The Shepherd as The Weak, and The Temptation to Tyranny

Musings sparked by Dr. Paul Louis Metzger’s blog: “Pulp Fiction and Divine Intervention: Fact or Fiction?” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uncommongodcommongood/2013/05/pulp-fiction-and-divine-intervention-fact-or-fiction/)

Here’s a link to a clearer presentation of the scene under consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PeyiU3uWJ8. Some will find the language objectionable, of course. And there’s a lot more to exegete in these 276 seconds of screen-time. (Note: I’m indebted to Professor Brian Fuller, currently at Calvin College – http://www.brianfuller.org/  – for training in “Theology through Film” – TH 6340, Simpson Graduate School of Ministry, Summer 2007.) But here’s what particularly strikes me in watching the scene again this morning:

Unredeemed, Jules accurately calls himself “the tyranny of evil men.” Perceiving divine intervention in his own life, he now recognizes in Ringo and Yolanda the consequences of dwelling beside, rather than journeying along the path. Therefore, he’s “trying real hard to be the shepherd” for the sake of “the weak” who would otherwise succumb to the inherent threats of “the valley of darkness.”

Two applications suggest themselves to me. First, that some among the as-yet-unredeemed recognize, in the brokenness of this world, the futility of seeking to win the game it imposes upon us. Even before the Holy Spirit brings one to receive Christ, there is often a longing for some other choice beyond those which are offered, and the strong sense that what once seemed to be a pathway has become a damnable dwelling place.

The more difficult application, inasmuch as I am called “Pastor,” is my continuing need for “trying real hard to be the shepherd.” Jeremiah 23:1-4 (see below*) suggests that those presumed to be shepherds (due to position, privilege, and power) may be, in fact, obliviously participating within “the tyranny of evil men.” Jeremiah makes it clear that God’s plan is not thwarted by their failure. But given the potential for succumbing to the threats and setting up housekeeping in “the valley of darkness,” Jules’ final word (in that it echoes Jesus’ – “Go.”) motivates me to keep moving, and leading others, along the path.

Still, the threats and promises of the darkness are pervasive and often subtle. Those who are called shepherds may succumb to serving that darkness, ultimately disabling the flock that follows them. Presuming our own authority may even lead us to mirror “the tyranny of evil men” in applying worldly systems and practices to ministry, and to do so quite “successfully.” But those who recognize in themselves that temptation, and in response are “trying real hard to be the shepherd,” may be those best equipped to serve “the weak.”

*Referenced above:

Jeremiah 23:1-4 (NASB-95)

1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture!” declares the Lord. 2 Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel concerning the shepherds who are tending My people: “You have scattered My flock and driven them away, and have not attended to them; behold, I am about to attend to you for the evil of your deeds,” declares the Lord. 3 “Then I Myself will gather the remnant of My flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and bring them back to their pasture, and they will be fruitful and multiply. 4 “I will also raise up shepherds over them and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the Lord.

"We Have to Do Something!" - An Encouragement and Warning in the Democratizing Power of Social Media

Comments prompted by the NYTimes reporting that increased media coverage (of the Kermit Gosnell abortion/murder trial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is resulting from pressure exerted through social media.

I confess. I read them. It’s not a guilty pleasure. Because it’s not pleasurable. But I read them: blogs, e-mails, Facebook posts, and Tweets. I consume a fairly regular diet of indignant cries: “We have to do something about this.”

But first, I want to know what the “this” really is. Then, I try to consider carefully whether the “something” proposed is likely to be effective, preferably without causing collateral damage. From time to time I am reminded vividly that where we get our information about the “this” is just as important as determining the “safe and effective” means of doing “something” about it. Here’s an example, though, that inspires me almost as much as it sickens me.

The NYTimes includes what they rightly warn are “grisly details” in their report (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/us/online-furor-draws-press-to-abortion-doctors-trial.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130416&_r=0) that “an online furor” rising primarily through social media has provoked increased coverage by national news outlets of the Gosnell abortion/murder trial taking place in Philadelphia. As one who has long-ago despaired of effecting change by “writing their congressman,” the influence of “readers (who) e-mailed” editors regarding their newspapers’ “deafening silence” is worth considering for a moment.

Journalistic independence and ethical, community-focused reporting have long been subjugated to the economics of socio-political and corporate marketing influences. That is, the pressures of the marketplace favor only the more acceptable (“politically-correct”) and/or sensational narratives. Thus, "If it bleeds, it leads...unless it makes one of our major advertisers or political benefactors look bad." Championing the ostensibly more democratic networks of social media, however, does not address the need to restore careful research and factual verification in the news media, nor the need to redirect editorial decisions toward serving a community’s needs more consistently. Further, it also fails to address the sad reality that much of the “reporting” disseminated through social media has little basis in fact.

In this case, commendably, social media has brought to light a story that does appear to previously have been buried due to its significant contribution to a pro-life/anti-abortion argument. Still, though, as with more limited cases of cyber-bullying on individual levels, the inaccurate, the misleading, and the inflammatory still comprise the majority of "news" posts I see on Facebook, and nearly all of the “call-to-action” e-mails I receive.

So, before raising your voice, even before raising your blood-pressure, and especially before clicking on “share,” please do "Consider the source." And where it is not cited, "Do your homework." Otherwise, we risk being distracted by indignation over the superfluous, or even the imaginary, while the more important issues erode beneath us, unnoticed and unchallenged. There clearly is power in the networks of social media. But we must not only decide to use that power for good and not evil, we should also not waste it on the sensational, imaginary, and nonsensical topics on which most diatribes are centered.

And even where the problem is verifiably accurate, please consider prayerfully the solution being proposed. Remember: The people of Hamelin never had to worry ever again about the rats biting their children. Because after the Pied Piper removed the rats, he removed their children as well.

Color Me Outraged Over “Dhimmitude!”

(This post is in response to e-mails received recently that are discussed on the Snopes site at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp.)

I’m not a constitutional or legislative scholar. But I’m privileged to have a reasonably fast internet connection, sufficient RAM and processor speed, and a willingness to spend a few minutes doing a couple of simple searches. First, I searched for the documents themselves. (The U.S. Government Printing Office site at gpo.gov is easy to access.) Then, I did a search of the main documents for a word reported to be contained in “The Healthcare Bill” frequently referred to derisively (and perhaps deservedly) as “Obamacare.”

The versions of what may be called “The Health Care Bill” include the original failed attempt at passing healthcare reform in 2009 (H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, 1,017 pages), that bill’s replacement passed by the House of Representatives in November, 2009 (H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, 1,990 pages), and the final amendments to that version (H.R. 4872, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 153 pages) signed into law on March 30, 2010. Those are the three I searched. The word “dhimmitude” does not appear in any of them. To be certain, since page 107 was cited in the e-mails I have received, I read page 107 in each document. The word does not appear there.

As an Evangelical Christian pastor who is exempt by conscience from the Social Security system, I will likely be among those who will also be exempted from the healthcare legislation, just as those in various other sects of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and others who would be covered by the (current version of the) law’s “Religious Conscience Exemption” (which appears on pages 299-300 of H.R. 3962).

So, in short, I must agree with the anonymous author of the e-mails forwarded to me recently. Yes, “THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.” If, of course, the “this” is the tendency of “concerned Christians” to spend far more time, energy, blood-pressure, and serotonin being foolishly outraged over fictitious claims regarding any number of topics (By the way, “In God We Trust” does, in fact, appear on the new presidential dollars. You’re welcome.) than most of us expend in loving our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:34-40), sharing Christ’s offer of the free gift of God: eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 6:23), or even encouraging one another’s growth and maturity to a depth of love that casts out even the ultimate fears (I John 4:18-19).

My hope is that this brief note will promote a new step toward that growth and maturity. My expectation, though, is that it may only make you angry. But that might lead you to some growth, too. So, there it is.

"Who Is My Enemy?"

I awoke early this morning with one of those kinds of “Aha” moments that make me continue to pursue dichotomies, ironies, and even the absurd in hopes of enlightening insight. Finding that tonight’s (June 3, 2011) New Wine, New Wineskins event in Portland, Oregon would discuss issues related to Osama Bin Laden and Muslims for Peace prompts this post of an otherwise personal “discipleship-moment.”

I attended the April 28 discussion between Dr. Paul Metzger and Abbott Kyogen Carlson at Dharma Rain Zen Center that would fit among the activities soon-after characterized (even if tongue-in-cheek) as “Fraternizing with the Enemy” (C. Seigneur, Christianity Today, May 2011, 55/5, 96). Over the past few weeks that title has returned to my thoughts intrusively, accompanied by an entirely disproportionate annoyance. (A clear sign to think more about it.)

I considered that my reaction to the phrase might be a sympathetic response to Dr. Metzger’s position (having experienced distrust from both the therapeutic and Evangelical communities for my presumed acceptance in both). I also considered that it might stem from inconsistencies in my Christian boundaries—that I might be “going soft” in failing to correctly identify The Enemies of the Faith. (Fleeting moment, that.) I even tried some combination of “Love your enemies,” only to recognize that I had decided not only to fraternize, but to cooperate and serve alongside some who, I believe, are being used to accomplish God’s purpose, even as they deny His existence (or the value of His Son).

Christians are often slow to apply the answer to “Who is my neighbor?” by tangible action. We are so much quicker to apply the answer to “Who is my enemy?” that we must be far more careful about the question.

Jesus is clear that there are enemies who oppose His word and work. He does not, however, prescribe opposing them. (Luke 19:27 notwithstanding, applying as it does to eschatological judgment). Loving them, doing good to them, praying for them…these are the prescriptions of The Great Physician. Even defining themselves as enemies seems a task best left to those who choose to oppose the gospel. For the Apostle Paul, the same values apply. Even the warnings against Hymenaeus, Philetus and Alexander seek a redemptive outcome for those who have previously claimed to share faith in Christ. Most importantly, Paul differentiates between the “flesh and blood” against whom we are not to struggle, and “the rulers…the powers..the world forces of this darkness…the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).

The enemy of our souls is also the enemy of those whom he has seduced, oppressed, beguiled, deluded, and/or enslaved. Ironically, some of those we would identify as our enemies recognize—often more clearly than Christians do—the damage being done to their fellow human beings by The Enemy. Many of them are attempting to rebel against a worldly system through worldly means, unaware of rebelling against God in doing so. Is this, perhaps, because they perceive no other option?

The Godly system of justice, mercy, and humility (Micah 6:8) is often obscured by the tactics of those who should be its greatest champions. Prior to conversion, I could not see the gospel amidst the wreckage of Christendom. The message I received from Christians was that there were two versions of The Good News. For those within the church, the good news was that their dismal life of bitterness and hypocrisy eventually led to eternal glory in heaven. For those of us outside, their good news seemed to be that “It’s every man for himself, and God against all.”

Yet God is for all. Not willing that any should perish. Seeking all to come to repentance. Seeking to rescue, to save, to redeem, to justify, to cleanse, to make whole…and apparently willing to use some of the most unlikely “enemies” to accomplish His purposes. (Not only Paul, but even Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Judas.)

The enemy of my soul used Christians to deliver his message of condemnation. God uses non-Christians to accomplish His purposes of redemption. With whom do I intend to cooperate most? (I am not Nehemiah to Cyrus, nor Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, and certainly not Moses to Pharaoh. But to the extent that God has opened opportunities for serving His purposes to and with those who have not yet been saved by grace through faith, I hope that I am found faithful.)

If the enemy of my enemy can be my friend, then I can join with Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists in seeking to provide more accessible palliative and Hospice care to patients whose unabated agonies would otherwise be more profitable to the health-care industry. If the enemy of my enemy can be my friend, then I can openly disagree with secular feminists on a variety of issues, and still work toward naming “adult industries” as the slave-systems they are. And if the enemy of my enemy can be my friend, I can join with those who disagree with me on the range of options that should be available to a pregnant thirteen-year-old, because we agree that there should be far fewer pregnant thirteen-year-olds.

In short, I should willingly work with anyone God chooses to motivate toward His purposes in this world, whether or not they have yet acknowledged Him as the source of the passions, gifts, and experiences comprising that calling. And when I can show by resilience, joy, compassion, and devotion that Christ’s presence in me allows the pursuit of these and other ends in a more fulfilling and effective manner, do some of those united only in a cause against a common enemy come to find a mutual friend in Christ? Frankly, not nearly so many as I would hope. (But, then, that’s just the Evangelical in me talking.)