?

During this last Tuesday's election day I noticed an interesting post on Facebook by one of my friends. She commented on how ironic it was for her to see a church as a polling site for elections. I'm going to take the bait on this one.

I'm wondering if it really is that ironic for a church to be a polling site. I guess the real question is - is it constitutional? Let's think through it. One major objection is that there is a governmental stance about separating the interests of the state and the church.  And a related objection is that people who end up having to vote at a church may feel compelled to vote based on the interests of the church. I'm not really sure how that follows, unless church members are actually standing outside telling you how to vote. But even if that were the case, is that really any different at any other polling site?

So I'm wondering if there are more people out there up in arms about church buildings being used as polling sites?  Or is it a cultural thing for a more diverse city like Chicago? (I've voted in other small towns in Illinois where polling sites were churches, and I never heard anyone complain.) Or is it just a couple of people out there who are ticked off at church?  Either way, this situation brings up an interesting scenario about the separation of church and state that I'd like to discuss. Granted, I'm much more of a theologian than I am a political scientist, so consider all my thoughts accordingly. Nevertheless, three questions come to mind for me.

1. What is the true scope of separation of church and state?
What originally inspired separation of church and state were circumstances in which politics and religion were so entangled that citizens were discriminated or tortured if they did not adhere to denominational stipulations supported by those in office.  The fathers of the constitution, however, held that the freedom of conscience is an inalienable right to every individual. So with respect to religion, people should have the right to exercise their religion according to the dictates of their conscience, without coercion from the government.  So the separation was a way to prevent government from souring the authentic expression of religion.  And so the policy evolved to where it is now understood that government and religion work best if they just stay out of each other's hair. (A couple of good reads about this are Michael Sandel, Democracy's Discontent, and Paul Griffiths, Problems of Religious Diversity).

But it seems that the government assumed a passive stance toward religion, preventing itself from engaging in religion (i.e., it is "neutral" and doesn't take a religious view). However, it does not follow to me that government initially took an active stance to prevent religion from engaging in politics. I think the founding fathers assumed that religion would necessarily be part of society, and that even "religious" citizens would have to voice citizenship through things like voting. But that in public, religious citizens and faith abiding political figures should have the sophistication to harness their religious view for the sake of political and civic dialogue. 

However, I think the modern interpretation of separation of church and state, that religion should be privatized and out of public sphere, is false.  I've written at length in other places for why this is so, but I won't get into it here. (Although, it's not very exciting reading.) I'll just say that if we privatize religion and prevent a community center, like a church, from participating in civic duties like being a voting center, then we discriminate our citizens who have inalienable rights to participate in government according to the dictates of their conscience, and offer their place for public use. Using a church as a polling site does not violate the constitution. The contrary is actually unconsitutional.

2. Are there really neutral, non-religious places?
So maybe you're upset that you had to go to an agenda-laden religious center to vote. But when you think about it, everyone and everything has some kind of religious stripe. Based off of my adventures in studying sociology, my understanding of religion is that it is anything that is comprehensive, centrally important, and that help helps a human being transcend his or her biological nature.  I don't believe that there is anything in life that is really "neutral" or "non-religious", except for the base functions of our biology. So sports, athiests, politicians, and public buildings are technically just as "religious" as church goers and church buildings themselves.  And, therefore, a statement like "there should be a separation between church and state" is technically a religious statement.  And when people say that others should keep their religious views to themselves, they are actually making a religious statement which they are (ironically) promoting others to believe.

And besides, you know that elections are not neutral. On election day you can't even walk 5 feet out of your car without being bombarded by someone telling you which way to vote.  Election seasons are the most "proselytizing" times of the year!

3. What is the appropriate way for a church to host a polling site?
So really, what this boils down to for me is two things:
a. Since religion is inevitably part of life, then people have to practice proper etiquette to engage their politics with respectful dialogue. We are entitled to have our own views of things, but we live in a pluralist and democratic society where others actually have views too.

b. Since we live in a consumeristic and marketing driven culture, we possess both the skill and the responsibility to make choices on our own, and not complain about who's telling you what to believe. It happens all the time and everywhere - it's how you end up eating at Burger King, buying a pair of jeans, or drinking your favorite beer. But fortunately we still live in a country where no one forces you to believe or choose one way or the other. At least that's what the founding fathers meant.

Hey, but I'd love your thoughts too. Anyone want to take the bait?