Brian & Kristen Konkol

From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment: Mission with an Olive Agenda in Response to Global Empire (Brian E. Konkol)

2012-01-27T02:45:00.000-08:00

An anesthetic is a drug used to relieve pain (analgesia), relax (sedate), induce sleepiness (hypnosis), spark forgetfulness (amnesia), or to make one unconscious for general anesthesia.[1] Among other things, anesthetics are generally administered by a specialist (anesthesiologist or anesthetist) upon a patient in order to induce or maintain a state of anesthesia and facilitate a procedure. With such thoughts in mind, Mission as Anesthetic[2] can be employed as a striking image for particular deficiencies in Christian missionary activity throughout the world, for the history of global mission[3] – in addition to its current state of affairs – is filled with examples where the Gospel is used to induce various forms of unconsciousness, thus opening a significant social space for those in power to more effectively perform geographic, political, economic, intellectual, emotional, psychological, spiritual, cultural, and religious procedures.[4]

As a North American who has resided in the southern hemisphere since 2003,[5] I find the metaphorical image of Mission as Anesthetic to be unfortunate, uncomfortable, accurate and convicting in regards to various global missionary enterprises, especially those that continue to hold paternalistic views of “giver/subject” and “receiver/object”.[6] In striking similarity to Karl Marx’s often cited statement of religion as an opiate of the masses,[7] Mission as Anesthetic seeks to diminish the pains of present life with an exclusive focus on the eternal life to come, but in no way does Mission as Anesthetic take the subsequent and essential steps of healing the root causes of suffering (through reconciliation), or provide tools for transformation and empowerment.[8] As a result, it can be argued that Mission as Anesthetic is a valuable instrument of 21^st century global Empire,[9] for it offers pain relief, relaxation, sleepiness, forgetfulness, and unconsciousness, but it refuses to recognize and “operate on” the sources of affliction. In other words, Mission as Anesthetic hinders a full consciousness of reality, and thus limits the opportunities of local and global communities to explore, reflect, respond, and create new and life-giving experiences.

In order to offer an effective alternative to Mission as Anesthetic and other forms of incomplete and ineffective global missionary engagement, one is drawn toward the strong commitment of advocacy and “mutual conversion” expressed through Mission as Accompaniment.[10] Among other things, Mission as Accompaniment takes into account the nature of God’s walking alongside humankind through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, thus the responsibility of participants in God’ s mission to accompany one another – strengthened and guided by the Holy Spirit (Advocate) – in a solidarity that practices interdependence and mutuality “for the conversion of connections”.[11] In contrast to missionary ventures that promote a distant God, general lack of earthly consciousness, and one-sided activity, Mission as Accompaniment embodies an incarnational approach to missionary companionship, which leads to heightened levels of awareness on all sides of the encounter, and thus moves beyond the labels of “your experience” and “my experience” and embraces the realities of “our experience”.[12] As a result, in addition to all that Mission as Anesthetic offers,[13] Mission as Accompaniment goes beyond pain relief and seeks corrective operation (transformation), healing of core injuries (reconciliation), and rehabilitative strengthening for the future (empowerment). In other words, Mission as Accompaniment is concerned with life after death and life after birth, thus it requires mission practitioners from around the world to accompany one another for the purpose of engaging all systems and structures that seek to divide, conquer, and exploit.

With the above introductory thoughts in mind, the following sections will utilize a “See-Judge-Act”[14] methodology to “See the Empire”, “Judge the Empire”, and “Act in Response to the Empire” in order to move From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment in God’s global mission. First, in order to See the Empire in the 21^st Century, I will introduce the notion of Empire and then examine its valuable instrument, commonly known as Neoliberal Global Economics. In specifics, I will briefly show how this international financial structure produces ecological destruction, inequality, poverty, and due to its sources found in mechanistic dehumanization, thus stands in direct opposition to God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment. Second, in order to Judge the Empire from a theological viewpoint and missiological grounding, I will utilize Mission as Accompaniment as a corrective to Mission as Anesthetic and other deficient missionary ventures that refuse to oppose Neoliberal Global Economics and other forces that limit the quality and sustainability of livelihoods. Third, in order to Act in Response to the Empire, I will consider limitations within the present form of Mission as Accompaniment and thus propose the use of an Olive Agenda as a missiological trajectory that raises mutual consciousness, values life, and provides global mission companions with a focused “walking direction” in the search for a faithful and fruitful participation within God’s global mission.

See the Empire: Neoliberal Global Economics and the Impact upon Ecological Destruction, Inequality, and Poverty

While a variety of opinions exist as how to define the nature of Empire, for use in this paper I will utilize the following thoughts from Joerg Rieger as a foundation for examination:

Empire, in sum, has to do with mass concentrations of power that permeate all aspects of life and cannot be controlled by any one actor alone…Empire seeks to extend its control as far as possible; not only geographically, politically, and economically – these factors are commonly recognized – but also intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, and religiously… The problem with empire has to do with forms of top-down control that are established on the backs of the empire’s subjects and that do not allow those within its reach to pursue alternative purposes.[15]

With these notions from Rieger in mind, one recognizes that evidence of Empire in the 21^st century can be found in numerous places, but perhaps most strikingly within the expansion of Neoliberal Global Economics. While a full description of Neoliberal Global Economics is not intended here,[16] one recognizes that it seeks to transfer control of the global economy from public to private sector under the belief that such a transition will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of all nations.[17] However, Neoliberal Global Economics has led to massive consolidations of power, thus multinational enterprises – motivated by profit and mostly unaccountable to any electorate – use their strong financial influence to push governments into deregulation-orientated policies for the steady flow of products, currency, and factories.[18] While such strategies have created tremendous financial wealth, the distribution of positive and negative consequences has been increasingly disproportionate, and the current world population of seven billion is mostly controlled by an overlap of 600 billionaires.[19] All in all, the definition of Empire by Rieger is an accurate fit for Neoliberal Global Economics, for the few who benefit seek to extend their control, sustain massive influence, and ensure that the global community is trapped within the structure and denied of any opportunity for alternatives.

In regards to consequences of Empire, a variety of research has shown that Neoliberal Global Economics drives the Earth toward massive levels of ecological damage,[20] to the point that mass production, over-consumption, and pursuits of unlimited growth have pushed the Earth past its natural resource capacity. [21] In addition to these alarming ecological realities, it is also argued that Neoliberal Global Economics creates massive inequality and poverty, to the level that billions of citizens suffer harsh consequences while others reap the rewards.[22] As a result of these ongoing and steadily increasing challenges, one recognizes that Neoliberal Global Economics provides a worldwide Empire of “un-Economy”[23] that is un-fair, creates a world that is both un-stable and un-sustainable, and leaves the far majority of global citizens totally un-satisfied.

While much has been written surrounding the ecological and economic consequences of Neoliberal Global Economics, a more holistic examination reveals that dehumanization is both a product and source of its existence and sustained influence in the 21^st century.[24] In specifics, mechanistic dehumanization – as described by Nick Haslam – reveals a mindset related to systemic processes – such as Neoliberal Global Economics – that strips others of life and dignity.[25] As Haslam explains, mechanistic dehumanization involves:

…the objectifying denial of essentially human attributes to people toward whom the person feels psychologically distant and socially unrelated. It is often accompanied by indifference, a lack of empathy, an abstract and deindividuated view of others that indicates an implicit horizontal separation from self, and a tendency to explain the other’s behavior in nonintentional, causal terms.[26]

With these thoughts from Haslam in mind, while one may correctly identify Neoliberal Global Economics as a systemic source of ecological destruction, inequality, and poverty, further investigation reveals that mechanistic dehumanization is a primary source and sustainer of Neoliberal Global Economics. In addition, one further recognizes the need to examine mechanistic dehumanization in relationship to Mission as Anesthetic and other deficiencies in global missionary engagement, for such can be a valuable starting point in order to move toward consciousness-building missiological trajectories that respond to Neoliberal Global Economics and other imperial mechanisms. In other words, what is worthy of attention is the reality that Neoliberal Global Economics – and other instruments of Empire – has similar roots and connections with Mission as Anesthetic, thus the vital need to develop global missionary ventures that resist the oppressive and seductive powers of Empire and more fully value the sacredness of life through participation in God’s mission.

Judge the Empire: Mission as Accompaniment

In light of the above mentioned connections between mechanistic dehumanization, Neoliberal Global Economics, ecological destruction, inequality, poverty, and deficient forms of global missionary engagement, Mission as Accompaniment is a valuable framework as international church companions seek innovative and respectful methods to accompany one another in God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment. As stated in “Global Mission in the 21^st Century: A Vision of Evangelical Faithfulness in God’s Mission”, Mission as Accompaniment is:

…walking together in a solidarity that practices interdependence and mutuality. The basis for this accompaniment, or what the New Testament calls koinonia, is found in the God-human relationship in which God accompanies us in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.[27]

As a critique of past and present missionary practices, such as the aforementioned Mission as Anesthetic, and in response to God’s “walking-alongside” of humankind through Jesus Christ, Mission as Accompaniment builds upon previously held understandings and thrusts mission into a “relational mode”,[28] for it implies “proximity to the walking companion” and “accepting the invitation to accompany the other”.[29] In many ways, Mission as Accompaniment embodies various threads of Liberation Theology,[30] and also falls under the more general theme of Postcolonial Mission due to its renegotiation of power between world church companions.[31] All together, Mission as Accompaniment provides a significant contribution to contemporary missiological conceptions, and it also has the ability to address urgent social issues surrounding dehumanization, neoliberal global economics, and the impact upon ecological destruction, inequality, and poverty.

In regards to theological underpinnings, “accompaniment” derives from the Latin “ad cum panis” which translates as “to go with bread.” With such thoughts in mind, one engaged in Mission as Accompaniment walks alongside others “with bread”, or in other words, shares and receives the sustenance of life in relationship with God, humankind, and all that God has created.[32] As Mission as Accompaniment finds its Biblical foundations in the Luke 24 “Road to Emmaus” account, one recognizes that Jesus was more fully recognized through the exchange of life-giving bread, and as a result the disciples received a greater sense of self-recognition, changed their pre-determined course, and returned to Jerusalem in order to participate in God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment.[33] As a result, it can be argued that within and through the sharing and receiving of sustenance Jesus Christ is made known, divisions caused by greed are broken, the interconnectedness of humanity is realized, and communities – both local and global – are more fully restored to exist faithfully and fruitfully as God first intended.

With the above thoughts in mind, one of the primary ways that Mission as Accompaniment is a significant framework for addressing dehumanization is the theoretical and experiential recognition that power disparity increases the likelihood of dehumanization,[34] and Mission as Accompaniment has been shown as a valuable corrective to power disparity.[35] As highlighted earlier, Mission as Accompaniment involves mutual exchange and a revelation of common humanity through the appreciation of relationships and sharing of life-giving sustenance. Therefore, Mission as Accompaniment contributes towards a significant decrease of power disparity, thus a logical consequence is a decline in mechanistic dehumanization. While one recognizes the risk of over-simplification within such a sequence, the potential outcomes of Mission as Accompaniment are massive, for if the likelihood of dehumanization diminishes as a result of reduced power disparity, then opposition to Neoliberal Global Economics can increase, and thus a reduction of ecological destruction, inequality, and poverty. As has been shown throughout human history, the power of solidarity through interpersonal relationships is astonishing,[36] thus the sociological potential of Mission as Accompaniment as a response to Empire is extraordinary.

While the aforementioned logic may produce criticism surrounding naïvity and over-confidence, one should not underestimate spiritual momentum and sociological domino-effect, thus Mission as Accompaniment does possess a strong potential to address Neoliberal Global Economics and other tools of international systematic oppression. However, it is also recognized that Mission as Accompaniment in its current form requires additional theoretical resources for a more focused approach in response to 21^st century Empire. As a critique of Mission as Accompaniment is its lack of detailed focus surrounding specific global issues, a potential consequence is “walking together for the sole objective of walking together”, which can lead to “partnership without purpose” and no clear “walking direction”.[37] Therefore, as global mission companionship is – at its core – intended to build righteous relationships, exchange hospitality, restore community, and generate outcomes that cannot be produced in isolation,[38] while Mission as Accompaniment addresses power imbalance through a relational approach that impacts dehumanization, it requires a more specific focus that can be applied directly to the Neoliberal Global Economics.

Act in Response to the Empire: Mission as Accompaniment with an Olive Agenda

In order to provide a more firm and attentive walking direction for Mission as Accompaniment in response to Neoliberal Global Economics, the work of Steve de Gruchy in “An Olive Agenda: First Thoughts on a Metaphorical Theology of Development” is of great importance, for he provides a significant contribution toward the pursuit of resistance and alternatives to various expressions of 21^st century Empire.[39] For example, de Gruchy offers a theological metaphor – the olive – that transcends the duality between the “green” environmental agenda and “brown” poverty agenda “that has disabled development discourse for the past twenty years”.[40] As a result, an Olive Agenda provides a “remarkably rich metaphor” that “holds together that which religious and political discourse rends apart: earth, land, climate, labor, time, family, food, nutrition, health, hunger, poverty, power and violence”.[41] Therefore, while an Olive Agenda in its present form already adds to the wealth of theological research on ecology and poverty, it has yet to be developed and applied fully as a missiological trajectory, thus a tremendous opportunity emerges for one to connect an Olive Agenda with Mission as Accompaniment in order to more fully respond to that which stands in direct opposition to God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment: Neoliberal Global Economics and its direct impact upon ecological destruction, inequality, and poverty.

An Olive Agenda is rooted in the understanding that although Neoliberal Global Economics – called the “Big Economy” by Larry Rasmussen[42] – has provided a number of contributions to modern life, its flawed logic of mass production, over-consumption, and unlimited growth works against “the Great Economy”, a term from Wendell Berry.[43] In other words:

Economic production and consumption, as well as human reproduction, are unsustainable when they no longer fall within the borders of nature’s regeneration. So the Bottom Line below the Bottom Line is that if we don’t recognize that the laws of economics and the laws of ecology are finally the same laws, we are in deep doodoo. Eco/nomics is the only way possible.[44]

With these thoughts in mind, it is evident from contemporary political, religious, and developmental discourse that many place issues of economics and ecology in separate (and competitive) categories, to the point that an emphasis upon one is widely regarded as a betrayal of the other.[45] While past civilizations have long recognized the need to build economic lives in faithful relationship to ecological boundaries, the recent phenomenon of Neoliberal Global Economics has proven to be unfaithful within this important economical/ecological union,[46] and the result is growing levels of gross inequality, increases in poverty, and an Earth that can no longer endure its industrial punishment. However, regardless of the countless negative consequences of Neoliberal Global Economics, its well-funded proponents continue to spread myths of universal benefits, thus leaving a trail of misplaced faith in trickle-down economics and false choices between poverty reduction and ecological health. As a result, an Olive Agenda is a much-needed response to the influential proponents of Neoliberal Global Economics, for an Olive Agenda exposes the propaganda of the financially powerful, it moves beyond competition between the brown and green agendas, and as a result produces global companionships that seek to create ecological sustainability while also reducing poverty and inequality throughout the world.

In response to these aforementioned contemporary realities, there are ten ways that an Olive Agenda can function as a missiological trajectory:[47] 1) As a color, Olive integrates both brown (poverty) and green (ecology) agendas, 2) As a texture, the Olive draws us to our earthly context, 3) The Olive points us toward issues of food security, 4) The Olive branch is a symbol of peace, 5) The Olive draws us into a plurality of cultures and religions, 6) As a tree, the Olive points to life itself, 7) The Olive tree symbolizes inter-generational sustainability, 8) The Olive is rooted in popular struggles, 9) Olive oil contributes to health, and 10) The Olive is a Biblical symbol. All together, as a result of these ten points, in addition to previous mentioned insights, one can immediately recognize the massive prospects of developing an Olive Agenda further, especially in relationship to Mission as Accompaniment, as the combination of these concepts provides unity, diversity, and a firm walking direction for global missionary companions to participate in God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment. In other words, while Mission as Accompaniment encourages companions to walk together in a solidarity that practices mutuality, an Olive Agenda provides visible signposts and a more clear walking direction.

In terms of theological foundations for an Olive Agenda, de Gruchy considers “oikos”, the “household of God”, as a primary underpinning.[48] As ecology (oikos-logos) concerns the wisdom of how a home functions, economy (oikos-nomos) is about the rules that should govern the home, and because there is only one “home” for humankind (the earth), economy and ecology are thus both intimately concerned about the earth, about the way human beings live upon the earth, relate to the earth, make use of the earth’s resources, and respect the integrity of the earth. Therefore, the missiological implication of these theological affirmations is that while both brown and green agendas are “fundamentally right, taken in isolation each is tragically wrong – and thus we must integrate economy as oikos-nomos, and ecology as oikos-logos in search of sustainable life on earth, the oikos that is our only home.”[49] As stated by the Diakonia Council of Churches:

This earth that God created, this sphere that spins through space, this globe, the household in which humanity lives and seeks meaning, our only home – this must be the place where we start to think theologically about economics...For millions of years God has shepherded the earth into existence so that it can sustain life. To do so requires a delicate balance between human life and other life; between life, death and rebirth; between production, consumption and waste; between the needs of the current generation and the needs of the many generations still to come; and between our creative ability to shape and reshape nature, and our sinful desire to do so for selfish ends.[50]

In recognition of the responsibility that God has placed upon humankind to serve as stewards of creation, and with full awareness of our consistent inability to fulfil this role properly, a choice between economic and ecological health is no choice at all, and a continued failure to integrate the brown and green agendas into an Olive Agenda will result in continued ecological destruction, inequality, and poverty. Therefore, in recognition of the theological foundations of oikos-nomos and oikos-logos, one may rightly conclude that Neoliberal Global Economics stands in direct opposition to the wisdom and rules of God’s household, thus God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment calls for an accompaniment of God’s people that produces economic alternatives and promotes fullness of life – for all that God has created – throughout the world.

From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment

To move From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment, as the title of this paper suggests, one first recognizes that economics and ecology are matters of faith, for they touch the very core of God’s will for humankind and all of creation.[51] In contrast to those who perceive the Gospel solely as a retreat or escape from the world, God’s mission includes a call for humankind to engage with and through the world, not only to provide short-term charity, but to work for justice and the promotion of long-term peace and equality. As stated by the Lutheran World Federation:

...the biblical witness is clear: God consistently opposes and calls for change in practices and structures that are unjust, especially in their effect on the poorest. When assumptions, dynamics, and outcomes of economic globalization go against what God intends, this becomes a matter of faith. We must name, reflect on, and seek effective ways of responding to the challenges raised by economic globalization — if we really believe what we profess.[52]

As a result of these insights, one notes that a move From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment in God’s mission challenges a variety of cross-sections within the worldwide Christian community: 1) Those who have knowingly and intentionally manipulated the Gospel to exploit others for material benefit; 2) Those who do not feel their faith bears on economical and ecological issues; 3) Those who consider Neoliberal Global Economics to be far too overwhelming; 4) Those who oppose with words alone, yet continue to benefit from the fruits of the system, thus lack an urgency to act. All together, a move From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment motivates people of faith toward prophetic words and bold actions, and reveals that there is no such thing as neutrality in the context of such momentous challenges. All together, a movement From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment allows for people of faith to more fully participate in God’s mission, confess who God is, and witness to how God is alive and active in the world today.

In addition to the call to action that a movement From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment provides, through the above See-Judge-Act methodology one also recognizes that traditional lines between object and subject within these missionary activities are significantly blurred. For example, while the application of anesthetics and participation within advocacy are typically seen as something one does to and/or for another, Mission as Accompaniment reveals that both anesthetics and advocacy are done in mutuality, thus all within the relationship are simultaneously objects and subjects.[53] In other words, those who seek to dull the full consciousness of others are, as a result, less aware of their own reality, separated from community, and in their attempt to dehumanize others are themselves not fully who God created them to be.[54] In a similar fashion, those who walk in solidarity with others for the common good are, in turn, recipients of advocacy from others, engaged as participants in God’s mission, and thus more fully what God has created humankind to be.[55] These thoughts surrounding connectedness and interdependence of humanity are reminiscent of statements from Martin Luther King Jr. in Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

In a real sense all life is inter-related. All persons are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the inter-related structure of reality.[56]

With these thoughts from King in mind, one recognizes that Mission as Accompaniment embraces the “network of mutuality” and “single garment of destiny”, thus it stands in direct opposition to any force that seeks to divide, conquer, and exploit. As a result, due to the reality that Neoliberal Global Economics increases inequality, spreads poverty, and distributes ecological destruction, Mission as Accompaniment recognizes that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere, and the dehumanization of anyone dehumanizes everyone. Therefore, the walking together that Mission as Accompaniment offers is a counter to movements that place material wealth above human dignity, it reduces the divisions that unjust systems maintain, and in turn responds against the structures that seek to reduce the fullness of life that God intends for humankind and all of Creation.

While the power and influence of Neoliberal Global Economics remains strong, the growing amount of discourse and activism (both public and hidden) surrounding such topics is significant, for it reveals the increasing “blowback” against Empire,[57] and as a result shows that people on the receiving end of oppression are not as “unconscious” as the oppressors have long believed.[58] While Mission as Anesthetic attempts to reduce the earthly consciousness of others, the effort has proven to be unsuccessful, and in many ways an opposite impact has taken place, for those in positions of power have proven to be unconscious of the growing resistance that has developed around the world. As a result, Mission as Accompaniment is part of a larger movement where the hidden resistance to Empire is gradually becoming more public, and those who seek to anesthetize others are quickly recognizing that no amount of anesthetic will dull the pains of ecological destruction, inequality, and poverty.

Summary

With all the above sections in mind, what this paper has shown is that Neoliberal Global Economics is a valuable tool of 21^st century Empire, for the international economic system seeks to “consolidate mass concentrations of power that permeate all aspects of life”, form “top-down control” on “the backs of empire’s subjects” and deny the pursuit of “alternative purposes.”[59] In addition, one recognizes that mechanistic dehumanization is a core source of Neoliberal Global Economics and Mission as Anesthetic, for the denial of humanity within others leads to a rationalization of apathy and disparity. As a result, because dehumanization increases in relationship to power imbalance, Mission as Accompaniment provides a significant response, for it directly counters the indifference and horizontal separation[60] of mechanistic dehumanization through a commitment to “walking together in mutuality and solidarity” that distributes power on a more balanced scale. However, as highlighted previously, in order to provide a more focused walking direction and address the primary contextual concerns of 21^st century globalization, an Olive Agenda is needed within Mission as Accompaniment, for such a trajectory allows for the green agenda of ecology and brown agenda of poverty to join for a more faithful and fruitful participation in God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment.

As highlighted in various sections of this paper, the consequences of Neoliberal Global Economics are extreme, thus an increased level of urgency for more faithful interactions between creation and humankind.[61] In addition, one recognizes a similar swell of need to move far beyond Mission as Anesthetic and other deficient forms of missionary engagement that depletes worldly consciousness. As the Christian tradition “includes safeguards designed to prevent and correct the accumulation of unjust power and the misuse and abuse of creation”,[62] the time has come to challenge the tight grip and idolatrous myths of Empire,[63] and thus support resistance and alternatives that seek global economies of life.[64] As a commitment to participate in God’s mission recognizes and values the interconnectedness of all God has created, the relationship between humanity and the Earth must be evaluated, the responsibility of being God’s stewards of the Earth is to be examined, and the accountability that humankind has to God, the Earth, and one another is to be fully valued and restored. The result of this process, a movement From Anesthetic to Advocate through Accompaniment in God’s Mission, will embody an Olive Agenda and more faithfully represent who God is, what God does, and who God’s people are called to be.

[1] WebMD, “Topic Overview: Intravenous Anesthetic” (January, 2010), http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/intravenous-iv-anesthetics-topic-overview

[2] As far as I am aware, Mission as Anesthetic as an image of missionary engagement is original to this paper. If I am mistaken, my apologies are extended to those who deserve credit for its usage.

[3] While the term “global mission” is problematic for some, in this paper it is not meant as “the faithful replication of Christian forms and patterns developed in Europe”, as Lamin Sanneh defines it. As a result, the terms “global” and “world” in regards to Christian mission will be utilized interchangeably throughout this paper, and will signify the contextual developments and expressions of Christian faith in various areas throughout the world. See: Lamin Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel Beyond the West (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), pg. 22.

[4] Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pg. 2-3.

[5] Guyana, South America (2003-2004, 2005-2007), South Africa (2008-present).

[6] While this paper will not elaborate upon my personal history as a North American residing in the southern hemisphere, it must be noted that I recognize my position of power as a citizen of global Empire, and one who continues to benefit as a result of unjust imperial structures, especially those promoted by the United States of America. In addition, as a male, white, missionary pastor, I also recognize that ventures in global mission can be extensions of Empire (…as this paper will show), thus as a result of my own various and countless mistakes, I choose to speak and write with boldness yet also listen and learn with repentance and humility.

[7] Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pg. 127.

[8] At various points in this paper I will speak of God’s mission as “reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment”, which is directly related to (but in different sequential order) to that which was produced by the Lutheran World Federation’s Department for Mission and Development. See: Lutheran World Federation: Department for Mission and Development, Mission in Context: Transformation, Reconciliation, and Empowerment (Geneva, Switzerland: Lutheran World Federation, 2004).

[9] As many definitions of “empire” exist, for this paper I will utilize Joerg Riegers’ thoughts from Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2007), pg. 2-3: “Empire, in sum, has to do with mass concentrations of power that permeate all aspects of life and cannot be controlled by any one actor alone…Empire seeks to extend its control as far as possible; not only geographically, politically, and economically – these factors are commonly recognized – but also intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, and religiously… The problem with empire has to do with forms of top-down control that are established on the backs of the empire’s subjects and that do not allow those within its reach to pursue alternative purposes.”

[10] Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Global Mission in the 21st Century: A Vision of Evangelical Faithfulness in God’s Mission, (Chicago: ELCA, 1999).

[11] Brian E. Konkol, Mission Possible? Power, Truth-Telling, and the Pursuit of Mission as Accompaniment, (Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 2011), pg. 146.

[12] Rafael Malpica Padilla, Accompaniment: A Lens and Methodology for Mission Today, (Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Global-Mission/How-We-Work.aspx.

[13] In recognition of the anesthetic metaphor, it should be recognized that anesthetics can provide a useful function (…as anyone who has endured a painful surgery can attest), yet anesthetics are a step within a larger process, and thus should not be perceived as an end unto themselves. As a result, the same can be said within the comparison of Mission as Anesthetic and Mission as Accompaniment.

[14] Gerald West, The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible (Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publication, 2004).

[15] Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pg. 2-3.

[16] The definitive statement on neoliberal policies is often regarded as the “Washington Consensus”. See: John Williamson, “What Washington Means by Policy Reform”, in John Williamson (Ed.), Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1990).

[17] Joseph Nathan Cohen, The Impact of Neoliberalism, Political Institutions and Financial Autonomy on Economic Development, (Unpublished Thesis, Princeton University: Princeton, NJ: 2007).

[18] Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh, and The Institute for Policy Studies, Field Guide to the Global Economy, (New York: The New Press, 2005), pg. 1.

[19] The US government is often regarded as the main force behind the adoption of neoliberal policies throughout the world. The basic argument is that since the US dollar is the international reserve currency, US banks are at a competitive advantage in comparison to non-US banks, which cannot directly lend in dollars, so that their operations involve more foreign exchange risk. (Since the US dollar is the international exchange currency, most international reserves are held as dollars, and because the prices of commodities are set in dollars, it is in generally less risky to hold dollars than to hold other currencies). Thus, once the US adopted neoliberalism, other countries were forced to follow. See: Peter Gowan, The Global Gamble: Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance (London: Verso, 1999).

[20] James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia (New York: Basic Books, 2006); Lester R. Brown, Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006); Kristen Dow and Thomas E. Downing, An Atlas of Climate Change (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Crisis of Global Warming (New York: Viking Press, 2007); John T. Houghton, Global Warming: 3^rd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010).

[21] R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger (Editors) Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Geneva, Switzerland: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007); Naomi Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science 306, no. 5702 (December 2004); William R.L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 (June 2010); The United Nations Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005).

[22] Tim Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (London: Routledge, 2009); Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Dennis L. Meadows, The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (New York: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004); Paul Gilding, The Great Disruption: How the Climate Crisis Will Transform the Global Economy (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011); Gwynee Dyer, Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats (London: Oneworld, 2011); Richard Heinberg, The End of Growth: Adapting to our New Economic Reality (Gabriola Island, British Colombia: New Society Publishers, 2011).

[23] Jim Wallis, The “Un-Economy”, God’s Politics Blog, October, 2011: http://blog.sojo.net/blogs/2011/10/20/un-economy

[24] World Council of Churches, “the Dar es Salaam Statement on Linking Poverty, Wealth, and Ecology in Africa”, Alternative Globalisation Addressing People and Earth (AGAPE) Consultation on Liking Poverty, Wealth, and Ecology: Africa Ecumenical Perspectives (November 7-9, 2007: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania); Lutheran World Federation, “Communion, Responsibility, Accountability: Responding as a Lutheran Communion to Neoliberal Globalization”(Geneva: December, 2004); United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy”, (Washington DC, 1986).

[25] Nick Haslam, “Dehumanization: An Integrative View”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, (2006, Vol. 10, No. 3.).

[26] Nick Haslam, “Dehumanization: An Integrative View”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, (2006, Vol. 10, No. 3.), pg. 262.

[27] Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Global Mission in the 21st Century: A Vision of Evangelical Faithfulness in God’s Mission, (Chicago: ELCA, 1999), pg. 5.

[28] Roberto S. Goizueta, Caminemos con Jesus: Toward a Hispanic/Latino Theology of Accompaniment (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1993); Jerry Aaker, Partners with the Poor: An Emerging Approach to Relief and Development, (New York: Friendship Press, 1993)

[29] Rafael Malpica Padilla, “Accompaniment as an Alternative Model for the Practice of Mission”. Trinity Seminary Review: Summer/Fall 2008. Volume 29, No: 2. Trinity Lutheran Seminary: Columbus, Ohio. Pg. 88

[30] Brian E. Konkol, Mission Possible? Power, Truth-Telling, and the Pursuit of Mission as Accompaniment, (Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 2011), pg. 30.

[31] Desmond van der Water (Editor), Postcolonial Mission: Power and Partnership in World Christianity, (California: Sopher Press, 2011).

[32] Samuel Chingondole and Crystal Hall, (2009) “Pietermaritzburg Agency for Christian Social Awareness: Statement of Theological Intent”, unpublished document presented to Annual General Meeting, Pietermaritzburg Agency for Christian Social Awareness, 2009, pg 6-7.

[33] See: Carlos A. Dreher, The Walk to Emmaus. Translated by Paulo Ueti Barasioli. (Con-Texto Grafica e Editor, Centro de Estudos Biblicos, 2004).

[34] Joris Lammers and Diederik A. Stapel, “Power increases Dehumanization”, Group Processes Intergroup Relations (January, 2010, Vol 14, No. 1), pg. 113-126.

[35] Brian E. Konkol, Mission Possible? Power, Truth-Telling, and the Pursuit of Mission as Accompaniment, (Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 2011).

[36] Among others, Bartolome de Las Casas and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are examples of people who took relationships seriously, and through accompaniment, countered Empire in their day. See: Joerg Rieger, Globalization and Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), pg. 21-26.

[37] Roderick Hewitt, Response to Brian E. Konkol “Mission Possible? Power, Truth-Telling, and the Pursuit of Mission as Accompaniment” (Unpublished Document provided in concurrence with the Theology & Development program process of academic review, Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2011). What is worthy of study at a later date is how “partnership with no purpose” can, in and of itself, also be a form of Mission as Anesthetic, for it gives the impression that partnership is enough, rather that how the partners function and exist in relationship to one another.

[38] I am reminded of a common proverb heard throughout my time with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Guyana (2003-2004, 2005-2007): “Many hands make the work light”.

[39] Steve de Gruchy, “An Olive Agenda: First Thoughts on a Metaphorical Theology of Development”, The Ecumenical Review: Volume 59, Issue 2-3 (April-July, 2007), pg. 333-345.

[40] Steve de Gruchy, “An Olive Agenda”, pg. 336.

[41] Steve de Gruchy, “An Olive Agenda”, pg. 336.

[42] Larry Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996).

[43] Wendell Berry & Norman Wirzba, The Art of Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry (Washington, DC: Shoemaker and Hoard, 2002), pg. 219-235.

[44] Larry Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics, (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996), pg. 112. The use of the term “Bottom Line” is borrowed from Thomas Berry, and “eco/nomics” from William Ashworth.

[45] The recently completed 17^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Convention of Climate Change (UNCCC) in Durban, South Africa, is a striking example of how powerful governments continue to spread the message of separation between economic and ecological health.

[46] Diakonia Council of Churches, Oikos Journey, (Durban, South Africa), pg. 16. Available at: http://www.diakonia.org.za/dmdocuments/OikosA5e.pdf

[47] Steve de Gruchy, “An Olive Agenda”, pg. 340-343.

[48] For further study, see: Andrew Warmback, Constructing an oikotheology: the environment, poverty and the church in South Africa, (Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa).

[49] Steve de Gruchy, “An Olive Agenda”, pg. 337.

[50] Diakonia Council of Churches, Oikos Journey, (Durban, South Africa), pg. 24. Available at: http://www.diakonia.org.za/dmdocuments/OikosA5e.pdf

[51] Diakonia Council of Churches, Oikos Journey, (Durban, South Africa), pg. 23. Available at: http://www.diakonia.org.za/dmdocuments/OikosA5e.pdf

[52] Lutheran World Federation, Engaging Economic Globalization as a Communion: A working paper of the Lutheran World Federation, (Geneva: Department for Theology and Studies, 2001).

[53] While this paper does not elaborate in-depth surrounding issues of companionship/partnership in global mission, Mission as Accompaniment is – at its core – about such matters. For a thorough examination of partnership in global mission, see: Jonathan Barnes, Partnership in Christian Mission: A History of the Protestant Missionary Movement, (Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal: South Africa, 2010).

[54] “Individuals manifesting qualities of individualism and selfishness, or lack of caring...are described as akanabuntu (lacking Ubuntu) or akangomntu, ha se motho (not a person, not human)”. Munyaka and Mokgethi Motlhabi, “Ubuntu and its Socio-moral Significance” in Munyaradzi Felix Murove (Ed.), African Ethics: An Anthology of Comparative and Applied Ethics (Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2009), pg. 71.

[55] “The value and dignity of persons is best realized in relationship with others. One cannot be a human being alone, only in community”. Munyaka and Mokgethi Motlhabi, “Ubuntu and its Socio-moral Significance” in Munyaradzi Felix Murove (Ed.), African Ethics: An Anthology of Comparative and Applied Ethics (Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2009), pg. 68. While the connection of Ubuntu to Mission as Accompaniment and an Olive Agenda is not illustrated here in detail, it will be explored further within my ongoing PhD research with the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Theology and Development program.

[56] Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, (New York: HarperCollins, 1994).

[57] Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2007), pg. 2.

[58] For further study in regards to everyday forms of hidden resistance (that are often unnoticed by those in power), see the following texts from James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990), Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant Resistance, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986).

[59] Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pg. 2-3.

[60] Nick Haslam, “Dehumanization: An Integrative View”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, (2006, Vol. 10, No. 3.), pg. 262.

[61] Diakonia Council of Churches, Oikos Journey, (Durban, South Africa), pg. 27. Available at: http://www.diakonia.org.za/dmdocuments/OikosA5e.pdf

[62] Diakonia Council of Churches, Oikos Journey, (Durban, South Africa), pg. 28. Available at: http://www.diakonia.org.za/dmdocuments/OikosA5e.pdf

[63] While this paper does not explore the nature of idolatry within Empire, such is an important area of focus: “The neoliberal deregulation of the capitalist market at all levels, driven by an unbridled lust for money and control, turns the market into an idol...We are seriously worried that rich countries are more and more inclined to use military force to impose the neoliberal economic system in the world, playing a divine Caesar...We believe that neoliberal ideology violates the will of God, the creator of the garden of life.” Latin American Council of Churches, Faith Stance on the Global Crisis of Life (Buenos Aires, April 26, 2003).

[64] As this paper focuses more upon missiological foundations, and thus does not provide detailed policy alternatives to Neoliberal Global Economics, one is encouraged to view: Lutheran World Federation, Engaging Economic Globalization as a Communion: A working paper of the Lutheran World Federation, (Geneva: The Church and Social Issues, Department for Theology and Studies, 2001), pg. 11.

Youth for Eco-Justice: A Source of Hope at COP17 (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-12-03T00:15:00.000-08:00

This past Sunday evening, November 27^th, high winds and heavy rain brought disaster to the area surrounding Durban, South Africa. In addition to over one-hundred destroyed homes and massive levels of property damage, six people lost their lives as a result of collapsing structures. Over the past two weeks a total of eleven people have died as a result of extreme unseasonable weather.

A few hours after tragedy struck Durban, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) opened at the International Convention Center. In recognition of what had taken place just hours before and only a few miles away, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres remarked: “What we witnessed last night was unseasonable weather … of the type we are seeing all over the world as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise”. In other words, the UNFCC gathering opened with a vivid reminder that climate change is real, it has dramatic consequences, and a delay in action will lead to a continued loss of human life.

Since the UNFCCC came into force in 1995, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNCCC has met annually to assess progress in dealing with global climate change. From November 28 until December 9, the COP has met again, for the 17^th time, thus the common title “COP17”. Among other things, COP17 has brought together various world leaders in order to adopt decisions and resolutions, publish reports, and attempt to establish legally binding legislation for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Within the initial days of COP17, the following issues have risen to the forefront:

1) There is serious debate as to whether or not industrial countries will extend their commitments to further reduce the carbon emissions that lead to climate change. As negotiations continue, it appears that most financially wealthy countries will not commit to reductions unless developing countries like China, India, and Brazil do the same. In a similar fashion, developing countries refuse to commit to reductions unless the wealthy countries, such as the United States, also agree. All together, a “you go first” standstill is the result.

2) An additional primary point of debate centers upon whether or not progress will be made on a “Green Climate Fund” to help financially poor countries deal with climate change. A committee that included forty counties worked for the past year on developing a method to administer the fund, but agreement on the final paper was blocked by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and the final contentious issues will have to be settled.

As one could imagine, with such a large gathering of world leaders comes a diversity of interests and bureaucratic agendas, thus significant progress on such massive issues is extremely difficult to achieve. In many ways, the negotiation process includes various nations trying to sacrifice as little as possible while attempting to use power and influence to require the increased sacrifice of others. As a result, the various tracts of negotiations taking place inside the International Convention Center of Durban are slow and complicated, responsibility for climate change is rarely acknowledged, and a growing level of pessimism from the global community is a result. In other words, there is a growing concern that COP17 in Durban will fail to produce any amount of valuable legislation.

With the above thoughts in mind, one of the most striking observations to be made surrounding the COP17 negotiations is the level of activity and sustained energy outside the International Convention Center. In addition to street protestors and the large international media contingent, there are countless gatherings of traditional leaders, youth movements, advocacy associations, faith-based councils, and so on. In various public gathering spaces people are meeting to discuss ideas about how to tackle the large-scale issues surrounding global climate change. All in all, when one passes through the streets of Durban and witnesses the thousands of people gathered to consider solutions, it would appear that the most meaningful progress is more likely to come from those outside the International Convention Center than from those within it.

One of the many activities currently taking place outside the International Convention Center is Youth for Eco-Justice, which is sponsored by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and Lutheran World Federation (LWF). Among other things, Youth for Eco-Justice is a transformational training program for young Christians from around the world between the ages of 18-30, and it includes a two-week training and immersion period in the context of COP17 in Durban. In the months following the experiences in South Africa, the twenty-five participants will initiate and implement projects in their home countries on a volunteer basis. All together, Youth for Eco-Justice will equip its participant-learners as “multipliers” for eco-justice by studying and unfolding the complex links between Christian faith, environmental issues, and socio-economic structures and processes.

Among other things, the Youth for Eco-Justice program includes: theological and biblical studies, workshops and meetings with various experts, training sessions on communication, and varieties of lessons on campaigning, project management, development of resources and activities for promoting eco-justice, cultural and artistic activities, common prayer, and participation in events surrounding COP17. In addition, one cannot underestimate the massive power of Christian fellowship and relationship building within the larger group, as participants recognize their common connections and learn more about how God is working through various people in different locations around the world. With all of these activities and new friendships in mind, one is given hope that the future of the Earth is in good hands, yet one is also given urgent motivation to ensure that the Earth left to these future generations is one that is capable of sustaining life in its fullness.

While one can easily grow pessimistic as a result of what is taking place inside the International Convention Center, the participants within Youth for Eco-Justice – and the countless other global citizens who have gathered in Durban to advocate for sustainable life – serve as significant inspiration for those throughout the world who care for God’s Creation and wish to see meaningful developments in global climate change legislation. As United Nations negotiators gather at COP17 and childishly argue over who should take responsibility for cutting carbon emissions, those assembled on the streets of Durban reminds us that we must refuse to accept a world where human identity is based upon levels of production and consumption, and we must affirm that self-worth is ultimately grounded in being Children of God who are called, gathered, and sent-out as participants in God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment. While United Nations negotiators at COP17 try to persuade others and find deals that are most favorable to their specific political interests, the protestors and activists gathered throughout Durban refuse to accept the status-quo of a fragmented world where humans dominate creation through over-production and over-consumption, and instead seek God’s calling to be stewards of the Earth through responsibility, respect, and sustainability. All together, while many within the International Convention Center may have already forgotten about the tragic and preventable deaths that took place surrounding Durban on November 27^th, those who are not blinded by power and prestige recognize that all God created is sacred, one death as a result of climate change is far too many, and the reality of injustice anywhere calls us to seek justice everywhere.

As COP17 in Durban enters its second and final week, we recognize that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change is clear and the implications are significant and numerous, thus the response from the global village needs to be persistent, organized, and profound. In a world that continues to experience hardship and death as a result of reckless pollution and environmental exploitation, we as Children of God cannot sit idle and passively hope that politicians and negotiators will find solutions on their own. The time has come to participate in the negotiation process by voicing our concerns and refusing to accept global structures that take life for granted. With God all things are possible, but without our hands the solutions to climate change are not probable. As a result, the time has come to take responsibility for the world in which we live, answer the call to be faithful and fruitful stewards of the Earth, and ensure life in its fullness for all that God has created. The time is now.

Treasure and Heart: Why the events at Penn State University were bound to happen, and why I share a piece of the blame (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-11-17T11:09:00.000-08:00

I love sports. During my childhood I spent countless hours with my older brother and cousins on our driveway basketball court. In High School I participated in Cross-Country, Basketball, and Baseball, and in college I was fortunate to enjoy four years of basketball with some great teammates and a fantastic coaching staff. My first memories of meeting my wife were during a summer basketball pick-up game while we were teenagers (…she was a much better player than I, and would later earn a Division I scholarship). During my first month as a parish pastor I helped build a basketball court next to the church building, and we started a league for area youth (…volleyball and tennis would come later!). In many ways, sports have been – and continue to be – a significant influence in my life, and I figure this trend will persist as long as my body and mind will allow.

While I strongly believe that physical activity and participation within sports can offer excellent avenues for education and wellness on an individual and community level, my role as a fan of sports has been significantly challenged over recent weeks. In other words, I have come to wonder whether or not something inherently good, such as sports, has reached excessive levels to the point of having a negative role in society. For example, in North America we experience massive inequality and outcry surrounding government budget shortfalls, yet we seem to have more than enough funds for stadiums, tickets, TV packages, and team-related memorabilia. In addition, with each passing year our public servants receive salary cuts and loss of jobs, yet millionaire professional athletes argue with billionaire owners over income distribution and so-called “fair deals”. And of course, while I hear countless people complain about how busy they are (…as an excuse not to get involved in charitable events) and how financial times are tough (…as an excuse not to donate toward charitable causes), those same individuals seem to have plenty of time to watch a few hours of sports on TV each night, and more than enough resources to support their favorite teams. With all of this in mind (…and one could list countless more examples), we have to wonder whether or not our priorities have been seriously distorted, as our love for sports seems to have crossed the line from entertainment to idolatry, or in other words, from being spectators to worshippers.

The recent events at Penn State University surrounding the alleged cover-up of sexual abuse by a renowned assistant football coach, has shown – among other things – how the widespread worship of sport within the North American mindset has become so powerful that some would risk the health of young children in order to preserve the legacy of an athletic program. As stated by Jim Wallis (http://sojo.net/blogs/2011/11/14/penn-state%E2%80%99s-massive-moral-failure-put-most-vulnerable-first-instead-last), the amount of finances being poured into athletics is astounding, and a consequence is that the most vulnerable members of society can be pushed aside in order to preserve and sustain the steady flow of resources. However, while it is proper to seek a suitable punishment for those directly responsible for the various abuses at Penn State University, the fact of the matter is that many throughout North American – including myself – are also deserving of some blame for these shameful events.

Our worship of sport has become so intense that the firing of a head football coach – who rightly admitted that he should have done more to prevent the abuses by his assistant – has received far more public outrage than the thought of small boys being raped in a locker-room shower by a grown man. How can any of this possibly seem acceptable? Is our worship of sport so intense and imbedded into the fabric of society that we are no longer able to recognize when we have crossed the line of human decency? With the alleged victims of sexual abuse at Penn State University in mind, the time has come for us all to recognize our personal responsibility in creating an environment where such a cover-up and justification could take place. When our love for sports crosses the line into a worship of sports, the result is a society that allows sport to be a central piece of its identity, and it is within our human nature to guard our identity when it is placed under attack. As Matthew 6:21 reminds us, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”.

In addition to that which took place at Penn State University, we can no longer ignore the various other consequences of a society that worships sport. For example, we can no longer deny the sociological fact that domestic abuse increases on the days after team losses. We can no longer compromise our values by rushing through worship services in order to ensure people are home for game time. We can no longer deny that people spend far too little time participating in sports and far too much time watching it from the couch. We can no longer accept the onslaught of verbal and physical violence that is often directed toward referees and opposing fans. We can no longer remain neutral when parents scream at their children and coaches from the sidelines. We can no longer accept spoiled athletes and owners who fight why unemployment remains steady. We can no longer accept universities that profit off their student-athletes without seeking to educate them for the future. We can no longer accept the construction of new stadiums with public funds when public servants have their salaries reduced or jobs cut. We can no longer accept a society that places a higher value on sports than those aspects of life that makes us fully human.

In no way does this all mean that sports are evil and should be avoided at all costs, for the lessons of teamwork and dedication are just a few of the countless positive messages that can be received as a result of faithful participation and appreciation of sports. As stated from the onset, I credit a great deal of my personal development (…and marriage!) to those who provided me with various opportunities through sport. In addition, one can name a variety of ways that sports serve as a tool for community reconciliation and unity, as well as an instrument for crossing boundaries and building societal bridges. With these thoughts in mind, I hope that we will continue to strongly affirm the various athletic ventures throughout the world – such as the collegiate program that my older brother now coaches within – that recognize the “big picture” and provide empowerment and long-term wellness for athletes and supporters. However, regardless of the various positive individual and societal consequences of sports, we must recognize that various aspects of life that are intended for good – such as participation and appreciation of sports – can become negative when taken to the obsessive extreme. In other words, an excess amount of anything has the potential to ruin everything. As a result, the time has come for us to take a step back, reflect, re-evaluate, and consider whether or not our priorities have been misplaced.

With all of the above in mind, I pray that God will provide peace and healing to the various victims of abuse at Penn State University, as such acts are despicable in countless ways, and the scars will remain for many years to come. However, I also pray that we refuse to over-simplify the issue and deny our personal responsibility for the extreme sport-worshipping environment that made the abuse and cover-up more likely to happen. While we can – and should – participate within and appreciate various forms of sport, we must ensure that our passions do not turn into obsession, or else the shameful acts that took place at Penn State University will likely happen again, and we all will need to share a piece of the blame. As Jesus reminds us, “For where our treasure is our hearts will be also”, so may we ensure that our hearts are directed toward those treasures in life that matter most, so that such despicable acts of abuse and cover-up may never take place again.

I Love this Game, but do I love this League? Ethics and Professional Basketball (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-11-14T03:34:00.000-08:00

I wrote the following article approximately ten years ago under the supervision of Rev. Thomas Van Leer, Chaplain of the Minnesota Timberwolves of the National Basketball Association (NBA), whom I had the honor of serving with during my time at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Upon completion of the article, it was distributed by Rev. Van Leer to every Head Coach and General Manager in the NBA, and I was surprised and excited to receive a significant number of thoughtful responses in the months that followed.

While my thoughts on the subject matter of ethics and professional sports has matured over the years, and my writing style has changed a great deal, I have decided not to edit the original text, for it allows one to recognize how history is repeating itself with the current labor dispute between the National Basketball Association and its players association. My hope is that the text can, among other things, allow for sport fans (like myself) to distinguish between a healthy and destructive love of sport, and thus determine how much value North Americans place upon professional athletes in comparison to other essential areas of society.

----------

The National Basketball Association (NBA) ended its 1998 season with an eruption of excitement. In the closing seconds of its final game, the league’s greatest player converted a game-winning shot to ensure his team’s third straight championship. It was an amazing finish to an awesome year of professional basketball. All those involved could not have imagined a more thrilling finale to the season (except for those supporting the losing team!). The buzz of entertainment that the NBA had created throughout its eight-month season reached a gigantic climax. As a result, the National Basketball Association continued its steady climb as one of North America’s most popular forms of entertainment.

Basketball excellence was not the only reason for excitement, for the financial condition of the NBA looked just as promising. The average player’s salary had reached 2.2 million dollars per year. Franchise owners signed a brand-new 2.6 billion dollar contract extension with Turner Network Television (TNT) and the National Broadcast Company (NBC). Cities who served as hosts for NBA franchises received major economic boosts resulting from their team’s success. It appeared the NBA was making everyone wealthy and happy. However, beneath all the glitter and behind all the catchy slogans and public relations work, something was very, very, wrong.

Within weeks of its excitement-filled final game, the National Basketball Association and its players union, The National Basketball Players Association, faced a grueling stalemate over labor contract negotiations. The franchise owners claimed they were paying too much money to players and that too many clubs were losing funds. They insisted the league was not financially stable as the public had come to believe. The players, on the other hand, claimed the public opinion was correct in judging the league’s grand financial success. They argued that the league was in a period of unprecedented growth and wealth, thus any financial problems the owners faced were of their own doing. The owners and players appeared to be on polar opposites, and when they were unable to iron out differences, the owners voted to “lock out” the players until an agreement was met. The NBA experienced a work stoppage and suspension of all league business.

Initially, the players and owners met once a week in an attempt to end to their stalemate. But when the sides could not come to a quick agreement, they grew inflexible and decided to rarely talk at all. Negotiations continued to delay throughout the summer months. To make matters increasingly sensitive, the owners threatened that if there was no agreement before the scheduled November start of the season, the league would cancel the entire schedule. The players did not take this warning lightly. Although the superstar athletes (who earned millions) would not be widely affected by the stoppage, the lesser-known (and lesser-paid) players were deeply concerned. The owners also risked great losses, for without a moneymaking product on the basketball court they would lose income. Cities that served as homes for NBA franchises were also at risk, for local businesses would lose revenue and be forced to lay off employees. And possibly the greatest tragedy would be forced upon those who financially supported the entire league – the fans. They would not be able to see and support the game they had grown to love.

The 1998 National Basketball Association Labor Dispute and subsequent lockout personified the ethical character of the NBA. Unfortunately, it became clear that the primary objective of the league was not to create jobs, entertain its fans, or even promote teamwork and well-played basketball. Rather, the NBA showed that its superior aim was the accumulation of money. The labor disputes were not about struggling employees negotiating with equally struggling employers. It was about wealthy owners and players fighting over absurd amounts of money. Sadly, in the end it was the fans – those middle-class men and women whom supplied the league with its funds - who were hurt the worst.

Eventually, after seven long and grueling months of heated debate, the lockout ended with an agreement on a new labor contract. The players and owners were finally able to compromise on the essential elements of the disagreement. However, because of the stubbornness of those involved in the negotiations, the 1998-1999 season had to be reduced from its usual eighty-two game schedule down to fifty. The season was indeed salvaged (which would appear to be reason for praise), but many players were rusty and/or out of shape from a lack of adequate practice and preparation time. Though the NBA was able to carry through with a season, it did not exhibit a satisfactory product. The 1998-1999 season was a poor brand of basketball. Fans were extremely disappointed. Considering how the players and owners fought over large sums of money and failed to contemplate the effects it would have on others, those whom supported the teams in the past wondered whether or not they would continue to invest time and money into these pampered sports figures.

The 1998 Labor disagreement and subsequent lockout forces one to question the relationship between morality and sports. How do professional athletes and owners arrive at decisions? According to the Sports Ethics Institute, sports ethics “is the use of moral values and principles of wrongness to establish standards of conduct. It involves evaluating the soundness of the intentions and decisions of people and organizations engaged in sports-related endeavors.” In a less academic sense, sports ethics refers to the moral guidelines that are inferred from words like “sportsmanship”, “teamwork”, and “fair play.” Why focus on NBA ethics? Why pay attention to the NBA for any reason other than watching basketball? Because of its immense popularity, the NBA affects the lives and livelihood of North Americans in so many ways – as recreation and entertainment, as an income source, as a means for role modeling – it makes sense to examine what the NBA values and how it distinguishes right from wrong. The better a culture examines its primary influences the more equipped it will be at distinguishing its own moral judgments.

An ethical examination of the National Basketball Association must begin with an assessment of its undisputed commander in chief – Commissioner David J. Stern. Stern is generally considered the most progressive-minded and successful commissioner of any North American sports league. Since he took over as the NBA’s chief executive in 1984, overall revenues have quadrupled, the league has expanded by six teams, and it added a popular women’s league. Stern is widely known as a tireless worker, a skilled negotiator, and a shrewd businessman. He knows what he wants and is willing to take whatever steps necessary to ensure his goals are met.

The entire decision-making structure of the NBA stems from the influence of Commissioner Stern. Owners, coaches, players, and the agents who represent them share David Stern’s primary goal – the accumulation of funds. Money, not basketball excellence, teamwork, or fan appreciation, appears to be the superior aim of league personnel. Owners, players, coaches, and agents whom are involved with NBA franchises want what any business person wants – reduced expenses and maximized income. Therefore, most (if not all) actions and decisions are based upon whether or not the superior aim can be achieved. Because of the importance placed upon the league’s superior aim, all those involved in the NBA are judged upon whether or not they can provide the league with increased funds.

The National Basketball Association is filled with a variety of characters that contribute to the overall moral character or the league. The following sections will examine the specific personnel and how they function:

Owners

In many ways, the owner of a multi-million dollar NBA franchise is no different than a local grocery store owner. “Success” appears quite simple. Expenses need to be limited, income needs to be maximized, and profit needs to be achieved. Franchise owners do whatever is necessary to achieve the superior aim – that is, maximized profit. They have the exclusive right to hire and fire personnel, and if they so choose, they might move their franchise from one city to the next (if it serves their superior aim). Essentially, the owner of an NBA franchise “owns” those who he/she employs. If the owner values any given person, (because that person might help them achieve the superior aim), that individual will keep their job. If the owner does not value an individual, they will be eliminated by the organization.

What makes an NBA franchise owner remarkably different from a typical small-business owner is the amount of influence he/she has upon a community. For example, during the 1998 labor dispute many “NBA-town” business leaders lost incredible amounts of money. According to a study by the Cable News Network (CNN), a downtown Phoenix restaurant that normally expected 1,000 people on game nights only saw 200 people walk through its doors. Considering there are forty-two home-games in a typical NBA season, this substantial loss of revenue resulted in loss of jobs. The 1998 decision by players and owners to stall negotiations had numerous negative affects upon communities. Why would the NBA allow such a thing to happen? Sadly, the labor disputes showed the ugliness of the league’s superior aim: regardless of who gets in the way, regardless of who gets hurt, the primary objective is getting themselves the largest piece of the pie possible.

Granted, every owner should not be perceived as a money hungry beast - it would be wrong to prejudge and label. Some owners have a genuine interest in their communities, which is why they invest handsomely in their franchise. Many team organizations donate employee time and energy to local charities and promotions. However, as many skeptics would quickly point out, an owner would not make these “charitable” decisions if it were not for the overall benefit of the business. Skeptics would continue to argue that every deed, every charity, and every humanitarian effort brings positive publicity, which may lead to – you guessed it – more money.

Players

Millions of North American youth spend their days and nights dreaming of becoming a professional athlete. When they imagine playing a sport and having someone pay them millions of dollars to do it, they simply could not be more excited! What’s not to love? NBA players travel from city to city in large private jets, stay in the finest hotels each community has to offer, eat at the most lavish restaurants, and play the game they love in front of thousands of adoring fans. What’s not to admire? It’s no wonder so many North American youth idolize professional athletes.

Even with all the obvious benefits that go along with being an NBA athlete, those involved in the 1998 dispute felt their “greedy” owners had mistreated them. Although player salaries averaged over two million dollars per year, they insisted they were not treated fairly. What became increasingly evident is why players and owners fought in 1998: they shared a common characteristic - greed. Players, with the help of their trusty agents, were trying to get their own piece of the NBA pie. They thought the only way they could obtain more wealth was to withdraw funds away from the owners.

The greedy behavior of basketball players off the court greatly resembles their conduct while on it. Players maintain their superior goal for money by promoting their own abilities and marketability. Individualism is perceived as essential, for if players are viewed as attractive and valuable products, owners will be more willing to provide them with large contracts. Surprisingly, a player’s “value” does not necessarily come from statistical production on the basketball court. Rather, it comes from an ability to put fans in the seats and generate revenue for the owner. An average player who “puts people in the stands” is much more valuable than a good player who does not. Because the superior aim of the league (and owners) is revenue, a player feels pressured to do all he can to make himself valuable. In this “team sport”, individualism holds the highest priority.

Granted, not every player is a money-hungry individualistic self-server. A select number of players build meaningful relationships with fellow teammates, fans, and even owners. They are able to appreciate the joy of being an NBA player and realize they are one of only 450 people in the world lucky enough to play NBA basketball. They see teamwork and integrity as a superior aim; money is blessed side-gift. But sadly, these types of players are increasingly rare. For the most part, players are unable to make meaningful relationships with their teammates because of the inherent greed and competition between them. Players do no just fight with owners for their piece of the pie, but they often fight with fellow players as well.

Fans

It is no accident that basketball fans are mentioned last in this ethical examination of the NBA. Although the NBA could not operate without the support of its loyal fans, the league continuously takes them for granted. Dedicated fans commit themselves to a team, connect with “favorite players”, purchase tickets to the games, buy team merchandise, and pay for parking and concessions. And what do they get in return for their financial support? First, team owners raise ticket prices each year and often threaten to leave town if tax dollars are not offered to pay for new stadiums. Secondly, players often “hold-out” for new contracts or leave town for bigger salaries elsewhere. And finally, as the owners and players displayed in 1998, organizations are willing to forget about the interests of the fans and feud to the point of lockout.

The NBA expects its fans to love their teams and support the players, yet they feel little obligation to love them in return. League commissioners, owners, players, agents, media, marketers, advertisers, and goods and apparel companies all bet upon the fans’ growing addiction to sports. The NBA expects the “sports drug” to keep blue-collar, diehard fans hooked, while catering to the corporate white collar fans that can afford to drop money on season tickets and luxury suites. The NBA assumes that no matter how poorly fans are treated; they will eventually begin pouring their money back into the league.

An important point to remember is that NBA fans are not completely innocent. The art of “jumping on and off the bandwagon” has been witnessed for years as fans switch their loyalties on a frequent basis. On any given day a fan might love a team or hate them – depending upon how they feel that day. In all honesty, fans often display greater disloyalty than the owners and players. In addition, if greed and over-reaching has become what to expect out of the NBA, should the fans not be held responsible for holding the league to a higher standard of integrity? Fans should sense a responsibility to convince sports authorities that they are integral to the survival of the sport. Instead of demanding the reform of greed in the NBA, the fans have ignorantly refused to question the sports teams’ ability to manipulate their interests. The fans are just as much to blame for the ethical downfall of the NBA ethic as the players and owners.

A Proposal

Each member of an organization inherits a collection of moral responsibilities. Whether it involves a health-club, church, construction crew, or professional sports league, there are specific obligations that are included with membership. An individual cannot set itself apart from the organization and/or community in which it dwells, for human history has shown that no individual is capable of existing on its own. A person must be able to relate with others. Individuals rely upon and influence communities and communities rely upon and influence individuals. Thus, a close examination of how relationships function within a given organization will reveal a great deal about the people within it.

The alleged moral deficiencies of the National Basketball Association cannot change unless the individuals comprising it develop into moral decision makers. As highlighted earlier, the league has functioned as a group of individuals whom fight over pieces of the NBA’s financial pie. Because of this conflict, members within the organization are not seen as meaningful but are instead seen as enemies – enemies that might hinder them from the superior aim. Those comprising the league do not see others as assets that help to achieve a communal good, but rather they see each other as roadblocks keeping them from their personal good. The National Basketball Association functions in an environment of disloyalty, individualism, and dysfunctional relationships.

The Spirit of Sport

If the temptation of individualism is resisted, members of a team experience an authentic joy and connection with fellow members of the unit. Joining individual talents with other members of a team in search for a common goal is a grand occasion – one that should be celebrated. However, the pure “Spirit of Sport” is too often resisted. Instead of accepting the natural positive aspects of sports, people often utilize their positive gifts of dedication, work ethic, and competition for negative personal gain. These selfish behaviors allow athletes to drift from a common team goal. The moral deterioration of the National Basketball Association exists because too many participants fail to use their positive talents and have fallen to the temptation of selfishness.

Each professional athlete and owner has reached his or her position because of a certain set of positive attributes. These characteristics might include: competitiveness, patience, ingenuity, creativity, hard work, and performance. These aforementioned attributes in and of themselves are positive character traits. What is essential to the NBA, (and all team sports), is how any given athlete/coach/owner chooses to utilize these gifts. Just as an intelligent engineer can utilize her knowledge for building productive structures or amassing destructive bombs, an NBA employee must choose whether or not his/her skills will be utilized for “good” or “bad”. The traits are not the problem, the poor choices of those whom have them is.

The problem at hand

Every NBA participant must choose whether or not individual gifts will be used for the communal good. If individual gifts are not used for positive aims, there is a negative consequence that evolves because of it. The following is a diagram of five tensions that NBA personnel sway between. The column on the left is the natural “spirit” of sports competition. The column on the right is what occurs when the positive traits are absent and/or denied.

Fair and Honest Competition Harmful and Deceitful Competition

Integrity and Moral Courage Hypocrisy and Moral Cowardness

Responsible Role Model Careless Role Model

Teamwork, Respect, and Loyalty Individualism, Disrespect, and Infidelity

Fair and Honest Competition vs. Harmful and Deceitful Competition

“It’s not cheating unless you get caught” is a popular phrase among all professional sports, not just the NBA. Competition often drives people to the point of looking for any advantage possible. Coaches try to expose the weaknesses of other teams. Owners try to manipulate the dollars and cents of their bookkeepers. Players “act” and “fake” in order to achieve favorable calls on the court. Whether its bluffing, intentionally taking unfair advantage over others, or deliberately “bending” the rules, the naturally positive spirit of sports competition is absent in the NBA. Because the league is so accustomed to the lack of fair and honest competition, the negative consequences of cheating have been overlooked – cheating now seems to be acceptable. This “cheating is OK” attitude of sports is a major problem because millions of people watch the NBA, and inevitably, learn from the NBA.

Does the absence of fair play and “rule bending” have an impact upon society? According to a Rutgers’ Management Education nationwide survey, out of 4,500 high school students polled, 75 percent of them admitted to engaging in serious cheating. In addition, it found 50 percent of the respondents “do not think copying questions and answers from a test is even cheating”. Rutgers professor Donald McCabe, who conducted the survey, said “I think kids today are looking to adults and society for a moral compass, and when they see the behavior occurring for a moral compass, and when they see the behavior occurring there, they don’t understand why they should be held to a higher standard” (“Many students say cheating’s OK”, Kathy Slobogin, CNN.com, May, 2002). Is it fair to blame this cheating all on the NBA? Probably not. But is it safe to say that the rule bending of professional sports has something to do with it? Definitely.

Integrity and Moral Courage vs. Hypocrisy and Moral Cowardness

An individual with integrity is trustworthy, displays moral soundness, and resists the corrupting influences and motives of society. Therefore, a person of integrity is one who lives out his/her moral values in daily living and decision-making. Many NBA personnel fail to live with integrity, (as shown by the already mentioned failure of the league to compete fairly). Regardless of whether or not an individual has moral values to begin with, the difficult step is keeping those values in mind when making daily decisions. With professional athletes, coaches, owners, and the agents whom represent all making important decisions, they are constantly given the option whether or not to “do good” in a given situation. Do NBA personnel act with integrity? This question is extremely complicated. Take this illustration as an example:

An NBA owner is asked by a local car dealer if his star player can stop by the dealership, make a public appearance, and shoot a new commercial. The owner sees this as a great idea for two reasons: First, getting his player into the public increases the exposure of his “product”. This exposure might lead to more people attending games, buying merchandise, and so on. Secondly, corporate sponsors are a huge deal in the world of sports. If he does this favor for the car dealer, a return favor might include the purchase of season tickets, a luxury suite, or even promotion of the team at the dealership. Both the owner and the car dealer see this as a “win/win situation.” They agree to have the star player shoot the commercial the next day.

An hour later, the owner contacts his player and tells him what time to be at the dealership. One problem. The player had already agreed to visit a local elementary school that day, and he does not want to cancel. For the children, having a star athlete show up at school might be the highlight of the year – he does not want to disappoint them.

The owner gets angry. This car dealer is an important contact. He does not want to disappoint him. If this star player is not able to make the appearance then the car dealer might be upset and chose not invest in the franchise. An NBA player would mean a great deal to the car dealer’s business, and the car dealer’s investment would mean a great deal to the owner’s franchise. The owner pressures the player to make a decision.

What should the player do? In a sense, because he is under contract by the owner he should do what he is told, right? This promotion would be of great help to the franchise. Many NBA jobs are dependent upon corporate sponsors. Making the appearance would be a great move for the team. But what about the promise he made to the children? What kind of message would he be sending by breaking his promise? The children would be extremely disappointed. The fact of the matter is that someone is going to be disappointed, and the player must choose who he is more obligated to serve and what decision to make. Is he entitled to serve his employer (who signs his checks and will decide whether or not to re-sign him when his contract runs out) or is he entitled to keep his promise to the children? The answer to this question highlights the difficult tension of moral courage.

Responsible Role Model vs. Careless Role Model

Philadelphia Sixer’s superstar Charles Barkley made waves his early 1990’s Nike ad when he pounded a basketball and said, “I am not a role-model. Parents are role models. I’m paid to play basketball, not to raise your kids.” The shoe commercial sparked a giant debate as to how professional athletes should be viewed as models for youth. Whereas Barkley insisted that basketball players should not be in charge of raising kids, others argued that because they have chosen to live their lives in the public sphere, athletes should be held accountable as role models.

Professional sports owners, coaches, players, and agents all have the potential of being observed in the public light. Therefore, it is their natural duty to act as positive role models. However, each year the NBA is flooded with a wide-range of public relation problems. Some players are caught with drugs, some cheating on their wives, some driving while intoxicated. Owners have been caught cheating on contract deals and badmouthing city governments. These are hardly the types of people society wants influencing its children. NBA personnel have an incredible opportunity to act as positive models of moral activity, but because many have failed to serve these natural responsibilities, the absence of moral good has led to a modeling of negative behavior. Players are role models, but unfortunately, their immoral behavior too often displays what types of models they are - poor ones.

Teamwork, Respect, and Loyalty vs. Individualism, Disrespect, and Infidelity

Teamwork, respect, and loyalty are the most crucial aspect of the league’s developing moral character. The National Basketball Association is incapable of achieving any of sport’s positive moral virtues of if it lacks teamwork, respect, and loyalty. For example, how confident can someone be if he has to question whether or not someone is “looking out” for him or her? How can someone achieve any peace of mind if they are constantly forced to question the loyalty of others? A successful league is one that embraces teamwork, respect, and loyalty. A league full of members who only look out for themselves is doomed for failure. Therefore, as each member of the National Basketball Association accepts or rejects the core values of teamwork, respect, and loyalty, the results of their decisions will inevitably decide whether or not the league will flourish or pass away.

Sadly, the majority of NBA personnel are loyal to one thing: themselves. Most (if not all) players and owners do all they can in order to achieve his/her superior aim – regardless of who gets in the way. Because an NBA career last only a set amount of years, many individuals consistently strive to get as much fame and fortune in a given amount of time as possible. And what about trust? How can you trust anyone when they are also looking for their piece of the same pie you are going after? Some players and owners would argue they cannot afford to trust anyone because once they do they will be left in the cold. The central question of the NBA is whether or not the organization lacks trust because of its members or the members lack trust because of the organization.

Imagine if…

How would the National Basketball Association look if it were an organization filled with individuals who practice mutual respect, fair competition, and dare I say…love? What kind of league would it be if its individual members saw each other as trusted allies in the common search of success rather than enemies who can only inhibit it? How much different would a trustworthy NBA look from the one that currently exists? How would the American public respond to a league that displays trustworthiness rather that individualistic greed? The future of the National Basketball Association is not entirely dependent upon the quality of its basketball, but rather, whether or not the public chooses to trust in a league that has too often displayed little reason to be trusted. Fans will not invest in a league it does not trust.

Closing Remarks

Granted, the ideas contained in this presentation are a bit idealistic. I know that as long as humans are involved within any organization there is the potential of corruption and immorality. In addition, any time a group of people is involved in an intense competitive atmosphere, the potential for corruption dramatically increases. However, I feel that all humans are capable of change, and all change must inevitably start with an idea, value, or belief. Perhaps, the value of respect, love, and trustworthiness is where the league needs to begin its transformation. As a life-long basketball fan and a faithful believer in the power of God, I feel the National Basketball Association is capable of winning back its fans and creating an atmosphere of mutual respect. This task is not easy, but it is possible if the league makes it a priority. The National Basketball Association can revolutionize itself if the individual members within it decide to change the behaviors that have plagued it – one decision at a time. After some diligent work and patience, the NBA will again enjoy great success and be a league in which people will say, “I love this game!”

Climate Change and Poverty in the Household of God (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-10-17T02:48:00.000-07:00

Since the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNCCC) came into force in 1995, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNCCC has met annually to assess progress in dealing with global climate change. From November 28 until December 9 in Durban, South Africa, the Conference of the Parties will meet again, for the 17^th time, thus the title “COP17”. Among other things, COP17 will bring together various world leaders in order to adopt decisions and resolutions, publish reports, and attempt to establish legally binding legislation for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. While some are skeptical as to how much progress may be achieved due to power politics and global economic stagnation, there is a growing sense of optimism surrounding COP17 and enthusiasm is expected to increase as the gathering draws closer.

While one could reflect upon a wide range of topics surrounding climate change and the complexity of multi-national negotiations, I find it necessary to offer a few observations from the perspective of a North American Christian residing within the borders of South Africa. In specifics, as I prepare for my own involvement surrounding COP17 in Durban through the local faith-based community, the following observations come to mind: 1) Climate Change skepticism seems to be a USA-based phenomenon, 2) Climate Change and Poverty are intimately linked, and 3) The Christian Church has much to offer surrounding resistance and responses to climate change and poverty.

Climate Change skepticism seems to be a USA-based phenomenon

According to the Pew Research Centre, a 2009 survey found that only 57% of USA citizens believed in global warming, which was a twenty-point drop from a similar survey taken in 2006. In addition, the study found that only 36% of the 1,500 adults questioned believed that human activities – such as pollution from power plants, industry, and vehicles – are behind an increase in global temperatures, which is down from 47% in 2006. While there are many reasons given for a decline in environmental emphasis, the numbers reveal that USA citizens tend to be more skeptical of climate change when compared to the majority of people from other nations. As a result, it is not surprising that the USA government has a reputation around the world as the primary roadblock to global legislation that would require more legally binding sustainable environmental standards.

In contrast to the ongoing public and political debate in the USA surrounding the legitimacy and urgency of climate change, the global scientific body of knowledge appears to be overwhelmingly clear, as highlighted in The Great Disruption by Paul Gilding:

· …every major grouping of qualified scientists that has analyzed the issue [of climate change] comes to the same conclusion and has done so consistently over time and around the world… The broad conclusion they all come to is that we face a significant risk of major change that undermines society’s prosperity and stability, we are a substantial contributor to the risk, and to reduce the level of risk we should dramatically reduce emissions of the pollution that causes the problem.

· The consensus position on climate change is reflected in the rigorously peer-reviewed journals in which research is presented and issues are debated. One study by Naomi Oreskes, published in the journal Science, demonstrated that of the papers whose abstract contained the keywords global climate change between 1993 and 2003, none questioned the consensus position – not one. Oreskes’s subsequent book, Merchants of Doubt, revealed how many who once fronted the tobacco industry’s anti-science campaign to deny the link between smoking and lung cancer are also now prominent and vocal climate change skeptics, and they are often funded to create doubt that has no credible scientific basis.

With the above thoughts in mind, it is clear that – from the basis of consensus scientific knowledge from credible specialists around the world – climate change is real, serious, and is growing worse due to human activity. While a number of skeptics will persist, and frequent streams of propaganda – often funded by energy companies and political lobbyists – will continue, humanity cannot continue to live in denial, for failing to take action will have dramatic and far-reaching implications. In many ways, the science reveals that climate change is merely not about politics, religion, money, or morality, but it is about the survival of the planet and the existence of life as we know it. In other words, climate change is an issue that impacts each and every living being that God has created.

Climate Change and Poverty are intimately linked

While some argue that an increased emphasis upon environmentalism is a hindrance to economic growth, the scientific body of knowledge reports to the contrary, for climate change actually increases poverty, especially within the developing world. Among other things, extreme weather has an impact upon productivity and can raise the price of staple foods, such as grains, that are important to households throughout the world. In addition, studies have shown that global warming will likely increase the frequency and intensity of heat waves and drought in many areas. These various and significant realities will have a deep and dramatic impact upon developing nations, and because of the growing inter-connectedness of globalization, they will also have a impact upon Europe and the USA. All together, the choice between environmental sustainability and economic growth is no choice at all, for one cannot exist in the long term without the other.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), climate change is a global concern, for it increases poverty and halts sustainable development in the following ways:

· There has been considerable research surrounding climate change and agriculture. Among other things, climate change impacts rainfall, temperature, and water availability in vulnerable areas, thus it has a strong influence upon productivity, agricultural practices, and distribution of rural land. In addition, climate change could worsen the prevalence of hunger through effects on production and purchasing power, thus some have predicted the number of people to be impacted by malnutrition may rise to 600 million by 2080.

· Of the 3 billion growth in population projected worldwide by 2050, the majority will be born in countries already experiencing water shortages. As the climate of the earth warms, changes in rainfall, evaporation, snow, and runoff flows will be impacted.

· As a result of accelerated ice sheet disintegration, rising sea levels could result in 330 million people being permanently or temporarily displaced through flooding. In addition, warming seas can also fuel the increase of more intense tropical storms.

· One of the direct effects of climate change is an increase in temperature-related illnesses and deaths related to prolonged heat waves and humidity. In specifics, climate change can alter the geographic range of mosquito-born diseases, such as malaria, thus exposing new populations to the disease. As a changing climate affects the essential ingredients of maintaining good health (clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter), the effects could be widespread and massive.

· The report of the World Health Organization’s Commission on Social Determinants of Health points out that disadvantaged communities are likely to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of climate change because of their increased exposure and vulnerability to health threats. More specifically, over 90 percent of malaria and diarrhea deaths are experienced by children aged 5 years or younger, mostly in developing countries.

With all the above thoughts in mind, it is clear that the world cannot afford to engage the false debate of having to choose between environmental sustainability and economic growth, for the two go hand in hand within an interconnected system of globalization. In many ways, the current global economic downturn and debt crisis within Europe and the USA proves how a failure to promote sustainability will drive economies into further crisis, not only in the developing world, but also within those countries that have enjoyed generations of prosperity. And so, as increases in climate change lead to dramatic rises of inequality and poverty, those who are most responsible for climate change are called to take responsibility in order to offer sustainable livelihoods for people and places throughout the world. The issue of climate change – and the resulting consequences of economic crisis, inequality, and poverty – has reached a breaking-point, and a lack of significant and far-reaching action will lead the world further down a dangerous path.

The Christian Church has much to offer surrounding resistance and responses

In order to resist and respond to climate change and poverty, a wide variety of world church companions are seeking innovative and respectful methods to accompany one another in God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment. As stated by the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Thabo Makogoba, during his sermon on creation and greed: “God calls us to be part of the solution, not part of the problem – part of the coming of the kingdom, partners in his working of redemption and salvation.” And so, while many would argue that COP17 should be left to government leaders and scientists, the call of Jesus to seek life in its fullness for all people in all places draws people of faith toward prophetic action, for the common identity as Children of God takes precedence over national boundaries and political agendas. In other words, as people of faith who believe in a God that created the heavens and the earth, we are called to be faithful stewards of creation in a way that brings life, rather than takes life away.

With such thoughts in mind, the late South African theologian and activist Steve de Gruchy promoted “An Olive Agenda” that is of great importance for churches and people of faith around the world seeking ways to mobilize, for he provided a significant contribution toward the pursuit of resistance and responses to climate change and poverty. For example, de Gruchy offered a theological metaphor – the olive – that transcends the duality between the “green” environmental agenda and “brown” poverty agenda “that has disabled development discourse for the past twenty years”. As a result of de Gruchy’s work, instead of falling into the false debate between “green” environmental sustainability and “brown” poverty reduction, an Olive Agenda combines green and brown into olive, and thus provides a “remarkably rich metaphor” that “holds together that which religious and political discourse rends apart: earth, land, climate, labor, time, family, food, nutrition, health, hunger, poverty, power and violence”. Among other things, de Gruchy’s Olive Agenda is of exceptional value as churches and people of faith around the world seek to understand the mission of God within the context of climate change and its impact upon inequality and poverty.

According to de Gruchy, an Olive Agenda finds its theological foundation in the concept of “oikos”, translated as “the household of God”. As ecology (oikos-logos) concerns the wisdom of how a home functions, economy (oikos-nomos) is about the rules that should govern the home, and because there is only one “home” for humankind (the earth), economy and ecology are thus “both intimately concerned about the earth, about the way human beings live upon the earth, relate to the earth, make use of the earth’s bounty, and respect the integrity of the earth”. Therefore, the social implications of these theological affirmations are that while both brown and green agendas are “fundamentally right, taken in isolation each is tragically wrong – and thus we must integrate economy as oikos-nomos, and ecology as oikos-logos in search of sustainable life on earth, the oikos that is our only home.” As stated previously, this Olive Agenda has the potential to dramatically transform the ways that world church companionships and people of faith respond to economic and ecological exploitation and other factors that prevent fullness of life around the world.

Moving Forward

One of the common metaphors of social development is “give someone fish and they eat for a day, but teach someone to fish and they eat for a lifetime”. In the 21st century this statement is not fully accurate, for one has to consider who has “access to the pond”, and of course, we need to recognize that climate change is causing “the pond” the shrink. When the pond, both literally and figuratively, is shrinking, it creates a global situation in which competition and warfare surrounding limited resources takes priority over cooperation, and survival of the fittest takes precedence over mutuality with humanity and creation. With such realities in mind, and in light of the Olive Agenda as first articulated by Steve de Gruchy, we recognize that environmental sustainability is not merely an option for the future, but it is the only option if a future is what we truly seek.

While climate change and poverty are global concerns, one recognizes that certain nations have additional responsibility for the challenges, and as a result, must take bold leadership in promoting solutions. For example, according to the WorldWatch Institute, the wealthiest 500 million people in the world (roughly 7% of the global population) are currently responsible for 50% of carbon dioxide emissions, while the poorest 3 billion are responsible for just 6%. In addition, from 1900-2004 the whole of Africa generated just 2.5% of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions while the USA accounted for 29.5%. Although these gaps have narrowed slightly in recent years, historical emissions are relevant because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere to exert a greenhouse effect for many decades, and thus the negative impact of emissions upon development persists long after the pollution is first created. And so, the scientific body of knowledge is clear in stating that those who are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change are those that carry the least historical responsibility for its existence. As a result, while the entire world must rally around answers for climate change, the primary responsibility to promote such resolutions and reverse environmental injustice falls most upon the wealthiest global citizens, for anything less would be unjust, short-sighted, selfish, and irresponsible.

With all the above in mind, the time has come to recognize that God’s mission is about the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, not merely for life after death, but also for life after birth. As a result, the time for silence on matters such as climate change and poverty is finished, for as Martin Luther King, Jr. stated: “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transformation was not the strident clamour of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people”. As a result of the crippling ecological and economic impact of climate change, the time has come for Christian Churches around the world – especially those within the USA – to seek responsible and respectful systems that reverse injustices and offer life for all that God has created. The time has come for churches to call upon wealthier countries to repay their climate debt by undertaking severe cuts in emissions. In addition, it is time for people of faith to model environmental values and advocate for the increased financial support of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. In other words, it is time for churches to insist that all countries involved in COP17 support legally binding legislation that values the entirety and integrity of God’s creation.

The scientific evidence surrounding climate change is clear, and the implications for both the environment and humankind are many, thus the response to such global challenges needs to be persistent, organized, and significant. As Jesus calls upon humankind to “love they neighbor”, and as the Old Testament prophets remind us to strive for justice, we recognize that within a deeply connected world “neighbor” implies all that God has created, and injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. And so, an implication of Jesus’ words and actions is to share and receive the Good News not only on Sunday mornings, but through daily acts of long-term advocacy that promotes sustainable livelihoods. With COP17 in South Africa on the horizon, the time has come to mobilize around an Olive Agenda, as silence or neutrality on such matters will allow climate change and poverty to continue and grow worse. The time has come when humanity can no longer afford to fight over the limited resources remaining in our shrinking pond, and the moment is upon us to pass legally binding legislation that values the gifts of creation that God has entrusted us to manage. The time is now. God has allowed humankind to serve as stewards of creation, and the time has come to embrace this sacred responsibility, value the resources that God has so graciously offered, and ensure that all of God’s creation – in this generation and the next – receives the fullness of life that God has promised.

Open Letter: Resignation from ELCA Global Mission in South Africa

2011-09-22T01:14:00.000-07:00

In September of 2001, exactly ten years ago, I was a recent college graduate and first year student at Luther Seminary, and Kristen just completed her Master of Science degree at the University of Minnesota. At that point in time we never could have imagined how our lives would alter in the following weeks, months, and years. While there is much to articulate in regards to “where we are” physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually as a result of the past ten years, my overwhelming affirmation is that I thank God for the direction our lives have taken, and I praise God for the awesome opportunities provided alongside amazing people in various locations around the world.

With all the above in mind, it is with deep appreciation that I wish make known our resignation as Young Adults in Global Mission Country Coordinators in South Africa with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – Global Mission. Due to a variety of personal and professional factors that Kristen and I have discerned over the past months, we believe the time has come for us to pursue new opportunities and transition into a new stage in our lives. I communicated our decision with a formal Letter of Resignation to Rev. Stephen Nelson, who serves as the Director for Global Service within Global Mission, in addition to Rev. Bheki Mathe, the current General Secretary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa.

With the exception of any unexpected circumstances, we plan to remain in South Africa until July of 2012 in order to fulfill our commitment of accompanying the current group of Young Adults in Global Mission participant learners and hosts within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa, after which we plan to return to North America and serve God through new ventures. At this point in time there are a variety of excellent ministry possibilities worthy of consideration for our future, but we also recognize that many additional roles may become known in the months ahead. As a result, while we feel heartache when faced with the upcoming prospects of departing South Africa, we recognize that God is walking alongside us, and the Holy Spirit will show a path forward that includes fulfillment and exciting ministry environments. In the midst of it all, we recognize that a significant amount of time in South Africa remains, thus we seek to be faithfully present, serve to the best of our collective abilities, and when the time to depart is finally upon us, we plan to offer God our thanks and leave with no regrets.

In reflection upon the various events of the past years, I wish to express my deepest appreciation for the outpouring of love and solidarity received, especially since Khaya’s birth in October of 2010, for it is another profound reminder of how fortunate we are to be called, equipped, and sent-out into God’s global mission through the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The support displayed by family and friends from around the world has been remarkable. In addition, I am proud to share that we have received an outstanding level of personal and professional support from Global Mission staff on various levels, and local hosts within South Africa have been tremendous, which has made this process of discernment less painful, but of course, it also makes the decision to resign far more difficult. While we trust that God will lead us to fresh and fulfilling opportunities in the period ahead, we recognize that the Global Mission community has been a joy to serve with, we feel deeply connected to the amazing people of South Africa, and we will dearly miss our current roles within the Churchwide expression.

As we consider more specific plans surrounding methods of departure, leadership transition, and potential future opportunities for our family within North America, I humbly ask for your continued prayers of compassion and togetherness during this important time in our lives. In addition, I pray that whatever it is that God brings next will provide Kristen and I with various means to continue honoring the confidence and trust that ELCA Global Mission has bestowed upon us throughout the years, and I strongly believe that we will continue to accompany one another within God’s mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment around the world.

I thank God for all that you do, and I praise God for all that you are.

With peace and love,

Brian E. Konkol

Who are Missionaries? What is Mission? Why should we Care? (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-07-12T06:48:00.000-07:00

Every two years, longer-term Global Mission personnel of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) engage in “Home Assignment”, which includes two months of visits alongside congregations, universities, and a variety of other organizations throughout the United States. Among other things, Home Assignment is meant to produce a dynamic dialogue surrounding what God appears to be doing around the world, and a result, animate a heightened awareness that mission takes place everywhere and involves everyone.

After two months of driving, flying, speaking, listening, backpack living, hospitality receiving, and Lutheran pot-luck consuming, the following are some lessons learned:

WHAT IS A MISSIONARY?

When I ask people to visualize a “typical” missionary, the usual response includes that of a clean-cut young man with black pants and a white collared shift (with a name tag attached) that knocks on doors, a preacher who stands on street corners shouting words of judgment, or one who travels the far ends of the earth to confront false beliefs and plant new Christian churches. In other words, many see a missionary specifically as one whose prime function is to use a variety of tactics to “convert” a person from one system of religious belief to another, with the assumption that the missionary possesses “the truth” and those whom she/he confronts are in deep need of correction. While one cannot argue that these forms of missionary activity do indeed exist, it is important to note that such examples are only a small few of the overall wide variety of mission methods. The reality is that, just because particular styles of missionaries appear to be most vocal, visible and yes - volatile, they should not be acknowledged as all there is.

A missionary is, by definition, one who engages in a particular mission. With this in mind, we recognize that a “mission” is, in other words, an intentional purpose and/or higher objective. As a result, one who serves to promote a certain purpose can – by definition – be considered a “missionary”. For example, those who promote the consumption of Coca-Cola around the world are not merely “workers” and/or “employees”, but they are “missionaries” of the Coca-Cola brand and its objectives and/or “mission statement”. In addition, those who advertise for Nike, Apple, Toyota, Microsoft, etc., are all serving a specific purpose of spreading a particular message, and as a result possess a systemic (and oftentimes financial) motivation to change attitudes and alter behaviors.

In addition to corporations, there are countless “partisan missionaries” in all corners of the globe who engage in attempts to spread a defined political agenda. As election cycles draw close, these political missionaries multiply in mass numbers, and their energetic zeal often rivals – and sometimes far exceeds – the determination of many religious clergy labeled as extreme. When one receives a phone call from the public action committee representative of a political candidate, it is a missionary on the other line. When someone places a poster on their wall or sign in the yard, they distinguish themselves as a missionary serving to exemplify “the mission” of a particular candidate. When the “mission” of a campaign is to elect a particular person and pursue a certain partisan agenda, those who contribute to such a mission are, by definition, missionaries.

With the above in mind, while many associate the word “missionary” exclusively with religious conversion and international travel in the developing world, a closer look recognizes that our 21^st century global context includes missionaries who promote a variety of ideals in diverse ways within numerous locations. And so, we should hesitate to assume we know what a “missionary” is, for a Christian missionary is far different from a missionary of Pepsi, Adidas, Nokia, Exxon, and the Republican Party. In order to discover who Christian missionaries are, it is important to reflect upon what God’s mission is about, and how Christian missionaries serve within this larger purpose.

WHAT IS GOD’S MISSION?

What distinguishes Christian missionaries from those of corporations and politics is an attempt to participate within God’s mission found through the Good News of Jesus. In other words, a Christian missionary is one who considers the point, purpose, and intentions of a gracious God through the lens of Christian faith, and as a result tries to participate within this activity through faithful and fruitful words and deeds. Naturally, it is impossible to fully understand the “will of God”, and even if we could, it would be impossible to fully follow it. Nevertheless, as a result of ongoing spiritual experiences and open-minded conversation, we should not hesitate to consider what God is “up to” in our 21^st Century environment of globalization, ecology, economics, politics, science, religion, etc.

God’s Mission is Reconciliation

The 21^st century is the most connected era of human history in regards to technology, media, economics, ecology, etc. However, it is also perhaps the most divided period our planet has ever witnessed, as we observe increases surrounding income disparity, unequal access to health care and suitable education, as well as dangerous levels of racism, sexism, religious extremism, political polarization, xenophobia, and discrimination based upon sexual orientation. In the midst of these divisions, God is on a mission. While brokenness and separation threatens to tear-apart local communities, churches, and international companionships, God’s mission is reconciliation, to the point that our common identity as Children of God takes precedence over the color of our skin or passport, size of our bank account, gender of our life-partner, and affirmation of religious belief.

As humankind is reconciled to God through the life-giving and inclusive love of Jesus, we are called to be reconciled to one another, as is written in 2 Corinthians 5:19: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and entrusting to us the ministry of reconciliation”. As the Lutheran tradition proclaims, we are not loved by God because of anything we do, because all fall short of flawlessness, but we are acceptable to God by “grace through faith” regardless of the various classifications that the world so often places upon humankind. In other words, as all people have received God’s love as a gift regardless of daily faults and countless imperfections, our response to such amazing grace is to be reconciled with others, regardless of whether or not they (or we) deserve it. These “horizontal” and “vertical” acts of reconciliation are central to God’s mission, and as a result, key components to the daily being and doing of Christian missionaries.

God’s Mission is Transformation

There are about one billion people in our world who live in relative prosperity, yet there are many other billions who scrape through life in spirit-destroying poverty. While some in our world strive for a larger flat-screen television with hundreds of channels, DVD screens in a gas-guzzling SUV, and the perfect massive diamond for a marriage proposal, there are others who would die for a clean cup of water or a simple bowl of rice. The world is messed up. However, in the midst of this mess, God is on a mission. When people are reconciled with God, and respond through reconciliation with one another, the result is individual and communal transformation on a local and global scale. In other words, when people receive open acceptance and radical hospitality, they learn to look outward and strive for relief, development, and advocacy. The result is an interconnected world that intimately transforms for the better and embodies the life-giving love of God found in Jesus. When lives are changed, so are communities, nations, and the global village.

The Bible is filled with awesome accounts of transformation, and while much attention is often given to individuals who “changed their ways”, what is equally important are the various illustrations of structural and/or societal conversion. While Jesus was committed to a faith that was spiritual and personal, he warned of the temptation to keep such affirmations private, and as a result, he stirred-up groundbreaking and earth-changing large-scale and long-term public transformation. In a world that desperately needs personal and public renovation, such news of a Son of God who cares about life after death and life after birth is Good News, especially for those whose lives include daily struggle for survival. As a result, those engaged as Christian missionaries seek transformation, both individually and collectively, for it is central to God’s mission in and through our world.

God’s Mission is Empowerment

One of the common metaphors of social transformation is “give someone fish and they eat for a day, but teach someone to fish and they eat for a lifetime”. In the 21^st century this statement is not fully accurate, for in our interconnected multi-national context of economics and ecology, one has to ask who has access “to the pond”. Our world is filled with aid organizations that proclaim a purpose to change the world, and while many provide wonderful services and help to save lives, the long-term structures of poverty and injustice too often remain, to the point that “access to the pond” remains restricted and the cycles and structures that keep some wealthy and others impoverished remain. In the midst of this inequality, however, God is on a mission. As reconciliation and transformation occur, authority and access is given to those who are too often marginalized and silenced, for people recognize that full independence is a myth, and interdependence is not only a factual local and global reality, but it is a Christian faith essential and a core component to God’s mission.

In Acts 1:8, Jesus is recorded as stating: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses… to the end of the earth”. In such words we recognize that God shared authentic power with humankind through the Holy Spirit, and as a result we are called to share genuine authority with one another in ways that sustain long-term fullness of life. In contrast to the criticism that Christian mission is an “opiate for the people” that dulls the pains of life while waiting and hoping for the life to come, the mission of God calls for people to walk directly into the hardships and struggles of our world, move spirituality from anesthetic to advocacy, and empower others to use their gifts for the glory of God and the welfare of all people. As the African concept of “ubuntu” reminds us, “I am because we are”, and if any in our world live in pain, then all feel that sting, and as a result must strive to empower others just as the Holy Spirit continues to empower us.

WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY?

If God’s mission through Jesus is reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment, then Christian missionaries are those who reconcile, transform, and empower, by the grace of God and in the name of Jesus. This, perhaps more than anything else, is what I learned by visiting with countless Lutheran congregations in North America over the past months and through being accompanied over recent years by companions in South Africa, Guyana, and beyond. Among other things, what this recognition means is that a “typical” Christian missionary does not exist, for we are not just North American pastors who travel the world, but also South American teachers, mechanics, and politicians; European nursing home residents, tattoo artists, recent college graduates, prisoners, and custodians; African farmers, construction workers, lawyers, and physicians; Middle-Eastern activists, taxi drivers, and chemists; North American unemployed and underemployed, engineers, children, and retirees, and countless other women and men who seek a restoration of local and global community through spirit-led radical hospitality. A Christian missionary may come in many different shapes and sizes, and a result, God is able to work through them in countless and exciting ways.

In addition to everyone God calls to be missionaries, we also recognize that missionary service takes place everywhere, and not only many miles away with people who look, speak, and act differently. There are occasions when missionary engagement leads one to travel large distances on unfamiliar ground, yet other times when it is needed to empower a family member under the same roof, transform tensions with a neighbor down the same street, or even reconcile with other church members who worship in the same building. In other words, every moment of every day is an opportunity to reconcile, transform, and empower, thus we are on a continuous “mission trip” and continuously seek ways to utilize our countless God-given gifts to accompany others in solidarity that practices mutuality. In an awesome proclamation of affirmation, in God’s eyes all are worthy to participate in this mission, and all are incredibly valuable and useful within it.

As stated at the onset, I believe our world is filled with a variety of “missionaries” and countless “missions”, some that are constructive and worthwhile, but far too many that are conflicting, competing, and counter-productive. And of course, one cannot hide the reality that some who claim to be Christian missionaries radiate arrogance and irresponsibility that hardly resemble anything Jesus would promote (…and in all humility, I am sure there are many days that my own words and deeds would make Jesus cringe). In the midst of it all, I believe we should resist the temptation of indifference and isolation, but instead learn to care about these local and global missionary realities, for God’s strength is greater than our weakness, Christian missionaries are not what they are too often assumed to be, we all have an important role within God’s mission, and because of the division, inequality, and massive mess in our world, the embodiment of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment is needed now perhaps more than ever. As God so dearly loves the world, and because the mess is not acceptable, the mission of God through Jesus crosses boundaries, promotes awesome hospitality and grace, expresses radical relevance, recognizes the need for humility and boldness, and has no ultimate outcome except that which brings life in its fullness for all people in all places. We are invited into this mission, today and always, by the grace of God, and for the sake of the world. We are missionaries, and mission is all around us, so may we recognize this invitation, accept it, embrace it, and most of all, participate within it.

---

For additional information on God's Mission, see the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) Department for Mission and Development (DMD) text: "Mission in Context: Transformation, Reconciliation, and Empowerment" (http://www.lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/DMD/DMD-Publications.html), which served as a resource in the drafting of this paper.

Matthew 4:1-11 "Baptism and Temptation" (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-04-04T02:39:00.000-07:00

Transcript of Sermon originally presented at the Lutheran Theological Institute (LTI) chapel in Pietermaritzburg, on the 13th of March, 2011.

There are certain chapters in the Bible that seem to grab our attention from the first verse. Today we have such an example. In fact, even before the first verse, just from reading the chapter heading that shows-up in various Bible translations, we are given a moving preview of what we are about to encounter: something with drama, suspense, and various attempts at seduction. We are offered a small and enticing insight into the text that follows: An account of Jesus and his arch-nemesis filled with exhilaration and thrilling anticipation. The heading at the start of Matthew Chapter 4 could just as easily be the title of a blockbuster film, a dramatic play, or even an action-packed television show.

“The Temptation of Jesus” is a story title that grabs our attention, and because its contents offer broad appeal and important meaning for Christian faith, the account from Matthew 4 is told often in various Christian churches around the world. However, while the story is – and should be – re-told with each passing year, especially during the liturgical season of Lent, the natural consequence is that with repetition we often become tempted to assume we already know all there is to know about this narrative. In many ways, instead of hearing the story as a profoundly meaningful piece of Scripture, we treat it like an old “re-run”, and think, “Oh yeah, I’ve heard that one before”.

But of course, the basic plot of Matthew 4 does seem quite simple and straightforward on the surface level: First, Jesus is told to turn stones into bread, but Jesus resists. Then, Jesus is told to throw himself from the top of the temple, but again, Jesus resists. And finally, Jesus is told to bow down and acquire earthly power, but once again, Jesus resists. Simple and straightforward, right? And so, as the story itself seems quite easy to understand, the overarching message seems to be quite simple to grasp as well. All in all, the text seems to say: 1) Be like Jesus, and do the right thing. 2) Be like Jesus, and do not do the wrong thing. And so on, and so forth. End of story.

While I would differ from those who oversimplify Matthew 4, there is nothing inherently wrong with highlighting the moral aspect of resisting temptation, for this story has indeed helped people in various life situations to resist temptations in their own lives and “do” the “right thing”. However, there is much more taking place here. The story brings forth something much broader, and much deeper that I believe we give it credit for. When we read the account of Jesus’ temptation in and of itself, we often receive the simple and straightforward impression that temptation is merely about what we have done or left undone. However, if we read Matthew 4 in the context of what took place just before it, we receive a slightly different message. In other words, when we read Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of Matthew’s Gospel together as one, we are shown that temptation is not solely about what someone does, but is more about who someone is. In other words, what we learn is that temptation is not merely about what we do, but it is about who we are.

And so, if we try to remove the commonly-held assumptions built-up through years of hearing this “re-run” story repeated year after year (...or, if we resist the temptation to think we already know all there is to know about this part of the Bible!), we come to realize that the temptation we read about in Matthew Chapter 4 is not necessarily a lesson about what we should and should not do on moral grounds. In a renewed appreciation for the depth of this text, we are given a reminder of who we are and who we are called to be as people of faith created in the Image of God. All together, in this account, we learn that temptation is not simply about choices, but at its center, it is about identity.

BAPTISM & TEMPTATION

If we look directly before Chapter 4 of Matthew’s Gospel and consider Chapter 3, we are reminded that Jesus’ baptism took place immediately before the account of temptation in Chapter 4. This binding relationship between baptism and temptation is important, not only because we have two baptisms in worship this morning (...and family members might be tempted to think about after-worship baptism parties rather than the service itself!), but because the baptism that takes place in Matthew Chapter 3 has a huge impact upon the temptation that occurs in Matthew Chapter 4. Like any book of the Bible, we cannot simply jump into a particular chapter without reflecting upon what took place immediately before it.

And so, as we recall, in the 3^rd Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is baptized by John, and as Jesus emerges from the water, the heavens open wide and the Spirit of God descends upon Jesus, and a voice from heaven says, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” Immediately after Jesus is baptized, the heavens open-up and God identifies Jesus as the Son of God, the one whom God loves and is delighted. And so, in what I fully understand is a quick and oversimplified account of the text, what we are shown is that through the act of baptism identity takes center stage. In other words, who Jesus is takes precedence over and above anything else.

What is quite incredible about this passage is that, even though Jesus was being prepared to be sent out into the world, his Father did not give Jesus a long list of instructions to follow. It is quite surprising. God did not provide Jesus with any lessons on how to turn water into wine, God did not demonstrate how to heal the blind, and God did not give Jesus a practice session on how to feed 5,000 before he would have to face the real thing. And of course, God did not give Jesus a pre-match scouting report on how to best conquer the Devil. Instead of telling Jesus what to do, God reminded Jesus of who he was. Identity took precedence. As God said to Jesus on the day of his baptism, “you are my child, I love you, and in you I am well pleased”.

Before Jesus is sent out into the world, God tells Jesus who he is. And this sense of identity was essential to Jesus mission and ministry. It was critically important, for as we move from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4 in Matthew’s Gospel, directly after Jesus is baptized he is led into the wilderness and faces the attempts of temptation. Immediately after baptism came the threat of temptation. And while it is tempting for us to focus on what the Devil tried to tempt Jesus to do, the more serious temptation in the story is who the Devil tried to tempt Jesus to become.

We may recall that, in Matthew 4 verse 3, the very first line used by the Devil to tempt Jesus is: “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread”. The key word here is “if”. If you are the Son of God. “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread”. In this very first statement, the Devil immediately challenges Jesus’ identity as God’s Son. The words of attack and assault come firing at Jesus: “If you are the Son of God, then prove it!” “If you are the Son of God, then do what I say!” “If you are the Son of God, then show me some magic tricks!” It is almost as if we can hear the words: “I dare you, Jesus. I dare you”!

The Devil puts Jesus’ identity into question, and by doing so, this tempter tries to seduce Jesus into questioning his identification as the Son of God. But of course, even after 40 days and nights of hunger and loneliness, Jesus resisted. And while he resisted for a number of reasons, most importantly, it was because Jesus knew who He was. And because Jesus knew who he was, he responded with the words that “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”. And I must say, this response from Jesus is quite awesome, for it shows that Jesus resists temptation not out fear of punishment and not due to a long list of strict rules or training lessons given out by his Father, but Jesus resists because he remembers the words given on the day of his baptism, those beautiful and life-giving words that affirmed God’s abounding love. It was Jesus’ identity, given through baptism, that allowed him to resist temptation. And this, I believe, is an incredibly important lesson for us today.

While God seemed to know that Jesus was going to be tempted at various stages during his ministry, God refused to give him practical advice or a “how to” guide as to how temptation could be beaten. In all seriousness, one really would have thought God would have spoken to Jesus like a Father typically speaks to a son going off on his own (sort of like a child going off to university!), like warning him about the temptations of being “out in the wild”, or threatening to pull him out just as quickly as he was put in! Yet this is not what happened, and this is not how God spoke. All God did was remind Jesus of who he was. God said, “Jesus, you are my son, and in you I am well pleased”. Jesus was not told what to do, but he was reminded who to be. This was God’s move, and it was a brilliant one, for God knew there is no greater danger in life than to forget who you are, and especially during times of struggle, there is no greater temptation than that which allows us to let others define our identity and tell us who we are.

THE TEMPTATION OF LOST IDENTITY

There are so many forces in our world today that threaten to tear away at our identity. These forces come to us in many shapes in forms, and among other realities, they often tempt us to believe two things: First, we are tempted to believe that we are somehow not good enough. And second, at times we are tempted to believe that that we are better than what we actually are. While these two temptations are different, they are both incredibly serious for our lives.

First, at times we are tempted to believe that we are not good enough, or that we are incomplete in some way, shape, or form. Similar to the temptations pushed upon Jesus in the wilderness, as well as the temptations placed upon him on the Cross, we too are often showered by various forces that try to make us perceive ourselves in ways that are destructive. We all know what this feels like. What we notice in our world today is that we are often bombarded by destructive messages, and it comes to us through magazines, newspapers, and television with a proclamation that we need to be something different from what we already are.

We see this reality every day! In fact, we see it so often that sometimes we do not even realize we are seeing it! With each passing day, we are told how we can “improve”. If you lose a bit of weight, only then will you be more beautiful and popular. If you have a nice car or fancy clothes, only then will you be more accepted. If you have the best cell phone, only then will you be more appreciated. The list goes on and on! Women are told that they have to look like the women on TV and fashion ads. Men are told they have to sing like the guys in the music videos. These messages are thrown at us each day through popular culture: Women are told they need tight clothes like Beyonce or Rihanna, and men are told they need muscles like the guys playing for Bafana Bafana!

With each passing day we are told that we need to be all sorts of things, and the list goes on and on. Through it all, the overarching message we hear is that we are not good enough the way we are, not smart enough, not attractive enough, not wealthy enough, and not powerful enough. We are given various unattainable examples of what we “should” be like. And the end result is that, in addition to falling victim to advertising from companies that seek to capitalize on our insecurities, we no longer see ourselves as loved and accepted for who we are, but the lens of self-perception is a growing list of faults and imperfections that need to be somehow be corrected. In other words, we lose track of who we are as loved and accepted Children of God, and instead, we obsess over what we are not.

But of course, there is a dangerous opposite to this all as well, and it is our second temptation. Just as it is tempting to believe we are not good enough, another difficult temptation is to believe that we are better than we actually are, or that in some ways we are better than others.

I suppose that just as we all have experience in being told that we are not good enough, at times we all have experienced the temptation to believe that we are in some way better than those around us. We see this each and every day when so many in our society are marginalized and rebuked. We have countless examples: women, children, the LGBT community, those with special needs, women and men with mental challenges, people of diverse faith perspectives, the poor, our various indigenous populations around the world, political minorities, and those affected and infected with HIV and AIDS. We cannot ignore the harsh reality that human history is filled with occasions where one powerful group determined that they were better than those who were not so powerful, and the results were acts of division, oppression, exploitation, violence, and even murder and genocide. And of course, such actions continue today in every corner of the globe.

How often do we look at others and think we are “better”? How often do we measure ourselves against others and are convinced that we are in some way “superior”? How often do we see the mistakes of others as more serious than our own? How often do we focus solely on being an autonomous “self-made” individual that we fail to focus on our ubuntu-inspired community responsibilities? And of course, for those of us who gather on Sunday mornings as a community of faith, if we are open and honest with ourselves, we realize that these types of selfish and overly self-righteous thoughts are especially tempting for those who are baptized, as it is all too common for those “inside” the walls of churches to believe that they are somehow more righteous than those outside. When we allow the inclusive, welcoming, and incredibly accepting act of baptism to be another wedge that divides people, then we are in desperate need of forgiveness.

Just as our identity as Children of God is meant to raise us during times of despair, it is also intended to provide humility during times of arrogance. And thanks be to God, when we gather for worship on Sunday morning it should not be difficult to be humbled, for as we recall, to open each service we are reminded of our faults, and shown that no matter how many wonderful deeds we may perform each week, we in no way have any reason to boast. The very first things we do during our worship is confess that we are “in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves”. Then, we state in the presence of God and one another that we have “sinned in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone”; and we confess that “we have not loved God or each other with our whole hearts”. And as a result, we ask God to “forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in God’s will and walk in God’s ways to the glory of God’s Holy Name”.

And so, while so many of us so-called “religious people” fall into self-righteousness and claim to somehow “speak love” through words of condemnation and moral superiority, such a confession during our worship service is – among other things – meant to keep us grounded, and it reminds us of our various limitations, for all fall short of the glory of God, all are imperfect, and all are in desperate need of forgiveness. It is due to such realities that we have no reason for arrogance or a sense of absolute certainty on the ways of this world, yet instead we are bound together as One people in our immediate communities and throughout the world, for we know that all of us are broken, and all of us are in desperate need of repair.

GOD'S RESPONSE TO OUR TEMPTATIONS

With all this being said, we are left with these two temptations surrounding our identity: The first is to believe we are not good enough, and the second is to think we are better than we actually are. And so, God’s response to the first is to remind us that we are graciously forgiven and perfectly loved and accepted. And God’s response to the second is to show us that we need forgiveness, and we are incapable of sustaining life on our own. And this, I believe, shows the incredible message of the Gospel: The proclamation that we are set free through the amazing grace of forgiveness by no amount of our own effort or doing, but we are also captive to our ongoing mistakes and bondage due to our continued brokenness and deficiencies. We are both realities. We are fully liberated, yet we are also deeply incarcerated, all at the same time.

While some traditions distinguish between “saints” and “sinners”, and try to differentiate between those who obey God and as those who do not, we are shown that both describe our human nature in an equally profound manner. In other words, we are both “saint” and “sinner”. Yes, these two realities that may seem to be opposite and contradicting, and for those hearing it for the first time, it seems a bit confusing and too much to think about so early in the morning! However, they do exist equally at the same time. On the one hand God accepts us for who we are, but of course, on the other hand, God never allows us to stay the same. And so, we are forgiven through the love of God received during baptism, yet we also confess our need for forgiveness because we continue to fall to temptation. This cycle repeats itself each and every day in our lives.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

And so, with all of these complicated thoughts (hopefully!) somewhere in our minds, we are left with the “so what” practical question of our Lutheran tradition: “What does this mean?” What does this mean for all of us two-thousand years after Jesus was first baptized and faced with temptation? Or, I remain a bit humble myself and ask if any of this means anything for any of us whatsoever?!

In my humble option (as someone who also falls to temptation on a regular basis), what this all means for us today is that, because of this cycle of confession and forgiveness that defines our identity as Children of God, we are able to act out our calling in the world with boldness and humility. As people who are both forgiven and fallen, we act with boldness, yet we are also called to be humble. In other words, just as baptism and temptation shapes our identity, boldness and humility guide our actions. In practical terms, as a response to being loved and accepted by a gracious God, and through the faith that allows us to believe that our sins are forgiven, we boldly seek to transform the oppressive systems in our world to promote life in its fullness, yet with humility, we recognize our own place within such structures, and the ways we continue to benefit from them. In addition, in response to what God has freely done for us, we boldly take a stand and speak out against those who have acted unjustly against the poor and marginalized members of society, yet with humility, we listen when others are speaking such words of critique to us.

With God as our Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer, our identity flows from this amazing grace, and our reaction to such undeserved love consists of boldness and humility for the sake of the world. This is who we are, and this is what we do. While there are many areas of our lives that inevitably shape who we are and have an impact upon what we do each day, and while we are all “works in progress” who continue to change each and every moment depending upon time, place, and those whom we are surrounded with, it is only God who can define us, and it is only in God that our true selves are found. When we refuse to allow the world to define us, and we refuse to believe that any amount of purchased “stuff” can make us complete, we can learn to embrace our identity as created in the Image and Likeness of God, and our hold and humble actions are close to follow.

At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry outside forces tried to tempt him, and the same took place at the end. Immediately after he was baptized, at the end of his life as he hung on the cross, and in various instances during the years in-between, Jesus was given the option of throwing-away his identity and allowing others to define who he was. Yet even in the midst of struggle and pain, he stayed true to his identification as God’s Son, and his actions reflected this faithfulness. And so, with everything being said today, we – of course – cannot be Jesus, but like Jesus we are called to be mindful of who we are as people deeply connected to God and intimately attached with one another. For us and countless others both “inside” and “outside” the church walls, “who we are” is Children of God who require forgiveness, and through grace by faith we so graciously receive it. We are people of various shapes, sizes, colors, and beliefs created by a common creator who cannot help but shower us with grace regardless of whether or not we deserve it. No one, or no thing can take this away from us. This is our identity. And it is from this overall sense of “I am because we are” identity found through interconnectedness with God and one another that all of our bold deeds and humble beliefs flow.

As we prepare for Khaya and Aaron to come forward and receive their new identities found in the sacrament of baptism, not only do we celebrate this step in their young lives, but we also reaffirm the reality of baptism in the lives of so many here today. When God claims us as God’s very own, baptism is not something that once happened in the past, but it is an ever-present reality that continues to shape us, guide us, connect us, and profoundly strengthen us into the future. The reality of baptism allows us to love God, love others, and yes, learn to love who God created us to be as members of this global community. But also, baptism reminds us of the temptations that often follow, and how we are called to resist the urge to place limits and restrictions on God’s amazing grace, and to never allow baptism – or anything else we witness through the Church, to be something that divides, but something that opens-up boundaries, tears down division, and embraces both unity and diversity through the grace we all have received.

And so, for you and for me, on this day of baptism and temptation may we all reaffirm that God claims us – all of us – and all of the world as God’s own, and even in the midst of our constant need for forgiveness, we trust that we are loved, and that in us God is well pleased. May we reaffirm that even in the midst of our struggles, and regardless of how often we fall to temptation, it is God who sets us free to be who we are called to be, bind us into One, and do what we are called to do. And in response to this gracious gift, may the divisions, labels, and classifications given to us by the world be washed away by the waters, and through the Word may we be given a new sense of identity. As new people, may we be given hope, peace, and a new vision that calls us together in harmony with all of creation, gathers us in, and sends us out to promote peace and justice, and by God’s grace, to transform neighborhoods both near and far into places and spaces of goodness and love.

This is the Good News given for us, and this is the good challenge laid down in front of us. This day, and every day, may this comfort, and may this challenge, be with us always. Amen.

Freedom of Speech and the Responsibility to Listen (Brian E. Konkol)

2011-01-17T05:49:00.000-08:00

During the past year South Africa’s ruling political party proposed a “media tribunal”, which among other things, would hear complaints against the press and possess authority to impose legal penalties upon journalists. As an African National Congress (ANC) official stated, "The existing self-regulatory system with the press ombudsman and press council is ineffective and needs to be strengthened.” The plan arose as Parliament also considered a Protection of Information Bill that would give the government an ability to classify information and impose jail terms of up to twenty-five years for publishing. As to be expected, the proposed measures were praised by the government as necessary steps to “assist” the media towards social transformation and limit false reporting. On the other hand, fears have risen amongst the press and general public of a government campaign to suffocate the freedom of speech guaranteed in South Africa’s constitution.

According to Reporters without Borders, South Africa is currently placed 38^th out of 178 countries in terms of press freedom. This reality shows a decline (South Africa rated 33^rd in 2009, and 26^th in 2004) over recent years. In addition, the influential human rights organization, Freedom House, recently downgraded South Africa’s press freedom from “Free” to “Partly Free”. Among other motives, Freedom House cites as their reasons the new above-mentioned legislation and increased harassment of journalists, as well as government attempts to silence corruption scandal stories uncovered by the influential Mail & Guardian newspaper. Freedom House also noted with concern that the SABC, the state broadcaster, is increasingly losing its independence in the face of increased government and ruling party control. In response, the South African government has pushed forward with its various proposals, for leaders insist they do not wish to restrict freedom of speech, but rather, they desire to hold media outlets accountable through a more effective process of “outside” evaluation. As the government Minister of Higher Education and Training stated, “If there is one serious threat to our democracy, it is a media that is [only] accountable to itself."

The debate surrounding freedom of speech, while simple at first glance, is rather complicated when analyzed deeper and viewed from diverse viewpoints. For example, while freedom of speech is “an ability to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both”, in practical terms there are numerous important restrictions, such as “hate speech” that may infringe upon the basic human rights of others. In terms of global agreements, the freedom of speech is recognized under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and accepted in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for it argues that people shall have "the right to hold opinions without interference.” However, there are areas for much-needed discussion as to where free speech should be examined, for the lines between what is allowed and what needs to be restrained (and who has the power to make such decisions) is a constant area of discourse. The recent WikiLeaks publication of top-secret government documents is one of many examples that have brought such critical discussion on free speech to the forefront.

The United States of America currently ranks 20^th in the above-mentioned Reporters without Borders international ranking (the top six nations include: Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland), as freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several exceptions to the rule, including hate speech that brings direct harm to others, copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity, and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. While some activists argue that the federal government has engaged in too many attempts to limit freedom of speech in a post-September 11^th anti-terrorism environment, most would agree that USA citizens are given the right to freely express themselves without fear of legal reprimand. As the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

While it is tempting for USA citizens to grow proud and point fingers at various governments around the world that appear far too eager to limit free speech, humility is required, for there is something equally as alarming taking place in the USA and various other areas, even if it does not receive similar attention. While many (rightly) advocate for the freedom of speech, what is also important is the responsibility to listen. In other words, if we promote the freedom of speech throughout the world and fail to recognize and practice its companion, the responsibility to listen, we create a global environment where people express their own viewpoints yet are unable to consider the diverse views of others. The consequences of such imbalance leads to ideological arrogance, division, alienation, violence, and an even wider gap between the powerful (those who often do the speaking) and powerless (those whose voices are rarely heard). While freedom of speech is often considered a primary benchmark for democracy and fairness, perhaps it is time we paid more attention to the responsibility to listen as an equally essential standard for civility, peace, and justice.

When in reflection upon the critical companionship of speaking and listening, I believe there are three topics of conversation that seem to spark the most passionate debate amongst North Americans: religion, politics, and sports. In all three instances, there are various loyalties that one develops over time, and as such ideals grow with passing years, we too often reach a point when opposing points of view are no longer considered. While arguments over sport teams are clearly not as serious as political and/or religious dialogue, when people are unable to listen in one aspect of life they are more likely to carry over such behavior into other areas. Through it all, it would appear that we have experienced a dramatic shift in public and private dialogue, for rather than opening oneself to discussion and various considerations, we have witnessed toxic battles and an unwillingness to budge in opinion, “different” seems too closely linked with “wrong”, compromise is ridiculed and rejected, and those who open themselves to listen are often perceived as weak whereas those who “stand their ground” are strong. Clearly, such an environment polarizes, divides, and turns conversation into opportunities for competition rather than cooperation. As a result, those who are poor and marginalized often remain unheard, and many who have wonderful insights would much rather remain silent than enter the ring of battle.

Over the past years I have found the ability to listen with humility as an absolutely crucial aspect of life and ministry. As my wife and I serve as Country Coordinators for the Young Adults in Global Mission (YAGM) program in South Africa, we accompany North American young adults and southern Africans, which are two groups that – from a general demographic standpoint – do not always possess the most positive views of foreign missionaries. While the young adults and Lutheran Church hosts whom we serve alongside on a daily basis have been wonderfully accommodating and hospitable, we try to remain mindful of generalized perceptions from the broader population. For example, numerous surveys amongst young adults in North America show that people of faith, especially those in positions of organized religious leadership, are often perceived as judgmental and unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints. In addition, according to various Africans in the region, visitors from North America and Europe continue to speak and teach more often than listen and learn, and have thus developed a rather unattractive reputation. And so, as a result of such honest insights received from YAGM participants and local African hosts within the Lutheran Church and beyond, I believe the most important communication tool as a Christian missionary is not the mouth, but rather, the ears, for the experience of mission as accompaniment alongside local hosts and North American young adults requires a two-way exchange of faith, dialogue, and cooperation. Through it all, my hope is that over the course of our time in South Africa alongside YAGM participants and local hosts, we will encourage and practice the freedom of speech and responsibility to listen, for the result will be new ideas, deeper relationships, and by God’s grace, various presumptions will be altered and our global community of faith will be strengthened.

Along these lines, in the August 2010 edition of The Lutheran, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson reflected upon the concept of freedom, (and in my opinion, the responsibility to listen), in his article, “Freedom Rings in the Word”. Among other things, in response to a question, ("Bishop, in one word what is your vision for every member of the ELCA?"), he stated that freedom is a central aspect of Christian faith. He wrote that listening for the Good News received in God’s Word, “sets you free to serve your neighbor, to strive for justice and peace, and to care for God's creation with creativity and passion. It sets us free to serve in the ministry of reconciliation with confidence and joy.” In addition, Bishop Hanson went on to proclaim, “The way God brings this life of confident trust into being is through your ears. Think of your ears as the birth canal of faith, as Paul wrote: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). I find such expressions of wisdom to be incredibly relevant, not only for missionary pastors like myself, but for the global village of faith in general.

What I appreciate most about Bishop Hanson’s statements is the importance of our ears, or shall we say, the responsibility to listen. As Jesus is recorded as saying in Mark 4:9, "Whoever has ears to hear, then hear.” While much fanfare and praise is given to those in public positions regarded as engaging speakers, I would argue that an equally important aspect of leadership and life in general is found within the ability to listen (and to listen genuinely, not merely waiting to speak again!), especially when we are surrounded by those who possess different viewpoints. While the capacity to communicate ideas with charisma and clarity is extremely valuable and dearly needed, as a matter of Christian faith we are reminded that God comes to us through the Word, and the living Word is experienced through our ears (and of course, for those hearing impaired, they can “listen” non-verbally through experience and various others forms of communication). As I was once told, God gave us two ears, two eyes, and one mouth so we could listen and observe twice as much as we speak. In light of James 1:19, (“…be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry”), I find such guidance to be massively appropriate, for our faith grows in such ways, and so does our understanding of the world around us as well as those who live directly beside us.

In a world that is deeply divided and in need of healing, a message of inclusive faith and love offered by the Christian Church is not shared merely through spoken words, but it is often most effective when expressed through the humble and compassionate act of listening. As Paul Tillich once said, “The first duty of love is to listen.” When such acts of accompaniment are practiced, the Christian Church can faithfully and fruitfully participate in God’s Mission of reconciliation, transformation, and empowerment in a world were considerate discourse and sustained peacemaking is far too rare. And so, as people of faith who believe in the amazing grace of God, may we promote the freedom of speech (and in doing so, may we choose our own words faithfully), but also, in response to a God who freely forgives and listens to our prayers regardless of who we are and what we have done, may we also encourage the responsibility to listen. When our conversations embody a balance of speaking and listening with open humility and boldness, God is active in and through the exchange, and the result is a positive conversion of the various connections within our global village. Through such interactions, one conversation at a time, good news is made known, relationships are valued and strengthened, and the global and local communities around us – as well as the heart and minds within us – experience a life-giving transformation for the better.