“The government of Vietnam’s desire to reap the benefits of the global economy must be matched by efforts to respect comprehensive human rights,” a bipartisan group of 19 members of Congress wrote to Clinton on July 15.
This was an interesting paragraph in the article Clinton pushes Vietnam on human rights progress. It also helped to begin crystallizing something I have been thinking about. Do humans have rights solely based on being human? Rather than simply making an assertion I decided to put the question to an organization that specializes in addressing human rights violations, Amnesty International. I emailed them and asked:
There seems to be some confusion when using the term phrase “human rights.”Do you mean by this that humans have rights based solely on being human? If a nation decides that a human is not legally a person and therefore has no rights, for only persons have rights, is that something you affirm?
The question is fairly simple and straightforward. Do humans have rights because they are human or is there some other criteria for protecting rights? Perhaps a human has no rights because the law makers used some arbitrary criteria to define personhood and then only protect the rights of those who are legally a person. In this scenario non-persons, human or not, do not have any legal rights nor are deserving of protection. I received a response back in less than 24 hours: Continue reading …
I received a phone call last week which began, “I am not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but …” This is nearly always a tip off that the caller is a Jehovah’s Witness who is currently disfellowshipped, or for some other reason not meeting with the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the local Kingdom Hall, but still believes the teachings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. He called after seeing the YouTube video Young Jehovah’s Witness Dies Over the Weekend. When these calls come in, I have to make assessments. Is the caller asking real questions or just taking up time? I wrote on this last year in Only Real Questions Deserve Real Answers – Pt.1,Part 2 and Part 3.
Being a missionary, like being an evangelist, pastor or teacher, requires that we are good stewards with our time as well as our finances and talents. One of the more frequently asked questions I receive is, “How much time or energy should I put in to someone who seems to be unreachable?” The answer is not simple or clean. Different settings dictate different responses on a case by case basis. Continue reading …
A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Hooking Up: What Educators Need to Know” seeks to instruct college administrators about the grand child of the Sexual revolution–”The Hook Up Culture.”
Despite most commentators’ lamentations about the death of courtship and their concern over students’ “new,” morally questionable sexual activity, the term “hooking up” has become commonplace and the practice an accepted part of the college experience. For campus administrators, counselors, and professors, whose only exposure to hooking up has been media accounts or pop-culture references, it is important to know what hooking up really involves.
To the authors of the article, hooking Up itself, of course, is not a worry. That would involve judging some sexual activity as “morally questionable.” The real worry is concern over what the Hooking up might lead to: Sexual assault and alcohol abuse. Actually the last part isn’t exactly true: Continue reading …
In my last post I made a bold claim. First I differentiated between two different applications of the word “community.” There is the community that surrounds the local pub or Starbucks or a Bed and Breakfast. And then there is a community of believers that looks a lot like family. Then I made the following claim:
I think a lot of churches do community like the first kind of community–the kind you get when you have a community center, club, or your local Starbucks. I am not saying this is what they intend necessarily but its what passes for community. I’ll use another analogy. Walking into some mega-churches I sometimes get the impression I’m treated like a guest at a bed and breakfast not a family of believers.
After carping for a few paragraphs about accommodation, inclusion, and entertainment (three elements of the Culture-Driven church), I asked this question and gave this cliche answer. : “So what’s the alternative to B & Bs style community? Family.”
The way I see it, there are a couple of important questions to ask in order to navigate our Christian lives through the extremes of either cultural accommodation or cultural irrelevance. First, what do we mean by community? Is community just a starting point or are are we really called to something deeper, something more like “Family?” If it is the latter, what is the difference between family and mere community? My last post dealt with the first question. I am honestly trying to develop an answer to the second question. It just seems intuitive that we want a church family not just a community. But I really can’t answer that question until I know the difference between a family and a community.
Here are a few elements that Don and I have come up with:
First, familial relationships are not really voluntary. Communities are. We don’t choose our families, we are born into them and the bloodline makes us family. And likewise, with the exception of adoptions, our family doesn’t choose us. If I don’t like the crowd at Starbucks, I just find another coffee shop. Recently, I went to a chain restaurant that serves Kansas City BBQ. Because it was a chain, I expected the same great BBQ at each one. I was wrong. Evidently the franchise can differ greatly. I won’t be going back to that BBQ place. However, I can’t say the same thing if my wife doesn’t make a great meal every time. In fact, it doesn’t even occur to me to try (fortunately my wife is a fabulous cook who comes from a family of New Orleans fabulous cooks). The reason is that there are things that bind us together which are greater than wonderful cooking or more to the point, even a combined purpose. There is something metaphysical that binds me to my family that doesn’t bind me to my weekly card game. Because of that, accommodation and inclusiveness just don’t really apply. If my son decides to do stupid things when he is older involving drugs or a cult, I don’t get the option of completely writing him out of my life. And neither does he have the option of writing me out of his life. He will always be my son. But that also means I don’t have to accommodate his sins either. I may even have to tell him that if he is going to engage in behavior dangerous to him or his family that he must leave the house. But he never really leaves the family. If he wants to come home, we’ll be there. If he needs a hand up, we will do what we can to help. The goal of correction is repentance and restoration. Being family means we are connected whether this happens or not.
It seems to me that church is the same way. Church discipline isn’t being exclusive or unaccommodating. Its a reflection of a tie much stronger than common goals or a mission statement. Telling a brother or sister that they can’t take communion or worship with us because of their behavior isn’t like throwing someone out of your restaurant for not having shoes. It is a calculated, formal, and gut wrenching decision, that is not designed as much for coercion (“Straighten up and you can eat with us”) but rather to protect the rest of the family (all the impressionable younger kids especially). This a subtle but important point. There is not a problem with people who are living non-Christian lifestyles coming to church. People who do not share the worldview of the family are treated as guests for whom we pray and seek to convince of Christ. The problem, the danger is when a believer who professes a biblical worldview engages in activity that is contrary to the Christian worldview. Let me give an example. I worry about my son. I worry a lot about what he picks up from other kids when he’s playing at the YMCA or when he’s playing in the park. The other day he used a phrase I had never heard from him before and I had to tell him that we don’t use such phrases in our family. This is a concern when he goes to preschool next year. Fair enough. What I really worry about is if one of his other family members is doing something inappropriate. Like me. My kid does everything I do. If I were to do something stupid and sinful and there were no consequences for me, then that would be far more dangerous because it seems to give him permission to behave badly.
Let me end with one other observation that Don and I have discussed. Healthy church communities depend on healthy church families. My relationship with my wider community is only going to be good when my relationship to my family is strong, focused, and clear. That is my family is not only bound by strong ties but that we recognize those ties and operate from the base of our family commitments. I invite people into my home but I can’t invite them into my family. There will always be a separation between my neighbor and my family. And that is a good thing. My relationship with my community is better for that separation. I am a better at community when I always have a core relationship to return to where I know there are three other people who have no choice but to love me. I never confuse the two. My family isn’t designed so that I can affect my community by letting them in on what my family is doing. Rather our family is the base of operations for launching our outreach to our community. Perhaps that is the difference in the Culture driven church and the Church Family. Worship isn’t outreach its the equivalent of a family meal. Sure you sometimes have people over for family meals but there is never a question who is the guest and who is responsible for setting the table.
These ideas are percolating at the moment. I am just beginning to think through them. I invite your own comments and corrections.