This page was created on October 1, 2004
This page was last updated on January 4, 2005

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
  And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
  and to walk humbly with your God.   (Micah 6:8)

"Of only one thing am I personally sure: that knowledge is limited today and boundless tomorrow. And though I see as 'through a glass, darkly,' I'd still like to believe that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked today are our best hopes for tomorrow. But do I know that for sure? No. I can only take it on faith."

Can we universalize any verse in the Bible? Isn't such dangerous exegesis really eisegesis—putting truth into Scripture, rather than pulling truth out? The question is always up for debate. In our modernistic, scientific society, though, such faith claims ought to be privately held and not public proclaimed, right? Or has such a biblical mandate for humanity just become politically correct?

It certainly seems logical to help free people who live under an oppressive regime, but it seems equally logical to count the costs of war, and settle for the lesser evil of oppression—as long such a regime is feeding and caring for its people.

I, too, went to an eastern bloc country (Russia) after the "fall" of the "oppressive" communist regime. I, too, saw the rising cost of food and fuel, and the bread lines, and the neo-poverty that was ostensibly created by this new kind of "freedom." I remember thinking the same thing Greg suggests in his article—but I also had long conversations with Russians who were just finding out about the horror that was once their government, and about the millions of their own flesh and blood who were murdered by Stalin and Lenin. There was, as expected, anger and confusion; but there was also a feeling of relief. There was a sense that the days ahead of them were going to be long, but that in the end their sacrifice and ugly conditions would end in true freedom. Isn't oppression another kind of poverty—a poverty of freedom? Isn't slavery to anything a form of poverty?

I remember asking my dad, who was a product of the depression—who grew up poor, and stood in bread lines, and who later fought in World War 2—if he would rather go through poverty free, or have a full belly while starving for the dignity that is awarded to those who are emancipated. Without a second thought, he said he'd rather be free. Does this answer our question? I'm not sure, but it certainly is one man's opinion.

Many of us baby boomers, though, are strapped with the guilt of our own opulence, and maybe will never get the idea sacrificing our own sacred cows for a cause. That bothers me, because I too wrestle with the same issues of war, poverty and injustice. But I wonder if I am fueled by justice and real care for the downtrodden in this world, or if my concern is a product of apathy. Do we protest because we care, or because we are bored? Is my cause a gratuitous product of the freedom I love, or is justice a product of the moral law that gnaws deep inside of me?

I recall Brad Pitt's apt lines in Fight Club:

Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... Our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

Is this the reason many of us strive to find causes, and desire something better for the world? In Fight Club the answer was violence and anarchy. For many the answer is quite possibly peace and justice.

I doubt that any human system of thought, whether it be political, religious, or even scientific, can solve mankind's problems. I also firmly believe that Greg is right when he reminds us that all such attempts are merely the product of faith, no matter where we think we begin.

But I also know that it is easy to capitulate to a strange form of self-centeredness when we speculate politically without being in the fray. And this may be where many of us, including our politicians, err.

No matter where we're at on the political spectrum, we will always struggle with the dilemma of choosing freedom (which may mitigate our security), or choosing security (which may mitigate our freedom). Tough choice—But one I truly believe can be guided by living God's absolute of acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God.

It's hard indeed to know what would have happened if the United States had just sat back and waited for the Soviet experiment to succeed or fail. I've heard it said that it's better to manage your knowns than your unknowns—so I can't really fault the West for responding to a perceived threat. And it is naïve to presume that, without a response, things would have unfolded in a similar manner. After all, this is a long journey. Hopefully, discouraging waypoints on a path to something better are nothing more than that.

I'm not sure, though, that I'm on board with Mike's theory that Americans are strapped with guilt—debt perhaps, but not guilt. With all the larger-than-life automobiles packed on the roads, I have a hard time believing that anyone is feeling guilty about their opulence. My understanding is that guilt makes you want to hide things rather than flaunt them. So the war-protest-driver of an AWD V-8 SUV (sporting dub spinners) doesn't convey much guilt, to me.

I'm more inclined to think that people are attracted to causes for reasons of socialization and a sense of community. Still, I guess that would simply be a different way to frame what Mike calls boredom. But a person's cause-of-choice is more likely to be driven by whatever is gnawing deep inside. That would explain why some people's causes and communities are productive and others are not.

While feeding the hungry and clothing the naked should probably just be taken at face value, there's typically a significant amount of history behind whatever the current situation may be. As such, it is not surprising that some people may perceive essentially humanitarian acts as less than humane.

So what's a do-gooder to do if we don't want our actions to be misperceived or taken out of context? Our actions are probably going to make sense to those closest to us. I'd propose breaking down some local walls—and if all goes well, branch out from there.

In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Christianity as "the ministry of reconciliation."⁵ By this, he means that the central story of the faith is the reconciliation of Man to God through the blood of His Son, Jesus. Christianity, then, is the ministry of reconciliation because all who claim the name of Christ are ministers—literally, servants in the Greek—of God's specific conciliatory purpose.

But Christianity is not only the ministry of reconciliation—it is the ministry of all things godly. One of the other theological terms applied to the act of Jesus' death on the cross is redemption. In conceiving Hollywood Jesus, David Bruce understood that Christianity is also the ministry of redemption—and in particular, it is the redemptive hope for our culture: not through legislation, stone-throwing or critical negativity, but through showing us the godly things already embedded in our culture. For God reveals Himself through all that He has created, even the things that we may not particularly like.

After Eden is dedicated to this redemptive vision. We believe, as G.K. Chesteron put it, that "humanity is not incidentally engaged, but eternally and systematically engaged, in throwing gold into the gutter and diamonds into the sea."⁶ That's not a reality we endorse. We'd like to help salvage the gold from the gutter, and rescue the diamonds from the sea.

Mike Gunn is a pastor at Harambee Church in Tukwila, Washington, and was cofounder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Jenn Wright is a writer with degrees in literature and theology. She is co-writing the Narnia coverage for Hollywood Jesus, which has debuted this fall in anticipation of the first movie's 2005 release.

Hollywood Jesus Senior Editor Greg Wright is a writer and ordained minister of the dramatic arts. He teaches English Literature at Puget Sound Christian College, and is author of Peter Jackson in Perspective: The Power Behind Cinema's The Lord of the Rings.

Editor Dave Stark is an ordained minister and former Microsoft manager. He is now a partner in Restoring Hope Construction.

The Devil's Advocate is a composite personality of our consultants and editorial staff. He may look like someone you know -- and probably thinks like a lot of them.

Kruschev
On The Wall

If you start throwing hedgehogs under me, I shall throw a couple of porcupines under you.¹

Kennedy
On Berlin

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin²

Graham Greene
On Misery

People talk about the courage of condemned men walking to the place of execution: sometimes it needs as much courage to walk with any kind of bearing towards another person's habitual misery.³

Dickinson
On Hope

Chesterton
On Perception
It is a strange thing that many truly spiritual men... have actually spent some hours in speculating upon the precise location of the Garden of Eden. Most probably we are in Eden still. It is only our eyes that have changed.⁷