How rich are you?

Not long ago I was turned onto this fascinating website, called the Global Rich List. It allows you to include your personal income and then tells you where you rank in terms of global wealth.

What was interesting to me was how different standards of wealth in the United States seem when you put them up against the wealth of the rest of the world. For instance, according to U.S. government standards, the poverty threshold for 2006 was $10,400 for a single person (or $21,200 for a family of four). But according to the Global Rich List, living right at the poverty line in the U.S. would still make you the 793,757,388th richest person on earth. Keep in mind that there are well over 6 billion people on earth, so being in the top 800 million is pretty good. Put in simpler terms, it would mean that you are still in the top 13.22% wealthiest people in the world.

It's tougher to figure these numbers in family terms; the Global Rich List is really meant to give the stats on an individual. But even if I take my family income and divide it in half to get a rough idea of my personal earning power in a given year (I live in a family of two), it still puts me in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest people.

Now I can tell you, as a part of a family where one of the bread winners is a full-time graduate student (that's me), I don't feel wealthy at all. For those of you reading this blog from North America or Western Europe, I imagine you probably don't feel wealthy either. But I bet you also rank pretty high in terms of the world's richest people.

How are we to think about these things? Well, for one, I think it says a lot about how we are conditioned to think about money. We are taught to always think in terms of scarcity instead of abundance; this is a theme that government and the consumer culture drive into our brains all the time. When we constantly receive the message that we don't have enough of this or that (money, consumer products, security, etc.), then we are always going to think we're not well off.

And second, I think it calls us to go back to the Scriptures and read again what God has to say about how we use our wealth, both in the Old and the New Testaments. Wealth is both a real and a relative concept. It's real in the sense that one can either have or have not what it takes to get by, and if one lacks for basic necessities, one is certainly not wealthy. But wealth is also relative, in exactly the sense that the Global Rich List points out. Who are we to buy second homes and boats and expensive clothes, when the vast majority of our brothers and sisters around the world lack for so much?

Bart Ehrman: Wolf in sheep's clothing?

I live in the same part of the same state as Dr. Bart Ehrman, though I've never met him. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, about 10 miles from where I live. He's also one of the nation's most prominent and well-known New Testament scholars, and his books sell like hotcakes.

In the newest issue of The Christian Century, I noticed that Dr. Ehrman has been invited to serve as the "theologian-in-residence" for Ecumenical Christian Ministries (or ECM), a consortium of student ministries at Kansas University and churches in the Lawrence, KS, area. As a part of his duties, Dr. Ehrman will travel to Lawrence to deliver a series of lectures this coming April.

Now in some ways, Dr. Ehrman's selection makes sense. As I mentioned, he is the author of numerous books on the New Testament, and he is a widely sought-after speaker. He has received teaching awards during his time as a professor at UNC. He is also well-known for his published courses through The Teaching Company. And, while as a biblical scholar Ehrman is not technically a "theologian," I'm sure ECM uses its "theologian-in-residence" label generously.

But in another way, Dr. Ehrman's selection makes no sense at all.

Why? Because he's an avowed agnostic who regularly proclaims that he does not believe in the God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Case in point: Dr. Ehrman is Terry Gross' most recent guest on NPR's Fresh Air. He appeared to be interviewed about his newest book, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer. On Fresh Air's website, an excerpt from Dr. Ehrman's book is printed along with a promo about the interview, wherein he admits his agnosticism and says that, if there is a God, he does not believe it is the God proclaimed in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This raises a question. I assume that the purpose of having a "theologian-in-residence" for your church-related organization is to invite someone in to speak who will, in some way, help to form your members in the Christian faith. If that is so, then why would you bring in a self-described agnostic who does not believe that Jesus is who he claims to be in the New Testament? I understand the desire to be edgy and provocative, but isn't it counterproductive to go in that direction if you end up encouraging agnosticism in those who are affected by his teaching?

A look at ECM's website triggered the knee-jerk reaction to just chalk it up to the character of the organization - ECM's mission statement says that it represents "a stream of the Christian faith tradition that tries to be intellectually honest, liberating, and sensitive to how we know mystery in our lives." Such nebulous statements are typical of Christian churches and organizations that are so wedded to the Protestant liberal narrative that they don't even realize they are in a state of slow suicide. But I don't really know anything about ECM, and it's not fair of me to jump to those conclusions.

So if this ministry cares about both the present spiritual well-being and the eternal salvation of its members, why would it invite a wolf in sheep's clothing into its midst? And as one with the authority of a teacher of Scripture, no less?

[January 2009 Update: Bishop William Willimon has written a review of Ehrman's book, God's Problem, in the 12/30/08 edition of The Christian Century that offers a good insight into many of the aspects of Ehrman's scholarship and approach to the Christian faith that caused me to write this blog post in the first place. You can find Bishop Willimon's review here.]

[April 2009 Update: A short article in the 3/30/09 issue of Newsweek reports on Ehrman's newest book, Jesus, Interrupted. The book is about biblical authorship, and from the Newsweek story, appears to predictably reflect Ehrman's radical historical critical views and refusal to consider any form of pneumatological influence on the writing of the Scriptures that would allow them to be considered inspired. Ehrman's position seeks to undercut the church's historic teaching of the Bible as the word of God, just as his other popularizing works seek to undercut other doctrinal positions that are drawn from Scripture and have been refined through the historic tradition of the church. This should only reinforce Christians' skepticism about inviting such a scholar to pose as an authoritative teacher to the faithful of God's flock. The online version of the article, written by Adam B. Kushner, can be found here.]

Cure for the post-Christian blues

A friend recently wrote to ask me for my definition of "post-Christian." It's a tricky term, and it probably gets thrown around too much. But I do think we are living in an increasingly post-Christian culture in this country. I see that primarily in that we can no longer count on people to be familiar with the Christian faith, the church, or the Bible simply by virtue of growing up in our society.

Now, many people have pointed out that society moving in a post-Christian direction is not necessarily such a bad thing. In a culture where everybody is a Christian, is anybody really Christian? Throughout most of the 20th century, it was far too easy for Americans to consider their Christian faith and their American citizenship as one in the same. A good Christian was a good, patriotic American. It was that simple. The danger of that type of confusion has been pointed out by many pastors and theologians in recent years.

Society is more 'secular' than ever, and it is becoming more so everyday. Just last night, I was flipping around the TV and paused at Real Time With Bill Maher and The Colbert Report. In the span of just a couple of minutes watching each show, the two hosts made vicious comments about Christian faith and practice. I know, I know. I should consider the sources. Bill Maher in particular is extremely hostile to religious faith of any kind (and not just Christian). And Colbert's a practicing Catholic who pokes at Christianity from the 'inside.'

But my point is this: it is now completely acceptable to ridicule Christian faith in mainstream media. For Maher, Colbert, and a hundred other TV and radio hosts. And not just in a satirical, joking way, but often in a way that is designed to denigrate and dismiss.

So what does this mean? It means that a kid growing up watching Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert rather than going to church is going to be formed in a very particular way. Not only will he not be a Christian; he will be hostile to Christianity. And since there are more and more kids every day who are growing up that way, our society is becoming increasingly post-Christian.

This is a huge challenge and a huge opportunity for Christians. It is a challenge because it means we have got to choose whether or not we really want to be Christians. After all, Christian identity is not just a matter of saying "I believe" with John 3:16 and leaving it at that. It is a way of life, to be lived in the place we call the church. So we are challenged to declare our allegiance. Will we go with Joshua, when he says, "As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:15)? Or will we let ourselves slip into a comfortably heathen existence?

And the opportunity? The opportunity is one for faithfulness. For far too long, we have lived as Laodiceans. If Christ returned today (and he might), we Methodists should not be surprised if he looked at us and said, "Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth" (Rev 3:16). But the transition to a post-Christian society means that the church no longer has to confuse citizenship with discipleship. We can live into a fervent faith. And if we don't, our failure to do so will become much more apparent (much more quickly) to both ourselves and others.

So we should be of good courage. Being Christian in a post-Christian world offers us the chance to practice a faith that has been scarcely seen in our culture's history.

The place of faith in my life

I admit that I don't reveal a lot of myself on this blog. I am most comfortable digging into and discussing issues facing the church. Those issues always involve me, as both a Christian and a pastor, but it is not easy for me to openly discuss my own place in the middle of all of it.

But I've got to tell you, I read something today that gave me a feeling I haven't had in a long, long time. It's a short article in the new issue of Newsweek magazine. The article discusses Harvard University's debates over whether to require its undergraduates to take a course in religion. Harvard isn't exactly returning to the bosom of the church, mind you. But some on the faculty do believe that living in a religiously complex world makes knowledge about religion a must.

Well, it ain't going to happen. As soon as a study group of faculty members offered a curriculum proposal that included the required religion course in the area of "faith and reason," a lot of other faculty members freaked out. Newsweek reports that most of them were from the science faculty, and that they felt offended that "faith" and "reason" were being mentioned in the same sentence. As the article explains, the scientists see the two as distinct forms of knowledge that should not be lumped together in anyway.

There was an element of condescension in the statement, of course. But that got me thinking: there are a whole lot of people out there who equate faith in God with pure superstition. I have always known this to be true, but I don't think about it very often.

That made me think what my life would be like without my faith.

And the thought of it scared me to death.

I mean, it made a nauseous, sick feeling go throughout my whole body. And I realized that removing my faith would remove the only reason I have to live on this earth. My entire day-to-day existence is tied to trying to live into my faith more and more. My whole sense of hope is wrapped up in the faith I have that Jesus Christ's purposes will be fulfilled - for me and for this world.

Don't pigeon hole what I mean by "hope." Yes, it is an ultimate hope - for a general resurrection of the dead and for life eternal. But it is also the hope that gives my earthly life meaning, that which helps me to make sense of suffering, of love, of my own existence.

I guess there are lots of people out there who just reconcile a complete lack of faith in God with their lives on earth. I don't envy them.

Remember Who You Are

Of the many obsessions that are rampant in our culture, one of the most widespread is the "hunger for the new." We live in a consumer culture, where the messages that we are bombarded with everyday all try to convince us that newer is better. After all, Ford and GM aren't going to sell a lot of 2007 models if they can't convince us that they are better than the 2006 versions. And Burger King's profit margin is dependent on their ability to convince us that their new, high-fat, calorie-laden 'value meal' is better than the equivalent at McDonald's and Wendy's.

So what kind of 'value' does this kind of message really get us? A number of things in my life lately have convinced me that I have been completely manipulated by our culture's hunger for the new. And I want to make a change in my life, so that I am listening to God more and to the culture less. We all chase after false idols at times, but I think I have finally figured out that the most dangerous ones are the ones you don't realize are idols. God has given me a number of 'aha' moments lately that have helped me start to locate some of those hidden idols in my own life. And I think the consumerist fetish with newness, novelty, and innovation is behind most of them.

I write about this in my column in the Reporter this week. I know that this is only the beginning of my wrestling with this issue. But the first step I am taking is to look behind in order to look ahead. This world will keep us distracted for our entire lives if we let it. To keep that from happening, we need to dive into the wisdom that the church is offering us - a wisdom built up over the course of 20 centuries. I think it's a heck of a better 'value' than anything the world has to offer.

Stereotyping Evangelicals

Everyone seems to have a strong opinion about evangelical Christianity. In fact, the very word "evangelical" is a polarizing one in our culture. I have known people in my life who practically recoil when they hear "evangelical," and I have known others who wouldn't think of themselves in any other way than as evangelicals.

I was raised in a traditional United Methodist church - not the most evangelical of contexts. I admit that when I was first exposed to evangelical expressions of faith, I was turned off by them. But that was mostly because the evangelicalism I was first exposed to was the evangelicalism of 1980s televangelists (not the best examples of the label). In the past few years of my life, on the other hand, I have been very drawn to evangelical Christianity for a number of reasons. The high authority of Scripture is one. The vibrancy of faith in every aspect of an evangelical's life is another. And frankly, I see in evangelicals a greater willingness to "take risks for Jesus" than I do in other Christian bodies, especially when those risks put the evangelical at odds with friends, family, or the larger culture. In short, I think evangelicals take discipleship more seriously.

Of course, in the wake of the Ted Haggard scandal, many in the media are once again turning to "evangelical bashing," primarily in the form of equating evangelical Christianity with the politically-oriented Religious Right (and the two are most certainly not the same thing). That's unfortunate. But I did run across this article in the Washington Post today, entitled, "Let's Stop Stereotyping Evangelicals." It makes a good case as to why the larger culture should take evangelicals seriously on their own terms.

This article also points out that a relatively recent development in the evangelical Christian community is a growing interest in social justice - that is, working to change the root causes of injustice rather than simply ameliorating the sufferings of individual victims of it. You see that in the work of evangelicals to combat AIDS, genocide, global poverty, etc. This has been the one piece that I think evangelical faith has lacked in the past, and it is also the one piece that has kept me from self-describing as an evangelical in my own faith. But I see a change in that now, and I can think of no better term to describe a Jesus-loving, church-committed, Scripture-reading, neighbor-caring, salvation-centered, injustice-fighting Christian person.

Am I an evangelical? You bet I am.