The Spirit of the Rainforest

Our post-Enlightenment worldview is so engrained in most of us that we are unaware of its existence.  It is the lens through which we see and interpret reality.  There are many important aspects to that worldview, but for the moment I only want to focus on one of them: the neat compartmentalization of the material and the spiritual in our thinking. 

For some in our society, specifically the secular humanists, the spiritual world is not simply segregated from the material world—its very existence is denied.  What the tools of reason and logic cannot define and measure is assumed to be unreal. 

But atheistic philosophers were not the only ones to buy into this view.  As Dallas Willard pointed out in The Divine Conspiracy: 

…Rudolf Bultmann, long regarded as one of the great leaders of twentieth-century thought, had this to say: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.”

     To anyone who has worked through the relevant arguments, this statement is simply laughable.  It only shows that great people are capable of great silliness.  Yet this kind of thinking dominates much of our intellectual and professional life at present, and in particular has governed by far the greater part of the field of biblical studies for more than a century.[i] 

But even Western evangelical Christians, though accepting the reality of a spirit world, do a very thorough job of isolating that world from conscious thought.  We relegate the spirit world to “someplace else.”  The world of sight and touch and taste and sound and smell we encounter daily is a material reality completely separated from any spiritual world that we may affirm. 

Such was not the case for most of human history and is still not the case in much of the world.  It was certainly not the case in the Celtic Christian tradition. 

In Celtic Christianity God’s gracious power, God’s spirit, one might say God’s grace, is everywhere in the natural world and in all our dealings with it, as much as it is in all those spiritual persons who are on God’s side or have gone to God’s side at last… 

…no one who does not come to grips with the nearness of the spirit world will ever understand Celtic Christianity.[ii] 

Jungleman, a Yanomamö Indian shaman, would have easily related to Celtic Christian spirituality.  For the last half of the 20^th Century Jungleman watched with growing dismay as missionaries serving deep in Venezuela’s Amazon Basin under the auspices of New Tribes Missions, worked to win Yanomamös to Christ.  Spirit of the Rainforest[iii] is Jungleman’s first-person account of what happened. 

The Yanomamö of the Amazon are one of the cruelest and most war-like people on earth.  Until very recently most Yanomamös still lived in the Stone Age.  As the author describes them: 

The Yanomamö are one of the world’s most mysterious peoples.  Small, rarely over five feet tall, they have the speed, strength, and agility of a jungle cat.  Their women can tote their own weight up and down a jungle trail that would challenge me even if I were empty handed.  Their men can call, track, and shoot anything that breathes in a jungle that is hostile enough to kill anyone but a trained survivalist.[iv] 

Spirit of the Rainforest is Jungleman’s story as told to the author during six visits to Amazonas over a period of 13 years.  With at times horrifying matter-of-factness, the old shaman recounts brutal attacks by rival clans of Yanomamös against each other.  Men, women, children, and infants are slaughtered alike without hesitation.  Women are casually gang-raped and taken as slaves.  These attacks lead in turn to retaliatory counterattacks, setting up feuds that continue for generations.  Shamans call upon the spirit world to aid them in attacking their enemies.  Against this grim reality, courageous missionaries work patiently in miserable tropical isolation to slowly win converts to Jesus, their work often undermined by immoral anthropologists determined to keep the Yanomamö stuck firmly in the Stone Age as a curiosity to be studied—and often abused. 

Spirit of the Rainforest is fascinating glimpse at a way of understanding reality dramatically different than our Western post-Enlightenment worldview.  Read it and you will never think about the spirit world in the same way again.

---

[i] Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, A division of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1998), 93.

[ii] James P. Mackey, ed., An Introduction to Celtic Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1989), 13, 11.

[iii] Mark Andrew Ritchie, Spirit of the Rainforest: A Yanomamö Shaman’s Story, 2^nd Ed. (Chicago: Island Lake Press, 2000.

[iv] Ibid, 7.

A Great Quote from Augustine

Here is a marvelous quote from St. Augustine that ought to be required reading at every evangelical college and seminary in the country.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.  Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.  The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.  If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?  Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.  For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Timothy 1:7] 

– St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Chapter 19.

What's In a Name?

Making the national news this week is a proposed name change for the Southern Baptist Convention.  It’s an idea that’s been periodically revisited—and then rejected—for decades.

I spent 30 years of my ministry working in Southern Baptist Convention churches outside the South, first in Northern California, then in Chicago, and finally in Minnesota and Wisconsin.  In my experience all three words in the SBC name are problematic.

Southern has obvious regional connotations that are especially negative in places like the Upper Midwest and the Northeast—at least as negative as being identified as a New Yorker would be in Tupelo, Mississippi.  The Civil War didn’t end with a peace treaty—just a grudging cease-fire.  Regionally-based suspicions and misconceptions still abound in American life.

Baptist is a word that has long carried with it a lot of negative and confusing stereotypes in the minds of secular people, even among secular Southerners.  Some of these stereotypes are misplaced; some, not so much.  Many automatically associate Baptists with Fundamentalists.  Some Northerners actually believe that Baptists represent some weird cult, like the snake handlers of Appalachia.  When I worked for the Chicago Metropolitan Baptist Association in the late ‘80s we commissioned a focus group study on the perceptions raised by the name Southern Baptist.  We learned that our new suburban church plants were automatically assumed to be Black churches since the words “Black” and “Baptist” were strongly connected in Chicago.  Too often Southern Baptists have unwittingly defined themselves by what they are against—not a strong selling point.  And for the last 30+ years SBC leadership has so often equated conservative theology with conservative politics that for outsiders, a Southern Baptist church is automatically assumed to be a voter recruitment center for the Republican Party—a big turn off for millions of Democrats and Independents as well as for many Republicans.

And then there is word Convention which in the minds of most people is more readily associated with trade shows in Las Vegas than with a religious body—not exactly a desirable connotation for the largest Protestant denomination in North America.

The study group established at last June’s SBC Annual Meeting has announced a recommendation that the SBC keep its current legal name.  Changing it would be enormously expensive and complicated.  It would be confusing and would open up the probability that some other group would begin using the name.  Instead they are recommending the informal use of the name Great Commission Baptist be encouraged in places where the label Southern Baptist is a problem.  I suspect that this is simply adding a new public relations problem for Nashville.  It smacks of incredible arrogance.  Is the study group suggesting that the many other Baptist bodies are not committed to fulfilling the Great Commission?

The ties between Rivermont Avenue Baptist Church and the Southern Baptist Convention have long been tenuous.  There has never been any formal separation nor is there any pressure to make such a break today.  But for many years the SBC and RABC have been drifting in slowly diverging directions.  What the future holds, I cannot say.  But in my year at RABC I certainly see no evidence that this gap was caused because Rivermont Avenue Baptist Church is somehow less committed to the Great Commission than are other Southern Baptists.

In Defense of Religious Liberty

As Americans we tend to take our religious liberty for granted.  Many of us grew up hearing stories about how in 1620 the pilgrims fled Plymouth, England for the wilderness in what would eventually be called Massachusetts, expressly for the freedom to worship God as they saw fit.  Today many mistakenly believe that freedom of religion was consistently maintained and universally available during the colonial period.  Such was not the case.  In some colonies dissenting Christians were routinely arrested, imprisoned and fined.  Their property was seized.  Their church buildings were burned.  Some were even physically tortured.  And the worst villain—the most consistent perpetrator of religious persecution among the English colonies—was none other than the Colony of Virginia.  This persecution reached its zenith in the 1760s and 70s in the years immediately prior to the revolution.  The primary target of Virginia’s religious persecution was none other than the Baptists.

Baptist historian, Robert A. Baker, related that the bitter experience of religious persecution by order of representatives of the Crown, in close concert with the Church of England, “led Baptists almost to a man to believe that the only possibility of securing religious liberty was bound up with the achievement of political liberty.”  Consequently, Baptists in Virginia were actively involved in both political agitation and in taking up arms against the king.  Baker adds, “England recognized this, and Baptist churches were regularly burned by their troops during the war as ‘nests of rebellion.’”

Therefore it should come as no surprise that when freedom from British rule was finally achieved, Virginia Baptists were determined that the new federal government would enshrine religious freedom in its new constitution.  On September 17, 1787 the Constitutional Convention adopted the new constitution and sent it to the thirteen states for ratification.  Soon thereafter Virginia Baptists gathered to examine the proposed constitution.  They “unanimously agreed that it did not make proper provision for religious liberty…”  So Rev. John Leland, a popular Baptist pastor in Orange County, fought against ratification by announcing his candidacy as a delegate to the Virginia Convention that would vote on the document.  His opponent was none other than James Madison, who favored ratification.  The two men met privately.  Leland helped Madison understand the Baptists’ concerns.  After securing Madison’s pledge to address these issues forthwith, Leland withdrew from the race in support of Madison, who was then elected.  The constitution was ratified.  Afterwards Baptists supported the election of James Madison to the new congress.  Then in June, 1789, Madison introduced ten amendments to the new constitution, the first of which guaranteed freedom of religion.

We Virginia Baptists can take particular pride in our historic role in establishing and preserving religious liberty in the United States.  But liberty once won must continually be defended.  Today religious liberty in the United States is under new attack.  Whether deliberate or inadvertent, the inclusion of a provision of the new healthcare law requiring church owned and operated schools and hospitals to provide free birth control—including the so-called “morning after pill” which at times works by inducing the abortion of the newly fertilized egg—is a direct assault on religious freedom of conscience.

Be clear regarding what is at stake here.  The issue is not birth control or abortion.  It has nothing to do with your political party affiliation.  Whatever your views about these issues and regardless of who you plan to vote for in November, if you value religious freedom then you ought to actively oppose this unwarranted intrusion of federal power into the ability of religious organizations to establish policies and conduct their affairs as they see fit.  It is not enough to be free to worship in private without constraint.  Freedom of religion is far broader than simple freedom of worship.  Freedom of religion means freedom to exercise your faith in the public square and to do so without government interference.  Our ancestors paid a dear price for that freedom.  Honor those past generations, and protect the rights of future generations, by working to overturn this unconstitutional intrusion by government into the affairs of the church.

New Sermon Series: Where is God When It Hurts?

Beginning February 5 I will preach a ten-part sermon series, Where Is God When It Hurts? – The Problem of Evil and Suffering.  The messages (and the tough questions they will tackle) include:

Ø  If God Is Good, Why Do I Hurt? (What is the problem of evil?)

Ø  Trouble in Paradise (Where did evil come from?)

Ø  Why Is Life So Hard? (Why do I make so many bad choices… and is free will really free?)

Ø  Does God Play Favorites? (Why are some healed, but not all?)

Ø  Acts of God (How do I account for evil and suffering in nature?)

Ø  Good Grief / Bad Grief (What are healthy and unhealthy ways to grieve?)

Ø  The Suffering of the People of God (Why is it so hard to be a Christian?)

Ø  The Ulcer in the Belly of God (How can a loving God send people to hell?)

Ø  The Suffering God (Why did Jesus have to die?)

Ø  When Every Day Is Easter (Will it ever get better?)

These messages will tackle some of the most fundamental questions that have haunted the human race for millennia.  Most—perhaps all—are questions you have asked yourself.  Some are questions that you may be asking right now.  And you may be sure that these are questions that your friends, co-works, neighbors and extended family struggle with as well.  I encourage you to be at Rivermont Avenue Baptist Church for these messages and use the occasion to invite others who may be searching for answers to these ageless questions. 

Because of the strong emotions and additional questions that may be stirred by these sermons, beginning Sunday evening, February 12 at 5:00 PM, I will be leading a post-sermon debrief each week.  These sessions will vary but will include Q&A time and additional thoughts and reflections. 

Pastor Glen

The Law of Unintended Consequences (and what to do about it)

It was announced today that the Food Lion grocery store on Bedford Avenue in Lynchburg is closing within thirty days.  This is a major blow to the people in the Rivermont and Daniels Hill neighborhoods—especially those with limited incomes—many of whom depend on this store as the only grocery store within walking distance of their homes.

I’m no Occupy Wall Streeter—not by a long shot.  But that Food Lion store could be a case study in how capitalism contributes to the perpetuation of poverty in poor neighborhoods.  For middle class, suburban and small town America there is little appreciation of how circumstances often conspire to keep the poor…poor.  I’m not suggesting the existence of an intentional plot hatched in the executive boardroom of some Manhattan high-rise.  But I am suggesting that the laws of the market place—the laws of profit margins, cost and risk analysis, etc. mindlessly work against the interests of poor people in depressed communities.  From the perspective of a suburban middle-class shopper that Food Lion store is crummy place to buy groceries.  It is small, shabby, grimy and rather depressing.  The selection is pitiful.  The prices are high.  With limited floor traffic and given the cost of bringing the store up to contemporary corporate standards, I’m not at all surprised that some executive at Delhaize Group (the Brussels, Belgium based conglomerate that owns Food Lions) added that particular store to his closing list.

The people in the Rivermont area don’t need that Food Lion.  They need a Walmart Super Store within walking distance.  They need a store with the kind of selection and prices that suburban shoppers take for granted as a fundamental right.  They need that extra margin of financial advantage that shopping in such a place brings to people who must count every penny.  But the same marketplace realities that will close the Food Lion on Bedford Avenue before Valentine’s Day will prevent a Walmart from taking its place.

Next month that poor elderly Black woman who barely ekes out a subsistence level existence—who lives within a long and tiring walk from the intersection of Bedford Avenue and Magnolia Street—who nonetheless makes that walk every couple days to save bus fare money—will have to find a new way to buy her groceries and get them home.

I pastor a church in this neighborhood.  And I find myself asking what can we, as Christ’s followers, do to ease the plight of that woman?  It is a hard question without an easy answer.

Where is God When It Hurts?

The fact of evil and suffering is perhaps the most persistent and enduring challenge to the Christian faith. Many thoughtful people consider evil incongruous with the biblical affirmation that God is good and his reign powerful and sovereign. We speak of God as being both the creator and governor of the world. Orthodox Christian faith defines God as all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present and holy. God’s love and mercy are declared to be without equal.

Yet evil exists.

In his wonderful little book, The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis defined the problem this way:

"If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both." [C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.; Macmillan Paperbacks Edition, 1962), 26.]

Or as Professor D.A. Carson at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School put it:

"The truth of the matter is that all we have to do is live long enough, and we will suffer. Our loved ones will die; we ourselves will be afflicted with some disease or another." [D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 1990, 2006), 16.]

How does the Christian come to terms with the apparent paradox of a loving and all-powerful God and the reality of pain, suffering and evil in His creation?

Starting on Sunday, February 5th I will begin a ten-part sermon series at Rivermont Avenue Baptist Church on the problem of evil and suffering entitled Where is God When It Hurts? We will examine such issues as The Fall, death and grief, suffering in nature (animal pain, natural disasters, etc.), holy war and hell, when bad things happen to good people, persecution of believers and the suffering of God. We’ll consider the contrast of how Christianity addresses these issues compared to other world religions and philosophies. I’ll not be pulling any punches. If you are looking for cheap simplistic answers, don’t bother coming.