I have seen few things in my life that cause me to wonder about our common humanity more than what happened in China last week. A two year old toddler, carelessly run down by a van in a busy marketplace. Not only did the driver just drive off and leave little Yueyue to die, 18 people passed by in the next 6 minutes and none of them made any effort whatsoever to help that poor and precious little girl laying there suffering and dying. A trash collector finally pulled her to the side of the road (how ironic is that!) but she died later in hospital.
People were quick to condemn China as a reprobate society unlike our own, pointing to things like the ‘culture of fear left over from the Cultural Revolution’, or the authoritarian state, or the newly enjoyed economics and rampant materialism. There may be some truth to those observations but to suggest that we are somehow substantively different is to be in denial. Similar types of incidents have occurred elsewhere including here in North America.
In April of last year, you may recall hearing on the news about a 31 year old homeless man named Hugo Tale-Yax who was walking down a street in Queen’s, N.Y. at 6:00 AM when he came upon a woman being threatened by a man with a knife. He came to the woman’s rescue only to have the attacker turn on him stabbing him several times. Not only did the assailant then flee but so did the woman! And then, as the surveillance video shows, more than two dozen people, walked by the wounded man as he laid there holding his stomach, groaning in pain. More than one person stopped and rolled him over to see how badly he was wounded and one person even took a picture! But no one helped. Eventually, someone did stop and called an ambulance. But more than two dozen people and 80 minutes had passed by and it was too late for Mr. Tale-Yax who died shortly afterward.
In commenting on little Yueyue’s tragic end, people have been referring to the ‘bystander effect’ but the ‘bystander effect’ doesn’t really apply either in her case or in Hugo’s. The ‘bystander effect’ suggests that the likelihood of anyone helping someone in need drops as the number of ‘bystanders’ rises. It is believed that the numbers create a kind of ‘diffusion of responsibility’. But, in both of the above cases, there were no crowds standing and watching. They were passers by who had nothing but their own conscience to guide them. There was no opportunity for a ‘diffusion of responsibility’, only an absence of it altogether! And such was also the case when Jesus, who was the first one on record to profile the ‘Passerby Effect’, reported on the case of the Good Samaritan (See Luke 10:25-37)
In each of these cases - Yueyue, Hugo, and the unnamed man on the Jericho road so many years ago - people didn’t stand there in a crowd, frozen in some kind of state of ‘diffused responsibility’ (not that this is acceptable either). One by one, they walked by … around … over… the helpless victim lying there in pain, without lifting even one finger to offer any kind of help or care. So, if the ‘Bystander Effect’ is attributable to ‘diffused responsibility’, how do we explain this?
It’s incomprehensible. All I can say is, may God deliver me and anyone who reads this from that kind of hard-heartedness.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Most Dangerous
Erik Raymond is a church planter with a blog site called ‘Ordinary Pastor’. I don’t know much about him but a few weeks ago he posted - ‘Who Is The Most Dangerous Guy In Your Church?’
That’s a pretty intriguing title, enough that I had to check it out. Here’s a quote:
“Sure, we all can spot the unbeliever who doesn’t fluently speak the language of Zion, we can identify the person from doctrinally anemic backgrounds because they keep cutting themselves with the sharp knives in the theology drawer, and of course any Calvinist can sniff out an Arminian within 20 seconds. But I submit that these types of people are not the most dangerous people that attend your church. At least, they are not in my experience.”
Last time I checked the post has 87 comments so that says something. I’m certainly not the only one looking for the answer to that question. But it might not be what you think. Here is his take on the answer:
“This is the guy who seems to have a lot of biblical knowledge. He can drop the 30 lb. words and effectively argue his point. Very often he is quite involved and appears to have things together. However, he is dangerous because of the reason you would not think, he is un-teachable.”
This really resonated with me. Not necessarily the ‘most dangerous guy’ thing, but just the whole sense of disaster when we allow an un-teachable attitude to become ours. When we start to think that we don’t need to listen anymore, that is when we stop learning, and honestly, none of us can afford to stop learning – NONE of us.
Everyone has something they can teach me. I have to always remind myself that my perspective is singular and somewhat limited. No matter how much learning I accomplish or how wise I might become, in the end I see only a slice and someone else sees things I don’t. I’m not suggesting that truth is all subjective. Nor am I suggesting that we should simply accept anything that anyone says they believe as true simply because they see it as true. But I am suggesting that no matter how much I learn, I still have more to learn and my knowledge will always be limited and my mind will always be subject to err. And therefore, I must always be humble enough to consider that I don’t have it all figured out and someone, anyone, might see something that just hasn’t been on my radar.
In many way, humility really is the mother of all virtues.
That’s a pretty intriguing title, enough that I had to check it out. Here’s a quote:
“Sure, we all can spot the unbeliever who doesn’t fluently speak the language of Zion, we can identify the person from doctrinally anemic backgrounds because they keep cutting themselves with the sharp knives in the theology drawer, and of course any Calvinist can sniff out an Arminian within 20 seconds. But I submit that these types of people are not the most dangerous people that attend your church. At least, they are not in my experience.”
Last time I checked the post has 87 comments so that says something. I’m certainly not the only one looking for the answer to that question. But it might not be what you think. Here is his take on the answer:
“This is the guy who seems to have a lot of biblical knowledge. He can drop the 30 lb. words and effectively argue his point. Very often he is quite involved and appears to have things together. However, he is dangerous because of the reason you would not think, he is un-teachable.”
This really resonated with me. Not necessarily the ‘most dangerous guy’ thing, but just the whole sense of disaster when we allow an un-teachable attitude to become ours. When we start to think that we don’t need to listen anymore, that is when we stop learning, and honestly, none of us can afford to stop learning – NONE of us.
Everyone has something they can teach me. I have to always remind myself that my perspective is singular and somewhat limited. No matter how much learning I accomplish or how wise I might become, in the end I see only a slice and someone else sees things I don’t. I’m not suggesting that truth is all subjective. Nor am I suggesting that we should simply accept anything that anyone says they believe as true simply because they see it as true. But I am suggesting that no matter how much I learn, I still have more to learn and my knowledge will always be limited and my mind will always be subject to err. And therefore, I must always be humble enough to consider that I don’t have it all figured out and someone, anyone, might see something that just hasn’t been on my radar.
In many way, humility really is the mother of all virtues.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Children of Israel
In kids church one morning little Bobby raised his hand to ask a question. He looked perplexed when he said to the teacher,
“There’s something I can't figure out. According to the Bible, the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, right?”
“That’s right”, the teacher said.
“And the Children of Israel beat up the Philistines, right?”
“Right again” said the teacher.
“And the Children of Israel built the Temple, right?”
“Yes, that’s right also”, the teacher responded, now starting to wonder where this was all leading.
“And the Children of Israel fought the Canaanites and the Children of Israel were always doing something important, right?”.
“Again, that’s right Bobby, so what’s your question?”
“Well”, says Bobby, “I was just wondering, what were all the grown-ups doing?”
“There’s something I can't figure out. According to the Bible, the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, right?”
“That’s right”, the teacher said.
“And the Children of Israel beat up the Philistines, right?”
“Right again” said the teacher.
“And the Children of Israel built the Temple, right?”
“Yes, that’s right also”, the teacher responded, now starting to wonder where this was all leading.
“And the Children of Israel fought the Canaanites and the Children of Israel were always doing something important, right?”.
“Again, that’s right Bobby, so what’s your question?”
“Well”, says Bobby, “I was just wondering, what were all the grown-ups doing?”
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Canadian Freedom
I have decided for this post to simply cut and paste a news bulletin from Bruce Clemenger, the President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada that I received in my e-mail box today. It is a matter for much prayer. Here it is for your consideration:
The EFC to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada:
The Supreme Court is about to hear the most challenging case to our religious freedom. On October 12 the Court will be asked to decide whether it is permissible in Canada to express religious convictions that others find offensive. Do we have the freedom to proclaim biblical truth in the public square or will our speech be restricted to that which no one finds troubling? In Canada, do we have true religious freedom or only the freedom to believe but not to speak about our beliefs if theses beliefs do not offend others?
The case is about flyers distributed by William Whatcott that were found by a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to promote “hatred towards individuals because of their sexual orientation.” He was fined $17,500.00. The flyers contained vehement comments about the sexual practices of same-sex couples. They also expressed his views on morality, sexual behaviour and public policy that reflected his religious beliefs. The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the decision and the Court of Appeal overturned it. The Human Rights Commission appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As Christians, we are called to speak the truth about what we believe God requires – and so always as an expression of love. The EFC firmly believes that it is, in fact, the very opposite of hatred when we tell someone, on the basis of Scripture, that their actions are standing between them and a fuller understanding of the depth of God’s love for them.
One of the key issues that the EFC will address is whether one can challenge and denounce the activity of a person or group without being found to be promoting hatred or contempt against the people engaged in the activity. A basic tenant of the Christian faith is that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” God despises sin but loves the sinner. Likewise, as disciples of Christ, we are to love others as God loves us while standing against activity that is contrary to justice and righteousness.
As we argue in our factum, the legal brief we submitted to the Supreme Court:
"It is not only possible to criticize certain behaviour without hating those exhibiting that behaviour, but criticizing such behaviour is often an expression of love. Evangelical Christians hold the belief in redemption as foundational to our existence. This is a context for interpretation of expression in which a distinction is made between acceptance and approval, agreement and tolerance. All people are fallen. All people can be redeemed. Thus all people are accepted in their personhood, for their inestimable worth. However, not all activity is acceptable; thus, while accepting the person, the Christian is called by Christ to disapprove of certain actions."
We argue that the expression of our faith, in word and deed, is a necessary and integral component of our faith and serves the public good:
"Evangelical Christianity calls for the imperatives of love for God and one’s neighbour as demonstrated in a religious faith that is integrated, active and holistic. Evangelical Christians practice and manifest their faith not only through religious worship, prayer, and doctrinal teaching, but also through activities of social service, charitable work, social activism and through participation in public dialogue 'for the good of their neighbour', and for the benefit of their society, all of which constitute a manifestation and exercise of their religious beliefs and values."
We also argue that it is contrary to our beliefs to confine our religious expression within the walls of a church. Our responsibility before God is to express our faith and moral perspective in word and deed to the broader society in which we live.
"For Evangelical Christians, social engagement within and outside one’s religious community is part of an outward expression of faith, obedience to and worship of God. The imperative to love goes beyond the confines of the Church. The Christian is compelled to love her neighbour as herself. Jesus taught that “neighbour” is anyone with whom a person comes into contact, and that “love” includes sharing the truth, as understood from Scripture, out of a genuine concern for the wellbeing of the neighbour."
What is at stake in this case is our ability to be public about the implications of faith in Jesus Christ for life and society. We do not seek to compel belief; we do want to participate in respectful debates about the nature of truth and live according to the Gospel. In the language of the public square, this means:
“The idea that to achieve tolerance, the non-violent and peaceful views of a religious minority, even if offensive to some, must be censored and punished with a hefty fine is unjustified and legally unsupportable in a society that is constitutionally pluralist, multicultural and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience.”
The implications of this case are significant. We solicit your prayers and support as we stand for the freedom in Canada to be disciples of Christ Jesus.
I remain grateful for your support.
Bruce Clemenger
President, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
The EFC to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada:
The Supreme Court is about to hear the most challenging case to our religious freedom. On October 12 the Court will be asked to decide whether it is permissible in Canada to express religious convictions that others find offensive. Do we have the freedom to proclaim biblical truth in the public square or will our speech be restricted to that which no one finds troubling? In Canada, do we have true religious freedom or only the freedom to believe but not to speak about our beliefs if theses beliefs do not offend others?
The case is about flyers distributed by William Whatcott that were found by a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to promote “hatred towards individuals because of their sexual orientation.” He was fined $17,500.00. The flyers contained vehement comments about the sexual practices of same-sex couples. They also expressed his views on morality, sexual behaviour and public policy that reflected his religious beliefs. The Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the decision and the Court of Appeal overturned it. The Human Rights Commission appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As Christians, we are called to speak the truth about what we believe God requires – and so always as an expression of love. The EFC firmly believes that it is, in fact, the very opposite of hatred when we tell someone, on the basis of Scripture, that their actions are standing between them and a fuller understanding of the depth of God’s love for them.
One of the key issues that the EFC will address is whether one can challenge and denounce the activity of a person or group without being found to be promoting hatred or contempt against the people engaged in the activity. A basic tenant of the Christian faith is that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” God despises sin but loves the sinner. Likewise, as disciples of Christ, we are to love others as God loves us while standing against activity that is contrary to justice and righteousness.
As we argue in our factum, the legal brief we submitted to the Supreme Court:
"It is not only possible to criticize certain behaviour without hating those exhibiting that behaviour, but criticizing such behaviour is often an expression of love. Evangelical Christians hold the belief in redemption as foundational to our existence. This is a context for interpretation of expression in which a distinction is made between acceptance and approval, agreement and tolerance. All people are fallen. All people can be redeemed. Thus all people are accepted in their personhood, for their inestimable worth. However, not all activity is acceptable; thus, while accepting the person, the Christian is called by Christ to disapprove of certain actions."
We argue that the expression of our faith, in word and deed, is a necessary and integral component of our faith and serves the public good:
"Evangelical Christianity calls for the imperatives of love for God and one’s neighbour as demonstrated in a religious faith that is integrated, active and holistic. Evangelical Christians practice and manifest their faith not only through religious worship, prayer, and doctrinal teaching, but also through activities of social service, charitable work, social activism and through participation in public dialogue 'for the good of their neighbour', and for the benefit of their society, all of which constitute a manifestation and exercise of their religious beliefs and values."
We also argue that it is contrary to our beliefs to confine our religious expression within the walls of a church. Our responsibility before God is to express our faith and moral perspective in word and deed to the broader society in which we live.
"For Evangelical Christians, social engagement within and outside one’s religious community is part of an outward expression of faith, obedience to and worship of God. The imperative to love goes beyond the confines of the Church. The Christian is compelled to love her neighbour as herself. Jesus taught that “neighbour” is anyone with whom a person comes into contact, and that “love” includes sharing the truth, as understood from Scripture, out of a genuine concern for the wellbeing of the neighbour."
What is at stake in this case is our ability to be public about the implications of faith in Jesus Christ for life and society. We do not seek to compel belief; we do want to participate in respectful debates about the nature of truth and live according to the Gospel. In the language of the public square, this means:
“The idea that to achieve tolerance, the non-violent and peaceful views of a religious minority, even if offensive to some, must be censored and punished with a hefty fine is unjustified and legally unsupportable in a society that is constitutionally pluralist, multicultural and guarantees freedom of religion and conscience.”
The implications of this case are significant. We solicit your prayers and support as we stand for the freedom in Canada to be disciples of Christ Jesus.
I remain grateful for your support.
Bruce Clemenger
President, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)