Many of you who read this blog on a regular basis (Thank you, by the way!) are familiar with a recent event that occurred in Virginia involving the dean of a seminary and his removal. I do not wish to be lumped with a certain group of bloggers, so I will leave specifics out of this post. However, for those who are not familiar with the situation, please see the link below.
Click here to see an article about the situation
I must admit that my first reactions to the breaking news were feelings of happiness. I was pleased to see that the serious accusations were addressed and the investigative committee had arrived at some respectable conclusions. I was very skeptical of the investigative committee from the beginning and thought it may have been formed simply "to sweep things under the rug." However, it is now clear that the committee actually did something.
Anyways...
While I am pleased, for the most part, to see the committee take action I question whether the entire matter was handled in the best way. If you read the above posted link you will see the public statement made by the investigative committee. You may notice some logical inconsistencies. For example, the statement about multiple "factual statements" that were self-contradictory. Beyond such flaws, the statement fails to communicate anything really substantive. For example, few questioned the religious background of the individual.
I believe the committee may have passed up an excellent opportunity to show grace in action to a watching world. While the committee admitted the individual's discrepancies and misstatements, at no point does the committee explicitly address the sin of lying. It seems as though the committee focused so much on downplaying the issue of deception that they neglected the significance of Christian grace.
It is true that the committee showed grace to the extent of allowing the individual to continue to teach. However, such grace does not appear to many to be significant owing to the fact the committee did not come to any significant conclusions about the individual. I don't think many would say that a couple of instances of "misspeaking" warrants the entire removal of an individual from a seminary's faculty.
I suppose I should stop rambling and get straight to the point. Evidence shows that the individual in question clearly lied. His contradicting statements were not simply examples of misspeaking, but were examples of outright lies. The committee should have published a statement that recognized the individual as a liar. Recognizing lies as simple "misstatements" is similar to recognizing an act of adultery by a minister as a simple "mis-meeting." He who lies is a liar. He who commits adultery is an adulterer. (Thank you, Way of the Master training videos.)
Let's look at a (rough) hypothetical public statement from the committee:
"After a thorough and exhaustive review of the individual's public statements, a committee consisting of members of the Board of Trustees has concluded that the individual has lied. The contradicting statements made by the individual cannot be recognized as simple misstatements or discrepancies.
"The individual has cooperated with the committee and sought repentance. He will soon be issuing a public apology owing to the public nature of his sins.
"As Christians, we acknowledge the grace God has shown to each one of us. Scripture teaches that man has rejected God and sins as an act of rebellion against God. It is only through God's grace that man may approach his Creator. Scripture points to Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of God's grace.
"Owing to the grace we, as Christians, have come to know through a relationship with Jesus Christ we have decided to show grace to the individual in question.
"The individual's contract with this institution as Dean expires at the conclusion of June. However, we have decided to offer the individual a contract for a teaching position in the coming academic year. "
I imagine that many would be surprised with such a statement. Such a statement recognizes the reality of the situation while also showing the public the grace shown towards the individual. The failure of the committee to recognize lies as lies prevents the significance of the institution's grace from being recognized. I believe some things remain swept under the rug following this investigation. It is disheartening to see that grace may have been sacrificed by the committee for the sake of better PR. I believe the committee missed an opportunity to turn a discussion about ignored sin into a public discourse on God's grace.
26 June 2010
The Man Who Misspoke (A Short Story)
There once was a man named Jonathan Ivan Kreznev. He was born in London in 1952 and moved to the United States in 1955. The Kreznev family, originally from Moscow, moved to England as the Soviets began to take power in Russia. Jonathan and his family enjoyed life in London, but decided better opportunities may be available across the Atlantic.
Jonathan attended public school in a small town in eastern Pennsylvania. His father worked as a professor in Philadelphia while his mother stayed at home with Jonathan and his brother, Peter. As Jonathan grew older, he came to realize the negative sentiments among Americans towards the Soviet Union. The U-2 incident in 1960 was the first major event to catch the eye of little Jonathan.
Jonathan grew older and continued to hear of fragile U.S.-Soviet Union relations, in addition to stories of gulags and Russian spies. Jonathan and his family regularly attended services at a local baptist church and every once and a while the preacher would mention the cruelty of the Godless Soviets. Occasionally, the local bookstore put on display the latest book written by a Soviet dissenter.
Jonathan enrolled in a history class during his high school years. He learned about the rise of communism in Russia and the Red scare and the Cuban missile crisis. Again, Jonathan realized the significance of communist Russians in the minds of many Americas. Jonathan studied Russian-American relations and began reading memoirs about gulag survivors who sought refuge in the safety of the United States.
While in high school, Jonathan approached the altar at the local baptist church and accepted the grace of God. He had attended church services almost all his life, but had never made a decision to follow Jesus Christ. A couple of years later, Jonathan attended a small Christian college and then received a graduate degree from a seminary.
As the years continued on, Jonathan Ivan Kreznev eventually received a doctorate degree. It was around this time that President Reagan opened up new talks with the Soviet Union. Many Americans were curious concerning U.S.-Soviet relations. A new generation had arisen that did not experience air-raid sirens or tense historic moments. Owing to his studies of Russian history, Jonathan began speaking to small groups of interested individuals concerning the rise of communism.
Occasionally, Jonathan would mention his family's history in Russia. His grandparents refused to join the communist movement. This eventually led his family to move to London before the situation in Russia got out of hand. Many in Jonathan's audiences were enthralled by the experiences of the Kreznev family. Word slowly spread of Jonathan's lectures about Russia and his testimony of coming to Jesus Christ in high school. Eventually, Jonathan was speaking in large churches throughout the United States.
And then it happened... The fall of the Berlin Wall.
The whole world witnessed the fall of an empire. Horror stories began leaking out about atrocities committed by Soviet leaders, such as Stalin. Jonathan's speeches became more and more exciting to eager listeners. Instead of talking about his grandparents' struggles, Jonathan began talking about his family's close affiliation with the Soviets. As the months passed by, Jonathan's stories became embellished with tales of espionage and attempted assassinations. His father, once known as a professor, was actually a key figure involved in communist indoctrination of American students. Jonathan and Peter had not grown up in a local church, but only began attending as a result of pressure from fellow peers. According to Jonathan, his future was laid out for him. He was to fall in his father's footsteps and attempt to bring about a change in mindset among young Americans.
Jonathan published a book about his experiences as a young communist that found faith in Jesus Christ. The book detailed accounts in the life of Ivan Kreznev. ("Jonathan" did not sound very Russian to the American public.) Ivan's new book increased his popularity among patriotic Christians in America. The stories of a young man escaping the grips of an evil, Godless empire opened even more doors for Ivan (a.k.a. Jonathan). These opportunities included multiple professorships at Christian colleges. In addition, Dr. Kreznev became the leader of a Christian organization devoted to theological education known as Freedom in Bible Discussion (FIBD).
Years passed by and the mid-1990s arrived. The Soviet Union was no longer a current issue in American minds. In some circles of influence rumors began arising concerning Dr. Kreznev. A couple of editorials were written in the local newspapers of Philadelphia questioning the authenticity of Ivan's claims. One writer noted his relationship with the Kreznev family upon their arrival to the U.S. in the 1950s. Another individual pointed out her relationship with the family as a Sunday school teacher at a small baptist church in eastern Pennsylvania. In addition, a former student of Ivan's father sent a letter to his local newspaper detailing intense lectures in which Ivan's father condemned communism. Ivan heard of these rumors and chose to ignore them. When questioned about his family's history, Ivan would simply call discrepancies in his speeches as misspoken words.
A small news agency began an investigation of the issue. Tapes of speeches presented by Dr. Kreznev were transcribed and analyzed. It became clear that tapes from the early 1980s sounded dramatically different from those of the late 1980s. Eventually, the mainstream media got ahold of the story. FIBD was forced to address the issue head-on.
A small committee was formed by FIBD in order to investigate Kreznev's stories. Some expected the committee to quickly get rid of Kreznev owing to his outright lies. Others were more loyal to Kreznev and expected the committee to support Kreznev no matter what. After a few weeks of investigation, FIBD released a notice to the public explaining the conclusions of the investigation. While the explanation did not address specific discrepancies, the committee had come to the conclusion that Kreznev had made false claims about his past. The public statement from the investigative committee failed to consider Kreznev a liar and left many questions unanswered. Dr. Kreznev was immediately relieved of his position in the FIBD. However, he was allowed to continue as a member of the FIBD board. In addition, only two of the five Christian colleges that employed Kreznev decided to cut ties with him. According to the committee, Kreznev had simply "misspoken" many times...
Disclaimer: Names in this story are fictional. (ie. There is no actual person named Jonathan Ivan Kreznev.)
Jonathan attended public school in a small town in eastern Pennsylvania. His father worked as a professor in Philadelphia while his mother stayed at home with Jonathan and his brother, Peter. As Jonathan grew older, he came to realize the negative sentiments among Americans towards the Soviet Union. The U-2 incident in 1960 was the first major event to catch the eye of little Jonathan.
Jonathan grew older and continued to hear of fragile U.S.-Soviet Union relations, in addition to stories of gulags and Russian spies. Jonathan and his family regularly attended services at a local baptist church and every once and a while the preacher would mention the cruelty of the Godless Soviets. Occasionally, the local bookstore put on display the latest book written by a Soviet dissenter.
Jonathan enrolled in a history class during his high school years. He learned about the rise of communism in Russia and the Red scare and the Cuban missile crisis. Again, Jonathan realized the significance of communist Russians in the minds of many Americas. Jonathan studied Russian-American relations and began reading memoirs about gulag survivors who sought refuge in the safety of the United States.
While in high school, Jonathan approached the altar at the local baptist church and accepted the grace of God. He had attended church services almost all his life, but had never made a decision to follow Jesus Christ. A couple of years later, Jonathan attended a small Christian college and then received a graduate degree from a seminary.
As the years continued on, Jonathan Ivan Kreznev eventually received a doctorate degree. It was around this time that President Reagan opened up new talks with the Soviet Union. Many Americans were curious concerning U.S.-Soviet relations. A new generation had arisen that did not experience air-raid sirens or tense historic moments. Owing to his studies of Russian history, Jonathan began speaking to small groups of interested individuals concerning the rise of communism.
Occasionally, Jonathan would mention his family's history in Russia. His grandparents refused to join the communist movement. This eventually led his family to move to London before the situation in Russia got out of hand. Many in Jonathan's audiences were enthralled by the experiences of the Kreznev family. Word slowly spread of Jonathan's lectures about Russia and his testimony of coming to Jesus Christ in high school. Eventually, Jonathan was speaking in large churches throughout the United States.
And then it happened... The fall of the Berlin Wall.
The whole world witnessed the fall of an empire. Horror stories began leaking out about atrocities committed by Soviet leaders, such as Stalin. Jonathan's speeches became more and more exciting to eager listeners. Instead of talking about his grandparents' struggles, Jonathan began talking about his family's close affiliation with the Soviets. As the months passed by, Jonathan's stories became embellished with tales of espionage and attempted assassinations. His father, once known as a professor, was actually a key figure involved in communist indoctrination of American students. Jonathan and Peter had not grown up in a local church, but only began attending as a result of pressure from fellow peers. According to Jonathan, his future was laid out for him. He was to fall in his father's footsteps and attempt to bring about a change in mindset among young Americans.
Jonathan published a book about his experiences as a young communist that found faith in Jesus Christ. The book detailed accounts in the life of Ivan Kreznev. ("Jonathan" did not sound very Russian to the American public.) Ivan's new book increased his popularity among patriotic Christians in America. The stories of a young man escaping the grips of an evil, Godless empire opened even more doors for Ivan (a.k.a. Jonathan). These opportunities included multiple professorships at Christian colleges. In addition, Dr. Kreznev became the leader of a Christian organization devoted to theological education known as Freedom in Bible Discussion (FIBD).
Years passed by and the mid-1990s arrived. The Soviet Union was no longer a current issue in American minds. In some circles of influence rumors began arising concerning Dr. Kreznev. A couple of editorials were written in the local newspapers of Philadelphia questioning the authenticity of Ivan's claims. One writer noted his relationship with the Kreznev family upon their arrival to the U.S. in the 1950s. Another individual pointed out her relationship with the family as a Sunday school teacher at a small baptist church in eastern Pennsylvania. In addition, a former student of Ivan's father sent a letter to his local newspaper detailing intense lectures in which Ivan's father condemned communism. Ivan heard of these rumors and chose to ignore them. When questioned about his family's history, Ivan would simply call discrepancies in his speeches as misspoken words.
A small news agency began an investigation of the issue. Tapes of speeches presented by Dr. Kreznev were transcribed and analyzed. It became clear that tapes from the early 1980s sounded dramatically different from those of the late 1980s. Eventually, the mainstream media got ahold of the story. FIBD was forced to address the issue head-on.
A small committee was formed by FIBD in order to investigate Kreznev's stories. Some expected the committee to quickly get rid of Kreznev owing to his outright lies. Others were more loyal to Kreznev and expected the committee to support Kreznev no matter what. After a few weeks of investigation, FIBD released a notice to the public explaining the conclusions of the investigation. While the explanation did not address specific discrepancies, the committee had come to the conclusion that Kreznev had made false claims about his past. The public statement from the investigative committee failed to consider Kreznev a liar and left many questions unanswered. Dr. Kreznev was immediately relieved of his position in the FIBD. However, he was allowed to continue as a member of the FIBD board. In addition, only two of the five Christian colleges that employed Kreznev decided to cut ties with him. According to the committee, Kreznev had simply "misspoken" many times...
Disclaimer: Names in this story are fictional. (ie. There is no actual person named Jonathan Ivan Kreznev.)
08 June 2010
So Call Me a Hippie... Pacifism
Another common theme associated with the hippie movement is pacifism. It only takes a few minutes of listening to popular songs from the 1960s to figure out that war was not accepted by the hippie movement. Members of the movement focused mainly on the Vietnam War and questioned whether the United States should be involved in conflicts that do not directly impact the U.S. Unfortunately, many took their anti-war stances to the extremes of mocking members of the military, making cruel accusations against soldiers, or, at the very least, ignoring the sacrifices made by those in the U.S. military in support of the United States.
The anti-war campaign revealed another aspect of humanity- the desire for peace. I have personally struggled with the issue of pacifism for the last few years. Those who knew me prior to college (and even some who knew me my first year of college) viewed me as a patriotic Republican who supported all U.S. efforts at world dominance. However, since those years I have come to realize the dark side of war. The taking of life is a significant issue, whether the victim be young or old. While some become enthralled with war to the point of becoming blood-thirsty, the majority of people on this earth have a sense of longing for a time absent of conflict. The hippie movement, in part, reflected this desire for an end to all wars.
The topic of pacifism may be viewed as a touchy subject in the United States, especially among Christians. While we long for peace, the long-term consequences of war (more land, resources, authority, etc.) can often overshadow the short-term consequences (loss of life, destroyed land, high costs, etc.) Many Christians in the United States decide to go with the agenda of the Republican party without question. However, one must question to what extent a follower of Jesus Christ can support warfare. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example, was a very peaceful man who spent many years studying theology. Nonetheless, he supported efforts to assassinate Hitler during the Second World War. Of course, few question whether WWII was a just war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq... These wars are definitely more questionable in terms of just war theory.
A couple of years ago I wrote down a small essay in my moleskin concerning my stance on pacifism. I recall hearing a Q&A with John Piper in which Piper explained his stance on handguns in the house. While not directly linked to war, Piper's words hit me quite hard. In the interview Piper questions whether a Christian man who confronts a burglar should have a gun to defend himself. Piper brought up the concept that it is better for the Christian to die than for the burglar (who is presumably not Christian) to be killed prior to hearing the gospel and possibly coming to faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, God's sovereignty comes into play regarding the salvation of any individual. Nonetheless, one wonders how war should be viewed in light of the gospel and missionary work. For example, should a Christian support a war in the Middle East when Muslims are predominantly being killed without ever hearing the gospel? As I noted earlier, this is a very touchy subject. One might argue, for example, that bringing freedom to a closed society will pave the way for Christians to eventually live freely in the society and spread the gospel.
Pacifism is a fragile subject. To what extent should the Christian object to a war that is being fought by his home country? How can a Christian have a love for peace, yet support war efforts? At what point does the Christian actively pursue peace with regards to government actions? The questions go on and on. The hippie movement in the 1960s revealed the human longing for peace in a world torn up by war. However, few hippies understood that peace is impossible in a world filled with sinful humans. Nonetheless, perhaps we can learn something from the hippies- pacifism is something that should be considered.
With regards to pacifism, I continue to ponder my stance. I hope you think about it, as well. Stay tuned for future posts...
02 June 2010
So Call Me a Hippie... Community
An event frequently linked to the hippie movement in the United States is Woodstock. The summer of 1969, referred to by some as the "Summer of Love" may be considered to be the peak moment in time for American hippies. The so-called Summer of Love focused heavily on the concept of "Make Love, Not War." The Summer of Love events that occurred in San Francisco during the summer of 1969 eventually led to the establishment of the first STD and drug rehab clinics in California. Whether it be at the music festival in New York or the summer activities in San Francisco, the summer of 1969 may be historically characterized by sex and drugs.
Nonetheless, I would like to look at the root issues at play in the hippie events in the summer of 1969. Namely, the longing for community. Few can deny the deep desires of those involved in the hippie movement for a world of peace in which everyone may live freely. This is easily seen in the songs of peace and friendship that characterize the 1960s. In addition, the desire for a free environment is most notably identified with "free love" and excessive drug use. While the desires for peace and community are noble, the hippie movement obviously went too far with many of their ideas. After all, is an environment of addictive substances truly free? The government may not be controlling the individual, but clearly the addictive drugs take hold. Also, free love may seem like an excellent idea to those seeking love and acceptance, until STDs run rampant and hearts are broken.
Community is an essential element of humanity. This is clearly seen in such movements as the Russian communists in the first part of the twentieth century, the Nazis in the 1930s, the hippie movement of the 1960s, and the modern day Tea Party movement. (Note: I am not placing all of these movements on the same level of morality.) People long to unite with one another under the banner of one cause. The communists united under the banner of economic equality. The hippies united under the causes of peace and love. The Tea Party movement unites under the banners of less government and lower taxes. Historically, one can see various movements of large groups of individuals uniting under a common purpose.
While uniting in support of a certain cause may be viewed as respectable, many movements in history have united for the wrong reasons and led to more problems than solutions. An extreme example of this is seen in the Nazi movement. The problem is not the uniting of individuals, but the causes of that union. As previously mentioned, community is an element of being human.
The hippie movement united in the name of love and peace, but led to excessive sex and drug abuse. In reality, the hippie movement focused on fulfilling sexual desires and creating a false utopia through psychedelic experiences. In essence- selfishness. While some may argue that hippies longed for a community that embraces everyone, most hippies joined the movement in order to fulfill carnal desires and feel good. The uniting of individuals for the purpose of promoting self-interests is not true community.
The hippie movement revealed a desire for community. However, any man-made group who is united around man-made concepts cannot truly reveal community. A concept of love that leads to sex with everyone is not true love. The concept of freedom through peace that leads to drug abuse is not true freedom. True community focuses on union through selfless love. While the hippie movement identified the problems of a society that is focused more on conquering others than uniting as humanity, the movement failed to provide a solution- true community. I would contend that true community cannot arise apart from true love. Unfortunately, the hippie movement chose selfish love over love for others. Therefore, the attempt to become a large community by hippies in the 1960s must be identified as a perpetuation of man's problem of self-love rather than a solution to man's longing for a community of individuals who share selfless love.
I believe in true community. I share the dream of every race and nation uniting in peace and love. So, on the surface level, the hippies got it right. However, on the level of practicality, the hippies totally got it wrong. As previously mentioned, true community must occur with true love. True love may only be realized through a relationship with the Creator, the very source of love. However, owing to man's rebellion against God, man is unable to have a relationship with the Creator through his own efforts. Therefore, man is unable to experience love in its purest, unselfish form. However, God came down to man's level in the person of Jesus Christ in order to provide a way to restore the relationship between man and God. This act of grace opens the door for man to experience true love and true community. The only way for true community to occur is through a union of individuals who have experienced true love offered by God and seek to reveal God's holiness to others. Therefore, community is not about seeking self-interest, but recognizing the love of God as revealed through Jesus Christ and seeking to show that love to others. Community in and of itself is not bad. The problem with community arises, as it did in the hippie movement, when we attempt to create an imitation of community in order to pursue our own interests, rather than pursuing love for the Creator and love for others.
Stay tuned for more additions to the So Call Me a Hippie... series.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)