The Hunger

Gimme Some Money

2010-10-03T14:23:00.000-07:00

Gimme some money! It’s a mantra that many live by. It drives personal lives. Economies. It can control everything we and those around us do.

For some, it brings a sense of accomplishment and wealth beyond imagination, accompanied by feelings of comfort and security. However, this driving force brings insecurity for others and mounting worry.

It’s pretty clear that worry is on the rise around and in us. The recent recession brought increased unemployment, growing poverty and blew open an already astounding gap between the rich and poor in this nation.

Wages have been frozen, raises are smaller and income is being outpaced by inflation though all indicators show inflation has been controlled.
The result is even those who have been able to keep their homes and pay the bills are stressed. What if their job is the next to go? What if their car breaks down? What if the A/C goes out? What if I have a serious illness and lose my health insurance?

All of these concerns are worry driven by money.
Still, there are other forms of worry driven by money. We want to acquire. We are called consumers and we want to consume. In fact, all the economic indicators tell us the market grows when our consumption grows. So, we are being told our consumption helps our country.

And if we stop to think about things, the main indicators used to judge economic health are focused on consumption. New car sales. It’s all about how many are sold. It’s not an indicator of if the purchases were needed. New home sales. If you listen to the reports, they indicate one of the problems right now is people are no longer upgrading into the larger houses they were when so many risky mortgages were available and made deals look too good to be true. And retail sales. Indicators show how much we are buying. Again, no mention of what purchases are needed.

It is all crafted in a way that creates worry whether your are poor, middle class, or wealthy. If you do not have what you need, you worry about how you’ll get it. If you have what you need, you worry how you’ll get what you want. And whether you aren’t getting what you need or not getting what you want it consumes everything you do.

Contentment, long ago, became a lost art.

And it is in this void that Jesus steps. We have been focusing this last few weeks on Jesus' instructions to his disciples to not worry. And when you bring money into this discussion, you have placed this passage right in the midst of its context. Let’s take a look at the verses proceeding this thought in Luke 6 starting in verse 19.

Read Matthew 6:19-24.

In the first century, storing up treasures was typically done in one’s home. Consider how homes were made. They didn’t have the fired brick and cinder block like we have today. Many homes were made of clay or something like it. If a thief wanted to break into a house, he didn’t pick a lock to come in a door or a window. He would dig a hole in the wall. He would climb through that hole, take your valuables and leave.

Many times, people would go and bury their most valuable belongings in a field or hide them in a cave to protect them from thieves. It was an ancient safe deposit box if you will. However, it was in this safe deposit box that bugs might get to your valuables rendering them worthless. And not only moths. You might see what is traditionally translated rust. You see there is another word in Greek that is clearly rust. This word here is more likely some kind of small worm or insect.

So here Jesus is telling his hearers that storing up treasure on earth is foolish. It is fleeting and will not last. So our heart, or our entire will, should not be placed in money or possessions but in Heaven.

So Jesus then moves on to his analogy of the eye. This, again, in its context, was vital imagery. The healthy eye in Judaism signified a generous giving spirit, one given to justice. The healthy eye shined light on the world around it by growing community in which all were provided for. The unhealthy eye, however, was greedy, stingy, self-centered. It was likely to build new storehouses for extra grain for itself and store treasures on earth.

And then we have the teaching about two masters. You love one and hate the other. This language is not as dualistic as it appears. This was common language challenging the hearer to choose what would have the ultimate seat of decision making in life. In this case, would we idolize money and make decisions based on how we could get more of it or would we worship the Creator and make or decisions based on God’s will for the world.

So we are left with the instruction, “Do Not Worry!” And this can speak to us no matter our situation. If you have what you need, are you obsessed with tomorrow? Are you saving, saving, saving trying to secure a future the recent financial collapse suggested is untenable at best.
Are you buying, buying, buying, so your neighbor will see you as successful and a leader? Or are you hungering and thirsting for justice and giving of what you have.

If you do not have enough, are you considering cutting corners? Are you considering dishonesty or theft or the drug trade? Are you considering looking for something for nothing? Rather than worrying, Jesus says trust in God. Trust your debts will be forgiven. And don’t seek to thrust your also poor neighbor into debt or in security in an attempt to lift yourself up.

Jesus, in teaching us not to worry, is teaching us to look out for one another. To look at each other as a community in which none of us is expendable. In which we sacrifice for one another until we all have what we need. If we are provided for today, we should take our eyes off tomorrow, and know there is enough trouble around us today that needs tending.

Worry tempts us to many self-destructive and corporately destructive acts. So we seek a new path. By refusing to worry about earthly treasures and instead focusing on treasures in Heaven, we can find peace and liberation. In reviewing the passages we’ve discussed, we can find three reasons not to store up heavenly treasures as explained by Mennonite theologian Richard Foster.

The first one is especially evident to us today. The world is a very uncertain place. In our recent economic collapse, how many lost chunks of or all of their life savings either to banks gambling with their money, Ponzi schemes exposed, or loss of work.

The second is a matter of focus. If we worry…if we store up treasures on earth, we will lose our focus on God and our neighbor. It is impossible to have your eyes on both God and money. The result of trying to do so is to end up with a false theology of what Foster calls “gluttonous prosperity” in which “incarnate in our theology are covetous goals under the guise of the promises of God.”

The third reason we should focus on heavenly treasures is God has already made provision for our lives. If we will just be about our vocation and focus on one another rather than ourselves we, like the birds of the air and lilies of the field, will be provided for. We will not need to store more than our daily share of manna.

So once we heed these words of Jesus…once we accept these reasons for turning our backs on worry and storing treasures in Heaven, what do we do?

The first step is to think about your patterns of consumption. What are we consuming that is an absolute need? What are we consuming simply because it is wanted? What are consuming that is not just enjoyed but brings an emotional response when consumed?

These emotional responses are often fed by advertising and hype and we get a weird sense of fulfillment when obtaining such things. You look at what you’ve just bought and think, “You complete me.” And it looks back at you as if to say, “You had me at cha-ching.”

This is a false sense of fulfillment that distracts us from God and one another and cheapens life.

The second step can add value back into our life: think about what and how you can consume less. You interest will become less focused on things and more focused on God and neighbor. You can rediscover an authentic life…abundant life…eternal life. And worry will slowly drift away.

Start slow. Think about small things you can give up. Soft drink at dinner. Ho Ho’s for a midnight snack… and grow from there. This is like any addiction whether it be alcohol, cigarettes, soft drinks or the like. Stopping cold turkey may be more than you can bear. But set small goals and build little by little. Slowly you’ll find consuming less and living in simplicity is quite possible, especially when focused on God.

The final step is where we store up treasures in heaven: give. Give to your neighbor in need. Understand that while you may not have any more trouble today, your neighbor has plenty.
Remember things like Imagine No Malaria. Ten dollars can save a life through prevention, education, communication, and treatment. Or give to the Crisis Fund or Food Pantry here at the church. These efforts are serving more and more people and reserves are low. These and other efforts both here at the church and beyond give us an opportunity to participate in the liberation of our neighbor.

If you think consuming less is hard and have trouble giving, put yourself in your neighbors shoes. How would you want people to respond if half the children in your community where killed by a preventable disease? Or if your water and electricity were about to be turned off? Or oyur children did not have three squares a day.

Of course these are steps to take as an individual. But what about our corporate lives. We can look at 1776. I don’t mean when our nation declared independence from Britain. I mean when Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. In this work, Smith suggested the goal of any economy is continuing growth. How we understand it today is our Gross Domestic Product should grow every year. It believed that unrestricted players in a market seeking their own good would end up working for the good of all people due the invisible hand of the marketplace. However, history has shown this invisible hand to be bereft of compassion and justice.

Foster, however, challenges this thinking. He asserts the only invisible hand we should embrace is God’s and when we do this the result will be turning away from self-interest and towards interest in justice and compassion for the poor and oppressed who suffer under the invisible hand of the marketplace.

So as a community…as a state…as a nation…as participants in the global marketplace we need to be involved.

Foster urges advocacy for a conserver economy rather than one of unrestricted growth. In the economy we have, there are growing numbers of poor and hungry, there are fewer opportunities for dignity, and we are destroying the planet on which we live. But this change would require a massive change in our collective American mindset. So how might it look?

Well, if you’re an Old School Republican, Tea Partier, or Libertarian, you may have a severe distrust of government taxation and government’s effectiveness to address problems such as poverty. Yet, if you are storing up treasures in Heaven, you may start to think less of your money as your own and as something to use for your own consumption. You would bring home more of your income, but it would pour out into your community and world so that everyone’s worries of today would be provided for.

If you’re Democrat, government intervention would take forms much stronger than simple assistance that meets some short term needs though leaves people in a state of dependence. It would address the structural injustice that creates poverty. It would take a hard look at wages and the fact that many hard working people remain in poverty and have little voice in the workplace. And it would take a hard look at the fact that this is not just a domestic issue but a global problem.

And while you hold a Jeffersonian view that the wealthiest should be taxed to benefit those in need, you would still give of what have after an increased sacrifice through taxes to be sure no worry of today remained untouched.

And if you're independent or part of some third party the focus will still be on justice and the well-being of all today rather than your well-being tomorrow.

Can you imagine how this world would change if when thoughts arose about buying a bigger, fancier house, people elected to give the money they would have paid on their higher mortgage to help someone obtain a modest house of their own? What if when someone is tempted to buy a new car they choose a less expensive model and give the difference in their car payment to help provide permanent, supportive housing to the homeless? What if someone decides to eat out less often and give their savings to Imagine No Malaria? As we consume less and join together, the world will change and salvation will be experienced as real.

So let’s go forth and not worry…not worry about what we will want to consume tomorrow…for there is a world of people being consumed today. And if we will serve the one true master, those suffering will be set free and we will all find eternal life.

Do Not Worry: Fitting In

2010-09-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

Today we continue talking worry. That hair turning gray then falling out, blood pressure rising, skin wrinkling, head hurting, taking your heart out of chest and stomping on it a few times before placing it back and slumping in a chair in despair worry.

And today we talk about something that goes right to our soul. It gives us identity. It can drive whether we feel bad or good? Fitting in.

We want so badly to fit in. There is little that feels better than having people like you or something about you. It makes us feel valuable.

On the other hand, there is little that hurts worse than being treated like an outcast. To be rejected. It is the sort of thing that makes someone blame themselves and ask, “What’s wrong with me?” It is these feelings of usually mistaken guilt and loneliness that can drive people into a veritable pit.

I can say I know a little about this. For I, like many others, found the transition to middle school to be painful. I went through elementary school with a lot of friends. I was often a teacher’s favorite. Had the lead role in the fifth grade musical. Played quarterback on my pee wee football team.

All of these weren’t all that significant. Besides, I was quarterback. But guess what. My dad was coach. Do the math. So these things weren’t significant, except that, to a kid, they are. And come the next year in middle school, they all started to go away.

The elementary schools came together in middle school and I was suddenly far from the top of that totem pole. I tried to make new friends but it just wasn’t working. Even my friends from elementary school were starting to leave me behind. Some moved. Others decided I was dragging them down socially. I just wasn’t cutting it.

And me. I was just trying too hard. I had my required semester of music class in the fall of my sixth grade year. The choir director had wanted me to join choir. But I wasn’t going to do that. The other boys already laughed at me because I hit higher notes than they did. And I was a boy. In my mind, I was quickly becoming a man. I was tough. And tough didn’t dance and sing. So I left behind a place where I may have actually fit in.

And I kept trying. I quit being myself. I stopped wearing my Mervyn’s wardrobe which was your simple jeans and an OP T-shirt. Instead, I talked my mom into spending gobs of money at a trendy store in Vista Ridge Mall. I had the silk and rayon shirts. Fancy jeans and shoes. I was wearing what the cool kids were wearing. And it looked ridiculous.

I mean, I even had these jeans. They were crazy. They had belt loops with no space between them all the way around your waist. You had to spend like an hour the night before you wore them, just lacing your belt through the endless belt loops so you could get dressed quickly the next morning.

All that and I still wasn’t fitting in.
And then came eighth grade. Garth Brooks was shameless. Bill Ray Cyrus (for you kids, he’s Miley Cyrus’, aka Hannah Montana’s dad)…Billy Ray Cyrus had his achy, breaky heart. And the cool kids were going kicker. So, so was I. And I went big. I didn’t get ropers. I got snake skin boots. I had a different bolo tie for each day of the week. I even had a felt hat and a straw hat. I even had the championship wrestling style belt buckle. I mean it was like a satellite dish. It was imitation gold and silver with a bald eagle draped across an American flag. I don’t what the redneck term for bling it is, but my belt buckle was that.

Nonetheless, kicker me didn’t work either. I was still an outsider, except to one person: my friend Danny. I don’t remember how Danny and I became friends. I think it was from playing football together. But we hung out all the time. We played video games together. We walked The Colony together. We talked about his girlfriends together. We even worked out at his house together. Matter of fact, if you look closely enough, I think you can see some of the residual effects of those middle school workouts.

But all kidding aside, Danny was the one person who remained loyal to me. Despite my uncoolness and his ability to fit in…despite the multiple personalities I went through in a short time frame…he stood by me. And I’m pretty sure his standing by me cost him some friends.

I don’t know what it was, but for Danny, I had value. There were others I would hang out with but
I usually ended up being the butt of jokes. But not with Danny. The respect and value he showed me helped me find myself.

Otherwise, my attempts at fitting in would have become despair and who knows what my path may have been then.

I didn’t know it then and I don’t think Danny thought of it this way, but he showed me the Kingdom of God: a place were an awkward, discouraged outcast can find acceptance. But it was just a partial view. After all, there were those we still made fun of. These were kids I would laugh at trying to fit in with other kids. And I could get away with it for awhile and feel superior until the jokes turned on me and the other kids talked behind my back.

But while it was an incomplete vision of the Kingdom of God, in my experience it brought hope. It gave value to someone like myself who otherwise didn’t see any when he looked in the mirror. It kept me from turning on myself or others and making the hurt in my life even greater.

And really, this paints a picture as to why Jesus can look at hurting struggling people in the midst of his Sermon on the Mount and say “Do not worry!”
He’s not telling individuals to deny reality and pretend nothing’s wrong. He’s calling us to community. To understand this, let’s consider what’s going in the Sermon on the Mount. Here, Jesus is announcing a renewed covenant with the people in the Kingdom of God. Look at the Beatitudes. Blessed are the poor. Blessed are those who mourn. Blessed are the peacemakers. Jesus is making the proclamation that the weak and vulnerable are delivered from all that oppresses them. The announcement is not that at some future date they will be delivered. He proclaims it so in the here and now. These were ancient announcements equivalent to modern day sayings like, “I now pronounce you man and wife, “ or “We find the defendant not guilty.” The very words created the reality.

Jesus makes these announcements about a renewed covenant of God with humanity and then gives numerous examples about how to be different. How to live in covenant. How to live in a way that, rather than tearing human relationships apart, unites them together.

And the deliverance announced here hadn’t come because the Romans were suddenly treating them as equals or the Pharisees were welcoming them, though Christ certainly challenged these institutions. It came as a call to learn to lean on and support one another instead of mimicking the forces of empire by building little Romes in their own oppressed villages.

Consider how this works. A few verses before our passage on not worrying Jesus tells the people not to parade their religiosity. Don’t announce when you give alms for the poor. Don’t pray in public and with great bombast or with many words like the Gentiles so you will be seen and heard. And keep your fasting between you and God.

What he’s telling us not to be like the Pharisees who celebrate how religious they are while participating in injustice and making sure people don’t fit in. The Pharisees cared about individual status and being accepted by the Romans. While they claimed God, their faith was in something much smaller: themselves and the power of the empire. They may have fit in where they were, but they turned their back, like all of humanity, on where they belonged: in the arms of the Creator made visible in our love for one another.

This is the call to the church. This is the call to offer acceptance and love to all. We live in a world that wants to divide us by economics, divide us by skin color, divide us by religion, divide us by nationality, and even divide us by political party.

And the church has to say no way. We have to stand up and be the ones who unite. To be the ones that blur the lines. Because what Jesus said to the oppressed and downtrodden is you are being excluded in this world. But if you join together, become less focused on your own suffering and seek to support those around you, you’ll find when we all lean on one another we will not fall. I won’t make us do this today but it’s like that exercise where a group stands real close front to back in a circle. Then, they all squat but nobody falls. Because they’re committed to supporting one another. This is how we’ll thrive.

Now the problem is the church has its problems. For example, the church will readily quote the Apostle Paul’s in Galatians, “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.” But our practice is much different.

You see we start drawing lines in the sand. These are based on doctrine. Cultural experience. Our values. These lines are often based on what we’re comfortable with and often lack a lot of critical thought. Because of this, church is often a place of conditional acceptance. It’s as if we’re saying something like, “We love you, now change.”

This happened in my life. My friend Danny wasn’t very religious. When I became so and had some close friends who were, I left Danny behind. Love was conditional.

Part of the difficulty is the church in America hasn’t understood for a long time what real persecution is. We feel our faith should be accompanied by some form of suffering like Jesus and his disciples so we’ve had a habit of creating culture wars to make us stick out. We boycott amusement parks for treating all people as equals. We protest chain stores for recognizing there are more than Christians in our neighborhoods during the holidays. We act special as though our faith is something we’ve earned.

We’ve forgotten that God loves us because God is love. We’ve forgotten God loves us despite who we continue to be. So we’ve become the judges. We become the persecutors in many ways. We’ve decided we’ll offer love to anyone but only if they’re willing to conform.

This needs to be a place of “Come as you are.” This needs to be a launching pad where we not wait for people to come through our doors but we go out and love people where they are. There are of people who don’t belong. At least where they are. But when we show up, and we’re full of love, suddenly they fit in. Suddenly they experience the kingdom of God where the weak and vulnerable, the awkward and ridiculed, the outsiders fit in.

And we know we may face difficulty wherever. At work. At school. At home. We may not fit in culturally where we are. Maybe we stand up because of our jargon or dress or customs. Maybe people just won’t accept us, but we belong in Christ. So there’s no need worry about where you’ll fit in tomorrow, but follow Christ today because we belong at his side. We belong together.

Because truthfully Christians are often concerned about fitting in with the world. We have visions of power, influence, and prosperity. We have visions of the world telling us we’re great. So we compromise our values. We compromise love. We compromise faith and place our trust in something other than God so we can fulfill these dreams.

And while we may fit in to that world tomorrow, there are too many that don’t fit in today. So that’s what we can worry about. We remember the greatest act is love. To the child bullied in school we offer love. To the person devalued at home, we offer love. To the person looked down on because of their jargon or lack of English we offer love. To the person whose lifestyle others around us despise, we offer love.

So identify the people around you who don’t fit. Who are likely alone. Then, get to know them. And love them, don’t judge them. Then, you will both find the Kingdom of God as your love frees them from their isolation and frees you from the presuppositions that keep you from the greatest life.

Because when we offer love, we will receive love. We will reside fully in the love of God and one another and experience the greatest life we can find.

So come on man. Come on woman. Come on boys and girls. We can be better than a great person. We can be a great people. We can gather in the wounded, the hated, the vulnerable and become one in God’s love. While the world seeks to divide, we can unite. So don’t worry about tomorrow. You fit in with us today.

Social Networking and Eternal Life

2010-08-22T13:21:00.000-07:00

If you have been paying attention to the news recently, it is clear division and hatred is on the rise, at least in the public sphere.

Reflect back several months, when the earthquakes struck Haiti. Pat Robertson declared this was God’s judgment on them for turning to their pagan religions decades ago to escape their oppression. He failed to acknowledge they turned to the gods of the land for deliverance from Christian colonists who had exploited them and their land for economic benefit.

We can reflect on the fight that is ongoing in Arizona regarding the law passed in that state requiring law enforcement to ask for the papers of anyone suspected on being an illegal immigrant.

We can consider the ongoing fight in California over Prop 8 and whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

We can reflect over the furor and embarrassment surrounding the Shirley Sherrod speech at the NAACP. The speech from which a blogger posted an out of context clip in which she seemingly shared about her prejudice towards a white farmer. One side called for her job. The other side granted their demands. It was only later we learned the truth. This portion of the speech was about her life 20 years ago and that she actually convinced herself of the need to help that farmer. And that the prejudice which she grew past had resulted from the death of her father at the hands of a white man who was acquitted by an all white jury while she was child.

We can reflect on the dispute regarding the Cordova Center in New York City as folks shout they do not want a Muslim community center near Ground Zero. And we can recall this is just the most high profile of several places in the States where people are protesting mosques or Muslim community centers built in their backyards.

Our country is rife with division. It’s full of feelings of superiority and arrogance. And it starts to trickle into our individual and communal lives. But what we do about it?

We begin by looking to Jesus. Specifically, we’ll look to Luke chapter 10. Jesus has just told his disciples they are blessed for what they have seen and heard. The Pharisees, frequently ruffled by Jesus’ presence step up to challenge him. One of them, known as an expert in the law, which included not just the religious sphere, but also encompassed the social and political sphere steps up to challenge Jesus, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Now, let’s make sure we understand the question.

What this lawyer is asking, is how can I be included in the age to come? How can I experience the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, the covenant, that their people will be the light to the nations? But, let’s be clear, the Greek phrase here translated eternal life means something different than we have come to understand it to mean. It is not speaking of living forever. We have come to think of it that way because of a lack of understanding of this idiomatic phrase from Greek culture. Its literal translation appears to be eternal life so it has been associated with the resurrection. The idea of resurrection is real in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It’s just not the idea in view here. The application of this phrase in Greek literature was much different. It’s is actually about the fullest life that can be lived. The life we were all actually created to live in which there is shalom, umbuntu, peace: absolute harmony in the world. The life of the ages if you will.

Now, unfortunately, the Pharisees had come to see this idea through a self-righteous lens so that their version of the fulfillment of the promise was not of reconciliation with their fellow humans but of defeating those not like them so they alone could live that life. They failed to remember there is no life of the ages without the other.

This question has been asked and Jesus knows the lawyer is challenging his worth as a teacher, so he turns it around with another question. “You are an expert in the law. What do you read there?”

The lawyer answers quickly, “To love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus answers, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.”

This did not satisfy the lawyer, for he sought to qualify it and asks, “But who is my neighbor?”

And it is understood why he asks this. After all, as I mentioned before the Pharisees read the law through a self-righteous lens. His answer about love of God and neighbor comes straight from the law. It was, in fact, part of the Shema in Deuteronomy which Jews recited twice a day. This lawyer, however, needed a qualifier from Jesus because they had several built in qualifiers that made them appear superior to everyone else. Most everyone that wasn’t a Pharisee was unclean and not welcome to worship in the Temple. Whether it was illness or contact with Gentiles, or some other matter within their version of the law, they were inferior and obviously blighted by sin.

The Pharisees ignored their own political contact with the Roman empire and the deals brokered to give them power and wealth in Jerusalem and their own hoarding of this wealth while their fellow Jews suffered around them. They assumed Jesus had a qualifier because their social, religious, and political system had several built in boundaries and narrow definition of neighbor to only those like them.

So Jesus responds with a story. Actually, it seems a rather conventional story for there were many like it which were written to lampoon the elites for their lack of compassion.

A man, we are not told anything about him: race, status, anything like that, is traveling on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. Maybe he’s getting supplies to bring home or maybe he’s gotten what he needs and is returning home. We don’t know.

But what those hearing the story know is this is a dangerous road. It was known for its marauders who would beat and rob travelers. The road itself lacked compassion as a 3,300 foot deep canyon with lots of places for these robbers to hide. It was necessary evil and as this man starts down the road you hear the music start to play…Duh, duh…duh, duh…duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, duh.

And the man travels down the road with fear in his heart until he comes around a sharp corner when a group of these marauders jump out. And his fear becomes reality…EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!

He knows he’s surrounded and he’s helpless. Maybe he starts to bargain. “Look, Man. I don’t want any trouble. Just take what you want and let me be.” But it’s no use. They come closer.

“I love you, Mommy!” he might have yelled in desperation.

And then it begins. A punch to the gut…Thud! And knee to the face…Crack! Everything in slow motion as he falls to the ground. And then a World Wrestling Entertainment beat down follows.

Repeated kicks to the head. Telegraphed elbow drops to the ribs. And he’s shocked as he wonders where in the world in the first century of all times they found the metal folding chair they are hitting him with.

After too long, it comes to an end. The robbers take all his belongings and flee the scene. He lies there thinking, “Hmmm…it seems I’m lying here half dead. And on this road I’m likely without hope.”

But as this conventional story goes, around the corner comes a priest… Dahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

This man will be saved. After all, a priest is required to help. But no. He passes by on the other side….Wah, wah, wah.

At this point, the crowd of villagers would likely respond, “Boooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! Of course! The priests don’t care about anyone about themselves and their power!”

But, as convention goes, another man appears, a Levite…dah, Dahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely he will help. But, no. He passes by on the other side, too. Wah, wah, wah.

Again the crowd, “BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just another elite interested only in his elite status and elite friends.

And here the crowd knows what to expect. They’ve heard these stories before. An everyday Israelite like themselves will come to the rescue. And the crowd will cheer. The hallelujah chorus will play. All will go home happy.

Except Jesus, here, defies convention. The man who appears from around the corner is a Samaritan. And the crowd goes crazy. You think they don’t like priests and levites? They surely hate Samaritans. For, they had history.

First, the Samaritans were seen as half-breeds. Their existence was the result of the Assyrian’s program of conquest which included bringing elite members of nations they conquered and marrying them to their own to strip the conquered elites of any ethnic identity.

Secondly, this people somehow maintained their religious identity and continued to worship the God of the Jews. So much so, that when the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem they offered to help rebuild the temple, an overture the Jews rejected due to the Samaritans perceived inferior status.

The Samaritans responded by building their own temple on another mountain and claiming God was with them there. This set in motion a legacy of religious and political tension between the two groups.

So you can imagine the crowds and the Pharisees response at the Samaritans appearance. “Booooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hisssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go back to Mount Gerizim where you belong you dirty, half-breed Samaritan!!!!!!!!!!!”

Only the story continues and the Samaritan comes to the man’s aid. He treats and bandages his wounds and takes him to an inn to recover. There, he gives the innkeeper enough money for two days stay while the man recovers and, as he leaves, pledges to the innkeeper he will pay him more if it is needed when he returns.

Then Jesus turns to what must have been a disappointed and quiet crowd and asks the lawyer the question, “Which of these was the man’s neighbor?”

The Pharisee responds but can’t even bring himself to say the word Samaritan. He replies, “The one who showed him mercy.”

To which Jesus responds, “Go and do likewise.”
You see, Jesus blew the lid off the law. He reinterprets it for what the covenant with Abraham was meant to be, an act of reconciliation between all humanity and God. About bringing us all to the life of the ages, which we read as eternal life. And in Jesus it is no longer the age to come for John the Baptist and Jesus announced the Kingdom of God is at hand.

This is why Jesus says, “Go and do likewise.” This life of the ages is there for us to grab on to right now. We, if filled by the Spirit, can be actors in this present age where love is taking hold now until love wins once and for all.

So let’s rewrite Jesus’ story for today. A man, any man walks through a dangerous neighborhood. He is mugged and left half dead.

Along comes a senator but he crosses the street and continues on his way.

In our current climate, the crowd would shout, “Of course! Politicians only care about preserving themselves and their power.”

Along comes a Wall Street banker. He, too, crosses the street and hurries out of town. “Of course, the crowd says. “He only cares about his money.”

So now we’re expecting the normal, everyday American, or even American Christian, whatever your vision of that may be, to come around the corner. We await the hero.

Only who appears. A homeless man! He shares the change people have placed in his hat and the food he dug out of the dumpster to gather supplies to help the man until paramedics arrive.

This is the same man who can be cited for asking people for money while walking down the streets downtown or sleeping on the streets when the shelter is full because seeing homeless people is bad for business and home values.

Or an undocumented immigrant who probably dropped an anchor baby comes, as the propaganda goes, and provides aid using the money he has from his less than minimum wage job that day that could help feed his impoverished family down South.

Or a homosexual helps the man with a coat and phone call to get help and by calling his family to let them know which hospital he is going to.

This is the person we accuse of destroying the family and for bringing judgment on America.

Or…shudder…a Muslim is the hero. This Muslim who must want to bring Shariah law to America. Who is likely to be a terrorist, as the stereotype tells us.

Jesus is calling us to a radical form of social networking beyond like what you may find on Facebook, at happy hour, a weekend barbeque, or the chamber of commerce after hours. This is not networking for our own ego and benefit but social networking for the other and the world at large.

It is social networking that will lead us to step out from the world’s propaganda and the aforementioned stereotypes. Jesus is calling us all to show mercy to one another, for it is through this act, we express our love for God. It is through this act we break down the barriers the world constructs between us, whether those barriers are economic, religious, or social. It is through this act we find eternal life, the life of the ages, here and now.

So start breaking through the barriers by expanding your inner circle. We tend to drift toward those who look, think, and live like us. Think about those you come in contact with regularly. Perhaps its work, school, walks in the neighborhood. Maybe there are those whose appearance made you uneasy, whose thoughts you found off putting. In whose actions you found disdain. And seek to break down barriers by initiating a relationship. Something like this.

Then listen. If you haven’t done this before, you will see and learn things that make you uneasy, that shock you or challenge your worldview. Don’t just write people or their thoughts off because it doesn’t fit your life narrative. Seek to learn from them rather than reacting to them. And don't enter the relationship assuming you have something to teach. Rather, approach it assuming you have something to learn. Hear their story and you’ll start to understand so much better than by making pre-packaged assumptions. By doing so, you will find God in unexpected places.

Finally, as Jesus commands, love your neighbor as yourself. This radical love will come under scrunity. You may be accused of being unpatriotic, a heretic, or any number of propagandic terms seeking to dehumanize you at home, in the workplace, among friends, and perhaps even at church. But persevere. For love of neighbor is love of God and the radical social networking life of love is eternal life. The life of the ages. Here today.

Ubuntu

2010-08-08T23:32:00.000-07:00

The past month we have been discussing forgiveness. We discussed how humanity is so valuable to God he has chosen to forgive us for our rebellion and if God’s nature is love and forgiveness, we should reflect that in our lives as well. We also reflected on the fact that forgiveness is offered. We simply have to confess our sin and choose to live in the Spirit-filled way and the Spirit will empower us to do so.

We then talked about forgiveness at home and how the practice of forgiveness at home connects us with Abraham and his family of promise and how forgiveness breaks the cycle of division at home. This then included the importance forgiveness in marriage which serves as the glue of the family.

And this week we talk about perhaps the most difficult kind of forgiveness: forgiveness of others. And to do so we will begin by reflecting on South Africa.

South Africa was inhabited and controlled by the Zulu tribe until the late 18th and early 19th century. It was at this time that Dutch settlers known as the Vortrekkers arrived in the southern part of the African continent. They viewed the Zulus as heathens and believed God had given them this new land. They viewed their journey to the African continent as an Exodus from British imperialism. Those beliefs and the power they found in the barrel of their rifles led them to overtake the Zulus. Sounds not unlike the American colonists and the Native Americans.

One moment in history stands among all others in assuring the white settlers they had arrived. A group moving north from the coast came across a tribe of what they called the heathen natives. They were greatly outnumbered and circled their wagons. They prayed and made a covenant with God that if they were victorious in battle they would forever commemorate that day. They won that day and for more than a century going forward that day in South Africca became known as Dinggan’s Day after the Zulu tribal king who was defeated.

This set in motion white dominance in South Africa that led in 1948 to the inauguration of Apartheid in 1948. As part of these policies the races were mostly segregated with the blacks stripped of their farmland and forced to live in much less fertile areas. They also had no presence in law enforcement or a voice in the political sphere. The white experience in South Africa had been institutionalized as normal and God-given both in the government and the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. In addition to this injustice was the ongoing persecution and genocide of indigenous Africans.

Obviously tensions built and finally reached a point where militant groups formed and began to enact violent policies of trying to defeat the whites as whose hands they suffered. The violence became unbearable and was on the verge stripping South Africa of any meaningful future.

In the midst of all the chaos arose a growing number of blacks who chose nonviolence. They, informed by faith and led by people such as Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu, decided they would not be defined by their enemies. Nor would give their enemies power by becoming what their enemies had become. They would not return hate for hate. They, like the others in the resistance, would suffer. They, too, would be called terrorists and Communists. Many in their ranks went to prison, most notably Mandela for 27 years, but they would not participate in the bloodletting in South Africa.

And finally, it seemed the Spirit moved in the hearts of South Africa. It’s not clear if President F. W. De Klerk’s motivation was a crisis of conscience after meeting with the peacemaking Mandela in prison or increased global political pressure but on February 2, 1990, he announced unexpected reforms including power sharing among the races. Nine days later Mandela was released from prison and the seemingly endless cycle spinning towards an all out Civil War was stopped.

By 1994, a fuller, fairer democracy took hold in the country and Mandela was elected president. It was a joyous day both for black South Africans and the world. But it brought great unease to the country’s former oppressors.

The fear came from expecting the worst. After decades and decades of oppression and genocide, the whites in South Africa were scared to discover what their fate may be. It was a choice Mandela and the new power holders would have to make.

Now their choice was the same as any individual or group has to make when someone sins against them. You stand at the fork in the road and have to choose one of three paths.

The first path is revenge. Revenge is more than payback. Revenge says I’m not just going to get you back. I’m going to do you in. Revenge takes measures to an extreme to make sure the previous perpetrators are so intimidated they will be too scared to try anything like they did before. Nor will they stand up to the newly empowered. It is a complete and unhindered releasing of pent up rage. This would have seemed like the likely scenario in South Africa.

The second path is retribution. Retribution makes sure offenders get their just desserts. Whatever offense you perpetrated, should be answered by a proportional response. It is how our system of legal justice in the United States generally works. The problem was many of the crimes and human rights violations did not have proportionate responses that could be pursued without being viewed, and perhaps being, revenge.

The third path is forgiveness. This seeks to restore the relationship and bring some form of harmony to the situation.

So the black South Africans had a choice to make. They had been beaten, imprisoned, raped, kidnapped, murdered, disappeared. Families had been harassed and torn asunder. The decades prior had seen white power, oppression, and genocide all in the name of God and capitalism.

And yet they chose forgiveness. The country would form the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which hearings would be held. Victims would be allowed to tell their stories. Perpetrators would be brought to these hearings as well. Yet, the result would not be a statement in which they pledged forgiveness to their oppressors followed by the usual brand of justice, meaning punishment.

No. Rather than punishment they offered amnesty. All a person had to do to be granted amnesty was tell the truth. They were to testify about every crime, every atrocity, every human rights violation in which they took part.

Perpetrators were liberated by the forgiveness they received as a burden was lifted off their shoulders both of the guilt for what they had done and of the pressure of a system of Apartheid they felt they had to enforce.

The victims were liberated in the disclosing of their pain and forgiveness that lifted the burden of bitterness and hate off their heavy hearts.

Restitution has been made in small, manageable ways including reparations for victims and the return of some lands to the families who had previously owned them.

And a country was liberated and enabled through reconciliation to move into a period of relative peace. I say relative because there are still those on both sides looking to mete out vengeance. But they are not government sanctioned or politically or religiously backed.

Now, other truth and reconciliation commissions have been held in other countries where atrocities took place on a large scale with government sanction. But none accepted the radical move that was amnesty. None embraced forgiveness the way South Africa did.

But what made this possible. Desmond Tutu said it was an African attitude they call ubuntu. Ubuntu recognizes that all our lives are intertwined. It says a person is only a person through other persons. Its foundational statement is “I am human because I belong.” It believes that social harmony is the greatest good.

If harmony is such a great good, and revenge and retribution further alienate people from one another, ubuntu says these must be rejected. So South Africa chose forgiveness.

And that presents us with a challenge: if the people of South Africa could forgive such horrible violations of their personhood and their lives, why are we often so unable to forgive what are usually much more minor offenses? If a coworker of friend takes advantage of our generosity, talks behind our backs, or flat out steals from us why do we often not forgive? After all, when we put things in perspective, our suffering is not near on the level of what those people in South Africa forgave.

And, while we may not live in Africa and be familiar with ubuntu, we know the idea. After all, it is what the Jewish word shalom which we encounter in the Old Testament means. It is what the biblical English term peace means. These ideas go far beyond the mere absence of war. They speak of communal wholeness where we are united with God and with one another.

Ubuntu, peace, shalom all declare the reality that we are created by God and thus we all have the same value. We are all rebels against a loving God, yet precious. God forgives us and we are to forgive one another.

It is illustrated by none better than Jesus, who tells us to forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven times. Jesus also tells us the parable of the prodigal son which Rebecca discussed last week in which God, like the waiting father in the parable has already forgiven. We just have to accept.

Even in a seemingly more difficult teaching in Matthew 18, he says confront someone who sinned against you. If they do not repent, take two or three witnesses. If they still do not repent, take them before the church. If they still do not repent, treat them as you would a tax collector or a sinner.

But here’s the kicker: how did Jesus treat those the Jewish leaders called sinners and tax collectors? He welcomed them. Wow!

And if that isn’t enough of a wow moment for us, consider his words as he hung on the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing.” I mean, Wow!

So why won’t we forgive? Well, part of it is it’s hard. We fear justice won’t be done so no one will have incentive not to hurt us again. And we’ll appear weak and vulnerable to constant harm.

But that fails to make a distinction between modern legal justice resulting in punishment and the biblical justice of the kingdom of God which is about ubuntu, shalom, peace. And that fails to understand what forgiveness is.

After all, forgiveness is not about pretending the thing never happened. No. There are three parts of forgiveness as Miroslav Volf, a Croatian theologian who knows the suffering many experienced during the genocide and war in Serbia and Herzegovia during the 1990’s, explains in his book Free of Charge.

The first part of forgiveness is surprising: condemnation. Condemnation is a step that refuses to passively respond to injury by acting as though nothing happened. No. forgiveness begins by proclaiming to the offender they have sinned against you. Yet, this must be done humbly and through great discernment to be sure we are not telling someone else about their sins while ignoring our sins in the relationship. Self-righteous condemnation, after all, will only advance the divisive cycle which forgiveness longs to halt.

The next part of forgiveness is the one we think of the most: release of debt. This is the one we think makes us weak. However, the condemnation we just spoke of exposes the offender but letting them know their sin was noticed and they are called out on it. But here, in the next step, we make the radical offer of the open door. I forgive you. I love you. I do not seek to punish you. The door back into this relationship is open for you. You just have to walk in.

And finally, we release the offender from guilt. In this, we tell the offender, you are loved. We remain equal. There is no need to hang your head in shame.

These three parts of forgiveness recognize both our equal preciousness in God’s eyes and our sinfulness as humans. They also acknowledge that being created in God’s image, it is in our nature to forgive.

The tragedy is we deny our nature. We deny it because we are asleep. We are like those in the new hit movie Inception who go day after day into the basement of the chemist’s shop to be sedated so they can dream. They have become so engrossed by their dreams they accept their dreams as reality.

When the chemist’s assistant is asked the question, “So they come here to sleep?” He responds, “No they come here to wake up for their dreams are their reality.

Humanity is fast asleep. Christianity is fast asleep. We’ve sedate ourselves day after day so we can live the lie that has become our dream. It’s wrapped up in delusions of grandeur and power and wealth and myself while neglecting ubuntu, turning our backs on social harmony. We have projected a Jesus much different from the Jesus of the gospels into this dream to make it even more believable. This lie which has become our dream has many names: Kingdom of the world, spirit of this age, evil. Whatever we call it, it is a lie. And it brings chaos and division when we were meant to be together. But we sleep on in our fragmented lives convincing ourselves this is peacefulness.

But we need to wake up. We need to experience the kick of the Spirit in the depths of our souls and remember what our reality is. Created to love. Created to forgive. Made to be one with God and each other. So let’s go out from this place today and offer forgiveness to those from whom it has been withheld and confess our sins to those we have failed to repent to and seek the biblical justice of reconciliation. Ubuntu. Amen.

It's Something Bigger

2010-07-25T21:59:00.000-07:00

Family. It is integral to our lives…to society…to the world. Populations, traditions, and values are passed down through families.

Yet family is not easy. It’s needed. It’s required. But it can hurt. It seems when conflict arises in our family, we are likely to take a harsher path in handling conflict than we would in other societal situations. We are more likely to take advantage of one another. We are more likely to manipulate one another. We raise our voices more. We push the limits more. We hurt one another more.

You wonder why that is. Maybe it’s because of the intense familiarity and commonality found in family bonds. Maybe it has something to do with not being able to choose our family of birth. Maybe there’s a comfort level in believing that what happens in the family stays in the family. Whatever it is we know family life often brings a great deal of hurt. And where there’s a great deal of hurt, there’s a great need for forgiveness.

So we continue our series on forgiveness. Last week we asked the question, well I asked the question, “Is God crazy?” We looked at the Psalms wondering if God is crazy for his forgiveness that continues to be available no matter how long humanity continues to mock the Creator. Of course, we reached the conclusion that it is not God who is crazy, for it is in his nature to forgive, but humanity is crazy for its continued mockery of God. And we anticipated that if it is in God’s nature to forgive, and we are created in God’s image, then it must be in our nature to forgive. So we begin looking at our forgiveness of others today.

And that brings us to Genesis. After all, Genesis gives us not only the beginning of existence but also the beginning of rebellion from God, thus, the beginning of forgiveness.

We discussed this briefly last week but you may still question the idea of God’s forgiveness in Genesis. After all, the first humans were cast out of the garden. Cain was cursed for life. The flood wiped out almost all of humanity. The language of humanity was confused for building a tower to the heavens. So where is the forgiveness in that?

As I mentioned last week, God could have just wiped slate clean, yet the Creator chose a different solution in Genesis. Adam and Eve and Cain all received consequences but were spared. Great suffering was brought on humanity in the flood but its existence was spared in Noah. When humanity continued the cycle of sin after the flood, God did not repeat the previous action, but brought confusion instead. It appears grace and forgiveness remain as God has never given up on us.

Still, there is another way to consider these texts. And that is in the evolving nature of the understanding of God’s revelation by humanity. This approach compares the biblical texts to other ancient religious texts and notes the similarities while finding significance in where our texts differ from those texts.

For example, in our canon creation comes about not through a violent battle between two gods with the carcass of the losing deity serving as the matter from which the universe is created, but as an act of love from a hands-on God. The flood occurs because of rampant sin, not simply because humanity annoyed the gods with their noise.

So this comparison shines the light on a different kind of God. One who is not unpredictable and irritable and bringing down random violence at any moment, but one that interacts with humanity and is trying to save humanity from itself. In other ancient faiths, it was the lesser gods who showed mercy to humanity by telling them a flood was coming or giving them fire to keep them warm. In the faith of Genesis, however, it is the ultimate God showing mercy and offering forgiveness.

This helps us to see the early books of the Bible as a progression in the understanding of God from those ancient writings that came before. It also opens us up to see the progression in our canon regarding the understanding of the Creator and God’s relationship to suffering. And with a better understanding of God’s relationship to suffering, we can better understand God’s forgiveness.

Early on, God appears almost as an angry king judging those who fail and being the source of both good and ill. As the scriptural canon progresses, however, we are introduced to the idea of Satan, who begins in the Jewish tradition as a tempter but who is slowly understood to be the source of suffering and evil.

Still other texts in our canon suggest later that the source of our suffering is our own failure to live the way we were designed to live. It’s kind of like throwing your car in park at 60 miles an hour. It breaks down because that is not how it was designed to operate. Perhaps,this will help us start to understand why God brings rain on the righteous and the wicked. He is seeking to love all and we become our own undoing by trying to be our own god. This God of love was willing to come to earth and suffer at our hands offering forgiveness and salvation rather than coldly wiping the slate clean from above. This God is a far cry from the God who brought the flood.

So perhaps this makes it easier for us to grasp the idea of grace and forgiveness in the early part of Genesis and prepares us to understand the story of the family of promise beginning with Abraham.

The call of Abraham is the start of God’s work to call humanity back to its created nature through a people called to be a light to the nations. Abraham left his homeland and immediately became vulnerable. He could only rely on God. Yet he too stumbles. He and Sarah try to fulfill the promises of God in their own ways by having Abraham conceive with Sarah’s servant girl. When they succeed, God chides them for not trusting the Creator’s promise and Sarah becomes jealous of her servant Hagar. The sort of family conflict seen between Cain and Abel rears its ugly head again.

The cycle continues with Jacob who is said to be grasping his twin brother’s heel trying to be the first born. He then steals Esau’s birthright sending Jacob on the run. He winds up in his extended family’s land where a web of deceit and trickery on both Jacob’s and Laban’s part leaves Jacob with two wives who are rivals for Jacob’s affection. They compete to give him the most children using both themselves and their servants so that Jacob, now known as Israel, has thirteen sons.

This cycle of rivalry continues as the youngest, Joseph, is Israel’s favorite and is hated by his twelve brothers. Joseph has a dream that his brothers will one day bow down to him. When he shares this with his brothers they first decide to kill him before deciding instead to throw him down a well, sell him to some passersby and tell their father he was killed by a wild animal.

From there a series of events takes place until Joseph finds himself as the Egyptian pharaoh’s second in command and his brothers coming to him for food during a famine, though they do not know it is him. He toys with his brothers for awhile before revealing his identity. And here Joseph does not seek to vengeance he had the power to deliver, but offers forgiveness out of the joy from this reunion. And after his father dies, this forgiveness is reinforced.

Let’s turn to Genesis 50:15-21 and see this play out.

Joseph’s brothers are frightened. Joseph loved his father and they feared Israel’s presence was the only reason he has spared their freedom or, worse, their life. They are so scared they concoct a story that their father’s dying words were for Joseph to spare his brothers. Even then they expect to be slaves.

But Joseph found the strength to forgive his brothers and maintain their wholeness. But what gave him this strength?

The answer to the question is found in Joseph’s words. He has reunited his family and forgiven his brothers because he understands the biggest concept of all: it’s all about something bigger than me. Joseph understood the power he had in Egypt. He also understood the power his brothers exercised over him in getting him out of the way. They made themselves kings over his life and sent him as an orphan into servitude. He could have done the same and gotten even with his brothers. He was, in a political sense, practically a king over their lives now. He could order dismay on them and their families.

But he saw how God had used their evil schemes and made good out of it. Joseph’s ordeals had made it possible to deliver his family in a time of need and preserve a numerous people. It was bigger than Joseph’s desire to be king of his life or his brother’s lives. It was bigger than his hurt. It was about the deliverance of the family of promise: that family called forth to live as a light to the rest of the world and reveal God’s grace and forgiveness in a way that will call the rest of the world to turn back to the Creator and the way we were created to live.

If we are to have the fullest family lives we possibly can, we have to embrace this concept: it’s about something bigger than me. But that is difficult because of centuries of surrounding influence.

We now live in a culture focused on "Me". And the roots of the “Me” culture are often traced to the writings of the philosopher Descartes who said, “I think therefore I am.” His answer to the crisis of existence and answering the question, “Why am I here?” was framed in an individualistic sense. And why not? To answer his existential crisis, he was asking an individualistic question, “Why am I here?”

This so-called revelation played its role in answering a lot of troubling questions at the time. However, as it trickled down the centuries through the works of philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith it increased in its individualism: to the point that a person’s main goal in life is to be king of his or her own life.

Now this seems like a worthy notion. After all, it was the notion of freedom as an answer to centuries of religious wars and religious compulsion at the hands of the rulers of nation-states. But it quickly reached the point of hyper-individualism in which being king of one’s own life became the sole focus of our existence. To the point that if anything came in conflict with what we wanted, there would be no compromise and no community.

This progressed even in Christianity where Jesus came to be seen not as a savior of kings and priests who passed that down to those below them but as a personal savior to those free to choose to follow him. However, in our current day this has morphed to the point where our personal relationship with Jesus is what matters most. Community is often sacrificed. Where our beliefs are in conflict with another, we often walk away. Where accountability is offered, we view ourselves as the only accountability we need. We are the authority of our faith and have trouble lending an ear to anyone else. We often go to church but focus on me.

So as these attitudes have gripped our society and our faith, it’s easy to see how these influences have affected our families. Each member of the family acts as a king demanding their way. When we don’t get the satisfaction we desire from a family member we may seek it elsewhere with no concern for the hurt or betrayal it may cause. When a family member doesn’t give us what we want, we take it anyway or we con them or guilt them into giving it to us.

The hurt builds. Division grows in what should be society’s most unified institution and we find ourselves lost and alone. We end up gathering together on holidays to dredge up old wounds time and again and trying to love one another as we continue to mutter under our breath and view our family members as valuable for only what they have to offer us.

But as people of faith, we have to realize our families are the continuation of the family of promise. We are to be a light to the nations calling people back to God and the Creator’s design for our lives. As the family of promise, we understand turning back to God does not start with the existential question “Why am I here?” Instead of seeking to be king of our lives we acknowledge Jesus is the Lord of all our lives and ask the existential question, “Why are we here?”

Once we ask that question, we can understand that this life is about something much bigger than me. We can rest in the fact we no longer have to strain to call the shots in every aspect of our family life. We can turn away from the exhaustion of constantly seeking to be the alpha dog at home and making our family serve our desires or be who we want them to be. We can rest in love of one another. We can become vulnerable to one another through the weakness of forgiveness and lean on God to preserve us and renew us and save us.

So let us think today about our families. Who has hurt you? More importantly, who have you hurt? And step out of this place prayerfully seeking and offering forgiveness. After all, forgiveness is in our nature. It is through this apparent act of weakness, made known on the cross of Jesus, that our families, all part of the family of promise, will once again be a light to the world. Why are our families here? So our love will be a beacon to the world that there is hope.

Forgiveness! It’s not about winning. It’s not about getting even. It’s about love and hope for the future. It’s about something so much bigger than me.

God Must Be Crazy!

2010-07-25T21:38:00.000-07:00

Today, I’m going to start with a proposition. I’m just going to put it out there right from the start. Here it is: God must be crazy!

I know what you’re thinking. You’re slowly moving further from me so you aren’t struck by the same lightning bolt that takes me out. I must be a heretic. I must be arrogant to think that I can make such a statement of the one who created us. Or maybe I’m the one who’s crazy for making such a claim.

But surely God must be crazy!

After all, humanity is a spoiled brat. From infancy humanity has resisted the motherly embrace of God’s steadfast love. God was there cradling and nursing humanity and simply asked for our trust. But we wouldn’t have it. We screamed and we squirmed and we wrestled our way out of God’s arms wanting to take care of ourselves. That is until we were hungry and soiled and couldn’t handle it any more. And there was God to cradle us once more.

So we became toddlers. There was God loving us again. Asking for our trust. Setting guidelines for us to live together in peace. But again we wouldn’t have it. We wanted what we wanted when we wanted it. We kicked God in the shins and told him to go away. Then we found ourselves sick from eating too many cookies. There was God again to pick us up, nurse us back to health, and embrace us once again.

We grew into teenagers. God was there with fatherly advice of how to have the fullest life. Of how to give and receive the most love. But again we wouldn’t have it. We were invincible. We knew what we were doing. When God tried again to give us that advice, we gave God a hearty two-handed shove to the chest and said, “Leave us alone!” and commenced on the greatest freak out ever. Then, we found ourselves beaten down and alone and having just one place to turn. There was God again waiting for us with a firm embrace.

We became young adults. Ready to enter a riskier world on our own. God remained by our side asking for our trust. God claimed to know how to avoid destruction, failure, and emptiness. But we were fiercely independent and shouted, “I don’t need you anymore!” as we punched God in the face. We went off on our home, began to party and live life to the fullest on our terms. But we found ourselves broke, in debt, and homeless. There again was God to give us shelter and a new start.

So we entered full adulthood ready to make a life for ourselves. God was there still attempting to earn our trust and point us down the right path. But we had a better idea. We exclaimed, “Are you still trying to tell us what to do?” as we killed God so we could be once and for all be on our own. That was until humanity found itself ill and dying and on the edge of destruction and thinking it no longer had anywhere to turn. But how shocked were we when God appeared again as we learned that not only does God’s love never die but neither does God.

So is God crazy? Humanity, the spoiled brat keeps pushing God away. And God responds time and again with forgiveness every time we turn back to him. Why doesn’t God save Godself the pain, do away with humanity, and be done with it?
God doesn’t do that because it is not in God’s nature. In the foreward of Miroslav Volf’s book Free of Charge, Rowan Williams explains it is as much in God’s nature to forgive as it is in a duck’s nature to quack.

And does this truth not rehearse itself over and over in Scripture? Even when the ancients were more likely to attribute great suffering to God as punishment for sin, grace always had the last word. Humanity cast out of the garden but not destroyed. Cain cursed for murdering his brother but spared murder at another’s hands. A people delivered from slavery only to stray from God, be forgiven, stray from God, be forgiven, land in exile, be delivered. And it all culminates in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ which makes God appear weak to so many.

So, perhaps, if it is as much God’s nature to forgive as it is a duck’s nature to quack, we can logically make the conclusion that God is, in fact, crazy. I mean humanity, to this point, still hasn’t embraced the forgiveness and love God offers yet God persists.

Or maybe, we need another question. Maybe the question isn’t if God is crazy to continue to forgive. Maybe we should ask if humanity is crazy to not yet embrace its need for forgiveness. Humanity continues to push itself to the brink. Individuals continue to seek their own interests at the cost of the well being of themselves and others. All because humanity stubbornly believes, despite all the history to the contrary, that we can get along in our own strength.

So maybe we’re crazy, but if we’re really going to answer this question, we have to start to ask just what we are doing that requires forgiveness.

Let’s start to answer that question by turning to Psalm 92.

Psalms is a collection of poetry compiled to address a community in crisis. A nation who knew itself as God’s chosen people had rebelled and found themselves in exile. This psalm, in the voice of the musician king David, is a confession. As king, his confession represents the confession of a people who were feeling the effects of rebellion and were now turning back to God after having turned away.

They were a people who had been delivered from oppression in Egypt and now had become the oppressors. Righteousness and justice had escaped them as they sought their own self-interests.

Here, the speaker in the psalm points to three terms in the confession. The first is the most familiar: sin. It speaks to the general idea that we as a people created in God’s image and called to love as God does have missed the mark. We have generally lost sight of our identity and are lost in a wilderness of self worth.

The second term is transgressions which connotes a willful rebellion. It suggests that even though we were aware we missed the mark we continued on forcibly leaning on ourselves and rejecting the Creator’s overtures.

The third term is iniquities and it signifies the enduring, destructive effects of disobedience. This is inclusive both of the effects of our disobedience on ourselves and on others.

As these things mount in our lives, they begin to weigh us down. Spiritually they take a toll on us because we know deep down we were meant for something more and it tears at our soul. Physically and practically they take a toll on us through sins destructive effects and alienation from one another as we have trouble moving beyond what I want. As the psalmist points out, our silence and denial of our need for forgiveness only makes it worse.

Confession, though, results in forgiveness which results in God freeing us of sin and its effects. The psalmist says confession results in the forgiveness that brings us back into God’s presence where we find the shelter, a hiding place, where we will be delivered. It is simply up to us, from that point forth, to follow God’s instruction. In this shelter, our confession and repentance can free not only ourselves but also those hurt by our transgressions.

And here is good news. It is not that we have to be perfect to be in God’s shelter. We simply have to confess and repent. At that point God wipes the slate clean for those who truly fear him. As Psalm 103 tells us, he will remove our transgressions from us as far as the east is from the west. It is at that point the humble, those who understand they must rely on God rather than themselves, will be filled with the Spirit and live in a much different way.

This gives us a basis for understanding a need for forgiveness, but then we have to understand what it is in our day that may need to be confessed and repented.

Old Testament theologian Walter Bruggemann gives us a hint. He talks of four scripts which seek our worship and seek to control our lives. It is our dependence on these scripts that the gospel, he says, challenges by calling humanity back to a counter script. This is, of course, the true script which we were called to live by.

The first script is the therapeutic. It is that assumption that there is something to take away all discomfort in life. Whether it is drugs, insurance, or financial planning, it is believed we can rely on ourselves to prevent any pain or suffering in our lives.

The second is technological. This is the idea that if something is wrong we can fix it. If we have damaged the earth with the way we live, we’ll just create new ways to live the same lives to fix the problem. If our plans to provide our energy desires destroy an entire region of the Atlantic, we’ll create a new way to get that energy source.

There’s, then, the consumerist script which asserts we can buy whatever we want when we want it with our money. It states we are all individuals responsible for ourselves alone with no concern for how the items we consume are produced and with minimal concern for those who don’t have the same consumer power.

The final script is that of militarism. The script that says our power should be used to protect our interests around the globe or that when in conflict with another group or nation we call on the military so willing to give their all to defend us. But it often becomes like Mark Twain said, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

These scripts work in concert to affect our focus so we miss the mark. Where my life and my comfort and my nation is more important than God and our neighbor. Where our power to buy and to win is relied on rather than the creator who gives us breath.

These are scripts that affect not just out common life as a nation, or a church in a nation and the world, but also our personal lives. We buy, buy, buy. People in our lives, including our children and spouses become mere objects to bring us personal satisfaction. Our technology threatens to undermine our needs for physical presence. Harsh words, a fist, a knife, and a gun are used to get our way rather than relying on love to serve the common good.

Conflict rises. Tensions intensifies. Harm increases. All fueled by the need to rely on our own strength.

But God remains. That thankfully crazy God offering a loving embrace to humanity when we turn to him despite all our mockery of the creator. It is in this moment we can confess our sins. We confess the harshness, self-centeredness, arrogance, addiction and violence of our personal lives and the power-based and supremacist feelings of our common life and seek to lean on God in a new way of life. It is not a life that proclaims we have been perfect. Just that we are choosing to lean on God in this new life. The life of love. Focused outwardly on God and the other. After all, if we embrace the fact that God’s nature is forgiving and we are created in God’s image, it becomes clear we are called to forgive. Something we will discuss in the coming weeks.

Choose Life or Death

2010-06-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

Imagine a drought in a time far removed from ours. Crops are not shipped from around the globe in a matter of days. Nor are they genetically engineered to grow in different climates. In a basic situation such as this one, crops grow locally or you go hungry. Famine follows closely behind the drought.

Now imagine you’re a widow. No husband means you have to fend for yourself. For many widows, you’re treated as an outcast. If you have other family, you’ve already been married so you have little value anymore in a society ruled by men and in which women are viewed as property. No one will give your father a dowry for your hand because you’re used goods. There’s no hope in going home.

You’re a widow in a drought. The fields are drying up. There are no longer any bountiful fields for you to glean what the workers left behind. On your own, you have little remaining on which to sustain yourself. All that’s left is a handful of meal and a little oil from which you can make one last meal, and then you and your son will die.

Then, Elijah comes along and asks you to bring him some water and some bread. What! You know he is coming. You know you’re supposed to feed him. What you probably don’t know is he has been hiding from the king in the wilderness after telling the king there would be a drought. And you probably don’t know that ravens have brought him meat and bread in the morning and evening while he was hiding.

Still, you’re questioning of his arrival and questioning whether you can be hospitable seems justified. After all, you have one last meal remaining and he is asking for it for himself.

Until he says, “Do not fear.” This was a common phrase signifying the Creator’s bringing something out of nothing. Of bringing life from death. This action is on behalf of the hopeless. You comply with these words because, while you still carry some doubt, you are starting to believe that salvation has come to your house. For you the slimmest potential of life is an easy choice for you for death would otherwise come without an invitation.

You make the bread for Elijah, he eats, and what he promised becomes reality. Suddenly, in this drought…in this famine…you and your son have enough to eat. You will live. Hospitality has been your salvation as it was for Abraham with the three visitors.

For Elijah, the choice may have come much more difficultly. The narrative does not tell us whether or not Elijah was poor. But he puts his neck on the line. His role in our story begins with his confrontation of King Ahab. Ahab represented the climax of the descent of the kings of Judah into soul-selling alliances of kingdoms.

From the beginning, the prophet Samuel had warned the Israelites of the problems with wanting a king. Many of those warnings became reality under the rule of Saul, though things seemed to take a turn for the better with David. But that turn was short lived before David’s hunger for his own self-satisfaction began a slow but certain demise for the throne of Judah.

Now with Ahab, the demise takes a sharp turn into idolatry with his marriage to Jezebel and adoption into Jewish life of her god Baal. Ahab had caved to pressure. Assyria was on the march. Assyria came with great power and seemed certain to overrun Judah. And rather than a vulnerable reliance on the Creator. Ahab sought an alliance of power to take a stand against Assyria. He makes a seemingly common sense move. He also begins to assert his and Jezebel’s newfound power throughout his own kingdom oppressing his own people in greater ways than any Jewish king before him.

Elijah steps in, declares a drought, rescues the widow and her son from Jezebel’s land with food, and then heals her son of a deadly illness. The message is clear. Ahab is irrelevant. Though he and Jezebel have sought to consolidate power, they have none in sight of the Creator who is Lord of all and who can or cannot bring the rain, unlike their god Baal who was known as the rainmaker.

Ahab could have chosen life through the vulnerability of reliance on Creator. This is what Elijah and the widow did. But, whether it was caving to the external pressures surrounding his nation, his own self-seeking, or both, he chose death by relying on false power found only in idols. A king relying on power, rather than trusting the creator, was of no value to his people. Elijah, however, brought life.

In chapter 7 of the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus steps into Elijah’s role. Read with me verses 11 through 17.

The stage is set for this narrative. In Luke’s juxtaposition of Jesus’ birth with Caesar’s census, with Mary’s magnificat proclaiming hope for the poor, with John the Baptist calling the powerful Jews who allied themselves with Rome’s power a brood of vipers, with Herod’s confrontation with John the Baptist, and with Jesus declaring blessings on the poor and woes on the rich in his sermon on the plain, the stage is set for Jesus to take up Elijah’s role of prophet and giver of life.

Like other prophets in scripture and others called to follow the Creator’s way, Jesus spent time in the wilderness where he was trained to rely not on the produce of the powerful, but on God alone.

And he confronts, in this widow and her dead son, the illegitimacy of idolatrous power and the doctrine of scarcity. Once again, we have a widow with nothing but mourners behind her. Her son has died and once his funeral ends she will be on her own. These mourners offer only wailing and will be gone when the day ends. Her life may also end soon after out of starvation, thirst, and loneliness.

There is no compassion, until Jesus steps in. Reminiscent of Elijah, he says, “Do not weep.” And commands her dead son to rise. Her son’s life and her own are restored. Jesus’ compassion brings life. So many around him choose death through power, but Jesus chose vulnerability and life. And Jesus proclaims that where compassion reigns, abundance is revealed.

And we are invited to Jesus’ table today. To reflect on the body and blood of Christ shed for all creation and reflect on what following Jesus is. To reflect on what compassion is. And the challenge stands before us: do we choose the idolatrous life of self or the compassionate life of one another.

It seems ingrained in us today that the most important thing we are to focus on is looking out for number one. It can affect the way we are at home, at work, at church, at school. We can be friends and neighbors as long as no one stands in the way of what I want. This manifests itself on the political scene in dirty campaigns making false claims about each candidates’ personal lives and providing incomplete information about voting records. Our previous and current presidents have been repeatedly compared to Hitler as the party out of power hungers to get it back.

And we see the pressures of life. We see the person with a lesser conscience moving up the ladder at work. We see classmates with certain talents getting special treatment. We see parents and children, husband and wife struggling for power in their relationships. We see nations leveraging economic, political, and military clout to make one subservient to the other. All this because we fear, because we believe, that there is so little to go around. And it becomes easy to be deceived and believe power is the way to live. But this is idolatrous and if we continue on that path we’ll find it is the path to all sorts of death. Our family life, work life, social life, economic life, and political lives will be riddled with holes though they may appear so successful. We will find that rather than being human, we are simply consumers leaving a trail of waste in our wake as we attempt to satisfy our never ending hunger for power.

But Jesus called us to life. Jesus had radical compassion and it stirred up opposition that took his life. But compassion doesn’t bring waste for the grave could not contain the Christ. It brings regeneration. It brings new creation signified by the fact that the one consumed by the world for his radical compassion raised from the dead.

And we have the opportunity to enter into the narrative. We can take the place of Ahab and live our lives as an exercise of power. In some areas of our lives, we may act as Ahab to compensate for other areas in which we feel we have no control, allowing our feelings of inadequacy to hurt others. Or we can stand in the place of Elijah, whose names means “Yahweh is my God” of Jesus, his name meaning deliverer and take the risk of love of the path to real life.

So as we approach the table today we ask ourselves, we will follow Baal in our self-serving hunger to death? Or will we follow Jesus in a compassionate, self-sacrificing hunger for new life?

Christ Followers, Tear Down Those Walls

2010-05-30T13:51:00.000-07:00

As we encounter the story of Abraham and Sarah and the three strangers, we are asked to reflect on just how it is we greet strangers and how radical Abraham’s response may be. I’ll illustrate from my life.

Let’s just say you shouldn’t be fooled about me. When I am up here, it may seem rather natural for me. You may think that I’m a naturally outgoing individual. But such a disposition comes much more easily for me in a public setting such as this, than it does in private. Truthfully, I am, deep down, very reserved. Very guarded. I have a hard time letting people in.

I stand as a contrast to Abraham. Imagine me getting home after a busy day. I’m physically tired. Mentally exhausted. And ready for a break. I fix a tall glass of sweet tea, say hello to my family and tell them I love them and sit down at least briefly to relax.

Then, there’s a knock on the door. Now, unfortunately, this is where then worst of me comes out, at least behind the scenes. I throw up my hands in frustration, let out a big sigh, and mutter to myself as I pry myself off the couch and toward the front door.

“Come on! I just sat down. Who comes over this time of day? I’ve had my fill of human interaction today.”

Sadly, it’s not a welcoming spirit. Tragically, I fear that, while I put on a happy face when I open the front door, my disappointment feels the air and pervades my attempts to overcome it.

My children, though, are a different story altogether. They can be looking at a book, which they’ll be reading one day soon, or watching their favorite show, or engrossed in a game. It doesn’t matter. That door knocks and they go crazy like the dog.

“Mom! Dad! Somebody’s here! Somebody’s here! Who do think it is? Who do you think it is?”

This is followed by uncontrolled and very loud giggling.

“Hee, hee, hee, hee! Haa, haa, haa, haa!”

Whoever is on the other side of the door feels so welcome, perhaps too welcome.

This was Abraham’s response when the three strangers approached his camp. He ran out to meet them and bowed to the ground.

He says to the visitors, “If I have found favor in your eyes, do not pass your servant by.”

Now while the narrator tells us in verse one the Lord appeared to Abraham, the narrator also makes it clear in verse two that all Abraham knew at first were three men were passing by his camp. His attitude of servanthood was the expected response to any visitor, though it was not often followed. One was to consider strangers who came into their camp as more important than themselves.

And Abraham goes on to wash their feet, bring them bread, prepare the finest calf for dining, and instruct Sarah to bake them cakes. He treats them as kings.

This sort of behavior was vital for nomadic people. They were vulnerable. They relied on the land and traveled to wherever the resources to survive could be found. Many strangers would be encountered along the way. Without a welcoming spirit, their very survival was threatened. Hospitality, then, was a matter of justice for all.

It is in this hospitality, this radical hospitality in which Abraham considers others as more important than himself and resists the urge to put his self-preservation above all else, that a new world of possibility opens up before Abraham and Sarah.

For it becomes clear as the story progresses, that God is among the visitors. As we discussed, earlier, much of the Christian church sees this as pointing to the Trinity: Father, Son, Spirit. The Three-in-One. While not all the church, or all scholars agree about this, there is powerful imagery here.

Consider the presence of El Shaddai, the God of the mountain who is capable of all things coming to walk among Abraham’s camp as he does in the person of Jesus and opening up new possibilities in the Spirit through the birth of a child to an elderly, barren couple as the Spirit did on Pentecost. Even if it was not the Trinity here, the image remains strong. The all-powerful creator does not stand at a distance from a rebellious creation but moves among us. We are not left to our designs of decay and destruction. The creator brings new creation.

But while Abraham and Sarah were the models of hospitality to the stranger, they found difficulty offering hospitality to the message God brought. So God asks the doubting couple, “Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?”

He asks this because the couple doubts the ability of God to bring new possibilities. But the lesson of this story is that if we open up our hearts to strangers, and if we open up our hearts to God, new, seemingly impossible, things will start to take shape. Here God is telling them once again that though they doubted and they chose for Abraham to try to bring about the heir promised by God by having a child with their servant Hagar, another common custom, and though Abraham later laughed in the face of God and though Sarah now laughs, if they will but humble themselves and take the leap of faith, an heir will be born. A new people will be God’s light to the nations to bring about a new creation through its vulnerability.

It all began by welcoming the strangers, something we find so difficult to do. We hear the news of homicide, terrorism, gang violence, and drug wars. We hear of so many children leaving the faith and making mistakes, even early in their teenage years, which affect them for the rest of their lives. This makes us scared. Afraid to open up ourselves and be vulnerable.

After all, as Old Testament theologian Walter Bruggemann says, “this story shows what a scandal and difficulty faith is. Faith is not a reasonable act which fits into the normal scheme of life and perception.”

We are so afraid, we build walls between us and anything that is different afraid our weakness could be exploited and we could be hurt. We take up a spirit of self-preservation and revenge that leads to us becoming forces of power which only feed the suffering, hurt, and destruction we hope to avoid. This has often times become the normal scheme of life. More than resembling the welcoming spirit of Abraham, we more closely reflect the image of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah which follow in Genesis 19. When the visitors entered their cities, they sought to overpower and oppress the visitors in a spirit of inhospitality. It was clear outsiders were not welcome. God heard the outcry against these cities: that they did not live in justice. And he came to the aid of the powerless. Instead of experiencing the world pregnant with possibilities Sodom and Gomorrah experienced destruction.

And out of fear or selfishness, we wall ourselves in. We believe in a rebellious world, we must participate in that rebellion to some degree, though we are people of faith, in order to survive until God brings the ultimate change. We have trouble believing God will deliver us in the end if we will take up our cross and make ourselves vulnerable to be the ambassadors of love at all costs. We fear what the world can take from us rather than embracing what God can give us.

And why wouldn’t we? After all, wall building and inhospitality have become a strong thread in the history of humanity. We can look at the murder of Abel by Cain which tells a story of farmers and ranchers building walls between themselves. The tribes separated from one another. Then nations. Then empires. It became a racial matter, then a nationalistic matter. And you look at churches and the thousands of denominations we now have and it seems the people called to be a light to the nations has covered its lamp.

So can we uncover the lamp? Can we consider new creation and new possibilities?

Like the boy in the movie Pay it Forward, we must take a risk to help the world. In a world pregnant with new possibilities, we must tear down the walls which separate. We must shatter the categories we create based on difference and remember what we all have in common: we are all created by a good God who loves us all and calls us to participate in that love. And in doing so many of us will entertain angels without even knowing as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote as a reference to the stories we find in Genesis 18 and Genesis 19.

But in order to do this, we must rid ourselves of our inhibitions. We must overcome our fears. We must risk vulnerability and reach out to the other. This follows the way of the cross. The path laid by Jesus when he did not call on legions of angels in an exercise of power but surrendered his life in love.

In so doing, we will overcome the need to justify our actions. Turn our backs on the need to be like the rest of the world exercising power through manipulation, deceit, oppression, and violence. We will learn to love by trying on other people’s shoes and walking around for a bit.

Imagine feeling isolated. You move into a new neighborhood. You know no one. You’re hoping someone will say hello and get to know your name.

Imagine walking into a church. You’re new in town. Or you were hurt in a church you just left. Or some crisis has struck your life and you’re in need of answers. You’re desperately wanting to feel at home. Wanting to belong.

Imagine living in this country and being of Arab descent. Everywhere you go someone thinks you might be a terrorist. They may wonder if you have some connection with the kid who planned a bombing in Dallas. The people’s stares burn holes through your soul. Perhaps, anger and despair begins to grow as you’re made to feel more isolated.

Imagine being an undocumented immigrant. Your farm went broke after NAFTA took effect. You and your family have little food. You can’t find work that provides what your family needs. You applied for a green card but the waiting list is such it could be 15 or 20 years before it is granted and your kids need to eat. You leave behind your parents, siblings knowing that even if you received a green card, it could easily be another 15 or 20 years before your petition to get your parents and siblings a green card is granted and your family is reunited. Your family’s needs outweigh any concern of possibly be taken advantage by some crooked employer in the States. As it is, a bad job is better than no job because you will still have money to send back home. And you risk the results of violating a law written on the other side of the border because your children’s hunger is bigger than your freedom.

Imagine being an ex-convict, perhaps even a pedophile. Your name is on a registry. Your past follows you everywhere you go. People know who you are and do not trust you. And it’s not like you’re innocent but you’re desperate for a chance to start over. You wonder, like Red in Shawshank Redemption, if being out is really worth it.

People are surrounded by walls. Walls that prevent them from believing there is a better life. Walls of isolation and powerlessness that lead to the growth of dishonesty, manipulation, force, and violence. But imagine what would happen if we who call ourselves by Christ’s name welcomed them in. Imagine if we treated them as more valuable than ourselves. Walls of separation could crumble. Walls of presumption could fall. Instead of embracing the ways of the world, we could see there is hope, all be it hard to grasp, in the way of the cross. And we would encounter God in the weak as we take such a risk.

Children who are moved by such encounters with God, who see their parents love in radical ways will be moved by how wonderfully loving their parents are. They will moved by the character of God. They will see more value in faith than they ever imagined and continue in faith throughout adulthood. If they have already moved on, they will quite possibly return. That makes this a story we should know.

Now hospitality is vulnerability and vulnerability may lead to suffering. But, more importantly, it brings deliverance. It brings redemption. It brings liberation. It brings salvation. But to find that salvation we must answer the questions which confront us. Do we have the faith to believe in this future? We will be hospitable to God’s word to us? Christ Followers, will we tear down those walls?

Spirit

2010-05-30T13:43:00.000-07:00

It’s Pentecost! A day we need to be excited about. Did you hear the story from Acts as told in the video? It’s incredible. And in our modern language we can think of it as more than Pentecost. It’s PentecostCo. The Spirit is poured out in bulk quantities on thousands of people.

I mean, Christmas and Easter come and we pour our whole being into celebrating the birth and resurrection of Jesus with great fervor. And with great reason. We should. Those days are awesome as well. But Pentecost comes and we might mention it, but that’s about it. But this is about the Spirit filling the church. This is about the church being empowered to do even greater works than Jesus did while here with his first disciples.

So why does it not excite us more? I suggest it is because we do not understand all of its imagery. And the imagery is rich. And if we start to understand the depth of its meaning, then perhaps we will see the difference in its richness. It is like the difference in richness between a bar of chocolate made with pure cane sugar and a bar of chocolate made with Nutrisweet.

To understand this imagery, less roll back the church calendar a few weeks. Good Friday. This is day that sets the stage for the Easter season. It’s the day commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus. It is also a day that, in the gospels, parallels the Jewish Passover, the day which set the stage for the exodus from Egypt.

Key to the Passover is the lamb. The lamb which the Israelites slaughtered and from which they drew the blood which was smeared on the top of their doorposts as a signal to the Angel of Death to pass by their homes. And while, traditionally, we have understood Passover to signify the passing over of this Angel of Death, more common usage of the Hebrew word translated Passover suggests that we should be thinking of the hovering or guarding of God. God guards those who are exploited and oppressed. Who are down on their luck. Who feel there is no hope.

This context suggests a much different understanding of the lamb that was slain. Those marked by the blood of the slaughtered lamb were not escaping punishment but being delivered from slavery and oppression from outside forces, namely Pharoah. The weak, the stranger in a foreign land is delivered. Likewise, when we observe the death of Jesus, the lamb, we are proclaiming that those who are marked with the faith of Christ exhibited in self-sacrifice, will be delivered from all that enslaves them, whether it be our own demons or external forces holding us back from our true humanity.

Immediately following the Passover in the Jewish tradition is the harvest festival or the feast of weeks. In this seven week festival the forty years in the wilderness is remembered. People reflect on and embrace a God who provided basic sustenance for his chosen people in the form of manna and quail. Also, the festival begins with the offering of the first fruits out of all gratitude for God has provided and in his bringing of deliverance for this once weak and powerless people.

This all culminates on the fiftieth day after Passover with Shavout. Jews in exile during the Greco-Roman period renamed this with the Greek word Pentecost, simply meaning fiftieth. It was a day commemorating God’s giving the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai. It was on this day that the Israelites were given the law that was to guide them in being a light to the nations. This law was to be the way of life that was to make this chosen people so radically different from the rest of the world that it would eventually draw the entire world back to the Creator.

But as we learn from our scriptural cannon, the appointed leaders of this people led them astray. Instead of being kings unlike the kings of the world and leading the people to be a nation unlike other nations, they became carbon copies. Instead of being a people of deliverance and liberation who welcomed the stranger and took care of the poor and vulnerable among them, they joined the rest of the history of nations as the oppressor. And by the time the first century came, the leaders of the Jewish people were nearly indistinguishable from those in Rome.

So then Jesus came to renew the covenant made with Abraham and Moses. He came to renew this covenant with a rebellious people. With all people. To embrace a world full of people who had forgotten how to love. And it cost him his life. Yet, death could not defeat him as death was conquered in his resurrection which we celebrate with Easter. It is through the death and resurrection of Jesus in which God declares that all those marked by the blood of Christ will be set free from a spirit of arrogance, hate, greed, and violence that is the path to destruction.

And this brings us to the amazing events of Pentecost. The fiftieth day. For us, 50 days after Easter. Recalling the day the Spirit descended on Jesus’ earliest followers empowering them to proclaim the good news of Jesus to people from many nations in all their languages. This is the day that opened the doors to the nations for the good news of liberation for the rest of history.

And on this day Peter spoke of deliverance. And cited the prophet Joel pointing to the belief that the God who called the Israelites and sent them into exile when they became like the other nations, will act to deliver his called people to what they were called to be: a light to the nations.

And this Pentecost acts as a great reversal. You notice the Jews from many nations all hearing in their native language. This stands as a reversal of the Tower of Babel in which men were confused by many tongues. The fierce competition between peoples had led to empires at war. Instead of living in community as they were created to live, they lived in war against one another. And it was in this point of the narrative that Egypt entered as the victor and the other nations with their many tongues were dependent on their power having been reduced to a subservient state of forced inferiority.

But Pentecost reverses this exercise of power as it was seen in Rome at the time of Christ. In Christ, all nations were included and heard the good news in their tongues. All were loved. All were equal. No longer would people be viewed as inferior to others. No longer would one exert power over another. Once again, in Christ and thru the Spirit, we would learn to live together again without distinction.

And I believe this narrative is vital to our future. The ancient Israelites and Jews relive this narrative in their worship pointing to a now and future hope. So in our rehearsing and reliving this narrative we can be energized to go forth as a light to all peoples in the love of Christ.

Our narrative is that of a liberated people called to liberate the world who then rebelled only to have God reach out again to us in love to set us free from ourselves and other forces. Jesus died and rose again clinching the victory of love over the history of self. And on Pentecost, we were filled by the Spirit to participate in the recreating of love in our world.

As an exodus people, we know God has and will set his people free. As a Christmas people, we are reminded that God remains with us. As a Good Friday people, we know that self-sacrificial love, though it may hurt, is the way to real joy and abundant life. As an Easter people, we know the pain and suffering we experience is not the last word. And as a Pentecost people, we take that hope into the world in both word and action knowing the Spirit is here with us now empowering us to do greater things than were seen in the time of Jesus.

So what does the Pentecost story mean for us today?

As the video suggests, we will have a new problem if we will but open our souls to be filled by the Spirit breathing new life into our weary flesh. We won’t be able to help but proclaim the good news of Jesus and to enact his love. We won’t be able to resist resisting evil, injustice, and oppression as we pledge to do in the United Methodist Church when we join this body.

Imagine the love of Christ pouring through you so you refuse to allow an outcast to continue to be isolated. Your love could heal their soul and spare them the coming mental or emotional breakdown and its destructive consequences.

Imagine being so filled with the love of Christ you can’t help but affirm the value of your spouse and children over and over again no matter how difficult life may get. Families and marriages can be repaired.

Imagine the love of Christ showing us new value in our money. Suddenly, our disposable income would bring happiness not through the material wants we buy ourselves but through the basic needs we can provide for others.

Imagine the love of Christ bringing together people once separated by income and neighborhoods and borders and fences and walls so that the only boundary defining who we are and whom we love is the border which Christ draws around all creation.

Imagine being set free from self-centeredness and arrogance so your relationships take on new meaning and depth.

Imagine the hearts of a nation, of all the nations, being molded in the love of Christ so global relationships are no longer defined by currency and goods but by the needs of our neighbor. Imagine a nation not prevented from accomplishing anything by the party lines drawn in the sand. Imagine a new a way of doing business that values those who labor more than rapidly increasing profits.

We must still imagine these things, because the church has failed in many ways at many times in history by refusing to respond to the Holy Spirit and instead responded to the spirit of the world.

But we can imagine this new world and know it can be. Pentecost reminds us the Spirit is with us and whatever act of love we can imagine, whatever great change in this world we dream love can bring, will be. Let us open our souls to be filled with Spirit. Let us refuse to be defined by the world. Refuse to be defined by our own fears. Let us remember that the Spirit is with us now and if we will but let it in the church can be restored. The church will be less interested in the issues it faces on the inside and will seek to take love to the outside. Our love will overflow from the walls of our homes and into the streets. The fruit of our love will fall from the branches of our family trees quenching the needs of all those we meet. And, with that, this world will be restored. We have the strength within us to preach, teach, witness, love, care, feed, and heal. Let us lay ourselves down knowing the Spirit, through us, takes the future and makes it the present. Looks at despair in the face and proclaims joy comes in the morning. For as we look around and see pain…see hate…see violence…see greed… and see suffering, it is important for us to remember this day…IT…IS…PENTECOST!

Mothers Are Heroes

2010-05-13T22:17:00.000-07:00

I thought we could start things with a flashback from the 80’s. I had not seen this video until recently. Apparently, it was a video release only program called Be Somebody or Be Somebody’s Fool starring Mr. T.

Now if you were like me as a child, Mr. T was one of your idols. There were Bo and Luke Duke, any of the G.I. Joe’s, He-Man, and Mr. T. I tuned in every week to watch him and the rest of the A-Team. So if I had heard Mr. T tell me to treat my mother right, I was going to do it. After all, while you don’t see it here it here in this video, in my head I could hear Mr. T proclaiming, “I pity the fool that don’t treat his mother right!”

But we are not often like the kids in this video. When someone tells us to respect our mothers, we don’t simply nod in agreement. After all our mothers often tell us no and seem to be out to make our lives difficult.

But, in reality, we celebrate a day like today because mothers are heroes. Many of the great moments in the Christian scriptures began with mothers. Let’s take a look at one such story…

Read Exodus 2:1-10.

To get a full grasp of this story, we should start back in Genesis. Abram, the man called by God to father a people who would be a light to the nations, travels to Egypt. They were facing a famine and he had to go there for food. A narrative begins to take shape here where Egypt is the power in the world. Weaker peoples depended on them for food when times were tough. As an immigrant entering a foreign land to provide for his family, Abram felt vulnerable approaching Egypt. So much so, he misled Pharoah about his relationship with his wife Sarai.

We see this theme again in the story of Joseph. Joseph, after being rejected by his brothers, finds a home in Egypt. He finds himself unjustly imprisoned but through God’s deliverance finds himself as Pharoah’s second in command. Again, the sons of Abram, who came to be known as Abraham, find themselves needing Egypt’s grain so Jacob sends his sons.

Now you likely know the story well enough. Through a complex course of events, Joseph is reunited with his brothers and his family settles in Egypt, the great world power.

When we turn the page and get to Exodus, we find a sudden change of circumstances. A new Pharoah has ascended to the throne who did not remember Joseph. Rather than seeing the Israelites as friends, he sees them as a thriving multitude and as a threat. He believes they are more powerful and may escape. The Israelites played a vital role in the sustainability of Egypt’s economy so that couldn’t happen. This insecurity led Pharoah to oppress the Israelites. Then he ordered the midwives Shiprah and Puah to kill all the newborn boys.

The midwives, however, feared God and refused so Pharoah responded by ordering his people to throw all newborn Hebrew boys into the Nile. And here is a subtle but important change in the language of Exodus. The tale begins speaking of Israelites.

But as we progress through the first two chapters of Genesis the reference to the oppressed peoples shifts to the terms Hebrews, speaking not just of Israelites but to all oppressed peoples in the Ancient Near East. Thus, the Israelites, called to be a light to the nations are understood to represent all those oppressed by the world powers.

And that brings us to today’s story. This people, called by God, is under threat of extinction as their male babies are being drowned. But a baby is born and the mother declares this child a fine baby, recalling God’s word at creation. It signals to us that God is doing something new.

In this newness, a courageous mother pledges her love and loyalty to her child over against Pharoah. Rather than allowing him to be added to the slaughter of children drowned in the Nile, she hides the child as long as she can until she acts with one last act of desperation by plastering a basket, an ark as it reads in Hebrew recalling Noah and the flood, so it would carry her child down the river. In a rather ironic twist she obeys the command to cast her child into the Nile, yet prepares for his survival.

We know the book of Exodus. We know this courageous mother, willing to sacrifice her life for her child, provided not only for his safety, but for the liberation of her people. This is rescue story. One child spared for all the Hebrews, for all the oppressed.

And, yet, more than one mother plays a role here. For Pharoah’s daughter finds the child in the basket. And while the text says she took pity on him, the Hebrew here actually uses a phrase suggesting she pledged loyalty, or an alliance, with him. Pharoah’s daughter makes a political move in which she stands against her father on the side of this oppressed child. And through that alliance, and adopting this child, she too plays a role in the historic exodus of the oppressed immigrant Hebrews from Egypt.

And this is the call to mothers today. To love your children sacrificially above all else. This is a love that plants the seed for deliverance. It could be as simple as a mother’s love delivering her child from the mental anguish of walking the halls at school facing rejection at every turn. Or nurturing your child with love so they know they can turn to you when peer pressure confronts them tempting them to make any number of destructive choices that could affect them the rest of their lives.
Or a mother’s love can change the world. It could lead to the Exodus. It could save the life of a child named Jesus who was called to proclaim to us that the kingdom of God was revealed in him and is here with us today.

Your love can be the bolt cutters that break the chains of destructive family cycles such as violence, poverty, self-centeredness, or self-loathing. Your love can nurture a child in the faith so that he or she can find hope where there seems to be none. So that your sons and daughters will no longer feel a need to find their identity in the expectations of others in an endless search for acceptance and belonging. For they will find their identity in your embrace and in the love of God.

This desire to give children a healthy, world-changing identity is what spawned the origin of Mother’s Day. It began as a movement of community activism. Anna Reeves Jarvis was a mother in West Virginia and saw a need for greater sanitation. She organized Mother’s Work Days for mothers to take the streets and make this happen. During the Civil War, she pulled mothers together to care for the sick and wounded. After the Civil War, she led mothers in seeking to reconcile the men who brought violence on one another.

Julia Ward Howe wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic during the run up to the Civil War. By the time the war was over, she believed peace was the way to go and proposed there be annual Mother Day for Peace and wrote the Mother’s Day Proclamation including this excerpt:

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by
irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking
with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be
taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach
them of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of another
country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From
the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says "Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance
of justice."

Mother’s Day of Peace was celebrated for 30 years and in that time mothers, fueled by their love for their children and the children of others had first organized to end slavery, now organized to end lynchings and consumer fraud, and worked for better working conditions for women, protection for children, public health services, and social assistance for the poor.

A mother’s love is such it will nurture children who are not interested in cool. Are not desperate for acceptance. Are not consumed by or with themselves. But will find the love of God through your love and through your love will know what is to love their neighbor. Will know what it is to not discriminate based on income, or color, or differences in culture. Who will not decide that one person or group of people deserves to live more than another. They will know the radical love of the God revealed in Christ and, filled with the Spirit, will participate in the continued building of the kingdom of God where God’s will is done on earth as it is in Heaven.

But I want it to be clear. This message is not just for the stay-at-home mom. It includes all mothers. Often, working moms are looked down upon. But whether you work because you have to or you have a career because you want to, you have great value. Your love, your nurturing can bring the deliverance we have spoken of tonight.

But here on mother’s day, there is still more to say. For in our society, there is
often more value placed on those who are married with children than those who are single mothers and those, who are either single or married without children. But I believe this mistake. Our value comes in that we carry the image of our creator. And we have equal roles and equal importance in life.

We see here in this story other women play a major role. The child’s sister keeps an eye on the child floating until he safe in the arms Pharoah’s daughter, the goes to get the child’s mother to nurse him for Pharoah’s daughter. If we rewind just a bit, we hear of the courageous midwives who stood up to Pharoah protecting numerous children. Shiprah and Puah are mentioned nowhere else in history. Yet, they carry a special importance in our salvation history, protecting the young of an immigrant people against the world power.

So all women here tonight, whether or not you’re a mother, carry a special importance in the life of this community and in the life of our world. For every time you act on someone else’s behalf, especially on behalf of a child, you can bring deliverance. And if your God-given love for your neighbor does not change the world it could very well change their lives. It could be the truth that sets them free.

So we honor are mothers. And we also honor all women tonight in all their life-giving , world-changing sacrifice. And we go forth seeking to be filled with the Spirit and emulate that love so we too may be God’s hands in the world.

2010-04-27T20:33:00.001-07:00

(This message was a mix of small group discussion and lecture. Feel free to take a moment to consider the questions and provide your comments throughout as you read through this post.)

When we read about David, we encounter probably the most celebrated hero of the Old Testament. On the prophetic side you have the likes of Moses and Elijah. But David is the king. He is the face of the Jewish nation. Combine that with the biblical characterization of David as “a man after God’s own heart” and you have the man of the Old Testament.

Yet, the story of David is in the midst of what many consider the pink elephant in the biblical canon: the concept of holy war. It is a concept a lot of people of faith don’t really want to talk about. But if we are to discuss the relevance of the story of David and the relevance of this particular episode for today, we need to start to make sense of this.

After all, David’s arrival on the scene as the one anointed by God to be the next king is quickly followed by conflict with Saul. Saul admired David’s talent but was envious of David’s selection by God through the prophet Samuel. And while both were celebrated for their military leadership and prowess in battle, that created more envy for Saul as the people repeatedly chanted, “Saul has killed his thousands, David his tens of thousands.”

So what you have throughout the second half of 1 Samuel is a rivalry between two men anointed by God to lead the nation of Israel. The blessing is taken from Saul resulting in defeat in battle and is given to David who becomes victorious in battle.

In that context, and with our episode this evening happening after another victory in battle, it will help if we have a discussion about these things before we go any further…

What is your reaction to the idea of holy war?

How does its presence in the Old Testament affect your reading of these stories?

How does it affect your understanding of God and God’s character?

Do you think this concept in the Old Testament differs from ideas throughout history resulting in the Crusades, genocide, the holocaust, apartheid, and jihad?

Do you feel this is in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus? Explain.

We have stopped and taken a moment to discuss this idea because it can affect what value people may place on our scriptures. Throughout our history this idea of holy war has inspired great atrocities much like the events we find our Bible. Consider, for a moment, the genocide found in Joshua and Judges.

Even today, we can hear echoes of Jerry Falwell saying we should, “Blow them all up in the name of the Lord!” or the American general who proclaimed our God is bigger than Allah when speaking of the war on terror. It may cause many of us to question if we get who God really is. And it does cause many outside the church to question if we really believe in Jesus. After all, many ask, how much difference does faith in Jesus really make?

So how could we start to read today’s passage? After all, it is in the midst of the holy war theology where David is seen as victorious in battle and as obtaining his throne because of his faith.

I believe we can start by reflecting on what I think our scripture does best: redefining the conventional. The Genesis creation narratives redefined what creation was believed to be in the ancient world. Rather than coming about through the slaughter of one female god by another male god, the Jewish God created the universe without blood. The prophets and Jesus redefine faith and covenant. Rather than asserting an unconditional, nationalistic covenant of birthright and law, the prophets and Jesus focused people on the ideas of justice and the two great commandments: loving God and loving neighbor. Paul redefines the idea of Lord by applying Lord to Jesus’ way of love and sacrifice rather Caesar’s way of victory through violence. Revelation, written by John of Patmos redefines apocalypse. Like Pauls’ writings, it depicts the kingdom of God coming about not by overpowering rivals but through suffering which reveals the love of God present in the world.

Reading it this way seems to point to a continual reshaping of the understanding of God and faith as we read through our canon. We could say this has continued throughout history. Consider the rethinking of belief that took place when people of faith rose up to say a new understanding of scripture was needed to overcome slavery, the suppression of women and things of the like.

It seems we can find value in even the most troubling portions of scripture if we are able to unearth what is within that radically redefines what was before viewed as normal.

So we look at our story today.

Read 1 Samuel 30:21-24

Six hundred had gone with David to avenge the destruction of the city of Ziklag. Two hundred of those men grew tired and stopped in Wadi Besor while the others went forth in victory. And this is where the story goes radical. A number of those who went to battle had decided only those who fought should get a portion of the spoils. This seems somewhat reasonable as they went and risked their lives for victory. The scripture, however, calls these men corrupt and worthless and David says. “No!” All should share alike. After all, the victory, as disturbing as the idea may be, is credited to God. It is not those who went to battle that brought the victory. It is, David says, God.

David confronts a common practice in the Ancient Near East. Those who fought got all the riches resulting from victory. And those who didn’t got nothing. An economic hierarchy was established empowering those who went to battle while neglecting the rest of the community. But David’s faith causes him to turn the practice on its head. He is convinced that God values all in the community so that community is valued more than achievement. The well being of all is the focus.

Now look at Matthew 20:1-16…and consider how the parable turns conventional practice on its head…

Does the practice in the parable make sense to you? Explain.

Does the focus of the parable fit with the focus of the mainstream of our society? How?

What are some ways we, as people of faith, should seek to redefine normal in our world today?

Here is a parable which appears to come at us on two different levels. You can consider the institution that was, and is, day labor. People gather in a central location in need of work. The normal practice was to pay people in accordance with the time of day in which they were hired. Yet, here the owner pays all the workers a full day’s wages. He takes responsibility for the well being of each worker despite how many hours they worked. After all, they were ready to work but were not hired until later by those who needed their help.

On another level, it challenges any hierarchy set up based on our birth into the faith, our avoidance of dreadful sins prior to belief in Jesus, or achievement as a believer. The Pharisees had generations of belief. Yet, Jesus is suggesting the rewards of joining the kingdom are the same for all whether they were born into it or joined in faith and repentance later in life. Likewise, whether you led a life of relative goodness or were a thief, tax collector, or harlot, all were equally welcome in God’s kingdom. Another way to look at it may be that regardless of how much wealth or power one has obtained or how impoverished one is, we are equally reliant on God to sustain us and equally responsible to our community. Let’s discuss this further…

What of your possessions do you find painless to share?

Is there anything you would strictly resist sharing?

Does the idea of having what you have earned prevent from sharing at all?

What are ways we could share more and bring about change in our community?

We have had a great discussion this evening as we try to grapple with scripture tonight. So let’s consider how the scripture might challenge us. It seems what we have read tonight challenges ideas of entitlement to hold on tightly to what we consider our own. If all we have is given to us by God, as David suggests, it suggests we should be concerned not only with the well being of myself and my family, but also the well being of all our neighbors as well.

This could affect every decision we make as to how we use our money. It may cause us to ask questions. Do I need to eat out as often as I do? Do I need to pay for entertainment as often as I do? Do I need to wear the trendiest clothes or own the number of shoes I do? Should I buy the most affordable clothes made in a foreign sweatshop? Do my food choices consume more than my share of the food supply? And most importantly, how do my answers to these questions affect my neighbor?

We could take this a step further by thinking about our future. Is it perhaps, as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, worrying about today to be so focused on my retirement or my child’s college, while my neighbor can’t pay their bills or feed their family today. Perhaps, as Jesus also says, “Today has enough trouble of its own. I can tell you, these are questions Katy and I will face more directly starting this summer as we will no longer be paying for Ava to attend preschool while we work. Are savings good common sense or are they us relying on our own strength rather than God while our neighbor is suffering?

With all these thoughts in mind, I would like to make a proposal to you. The United Methodist Church has commenced a two-year global missions emphasis on the movement by the name Imagine No Malaria. It is a movement to provide simple things like mosquito nets to help prevent malaria in Africa. Malaria is an epidemic with greater effects than HIV/AIDS in Africa. It’s huge.

Now consider the origins of this epidemic. Centuries ago, Africa had a great civilization of indigenous people. The lived in small villages in dry, elevated areas and were relatively disease free because the viruses causing malaria are found in damp, low-lying areas and outbreaks were small in the villages.

Then our European ancestors showed up in the African tropics and began to suffer from the disease. They noticed the African people did not suffer in the same way and they responded by invading and burning the Africans’ villages and forcing them into the low lands. The Europeans soon built the railroads to ship African resources to Europe. And in order to survive, these once secure villagers were reliant on the areas around the railroads and the Europeans controlling these resources. You now had large cities of poor Africans living in damp, low-lying areas. This is the recipe for a disastrous epidemic which still plagues Africa today.

Because of this history, we could say the United Methodist effort named Imagine No Malaria is a small act of repentance and reconciliation on our part. Our ancestors destroyed their lives and we continue to reap the benefits of Western control of African resources. Without creating political conflict, we can buy mosquito nets at the cost of $10 each which will help stem the tsunami-like tide of this disease.

Now this is just the beginning, Western corporations and governments need to give control of African resources back to the African people so they can be participants in the world economy rather than pawns. Then, they will be able to create a sustainable existence for themselves.

But even this small act is a start. A start to prevent the further spread of the influence of terrorist groups recruiting the oppressed poor around the world. A start that will lead to greater acts of compassion and empowerment of our neighbor and that proclaims to the world, Jesus has come, so we no longer choose to live as the rest of the world. It is a start that says we will continue to re-evaluate our reading of scripture and our understanding of God and, through the power of the Spirit, redefine the conventional as David did with his army, and as the owner did with the workers, so that the world sees something so radically different they will not see us, but the God whose will we seek.

So I leave you now with one last question: what simple way can you redefine the conventional in your life that will reveal the love of God to the world?

Rope Bridge

2010-04-12T08:26:00.000-07:00

Imagine humanity at the first. Male and female created in God’s image, reflecting the goodness of the Creator. Living in paradise where the land, blessed by the Creator’s hands, provided for their every need. But humanity wanted more. Humanity demanded more. Humanity wanted control and reached out and grabbed it.

With that grasp, humanity lost grip on paradise, the universe was torn in two as humanity ventured out on its own, leaving a prodigious canyon between humanity in the flat lands on one side and the God of the mountain on the other.

In the minds of the ancients, humanity soon began to morph into something different. They were no longer simply human but man and woman with man holding the power. They went from living in harmony and holding all the created things in common to claiming the created things as their own. They became nomadic herders gathering up animals as their own. Then, they drew lines in the sand claiming the land as their own.

Power structures began to develop beyond the family. Soon, not only women were made subject, but so were weaker males to work the land and tend the herds of the strong. These strong men began to join field to field and house to house building cities where they consolidated wealth and power in the hands of even fewer strong men.

This would culminate in cities being joined together by very powerful men who, believing themselves appointed by the gods or even to be gods themselves, built great empires by conquering city after city and making their residents subservient to their desires. Similar men would build structures of debt and taxation of the weak that left the ruled in a continual spiral downward. This debt and the conquering of “uncivilized” peoples led to the dehumanization that was slavery.

Throughout this history, the creator called forth from the mountain and continued to spare humanity from the total destruction it often threatened to bring on itself.
But humanity continued to reach for power. And continued to reach for control. Little did humanity know that the result would be reliance on a few who were not filled with the grace of the Creator. But those viewed as weak, those who were conquered, grew discontent. From time to time, uprisings would spring forth, usually being crushed like an irritating insect by those who ruled. Yet, other times the uprisings would wrest control from those in power and the people were freed. Only to soon discover the leader of the oppressed would soon become the oppressor.

People sought ways to survive. Desperation led to dishonesty, violence, and numerous other attempts to find some form of control within oppression. This too threatened the powerful who would come down on the desperate with a heavy hand.

Simultaneously, power structures took a turn for the worse in smaller forms as those who were ruled sought to grab control elsewhere. Patriarchy grew stronger and stronger at home as women were further and further subjected to the wills of men and seen as little more than property. Children were dominated. People began to covet their neighbor’s wife and mule. Small empires grew up among the oppressed as again the few would force their communities to serve them. One oppressed village would fall under the sway of another.

Others longed to cross the canyon but they were made to believe there was no way home to the God of the mountain. “Besides,” these dreamers were told, “It was God who made this world and established that a few would be blessed by riches while the rest, whose poverty proved their sin, would serve them.” Their recorded history spoke of a God who came in power and vanquished their foes. A God of power who, if they were to make it across the canyon, would strike them dead if they were to look upon Him.

As the crisis of humanity continued, many had been slaughtered by humanity’s endless grab for power. Life after life had been disposed of in the canyon. These dreamers stood at the canyon’s edge mourning the loss of more life and peering across the canyon looking for deliverance.

Then, one day, a man emerged from the brush surrounding the mountain of God. He, like the dreamers, was full of sorrow. He, however, longed to reach the flat lands. But how did he get across to the mountain? Was he now running from the powerful God that created this painful world?

He called out across the canyon, “I am coming across to fix this mess!” The dreamers didn’t know what he meant but it stirred their hearts.” Would he conquer the few and bring them hope?

Soon he threw across one rope and told them to anchor their end. Then, a second rope. Then, he turned those ropes into a bridge slat by slat as he made his way across the canyon.

Once across the canyon, he spoke of love not power. He taught vanquishing ones foes and making others serve is the inverse of how humanity was created. He treated women as equals. He said the God of the mountain was seen in him and this God was much different than expected. And many, seeking a better way than they had ever seen, followed. Meanwhile, the powerful, the conquerors, the rulers mocked this man. He was a fool who would find his demise.

This man had taken many back across the rope bridge to rediscover the paradise sacrificed long ago. To rediscover what it is to love one another. But one day as he started back across the slats, a crowd was waiting. His fiercest enemies. The man stood and stared.

Suddenly, from behind him rushed a crowd with ferocious shouts and carrying swords. It was those who had followed him to the mountain. Their intent was to storm across that bridge and take the flat lands. But the man spun around threw up his hands and pleaded with the onrushing mob, “Please lay down your weapons!” This, he reminded was not the way of the mountain: the way of love. It was the way of the flat lands from which they sought freedom. And he started out across the bridge alone.

He strode across slowly but confidently, offering the same return to paradise the dreamers were seeking. The encounter, however, took a tragic turn as the mob of the flat lands raised their swords and slashed the ropes. The man plunged to his death in rocks and crags in the river at the bottom of the canyon.

It was a tragic end for the people at the mountain. Their hope appeared gone. Until three days later, these dreamers went to commemorate the man’s life and peered into the canyon to find it empty. They turned and standing with them was the man, risen from the canyon. In fact, the bridge had been restored and now could never be destroyed. Confusion replaced sorrow as they had a difficult time understanding if it was really him and just what this meant.

The disciples of Jesus, clearly, are these dreamers: hoping, mourning, confused. You can imagine, much like we have tonight, what it must have been like to be in their shoes.

Read John 20:19-31

The first disciples went through great struggles. Yet, they had the benefit of seeing the risen Jesus in the flesh. Those hearing the story of Jesus as recounted in the gospels decades later did not. They were facing persecution, disdain from their local leaders, threats of death. And it seemed despite the resurrection they had experienced, which they had heard of, that the powerful were only getting stronger. Little, if anything, had changed. They were tempted to give up the kingdom of God project altogether. Tempted to give up love of God and neighbor and to recast God not in the image of humanity, but in the image of Me. Tempted to return to the flat lands and live the lives of the crucifiers rather than the life of the resurrected crucified.

By this, I mean living in such a way that it makes his death and resurrection seem ineffective, almost necessitating his death once more. And the temptation continues today. To return to our old way of life, or not give up the one we’re in. It really is the temptation to embrace our misconceptions about the divine because they make us more comfortable and secure. We often do this in how we read our Bible. We focus on the OT depictions of God as tribal and violent and read this violence into symbolic literature like the apocalypse in Revelation. We see language of power and blood but fail to recognize Revelation is turning such traditional symbolism on its head. We red scripture on our terms instead of one Jesus’ terms.

Consider what we read in Revelation 1:4-8 earlier in worship. There it says that all tribes will wail. Yet as we progress through Revelation we get the sense that this wailing will not be in some fiery judgment but in repentance resulting from Jesus’ love. And Jesus is depicted as a lion but in relation to also being depicted as a sacrificial. And when Jesus appears with the sword, the sword is in his mouth. His power is the word of truth.

But when we fail to read our scripture through the eyes of Jesus, we reshape the God of Jesus into a violent and powerful God because there is less risk in a life asserting power it seems.

We each are guilty of this. We feel we’re getting nowhere and get desperate and decide to take control. We hurt spouses, children, siblings, friends, and co-workers because we desire control . We participate in market and political structures that create oppression because we believe it is all we have and we have to seek God’s blessing within these unjust structures. Our home lives aren’t what we want them be. Our children aren’t what we wanted them to be. We take up power. We force. We abuse. We manipulate until we get our way. And even if the intentions are good, we wind up doing spiritual, emotional, and psychological damage to those we love in the name of Me and my comfort.

We feel powerful yet unsatisfied. With each gain we want more. One successful act of power over others makes us believe we should exercise this power again and again. And our god has become something in our misperceiving minds less than real. It is god made in our distorted images of humanity in the flat lands. This god brings hurt through power and is really no god at all. So let’s consider what God really is…

Yes, indeed God is love. He is not tribal and violent but universal and peacemaking. And Jesus took the risk of love and was resurrected defeating the power of death in our flesh. And now he calls us to come back across the rope bridge and live the life of the resurrection.

Exodus Today

2010-04-01T23:23:00.000-07:00

So I began reading Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. I was reading his thoughts on Exodus in the biblical narrative and a thought struck me, "There is a parallel between Exodus and immigration into the United States.

If you recall the Exodus story you remember that the relationship between the Israelites and Egyptians began with Jacob's family through his son Joseph. Egypt had the power but the relationship was friendly. The Israelites were given land in Egypt as a thank you for Joseph's deliverance of Egypt from the famine.

This was until the Israelites began to reproduce and outnumber the Egyptians. Pharoah fears being overtaken by the Israelites and takes drastic measures. He reduces the Israelites to slavery and slaughters their young.

And we now how this story ends: with the deliverance of the oppressed.

Now consider the present. I do not know when the first Mexican people immigrated into the United States or why. But what I do know is the practice of remittances (the earning of money in a foreign country and sending it home to your family) is the number two industry in Mexico, as it is in a number of impoverished countries.

We also know the relationship of United States businesses and immigrant workers has been one of exploitation. People like Cesar Chavez have helped to correct a number of abuses but many still persist.

We also know that in the 1990's, before the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, the House of Representatives did an analysis on the Treaty's anticipated effects. They learned the treaty would put thousands of family-owned Mexican farms (small businesses) out of business greatly increasing the flow of immigrants northward.

The response? Well, they signed the treaty. Then, concern about the coming increase in immigration led the United States to shut down it's metropolitan crossings so undocumented persons would have to risk their lives or long term health and cross 200miles of desert. You can learn more here. Folks here without a green card, in desperation, are then left vulnerable. They are often taken advantage of by employers who make the safe assumption that their legal status will keep them quite about low pay or other abuses.

Immigration policies have also become much tougher for those with a green card, often waiting 15 to 20 years or more for their families to be allowed to join them. Their need for survival pulls their families apart.

However, with families going hungry at home, many have been up to the challenge to meet the needs of their families at all costs. Immigration has gone up.

Now fear is setting in among my people in the United States. The statistics show we will not be the majority come 2050. Unemployment is high and people fear immigrants are taking their jobs. Our neighbors have come here due to the crisis they experienced at home. Now, we have our own and we are at a crossroads.

The question now is, "Which path will we choose?" Will we choose the way of Pharoah, by continuing current injustices that rob our neighbors of so much? Or will cities continue to cooperate with ICE and enact their own policies of raid and entrapment to profile and the deport immigrants, further tearing families apart and creating further injustice? Or will we choose the path of Christ who proclaimed, "Blessed are the poor"? Will we come together as a people and decide enough is enough? Now is a time for the sacrifice of love. Now is a time for justice.

Our neighbor has joined us in this land. Which side of the Exodus narrative will we be on?

Weeds

2010-03-14T22:38:00.000-07:00

We’ve heard the phrase, “Green with envy.” A phrase with its roots in Shakespeare. And there really is no better color to represent envy. For envy is a weed in our souls.

As we near spring, our lawns begin to slowly green up. And the first among the growth is the weed. It’s green and strong. And some are even beautiful in a way. Yet if allowed to grow without resistance, it will kill off all our beautiful grass, leaving us with a barren, patchy, wilderness at home.

Envy is this weed. Its roots are in seeing someone much like us with something we desire. It may be a possession. A relationship with a certain person we admire. Connections that get them whatever they want. Status or position that give them many admirers and great influence and power.

We perceive them as like ourselves. As one of us. We perceive them as having followed a similar path. So what makes them so special to get what we wanted? We hate them for having what we want. We hate ourselves for being unable to get that desired thing.

Suddenly, the winds of spring scatter the seeds, what was once a weed is now weeds. It’s an infestation of our soul. We have become so focused on ourselves and what we want that the well-being of the one whose things or position we covet is no longer a concern. We are no longer content with having what our rival has, we want them to fail.

These weeds may grow in the heart of one passed over for a promotion, who then seeks to undermine the one he or she perceives of unjustly receiving the promotion either through insubordination, spreading rumors around the office, or making false allegations against them.

They may grow in the hearts of one who sees his neighbor heaping up goods he admires while thinking, “That guy is a jerk! He doesn’t deserve what he has. He only cares about himself.” Meanwhile, it’s our own self-focused envy driving those thoughts.
It can be seen when someone gets a starting spot on the football team, the section leader in the band, or lead role in the musical. We perceive ourselves as more committed to the craft and are convinced the spot went to the coach’s or director’s pet.

Or consider the train wreck journalism that is the tabloids and tabloid television. We read and watch waiting to see the latest undeserving celebrity fall from the plateau and we almost celebrate. Paris Hilton and John Gosselin. Serves them right. We’re as talented as they are. Perhaps more so. Marie Osmond’s son commits suicide and people start looking to expose the hole in that famous families’ life that must have led to this tragedy. We envy what they had. A deep family bond that has helped them avoid much of the temptation celebrity brings.

Or we can’t wait for the latest sports dynasty to fall. After all, they keep getting lucky and keep our team from winning it all.

We start to see this weed not only infested our soul but blossomed into a phenomenon overtaking the collective soul of our culture.

And then we find envy on a global scale. After all, did not envy drive millennia of religious warfare? Of nation after nation seeking to be the global big dog in the name of their gods, basically shouting at each other, “My daddy can whip your daddy!”

Did not envy drive centuries of division within the church involving bloody persecutions and so-called holy wars as each faction of the church thought they should have the most power to prove the purity of their doctrine.

Did not envy drive the violence of the twentieth century which involved European nations struggling over who was more powerful and who would hold the most resources? A conflict that spread into Asia and the western hemisphere and dragged the rest of the world into its midst.

Was not envy involved in the conflict between the United States and Japan in the struggle over the islands of the Pacific and other economic tensions, which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, gruesome battles, and culminated, with the nuclear holocaust of Japanese civilians?

And we must even question if envy does not drive the conflict in the Middle East. Envy over who has influence in the region. Will it be religious extremists or Western politicians who are often funded by large corporations reaping profits in the region? Is not envy the force of religiously-backed hatred of Israel of some in the region as Israel has the backing of the West while few others do? Yet, is it not also envy driving the settlement of Jewish people in Palestinian lands and refusing to acknowledge Palestine as sovereign?

We see the weeds continue to spread. They have spread across the entire world, leaving a wilderness of destruction, having choked out all life as they grew.
But again this week, in our Lenten reflection on the seven deadly sins, we again find hope. Here, the gospel of the kingdom of God as brought by Jesus speaks in Galatians 5:13-26. The first few verses…

(Read Galatians 5: 13-15)

Here, we are reminded of the result of sin in our lives, of worshipping ourselves. As we discussed with greed and gluttony last week, sin is us devouring one another instead of loving our neighbor. So what is Paul’s prescription?

(Read Galatians 5:16-18)

Paul begins by making it seem quite simple. He simply says, “Live by the Spirit.” But he makes it clear that the desires of the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another. But to understand this we need to understand what the relationship between flesh and Spirit is.

Some have understood it in terms of ancient Greek philosophy. This way of thinking agreed that flesh and Spirit opposed one another and that the solution was for the individual’s soul to escape from the flesh and into the spiritual realm. This led some Christians to see salvation as a mere escape from the flesh at our death or at what has been called the end times.

Another way of thinking has understood the individual completely condemned in our flesh. This meant we may never see a change in our life, but if we have professed faith in Jesus than our sins will be covered and we will be saved when we die.
Paul’s way of thinking, however, is rooted in his Jewish tradition and is quite complex. We can begin with creation in which the Spirit in the second verse of the Bible sweeps over the waters. In Genesis 2, the Creator forms humanity in its flesh but it does not become a living being until God’s Spirit is breathed into it. The significance here is that God’s Spirit created and is what gives human flesh life. Body and soul are one. Humanity does not exist without both.

But then there’s the rebellion of humanity. Humans were created and told one thing: out of all the trees in the garden do not eat of the one tree. They did and a now seemingly endless cycle of decay of the flesh began and in Genesis 6:3 the Creator says, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever.”

We can start to see how the Jewish train of thought is one in which it is understood that the rebellion of man results in this decay of its being. Rather than relying on the Spirit which gave it life, humanity strove to rely on itself. This is the unnatural state of being which has unleashed chaos throughout history as with Pandora’s jar. Relying on the flesh is relying on self. And relying on self divides that which was made to live as one. It separates flesh from the Spirit inhabiting our soul. It separates us one from another.

To state it briefly, to deny the Spirit is to deny life.

So now we can fast forward through centuries of alternating obedience and disobedience in which the prophets try to help God’s people make sense of the complete destruction of their way of life. Jeremiah addresses a people that sought to sustain their life through the flesh, their own strength, and says, “Cursed are those who trust in mere mortals and make mere flesh their strength, whose hearts turn away from the Lord.”

Ezekiel uses this imagery to sound a note of hope when he says, “a new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” So here we can see flesh is not a bad thing, especially when one with the Spirit. The flesh was created by God and is only loses its beauty when it denies the Spirit which gives it life.

And, again, here we see how Spirit and flesh are inseparable. The prophets spoke of the kingdom of God which Jesus announced as among us. Our lives of reliance on the flesh had choked the Spirit out of our souls and hardened our hearts. When we, embracing the kingdom of God in full loyalty to the way exhibited by Jesus, the Spirit will renew us and soften our hearts and revive our flesh.

So Paul is calling us to set aside our lives of hardness of heart towards one another and remember we are to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”
This brings us back to the image of the weed. As we lean on ourselves and live for ourselves, things such as envy grow and spread within our souls choking out the Spirit. Listen to the result of this weed that spreads within us and hardens the soil of our souls.

(Read Galatians 5:19-21)

Paul understands what we wrestle with. He knows the despair that grips us when we feel like things are out of control. We start to believe we might as well enjoy all we can now because the world around us is too big to change. It’s too big to fail. And if we sit around content with being the little guy, we will become the victim. We start to believe that real happiness comes only from forcing ourselves on to victory over all others. In leaning on and providing for me. So envy sets in when we see someone else victorious. With something we must have and they must not so we will be on top. And we hate ourselves and them until we find false value in such victory.

But Paul ends the previous passage by reminding us that allowing this weed to grow and spread will rob us of the fullness that is the kingdom of God. He reminds us that being God’s people is not about amassing and hoarding riches at others’ expense to prove we are blessed by God. It is not about birthright or nation of origin. It is not about winning battles to prove our daddy can whip their daddy. It is not about religious observance.

It is about reliance on God’s Spirit which is still offered to us in God’s grace despite our continued rebellion. God wants us to rediscover the beauty within which God created us with. But it requires a faith that leads to action guided by the Spirit. Listen to Paul’s words here…

(Read Galatians 5:22-25)

The fruit of the Spirit, which will fertilize our souls, eradicate this weed of envy or other work of the flesh, and produce a luscious garden in our souls, makes us vulnerable. It is less interested in self-advancement than it is in community improvement. Less interested in financial security than in the daily security of our neighbor. Less interested in national security than it is justice between nations in which all nations’ citizens are seen as equal.

We may think it crazy. But this is full reliance on the Spirit and faith in the Creator. We can trust in our own flesh as many have done since time and life began. Or we can reflect on this cliché: “Define insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.”

We can tend to the soil of our souls in our strength and allow the weeds to grow and spread believing somehow the result will different than those before. Our we can humble ourselves and trust in the Spirit to tend to the soil of our souls and see new life sprout and spread so that the kingdom of God is revealed in the love of neighbor to neighbor and the restoration of our true humanity.

Consumed

2010-03-14T22:20:00.000-07:00

A being roams from place to place looking for whom it may devour. Yet, we do not know it is a threat. It is attractive. Chiseled torso. Perfectly groomed hair. Radiating eyes. Booming, yet inviting voice. Charismatic in personality. Everything we want to be.

This being speaks like a self-help guru or wealth expert. Giving us answers we want to hear and the hope that we can sustain ourselves if we get our priorities straight. He promises to set us free.

His answers make sense. We have worked hard to get where we are so why not go further? Why not seek all the wealth we can gain? All the things we can grab? Why not seek all the power we can wield? All the influence we can hold?

After all, contentment is for the weak. Power is for the strong. The minute we feel for someone else we become vulnerable and will be crushed. Everyone is chasing after the same limited prize. Either you get it all or you get nothing.

We suddenly feel free to live for ourselves and it’s a wonderful sensation, but we start to feel a tug.

But you can live with less than the best or all the material beauty you can stand. It’s your choice. Why limit yourself to modesty when you can live in the finest neighborhoods, in the biggest houses, driving the most expensive cars, and impressing all the neighbors?

Why settle for simplicity when you can enjoy the finest steaks, the freshest fish, and the most succulent feasts.

The messages confront us on a daily basis convincing us to grab, grab, grab some more, convinced that the more we grab the happier we’ll be. Every romance begins with a diamond so we buy them up for our lovers. The new series of the latest do-it-all electronic device hits the market with a couple of new functions, so we replace the old out-of-date device we purchased six long months ago.

Value menus with supersize options catch our eye. All-you-can eats present themselves as a mere challenge to our appetites. We decide why eat just any beef when we can spend disposable income on Japanese beef that was fed saki as it was raised so as to marinate the beef while it still grazed. Fancy restaurants with menu items we need translated beg for our attention.

Enjoyment is high but we start to feel as if something else is directing us.
The barrage of want confronts us at every turn. It’s never ending. And it doesn’t stop with us. It works on our children even harder before they have the cognitive ability to make moral decisions. It confronts on commercials presenting toys all boys and girls must have. It pressures them in school with the need to fit in and keep up with the latest fashions. So much so they may change who they are from one year to the next.

The want must continue. We must continue to acquire. Continue to feast. Continue to consume. For it is through our consumption this being is fed.

So we are motivated. To work longer hours to make even more or advance up the corporate ladder even faster. To upgrade our lifestyle at each waking turn to keep up with the Joneses. And knowing that this being whom we find so friendly drives everything around us and that failure to follow would destroy all of our dreams of wealth and success.

We have so much we will never have to worry. In fact when we retire, we will live like kings. We will travel the globe. And we will continue to consume, seeking to fill our souls, for we have stored up our wealth to enable us to do so.

We feel happier as we pile up goods yet increasingly out of control. We discover this being that helped us become everything we ever wanted is a puppeteer. We are on its strings and he will have his way.

Nothing is beyond our reach. Nothing is beyond our control. We need nobody. And we feel important. We have gained the whole world, and as the puppeteer suggested, we have filled our soul. We have conquered our world and will continue to conquer for we are kings of the hill and if we hesitate for one moment someone will throw us off.

At times we have doubts about the lives we have embraced. What about the hungry? What about the poor? What about the fact we live in a country that constitutes five percent of the world’s population yet we consume somewhere between twenty-five and thirty percent of the world’s natural resources?

The puppeteer says never mind that. You have gotten where you are because you are hard-working. You are civilized. You are superior. If they weren’t so weak they would not be where they are at. They are lazy. They are primitive. They are evil. So if consumption consumes them and their way of life, we’ll all be better off.

And we, having filled our souls with earthly goods continue on. We are unconcerned that we are consuming others in all the material things we consume. We are unconcerned that we have placed highest value on the wealth we have and continue to obtain and made our neighbors mere objects to be used to get what we want.
We are not worried with the jobs lost here at home or the working conditions of those overseas whose labor keeps our prices low. We are not concerned with the people laid off and the effects it has on their families so long as our stock prices can climb even higher. We will remain indifferent to those working at the minimum wage to get us value meals and those going without health care to keep the costs of our luxuries and our taxes down as long as it isn’t us. We will fight through crowds and with people in crowds on Black Friday to get insane deals. And through consuming our neighbor we feel happier and the puppeteer is filled all the more.

But one day finally we discover the truth. Reality hits us in the face. All we worked for is fading away. Those who said they were our friends have no further use for us and provide no aid. Even if we have maintained our wealth we realize our endless pursuit of consumption has left us lonely and our lives full of holes.

Credit card debt has mounted as we bought and ate things we didn’t need and couldn’t afford and making ends meet seems impossible. Illness and injury mounts as our bodies break down. Instead of happiness, we find despair. Instead of souls overfilled, we find empty caverns within.

We discover all along the puppeteer had been devouring us from within. He fed on our souls with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

We lay soulless. Lifeless. Wallowing in our despair. Wondering if there is any hope. When another appears.

This one is unnerving. Frightening at first sight. Gaunt build. Ribs poking through his flesh. Long tangled hair.

His words bring great unease. “Woe to those who are rich…” “What good is it to gain the whole world only to lose your soul.” “You cannot serve both God and money.” And he tells this story.

(Read Luke 12:13-21)

Despite these harsh words this encounter is different from that with the puppeteer. It does not begin with demands and control. It is that of a storyteller pouring himself out into the characters inviting them to be participants in a grand drama.

This pouring out begins to refill the empty pits that are our souls.

The storyteller speaks what seems as nonsense but because of his love, we listen. We start to hear the key is to share. To give. To love. We discover the irony that filling ourselves leaves us starved and alone while pouring ourselves out fills us as never before in a community of hope.

We no longer need things. We embrace relationships. We no longer pursue money. We hunger for justice. Our money and possessions are no longer things to grip but resources to help. To reconcile. To set our world and the world at large to rights.
When someone is hungry, the storyteller’s community feeds them. When someone is thirsty, the storyteller’s community gives them something to drink. When they need clothes to wear, are sick, or in prison, the storyteller’s characters participate in salvation.

And the nonsense we embraced surprises us. Our souls are filled. We are happy. Our lives are more abundant than they ever were when we were mere puppets on a string chasing after so many things.

When other souls are used up and discarded by the puppeteer, we are there to fill them up. When the puppeteer and its marionettes seek to entice, enslave, and consume other souls we rise up to play out the true story on the world stage setting souls free with the truth. Cutting the strings and untracking their fading lives.

And the storyteller stands before us today, offering food and drink at his table. The bread and wine he poured out for all. Tonight he asks us to take what he has to give. Then, to participate in the story by loving and sharing in his way to live.

Seven!: Fierce Desire

2010-02-22T19:11:00.000-08:00

I was first introduced to Madea while a youth minister in McGregor southwest of Waco. A middle schooler named Malcolm showed up to our Wednesday night Bible study with a copy of several of the stage plays on a single VHS and gave it to me and said I had to watch it. Several of our other students, who generally picked on Malcolm despite our best efforts to stop it, even agreed with him.

I took it home and was surprised. Madea was funny, her life was full of drama, and she was, yes, angry and in control of her world. Yet, ironically, Tyler Perry always weaved a positive tale out of the drama surrounding this angry woman, out of what usually were good intentions and the calmer people surrounding her.

And early in this season of Lent, in which we seek to repent and start over, we start here in our discussion of the seven deadly sins, that list of sins from Christian tradition which were seen as the root of all sins. They are deadly sins, or perhaps more appropriately capital vices, because these are the habits we have formed that lead to the sins that bring harm to the individual or community.

But the ideas of anger, which we have mentioned in relation to Madea, and lust, which we also discuss tonight, bring us great difficulty. Great difficulty comes from what the Bible, especially Jesus, seems to have to say about these things.
Let’s take a look at Matthew 5:21-26.

We read these teachings of Jesus on anger and it seems hopeless. Isn’t it impossible to never be angry. I mean someone takes something from you. You get angry. Someone doesn’t do what they said they would do. You get angry. Someone speaks badly of you. You get angry. Tony Romo throws an interception. As ridiculous as it is, I get especially angry.

These are the sort of things that have been debated among followers of Christ for centuries. Some have said it led to the softening of these teachings to something like what we found in Ephesians: “In your anger, do not sin.” It has led many to embrace the Sermon on the Mount, from which these teachings come, as a difficult teaching that is to be read as that which we cannot practice due to our fallen nature leading us to rely simply on grace to save us even though we may not change.

Now I take the idea of grace very seriously. But I do believe these teachings are to be practiced in recognition of the grace given to us. I just think the problem comes with how we have learned to read these teachings in the 21st century. We have read them much more with a Greco-Roman and modern-day understanding than we have a first century Jewish understanding. I borrow this thinking from David Gushee and Glen Stassen as presented in their book Kingdom Ethics.

The first problem we have is with our English translation. Dealing with anger, it reads “anyone who is angry with his brother or sister is liable to judgment.” This suggests the mere feeling of anger is the sin. In other words, as soon as we feel anger, we failed.

There is a better option when it comes to translation. A more precise translation is “anyone being angry with his brother or sister.”

The result of reading it this way is we no longer are talking about initial feelings which seem to be beyond our control at times. We are now talking about our habits. How we habitually respond to and handle these feelings. Too often we respond due to the cardinal vices or deadly sins that have become our habits. Yet, Jesus is calling us to develop new habits, or virtues, different from those vices which seem to be common sense to the rest of the world. But before delving deeper into these habits, let’s look at another problem in interpreting these passages.

The second problem we have is in reading this the way Greeks would: as a two-part teaching, followed by illustrations.

In this reading, the first part is the traditional teaching:

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.”

The second part is then Jesus’ teaching:

“But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire. “

The third part then illustrates not being angry which we would then realize is impossible:

“So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.”

In this Greco-Roman reading, these are illustrations of what we should do instead of being angry. And that will never happen because we are human, this reading says, so we throw ourselves on forgiveness without much beyond an abstract, inner change.
However, we should read it as a first century Jew would have heard it and with the more accurate translation. We should read this as a three-part teaching, which is how Jewish teachings tended to be crafted, rather than a two-part teaching with illustrations. It’s subtle but vital.

Therefore, the first part still reminds of the traditional teaching. Look at that again.

The second part, then, is not a command of what not to do, but a diagnosis of a destructive condition, habit, or practice. A feeling of anger lingers. This becomes being angry. This becomes name calling. In fact, the word here translated “You Fool!” is actually a curse, similar to the modern day “Go to Hell.”

These angry reactions are divisive. They focus on our needs or wants instead of others. We are offended, cheated, manipulated, exploited and we want revenge. We want to lash out. Our pain is transferred to seeking satisfaction. In winning the battle with the aggressor. And we, seeking to be alpha dogs, make sure everyone knows not to mess with us. Thus, we become more and more isolated from one another to the extent that we see others as less than ourselves and we can then justify their disregard…their humiliation… their suffering at our hands.

We see this on an individual basis. One friend fails another. A group of friends is torn apart. One spouse hurts another. Families are torn apart. Parent-child relationships are strained. The family is strained. Working environments become tense and unbearable. But, hey, we have set ourselves up as god of our world and people know they better not awaken the beast a second time.

We see this on a political level. Radio and TV commentators stir up fear and anger against their opponents. Political ads speak less to issues and more to defaming character. So-and-so will take your liberties. So-and-so is like Hitler or Mao or Marx. So-and-so hates you and loves big corporations. And whoever has the most money to stir up the most anger typically wins. Then, the entire time in office is spent fighting to keep people angry at any who may oppose them and little gets done. The country is divided.

We see this on a global historical level. Europe colonizes the Middle East in the name of Christianity. World War II ravages the region as well as much of the world. Europeans and Americans draw poorly planned borders without any self-determination on the part of the indigenous peoples. They then establish rulers in those countries to serve their purposes and allow the West to control the resources in the region. Poor people in the region are drawn to radical leaders preaching against Europe and America and, looking for somewhere to direct their anger, lash out angrily in terrorism.

The West then reacts in turn with revenge. One president brings shock and awe. Another proclaims we love the rest of the world, but make no mistake. We will be victorious.

And, all this, on every level, considers the other as less than ourselves. It relies on our own strength. A hunger to submit others to ourselves. The common sense of the world makes us our own gods. And the cycle of anger leading to wrathful violence prevails.

The third part, then, should be read as a command to actions to defuse this cycle of lingering anger that leads to a forceful or violent reaction. Look again at that portion of the passage. We are called to no longer use our faith and worship to puff ourselves up when in conflict. We are to be reconciled. We are no longer to seek to have the book thrown at those we have disputes with. We are to be reconciled.

Now the first example of leaving the gift at the altar when someone has something against us suggests the conflict is our fault. But the second is unclear about whether we are the offender or the victim. Whether the accusation is true or false. Yet, either way, we are to seek reconciliation. This new habit we’re called to form sounds ridiculous.

And this brings us to a question we encountered last week: “How can we be merciful to someone who has falsely accused us?” Now I can’t sugar coat. The answer will not be easy. I think the answer is that God calls us to take that risk. To seek reconciliation even when the division isn’t our fault. Even though we may not come out on top. Even though it may make us appear weak. It calls us to look the enemy in the face and love them. To heal divisive habits with acts of love.

Now look at Matthew 5:27-30.

Whoever looks on a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Just what is lust? Is it sexual desire? Merely finding someone attractive? Is it being married or in an exclusive relationship but noticing someone else’s attractiveness? Something starting like this perhaps…

Dealing with lust, our English bibles usually say something like “everyone who looks at a woman with lust.” So here you get the idea that having a strong attraction toward someone who you are not married to is the sin.

So you get the traditional teaching in verse 27.

Then we have part two of Jesus’ teaching in verse 28 along with a more precise English translation which in this case would be “everyone who looks on a woman with the purpose of lusting after her.” The point of this is more than the initial feeling. You have gone past the point of noticing. You are now in the active pursuit of the object of your desire. This pursuit replaces all concern for the effects it can have on those around us, on those who share their lives with us.

This vice is again fueled by self. Either by lack of someone to have a serious love life with in singleness or by frustration in one’s marital love life. It is usually accompanied by the false of equation of sex with love. We begin to feel our current partner is not worth our love. And the ones we pursue are more objects with which to score rather than people to love. We take care of ourselves and solve things in our own might. We embrace the common sense of the world and play god.

This pursuit can be specific. Someone we have met, we found attractive and have something in common with, even if it is as small is that person is hot and we want to be with someone hot. Or it can be more general. We don’t care who it is. We are simply going out on the town and hoping to find someone to go to town with.

So part three of the teaching in verses 29 and 30 is the command to do whatever you can to avoid the temptation. Now Jesus uses hyperbole here to make it even more clear. He is obviously not suggesting we maim ourselves. But he is urging that we take drastic action to allow a subtle notice of someone else’s attractiveness turn into lusting after them. If you experience these feelings, make sure you’re never alone, especially with the object of your desire. Refocus your efforts on those to whom such desire is appropriate. Spend time with them doing those things related with love and not lust. For this, over time, can refuel passion. Don’t look on images which may make you question if the grass isn’t greener on the other side or if there isn’t some far off fantasy you could live which you would start to dream of and desire after and looking for someone else to live that with.

I have suggested tonight that these passages shouldn’t be read in a way to make us feel that we are trapped in our guilt. In fact, they are there to help break the cycles of destructive vices. So let’s consider the hopeful side of these things.

We, when we humble ourselves to the grace of God continuing to call out to us despite our rebellion and open ourselves to God’s spirit, we can start to see our lives changed. Then our families. Then our communities. Then our nations. Then our world.

We will no longer be haunted by lost friendships. By unending family tensions. Our lives will no longer be torn apart by our own arrogance. We can replace increasing isolation and alienation, with growing communities. We will start to see the face of God in others rather than distorted images which lead to mistreatment and hurt.

You and I can reach out to a lost friend or family member today and seek reconciliation. We can risk rejection by refusing to return hate for hate and answer contempt with love. Anger can be directed at a broken relationship rather than the one who broke it and fuel love leading to restoration of the relationship. We can turn away from lusting after anyone and return to love.

All of this becomes a matter of our souls. A matter of that which is within and includes our entire personality. That which was breathed into us by the creator and which, combined with our physical nature, makes us whole. Christians have often talked about the God-shaped hole in our lives, meaning our soul which is filled when we are in relationship with God. But God created us to love one another the way he loves us. Our God-shaped hole is only filled when we love God and one another.

Refusing to forgive and refusing to seek reconciliation or lustfully seeking self-fulfillment to ease our frustrations is us trying to fix the problem in our own strength. It divides us from one another and leaves our soul bare. Insisting on love at all costs, however, is us relying on the strength of God through the Holy Spirit in our lives to transform us and the world around us even if, like Abraham and Moses, it’s not in our lifetimes. It will bring us together and fill our souls like we never imagined.

Anger and lust are habits which place ourselves on a pedestal and alienate from one another. They leave our souls bare. But when we humble ourselves before God and others. When we rediscover how to love. Our souls will be filled. We will rediscover our true human nature.

Friends will be reunited. Broken homes will be rebuilt. Hurting children will find love in their lives. The outcast will become the in-crowd in terms of love. Enemies will become friends.

A church that learns to open up and let the spirit fill its souls will inspire the world. Public policy and practices of private corporations will no longer be driven by self-interest. Nations will no longer desire, or need, their tools of destruction.
We will see God and realize he was always present. He was always the Lord of all. His kingdom was already here. We just had to open our souls to one another. Amen.

Flip the Script: Privileged Are the Persecuted

2010-02-08T16:33:00.000-08:00

Are we all familiar with the name Pandora? Now I’m not speaking of the awesome music website where you enter one artist’s name and you get a playlist of enjoyable music. Nor am I speaking of the planet in the hit movie Avatar. I’m speaking of the story of Pandora within ancient Greek mythology. As the story goes, the titan Prometheus and his brother Epimetheus were asked by the gods to create whatever creature they wanted. Epimetheus, his name meaning afterthinking, began creating right away without any planning. He created many animals.

Prometheus, his name meaning forward thinking, dwelled on his creation and made man. Man was the greatest of these creatures (this is Greek mythology so roll with me here) but was not equipped, as many of Epimetheus’ animals were, to defend itself. Thus, on cold nights, man got very cold.

So Prometheus asked Zeus to give man fire and, when Zeus refused, Prometheus tricked the gods and stole fire from Olympus and gave it to the humans. Zeus responded by placing Prometheus in chains and subjecting him to daily torment.

But he didn’t stop there. He also commissioned the gods to create “an evil thing in which men will all delight, while they embrace their own destruction.” So they created the first woman, Pandora. They gave her all the best gifts, including beauty and wisdom, but also gave her a jar she was instructed to never open. Even though they had also endowed her with great curiosity. Get that, a jar she is told to never open, yet she was gifted with great curiosity. That’s like telling my daughter, “Don’t open that cabinet."

Zeus sought to trick the titans by giving Pandora to them as a gift. Prometheus, anticipating this, instructed Epimetheus not to accept any gifts from the gods. But Epithemeus couldn’t resist her beauty, accepts the gift, and, after a conversation with her about the jar, he allows Pandora to open the jar, thus all evil was unleashed on humanity. The only thing which did not escape into the world was hope.

This and other myths shaped the thinking of ancient Greeks. It led them to believe the physical world was evil, woman was the worst of all (again, roll with me here as this is Greek mythology), and the goal was to escape into the spiritual realm. The gods had sent evil into the world as punishment, so there was no hope to rise above it on earth. The only hope was to amass the blessings of the gods which were known when someone held great power and wealth. In fact, Caesar held so much power and wealth he came to be known as a son of the gods.

This was a way of thinking that turned people inward while ignoring injustice. It led to a me and mine way of thinking which only gave to others when it reaped some sort of benefit. It was also a way of thinking that had infected Jewish thought in the inter-testamental period. After writers such as those that contributed to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel has called the people back to live in community and to care for the poor, the influence of Rome started to roll that back. As they had given in to the violent, greedy life of the Canaanite religion in during the years of the Davidic monarchy, (you may recall the story of Ahab and Jezebel where Ahab worships his wife’s gods and they began to exploit the people and violate covenant) Jewish leaders now again fell under the sway of this Roman way of life.

Theologian G.K. Beale writes that we become what we worship. Although the formation of religions may suggest that we create for worship what we have already become. It’s a the-chicken-or-the-egg sort of question.

This was the way of life which Jesus confronted and sought to flip the script. One in which the ruling class was not seen as blessed or privileged, but that their victims were. And Jesus knew this message carried dire consequences. Jewish prophets, throughout their history, had suffered for calling their people back to covenant, to living in community, to the poor.

So he stresses in the beatitudes, that while persecution is likely, the kingdom of God is here and now. So that those willing to trust in the one true God and participate in the justice-delivering grace offered to each and every one of us will be blessed. They will be vindicated…delivered…restored in the end. Those willing to give up everything will be among the privileged in God’s society. Just not in the sense of being powerful and calling all the shots.

German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer knew this. He had grown up during World War I, in which his brother died in battle. After spending a few years at Union Theological Seminary where he experienced the oppression of African Americans in the States, he returned home. While the Great Depression in the U.S. had been hard, times were harder in Germany. Political unrest grew opening the door for the rise of the Nazi party led by Adolf Hitler.

Hitler had taken office under promises of restoring Germany to its past glory. And we know the anti-Semitism that fed many of his social policies. And, unbelievably, when the boycott of the Jews was announced, most of the German church joined in. Some because they held to the anti-Semitism which the great reformer Martin Luther had introduced into Protestantism in his later years. Some for fear of what the price of opposing Hitler would be.

Bonhoeffer, however, was compelled by the Sermon on the Mount. That combined with his belief that following Christ required pacifism led him to resist. This resistance began with him joining the Confessing Church which formed in opposition to Hitler. The Confessing Church stood on the side of the Jews against the ongoing oppression and then genocide.

He also joined the conspiracy to kill Hitler which he wrestled with greatly. But he did not wrestle with a willingness to die for justice. He wrestled with whether or not it was true to Jesus’ teachings to kill Hitler. In fact, he asked his students if they would grant absolution, meaning forgiveness, to one who murdered a tyrant. After several failed attempts to assassinate Hitler, the last of which injured Hitler, his part in the conspiracy was discovered, and he was imprisoned and later executed. He accepted his execution knowing he was blessed and for him it was but the beginning. He would be vindicated…delivered…restored when God again restored creation.

Desmond Tutu knew this. Word leaked out about a rally he organized to oppose apartheid in South Africa. The authorities showed up and shut it down before it began. Unfazed, Tutu decided we cannot rally but they will not stop our worship of the liberating God. So they went to the church building.

The military burst through the doors and surrounded the gathering as Tutu preached. Tutu paused and bowed his head for a moment. After this silent prayer and reflection, Tutu raised his head and proclaimed to the soldiers, “You…You are very powerful. But you are not gods. And our God has already won. So why don’t you come over to the winning side!” Tutu knew that the way of the cross was the way to liberation.

Martin Luther King, Jr., knew this. He drew a target on his back by leading the movement against segregation in this country. In proclaiming it was unjust for people to use separate water fountains, to go to different schools, to be forced to sit in the back of the bus.

But he didn’t stop there. He ministered to poor African American seeking to make peace between those committing violence against one another. Yet, he realized the effort was pointless as long as he support the U.S. in Vietnam. He took a stance against the Vietnam War and declared the U.S. was the number one purveyor of violence in the world.

And you know what happened. One night his house was bombed and his family narrowly escaped. Later he would be gunned down on a balcony.

Oscar Romero knew this. He grew up in El Salvador. He went to seminary and became a priest. He remained conservative and resisted talk of social justice within the church as divisive. That was until 1974 when violence against the rural poor began to rise. Suddenly, Romero began to understand the status quo could not be maintained. It would only make the situation worse as fourteen families now controlled 60 percent of the land in El Salvador.

The rural families whose land had been stolen demanded justice. Romero stood by their side. Soon the landowners and military, with the funding and backing of the United States, lashed out in violence against the poor. Soon, Salvadoran priests became targets. Two of Romero’s friends were assassinated, but he forged on. Until March 24 thirty years ago when he was assassinated celebrating communion.
And as we approach communion tonight, and partake of the bread and juice signifying the suffering of Christ, there is no better time to reflect on these things.

We have been fortunate to live in a country with religious freedom where official persecution is highly unlikely. Yet, that doesn’t mean there isn’t injustice in this country. It doesn’t mean that at least a few of our foundational principles are deeply flawed. It should not overlook the fact that people die for their faith around the globe because they resist their nations’ flawed foundational principles. And it doesn’t mean that we will not persecution for challenging the flawed foundational principles that persist in our country.

People are hurting. People are suffering. Unemployment grows. Even with raises in the minimum wage, people earning it do not earn enough to pay their bills. Whatever your view on health care reform or the causes of that system’s problems, the fact remains that 30 million of our American brothers and sisters do not have access to proper health care when they are sick or injured. Innumerable people continue to cross the border into this country without waiting on paperwork because their families go hungry and remittances, the practice of sending money earned in a foreign land homeward, remains the number one or two industry in their homelands.

And you may disagree with my application of the gospel to today. But the question remains, when we see injustice, will we take a stand for our neighbor at all costs.

We can look at the suffering all around us and those causes of suffering and fall into despair thinking these issues are too big to change. Yet, Jesus calls us not to be paralyzed by the despair of the present. For joy comes in the morning. Joy comes in the vindication…deliverance…restoration found when justice is once and for all re-established by God. But it also comes in every small step of vindication…deliverance…restoration which we experience and take part in today. The kingdom of God is at hand. God offers us the grace today of receiving true humanity and flipping the script on the world. Though, it could cost us everything. We will, when the goal of the gospel is finally and fully realized be vindicated…delivered…restored. We will be, in fact, we are blessed.

Flip the Script: Priviledged Are Those Who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness

2010-01-24T21:40:00.000-08:00

We continue our discussion tonight of how these Beatitudes of Jesus flip the script on the world. How they present the seemingly senseless as the true reality.

Yet this saying, at first sight, seems to make perfect sense. If we will but hunger for righteousness, then we will be blessed. It makes good sense to us today because of how we tend to understand the idea of righteousness. We view it as an individualistic matter. We view it as something we possess. Either as something done through which we achieve salvation or as an abstract cleansing of our soul that saves us through confession of faith. We read hunger for righteousness, but think hunger to be righteous.

The first definition of righteousness leads us to self-righteousness. The Jewish people in the first century had a sacrificial system and a holiness code which they believed kept them pure. That combined with their perceived untouchable birthright as God’s people gave them a sense of being righteous, even though their way of life was not very different from the nations surrounding them. Theirs was still a way of domination and elitism taking advantage of the weak for personal gain.

It can be seen today by folks who see worship, bible study, tithing and prayer as something done to achieve righteousness. Meanwhile, their life away from those things reflects the way of life of everyone else around them.

The second definition sees righteousness as something given to us when we confess faith in God, despite our own failings. It also requires little in the way of any real transformation. Worship, bible study, and tithing are still done, but here out of gratitude for deliverance from eternal damnation. It is what German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazi’s, called cheap grace.

Both of these definitions lead to a hunger and thirst that bring little change. We seek to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. But there is a limit to love of neighbor and a failure to live in the covenant which God cut with a rebellious humanity. Our lives are less effected by the character of the Creator who chose to love us at all costs, and more effected by the culture surrounding us: the values of our communities, states, and nations which run counter to this covenant of love.

All of this leads to a misunderstanding of just what righteousness means and makes these words in the gospel according to Matthew easy to accept, while overlooking the much stronger words in the gospel according to Luke, “Blessed are those who hunger, for they will be filled…woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.”
You may recall we discussed the phrase “poor in spirit” a couple of weeks ago. We discussed how it still carried the meaning of what we found in Luke: “Blessed are the poor,” but it carried a little more meaning as well. It spoke of both literal poverty and spiritual poverty or humility. And both these terms were closely related.

The gospel's author wrote out of rivalry with the other Jewish groups of his day, especially the Pharisees, and was, thus, trying to demonstrate that followers of Christ were the true Jews. The Pharisees, in many ways, had sold themselves out to Rome. They had relied on a foreign power and its gods to bring them security, both financial and social. As a result, their faith took on the look of other nations. Instead of loving their neighbor, they separated from their neighbor believing their wealth and power proved their blessing and righteousness and steered clear of those unlike them, who were obviously suffering because of unfaithfulness, to remain ritually clean.

The author of the gospel is confronting this head on. He is making the point that God is with the poor, the hungry, and the thirsty who struggle to survive and with those who humble themselves as servants the way Jesus did, reaching out to love those pushed to edge of life and society. The followers of Jesus did not seek to overpower and manipulate and exploit. They sought to love. They were poor in spirit. They would place their hopes not in false gods and a greedy and violent parody of true humanity, but in the one true God. Because of this, they would not assert themselves over one another. They would not allow wealth to justify the means of gaining it.

Much like the Pharisees found religious assurance in their wealth and power, they found the same in their definition of righteousness as we discussed a few moments ago.

But Jesus’ beatitudes, which point to the words of Isaiah, remind us of the true meaning of righteousness. Righteousness spoke of God’s character. He had made covenant promises to Abraham’s descendants and declared he would deliver them from all distress. God’s righteousness is to be faithful to his covenant. Remember the covenant included the neighbor, and the prophets emphasize the poor, suffering neighbor.

God, as righteous judge, will deliver those who are on the wrong end of another’s violation of covenant to love both God and neighbor. He will deliver. He will set free. He will liberate. And when he delivers he will declare righteous the ones he liberates. They have done nothing to deserve the liberating king ‘s actions on their behalf, but their suffering gives God a special concern for them.

Thus God’s righteousness comes from delivering justice, justice being another portion of the meaning of the Greek word, dikaosune, often translated in English as righteousness. And here we can see how all the beatitudes are tied together. If you’re poor/poor in spirit, if you are mourning, are hungering, yet meek enough to not become what the world tries to make you be, the righteousness and justice of God will be experienced.

Now this points to the fact that the second definition of righteousness isn’t altogether out of bounds. It’s just not righteousness. It speaks more of the gospel and grace, in that God continues to reach out to all of us through the Holy Spirit, despite our rebellion and undeservingness. And it leans more strongly towards being a this world kind of hope, in vindicating those suffering today to a real life, even if there is an eschatological message that the ultimate liberation from suffering will come at the end of this age of rebellion.

You see those literally hungering and thirsting, and who had either chosen not to become like their oppressor or not believed they had the ability to become like their oppressor had only one hope: righteousness. God’s righteousness. God’s justice-delivering liberation with a special concern for the poor. Because they hungered and thirsted, they hungered and thirsted for righteousness.

And because the followers of Christ as defended in the gospel according to Matthew sought to be different from the rest of the Jewish and Gentile world, they were at great risk. They relied solely on God’s righteousness to vindicate them in the end.

So let’s reflect on how this might apply today.

We see the suffering all around us and in this video. The Holy Spirit calls out to us to say the way we live our lives, while appearing to bring prosperity, will bring destruction. The Holy Spirit transforms our hearts so we are compelled to run down a new path. One treacherous, and full of thorns, yet one full of the greatest hope. One in which we run to the side of our suffering neighbor to bring deliverance as a faith community empowered by the Spirit, while peacefully confronting that which brings the suffering, knowing our actions in both respects make us vulnerable. And that our only hope is to hunger and thirst for righteousness. But knowing our actions, empowered by the Holy Spirit, will be used to reveal God’s righteousness by delivering justice.

A government, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, will come to the rescue of banks which sold a bill of goods to consumers on risky mortgages and who still resist rewriting those loans to aid their consumers despite the grace given by the government.

But blessed are those who foreclosed on their homes for God will bring deliverance.
We, called by God, will help restore what was lost. We, called by God, will challenge political and financial institutions to live by the covenant.

Corporations and market forces driven by the hunger for more and more profit will come to the rescue of the shareholders at the expense of the laborers.

But blessed are the unemployed for God will bring deliverance. We, called by God, will help restore what was lost. We, called by God, will challenge corporations and the market to live by the covenant.

Religious leaders of many faiths will declare curses on the suffering when disaster strikes, be it hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, war, or economic crash. We, called by God, will help restore what was lost. We, called by God, will challenge the world to live by the covenant.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled.

We, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can offer real hope. We can say, “Here you will drink. Here you will eat. Here you will find justice. Here you are loved.”

Flip the Script: Privileged Are the Poor

2010-01-11T22:01:00.000-08:00

One would think in a Superman world, there is no need. No desperation. No bad characters bringing suffering requiring rescue. Until, of course, Monty Python gets their blimey hands on the story. Because in their story, bicycles still break down and the hero becomes the bicycle repairman.

As they did so often, Monty Python flipped the script. They have brought about the unexpected. Broken with tradition. Made us laugh using what seems ridiculous.
Flipping the Script is often the best way to explain what happens toward the end of the movie Eight Mile. After struggling time and again in the freestyle rap battles at the local club, B-Rabbit, tries a new tactic. He anticipates the personal attacks of his opponent by naming them on himself first. In a way he makes himself strong, by first making himself weak. He flipped the script.

And in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, we see Jesus flip the script when he announces the blessings of the now present and ever approaching kingdom of God. This common form of literature, commonly known as Beatitudes, announced who was privileged in the world. Indeed, the word blessed is used giving it a religious connotation. It received this religious connotation because the ancients saw religious life, social life, and political life as inseparable. A people’s faith affected how they related to their fellow humans, thus affecting the structure of their political institutions and offices.

Beatitudes traditionally announced the blessings of God on the rich and the powerful. They, it was assumed, had been faithful and righteous resulting in material wealth and social and political power granted them by God.
It was based on a view of God as almighty and willing and able to vanquish his foes by overcoming them with force. When nations went to war, it was a holy war which would determine whose god was more powerful. Thus the military, political, and social victors were viewed as those most faithful to the one true god. When someone fell into suffering, or debt, or lost his status in society, he must have been a sinner.

You can find hints of this belief system throughout the ancient world, even in strands of ancient Judaism. Reading the Old Testament Prophets, we find a strong critique of this view. It critiqued the prevailing view of life as idolatrous. It critiqued leaning on other gods, or those with power and wealth who worship these gods, and oppressing one’s neighbor to gain wealth rather than depending on the one, true God to sustain and provide while taking care of one another. This critique is the tradition in which Christ arose. It is in this way in which Jesus, through his life and teaching, flipped the script.

To truly understand this, let’s address a few misconceptions. Many people read Matthew 5:3 and assume “poor in spirit” is simply a matter of one’s inner being. The reality of understanding this phrase is much more complex. In Hebrew thought, the idea of being poor connoted ideas both of poverty and humility, an attitude often related to poverty. These were often seen as one package. There is some thought that Matthew adds this phrase “in spirit” not found in Luke to make it a personal spiritual matter. When reviewing the message in the remainder of Matthew, that doesn’t seem to hold water. He takes a strong stance against the rich and powerful. Also, “in spirit” serves as an idiomatic phrase which tends to be distorted when read in our cultural context in which we search solely for individual meaning to the neglect of the communal.

It is better understood when we realize that Matthew wrote in a context of rivalry with other Jews, influential Jews connected with the Roman empire, and sought to demonstrate that Jesus’ disciples were the true Jews. While Matthew’s opponents sought wealth and security from a foreign power and its gods, they participated in the foreign oppression and exploitation of the poor.

“Poor in spirit” thus means an attitude in which a people stands up for and stands beside the poor in solidarity at risk of their own welfare.

Another misunderstanding is the purpose of Luke. Many have believed that Luke is writing to show that this faith is really no threat to the Roman empire. Therefore, blessing the poor and announcing woes on the rich has tended to be interpreted more symbolically. However, the reference to Caesar’s census prior to Christ’s birth, the arrest of John by Herod, and the material nature of the temptations in the wilderness, sets the stage for Luke getting in the face of the powerful with this gospel.

And the question will often arise, “What about when Jesus says, ‘The poor you will always have with you,’”? This is actually a direct reference to Deuteronomy 15 in which the point of the phrase is that we should always give to the poor because there will be need. However, earlier in that chapter, the point is made that if God’s people obey his commands, then there will be no one in need. Jesus is actually challenging the motive for the question by asking, in effect, if the questioner really does care for the poor or is looking to impugn the woman anointing Jesus. In other words, is the questioner obeying God’s commands?

So now we can start to grasp how Jesus flipped the script. To Jesus, the rich are not privileged. It is the poor. Try to make sense of this phrase: Privileged are the poor. Privileged are those who are broke? Who do not have enough to eat? Lack shelter? Clothes to wear? How could this be?

It is because Jesus announced a different kind of kingdom. He challenges prevailing views of the Creator and how this creator operates. Following in the tradition of the prophets, established by the gospel writers as the one who fulfills the words of the prophets, Jesus announces the Creator of the universe stands by the poor. While humanity may have become idolatrous, even making the Judeo-Christian god an idol in many ways, the Creator has not changed. We have.

We have scapegoated the poor for their lot in life. We have ignored the ways in which humanity has failed to love its neighbor, allowing inequality and injustice to thrive for our own benefit. We have joined in the ways of the nations of the world.
The nation of Christ is different. It is not new for it existed before the rebellion of humanity and the formation of self-consumed nations. But it is a light to the world. Its king names the poor as privileged. Its king extends this grace proclaiming that those who are abused and ignored, and consumed and discarded by the world, will be healed and restored and loved in the nation of God.

Latin American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez says it like this:

“God has a preferential love for the poor not because they are necessarily better than others, morally or religiously, but simply because they are poor and living in an inhuman situation that is contrary to God’s will. The ultimate basis for the privileged position of the poor is not in the poor themselves but in God, in the gratuitousness and universality of God’s agapeic love.”

This meaning God’s sacrificial love.

It extends this grace to us, whether we are rich or poor or somewhere in the middle by inviting us to take up the image of the Creator within ourselves and stand with the poor. By taking this risk of standing with the poor at all costs with full reliance on God to provide. Even if it means our own poverty.

People are doing this here. In New Hope…In the citizenship class… In feeding the poor at the Austin Street Shelter and through our food pantry... It is seen when the homeless are put in permanent housing which gives them dignity and a chance to start over. It is seen in places where fair wages are paid that enable workers to feed their basic needs.

Perhaps, it could be seen in the struggle for more fair trade on the part of our country. Or perhaps in the struggle for the remission of debts for third world countries. Or in the call to go beyond a minimum wage to a living wage. And many other social and political changes that would restore the poor.

Privileged are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of God. Theirs is the nation of God. Grace is extended to us in that God reaches out providing salvation for the poor and inviting us to take up that cause and be restored to the freedom of the truly human. To be healed of the mutations suffered throughout history as humanity rebelled and made humanity something it was not intended to be. The human life is not about the self. It is about us all.

So we shall resolve to stand up with the poor, knowing their privilege. Refusing to accept their lot, we stand together to be sure they are clothed, and fed, given shelter, and treated, and taught. We shall resolve to oppose institutional structures that create and exploit poverty. Then we will truly experience the grace God has already given us. Then we will know that while the nations of the world seek to control us, we will once and for all be set free.

How Can We Leave the World a Better Place?

2009-10-04T14:26:00.000-07:00

The following is the text of the sermon I preached today on World Communion Sunday and as part of three part series in the church entitled "How Can We...?"

Each Sunday we share that moment in the reading of Scripture…”the word of the Lord”… “thanks be to God”.

Most weeks are easier than this one to utter the reply, “Thanks be to God.”

But this one, in which Jesus tells a man he lacks one thing is troubling. We know this is the word of the Lord. But is not easy to accept. We pause to wait while the chills running up our spine dissipate, we allow our heart having leapt into our throat to settle back into our chest, and we give a hearty clearing of the throat before we utter the phrase, “Thanks be to God.”

We do this with the question the disciples had, “Who then can be saved?”

And yet this is a story we cannot ignore. It will not be explained away. After all, it was considered so significant by the early church that it appears in all three of the synoptic gospels. It must be faced.

In facing it we can begin with just what sort this rich, young man was. We know he was religious. He shares how he kept the commandments. What a study of the first century Roman world will tell us is that, as one the wealthy elites, he stands near the top of the ancient patronage system.

As a patron, he was seen as a benefactor in the community. One who gave to those loyal to him when they were in need. One to whom the priests could have turned when they needed money for synagogues or the temple sacrifices. He was someone of considerable social, religious, and economic influence and power.

This was fueled by a belief that those with the money and power were blessed and more likely to be saved than common people. It was a belief that has reigned since at least the early creation narratives that predate Genesis 1 and 2. It was a belief that forced people to embrace their poor station in life and view their wealthy benefactors on whom they may have depended for mere survival as sent by God.

It was a belief that the biblical creation narratives, the Old Testament prophets and the life and teaching of Jesus sought to resist. It is through this encounter with the rich man that Jesus is trying to give us the answer to the question How Can We Leave the World a Better Place?

This belief allowed people to be religious while taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable around them. It allowed powerful people to lend in ways that entrapped their neighbor forcing them to give up ownership of the land of the families and become indentured servants. That allowed powerful leaders in urban centers to tax the agrarian peasant producers in the villages into poverty while they built greater palaces and mansions, and centers of worship.

It was in this context that Jesus tells the man he must give up everything he owns. In which he tells us it is difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God.

And so the man, whom we are told Jesus loved, walks away sad, unwilling to part with wealth and prestige. And this is no surprise considering we can read the parable of the sower a few chapters earlier in the book of Mark explaining how a gospel at first embraced is at last abandoned for the lure of wealth.

Jesus is telling the man that religious practice is not enough when you lack the love of neighbor, the second greatest commandment. Ill gotten wealth is no sign of God’s blessing. Wealth made on the backs of the poor while benefiting from a political, social, and economic system that empowers the few will keep one out of the kingdom of God.

It was the message of many an Old Testament prophet proclaiming to Judah and Israel that their worship was a stench to God’s nostrils because they forgot their neighbor and exploited them for personal gain.

The love of God and neighbor are central to the idea of covenant throughout scripture. That covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants to make them the light of the world and redirect humanity from its rebellion to the creative will of God. It was this creative design Jesus sought to restore through his life, death, and resurrection.

And we gather here today on World Communion Sunday pondering on the question How Can We Leave the World a Better Place? We can change the world by becoming a covenant community. Covenant community is embodied here today in Holy Communion in which Jesus proclaimed, “This is my blood of the covenant poured out for many.” In this act and in these words Jesus is stating to the world, I will love my neighbor. Though the peasants in the villages wanted to proclaim them their king. Though he was tempted in the desert to become the powerful ruler of the world in the mold of all the kings of the world. Jesus refused to be what the world wanted him to become. Pressured him to become.

Jesus would choose the path of love. Of peace. Of Solidarity. Rather than greed. And intimidation. And oppression. Because of this he would lose his life. But he was willing to do so believing that with God all things are possible.

That is what made following Jesus so impossible for the rich man. Jesus called on him to leave all of his wealth and prestige behind to join the covenant community in the hunger and thirst for justice. In the hunger and thirst for the kingdom of God. In the work of freeing all humanity from the chains, both personal and communal, which enslaved them. A community that came with great cost yet even greater reward.

The rich man wanted his worship without cost. Wanted worship without love. The rich man believed salvation from one’s enemies came in one’s own strength to pull himself up by his bootstraps through the power and resources he believed God blessed him with.

Jesus, on the other hand, was vulnerable. Without riches. Rejecting the power his followers offered by asking to proclaim him king over against their oppressors. Covenant community, likewise, is vulnerable. It is based not on lording power over one another but on joining together in mutual dependence, interdependence, to buttress ourselves against the powers and principalities of the world seeking to make God in their own image and twist our being into who we were never intended to be. Covenant community understands the vulnerability that comes from resisting the ways of the world and leans not on its own but on the trust that with God all things are possible.

People of faith throughout history have understood the love of neighbor. Have understood the kingdom of God resists injustice. Have understood that faith that endorsed the institution of slavery, the suppression of women, and the imbalance of wealth had to be rethought. Had to be restored to its context of covenant and community.

On this World Communion Sunday which reminds us of the importance of covenant, two twentieth century people of faith come to mind.

The first is Cesar Chavez. The farm worker who, like many Hispanic immigrants in the West, harvested grapes for long hours and low wages. His faith compelled him to take a stand and organize the workers against this injustice as the United Farm Workers. He would embark on a 25-day fast in 1968 inspiring 14 million people to boycott the grape growers and bringing much needed change to the business practices of those exploiting immigrant workers.

In 1984, he observed a 36-day fast to protest the use of dangerous chemicals in those same vineyards.

Both times, he broke fast by taking communion expressing the belief that with God all things are possible if we will but love our neighbor. He and his fellow farm workers could have reacted violently. Could have sought to do damage to the vineyards and the equipment used by the growers. Instead they adopted nonviolent resistance and trusted in God to bring deliverance all while resisting the urge to try and become the oppressor.

Another is Oscar Romero, the Catholic archbishop in El Salvador who spoke out against human rights abuses among the Salvadoran people. He spoke out against the Marxist Juntas known for their death squads whose goal was to scare people silent. He also spoke out against American capitalism which refused to stop doing business with the murderous regime in El Salvador. He loved his poor neighbor in the country of his ministry.

Romero knew the risk involved with taking such a stand in his country. But he persevered until March 24, 1980, when, during one fateful communion, as he raised the bread above his head for Holy Communion, shots rang out and fell him to then ground. But his blood cried out to the Heavens and change would follow. Conditions would become better in the wake of his death as people continued the path of nonviolent resistance. Yet the struggle continues today as violent gangs expanding from the streets of the United States seek again to oppress the people and destroy the way of life they struggled for.

I have had the distinct of getting to know one couple who are member of Northaven United Methodist Church make visits at least twice every year to El Salvador and help sell their craftwork in the States to help feed their families. Their work is an act of global covenant community.

So as we prepare to take communion on this World Communion Sunday and ask the question “How Can We Leave the World a Better Place?”, the three keys Judith gave us last week, as we asked the question “How Can I Live a Better Life?” still apply.

We must remove all stumbling blocks. For the rich man, it was wealth and prestige that choked out his joy in hearing the gospel. He had too much to lose. This love of money resonates with many. For others, the sheer love of power or being in control brings the fall. Still again it might be addiction. Or desire for carnal pleasures. All these things, among others, focus us on ourselves and rob us of the joy of covenant community.

We must also remember we are not alone. Who then can be saved? If we cannot be strong enough to resist the powers of the world which seek to strip us of our true humanity we must place our trust in God knowing if we trust in the way of Jesus, the way of mutual dependence in covenant community, then by God we will be delivered. In God all things are possible.

Now with covenant community, and the commitment to love our neighbor as ourselves or, in the words of Paul to put the interests of others before our own, comes great vulnerability. Extreme risk. A denial of interest in power over others. But when we take the risk and join together we’ll find the most fulfilling life we’ve ever known.

Finally we must reconcile with all people. Despite their resistance to the powers, people of faith like Chavez and Romero. Like Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa sought reconciliation. They knew reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring evil but of confronting the evil while choosing, in the words of John Wesley, to Do No Harm, putting oneself at risk in the interest of reconciling justice.

So what is our call today? At a time while unemployment grows due to a financial crisis fueled by banks who took risks with other people’s money and were bailed out. A year after gas prices reached record levels while oil companies banked record profits. In a day where the minimum wage, despite its recent increases buys less than it did in 1960, while CEO’s are paid more than 800 times the minimum.

Our call is to covenant community. To resist the powers of the global rat race seeking to turn us into Pavlov’s dogs salivating for more and more when we encounter the ringing of the world’s bell.

We all know the response. Your mouth starts to water when you see an for that thing you’re dying to have…a car…a piece off jewelry…a new gadget. And it’s all we can think about.

It is a call this church hears as people give their time to ministries like New Hope, Angels’ Place, and the citizenship class, their money to the school in Ghana, their groceries to the food pantry. Efforts that may not fix the world entirely but soften the blow of injustice on those who are suffering most.

They are efforts that will grow churches as much if not more in quality as in quantity and will reveal to us there is another world possible. The world that loves and lives together and resists all efforts to exploit or manipulate or hate others. That delivers a prophetic call to people and nations to join the covenant community of the kingdom of the one true God.

And people will respond to that call when they see our lives of covenant community. When they who may be suffering or searching see a people so radically transformed they want to be a part.

Yesterday, at the Transforming Church Conference, a few of us learned that delivering that call can begin as someone walks through our doors for the first. We heard again about hospitality and being grace extenders to all. It’s basis can be found in the scriptural mandate to treat the stranger in your land as one of your own. We never know what may bring someone through our doors. They may be desperate for salvation from the life they have known. And if they find a church of covenant community who treats them, a stranger, as one of their own, and fully embraces them our church of covenant community can be a powerful force in the transformation of their lives.

And imagine how we could leave the world a better place if what made us salivate…what made us lick our lips was when we heard the phrase, “Love your neighbor.”

It is a call to the church to resist the powers in the hunger and thirst for justice and do whatever we can to establish the building blocks of the kingdom of God which is here in us through the power of the Holy Spirit and which kingdom will reign in peace and justice when we reach the time at which God restores all creation to its original intent and being.

It may not be easy. There may be many obstacles but if we will remember we are not alone and follow where the call to covenant community leads then we can trust we will find the kingdom of God where people are not selfishly independent or desperately dependent, but lovingly interdependent, loving one another and reaping eternal life.

So as we approach the table on this World Communion Sunday, may we humble ourselves, be engulfed by the spirit of God and go forth from here and make the world a better place.

Amen!

Conclusion of Jesus and Empire

2009-08-17T21:32:00.000-07:00

Horsley concludes Jesus and Empire with an epilogue discussing why a depoliticized approach to Jesus fails to do justice to the gospels and, especially, serves to explain why Jesus would have been crucified. Religious teachers and oracular prophets did not get crucified for they did not threaten the rulers’ powers. Therefore, it is incredulous that Jesus would have been crucified for merely criticizing the Judaisms of his day.

Roman rulers, however, would act with swift and violent force at even the appearance of a threat to the imperial order, as would those Jewish governors and temple priests appointed by Rome and expected to maintain order, though their action would have been done through appeal to the Roman rulers in the region.

Horsley then proposes what is a controversial matter among Christians today: the question regarding whether Jesus was presenting himself as a king, or merely as prophet. He suggests that God’s confession of Jesus as “beloved son” and his rejection of Peter’s confession of Jesus as Christ suggests that he was a prophet and had no intention of being known as king, though his followers came to know him as such. Also, the speeches in Q give no indication of Jesus claiming kingship, even if the accounts in Mark suggest he did, meaning only some of his followers saw him as king.

Again, Horsley is drawing conclusions from a theoretical source, Q, for which the only knowledge we have is the parallels in Matthew, Luke, and some extra-biblical materials. If Q existed as one single source, it is quite possible to have contained similar elements suggesting Jesus was a king as the other gospels do. The fact the synoptics contain such elements suggests this is highly likely.

However, as Horsley astutely mentions, it could be Jesus was not an either/or figure, but adapted both roles of prophet and popular king of the people, or messiah. The concern, then, is not whether or not Jesus was king, but how his teachings and life redefine what it means to be a king. It was one of servanthood among his fellow peasants and of nonviolent opposition to the imperial order which wrought disorder on subject peoples. It is in his martyrdom and resurrection that his followers were assured the empire did not have the last word and were moved to have the movement expand into other regions with the message of covenantal community.

Unfortunately, we see it did not last long as his followers gravitated toward the seat of power in Jerusalem. Even Paul, who established covenantal communities throughout the Gentile regions of the empire, eventually established a certain kind of quasi-patronage system resembling that of Rome’s.

Indeed, the language used by Paul to undermine the empire became all to adaptable to justify unjust power relations on the part of Christians. Horsley takes it step further and suggests that, while the New Testament contained some subversive materials, it was codified during a time in which Christianity had become an imperial religion which greatly influenced which materials were excluded and which were included. Likewise, the Hebrew canon, or Old Testament was finalized during the time in which the Judean temple-state was supported by the ruling foreign power of the day.

The result of this imperial influence is that Christ was read to authorize empire and the imperial order.

This allows Horsley to set the historical stage of how this “Christian” influence combined with attempts to resurrect the ancient Roman republican virtues helped to establish the United States of America as we see it in power today. He suggests this republican virtue combined with the religious notion of manifest destiny created an imperial power that is far more brutal than Rome ever was since Rome incorporated conquered peoples, not exterminated them the way Americans did the indigenous peoples. Horsley continues with a concise history of the growth of the American empire including examples of both acquiescence and resistance on the part of America’s religious and political leaders.

The empire is also harder to discern as nations, especially America, have become the willing pawns and police forces of transnational corporations who have used the World Bank and International Monetary to force development and modernization on countries in order to pay back debts resembling the ancient Roman system of taxes and tributes on conquered peoples to support its citizens in its metropolitan centers.

As a result many of the forms of resistance to the American and transnational corporate empire we experience today is analogous to the forms of resistance in an around the first century. Peasant revolts of Latin America are driven by biblical stories of liberation the way first century Jews were. The Iranian revolution against the Shah in Iran is similar to the ancient Judean fourth Philosophy which also refused to accept empire-sponsored programs for development. Terrorist groups led by Arab elites are not unlike the scribal group the Sicarii who believed acts of terror were the only way to get their rulers’ attention. And this religiously fueled empire that claims the Jesus who proclaimed peace reacts brutally only continuing the seemingly endless cycle of violence.

Horsley claims that part of the brilliance of this empire is that its religion has gone secular and as part of the official American ideology so it is not subject to one religious group or the other. The fact the church has predominantly depoliticized Jesus and the cross simply empowers the empire to advance unchecked.

However, global people’s subjection to the empire has only raised their awareness to Jesus’ relevance to their situation. With an eye toward this, we should now be able to discern our role and participation in the empire “established by the combination of American political power and the power of global capitalism. Only then can we stand side-by-side with those most affected by the “new world disorder” and follow Jesus.

Horsley's precise parallel of two periods of history and how the person of Jesus speaks to empire presents the reader with a challenge to move beyond self and embrace the other. While I have criticized his emphasis on Q, he reaches a great deal of solid conclusions that can be unearthed in Mark and the other biblical gospels.

His account provides the same challenge I faced while touring the island of Ochos Rios in Jamaica. It points us to the effects of empire around the globe and demonstrates how Western, especially American, excess and liberties have been built on the backs of other peoples both foreign and domestic and only when we replace American individualism with covenant community will the church become truly relevant again.

Jesus and Empire, Chapter 5

2009-08-03T21:31:00.000-07:00

In chapter 5 of Jesus and Empire, Horsley sets for the gospel agenda for Jesus who understood God would judge the imperial order, which brought disorder on the Galilean peasants, and that God already was already at work in the people’s lives and communities.

Thus in addition to acting to heal the effects of empire on people’s lives, Jesus called the people to rebuild their community life through a “program of social revolution to reestablish just economic and mutually supportive social-economic relations in the village communities that constituted the basic form of the people’s life.”

The resulting healing of the effects of imperialism which dealt primarily with people in “ social contexts and relations”, rather than merely as individuals, consisted of four parts:

Expelling Alien Occupying Forces

This is the significance of exorcisms which not only expelled but defeated the demonic forces which plagued the people and were “associated with Roman imperialism.”

There are three levels of these demonic forces. The first was phenomenological, or the violent, anti-social behavior of the possessed. The second was the general social-spiritual condition as being under the power of a superhuman force. This enabled the peasants to keep from blaming only themselves and acknowledged the effects of empire on their lives. Third was the political level, which stated it is the Romans who are truly possessing the people and thus exorcism of demons was defeat of the empire.

Healing the Social Body

Accounts of healings were to provide hope for the community. Those healings which mad the oral text of the gospels were those that resonated most with the community of hearers and addressed the general situation of the peasant people. These stories contain special symbolism, such as the woman who had bled for twelve years or the twelve-year-old girl who was restored to health from a near death malady.

Instilling Hope in a Hopeless Situation

The peasants would have been in a hopeless situation of explaining their suffering on their or the their parents’ sin. Jesus declares these sins forgiven and evokes memories of salvation from oppression reminding the peasants that God’s history is not never ending judgment but of salvation from the oppressor.

Counteracting Social Disintegration

Jesus did not to tear down family and social structures. Rather he sought to reinforce them. He challenges Pharisaical traditions which tore down family and neighbor and refocused them on the two greatest commandments and called the social units to take up slack where family had failed. Horsley contends that when we speak of the will of God, we should speak of what, in the Israelite tradition, the covenant stood for.

Horsley then discusses Jesus work as focused on village communities and suggests that Jesus made a point to gather with people in the synagogues when they would have been gathered together already. In revisiting the family sayings of Jesus, challenging people to “let the dead bury their own dead” and “not looking back” points to the calls to Elijah and Elisha. The significance is that this is a prophetic movement with a deep calling, not an anti-family movement.

It was in these village communities Jesus sought to restore the people's covenant to one another. The key to this was their communal social-economic relations based in portions of the law such as the last six commandments, love of neighbor, and lending practices that sought to aid rather than profit. It was this life the prophets spoke of which challenged the Jewish kings and temple when God's people where at their peak and challenged the empire, puppet kings, and the temple in captivity.

It is in the renewal of economic and social relations the people could be restored. In their economic relations, the people were return to the time-honored Jewish tradition of mutual sharing and cooperation. This included loving one's enemies which Horsley reads in the context of lending within the community rather than Roman soldiers who would not have been present in Galilee.

In their social relations, they called to not judge one another in their cooperation in an effort to discharge conflict among villagers that resulted from outside pressures.

This commitment to one another would also serve as resistance to the powers who rely on the continuing disintegration of the social lives of subject peoples. Communal support could serve to salow the bleeding of the oppressed and prevent their descent into sharecropper status.

Horsley then touches on some key intepretive matters in Mark. The teaching against divorce focuses on the practice of divorcing and remarrying in order to consolidate land and assets and gain wealth and power. Here Jesus is calling for the commitment to one's wife so that it reflects the proper selfless commitment to family and community. He then reminds that speaking of children and the "least of these" serves to remind the Kingdom of God is for the humble, ordinary people. When speaking of the rich man and the eye of the needle, we are reminded that the wealthy, evidenced by their wealth, have failed to live by the covenant.

Horsley's analysis continues on in his questionable emphasis on Q which is a valuable resource when used within limits for interpretation. Or perhaps it is a failure of this critic to take the oral history of a text in an oral society seriously.

Also, he raises some questions as to how to read Jesus' radical teachings on family and on loving their enemies. He seems to stretch the connection between the prophets and the teachings on family in order to fit the construct he finds in Mark in Q. Jesus teachings on family really seem to fit better with his instructions to his disciples to shake the dust off their feet in villages where they are rejected and not to allow anyone to prevent them from following.

As to the soldiers, it is difficult to suggest that loving enemies is not speaking of Roman soldiers when the edict is followed by the instruction to go the extra mile which is a direct reference to the Roman soldier's permission to force a peasant to carry his pack for one mile.

Nevertheless, Horsley continues a stirring analysis of the historical Jesus and the gospel which serves as a call to one and all to a life of mutual cooperation over and above self-sufficiency.

Jesus and Empire Chapter 4

2009-07-26T22:24:00.000-07:00

Richard Horsley has made his case that any study of the historical Jesus must take the sources as wholes rather than isolated sayings.

Now, in chapter 4, he is making his case that when we take the sources as a whole, especially in Mark and Q, the theoretical source from which Matthew and Luke drew much of their material.

When these sources are taken as a whole we find they embrace Jewish tradition, especially the prophetic tradition of Moses and Elijah, that included judgment of the Temple and of foreign rulers.

He begins by challenging modern understandings of apocalyptic: 1) Jesus as a fire and brimstone preacher of the end of the world, and 2) interpreters who are uncomfortable with the idea of a judgmental Jesus who dismiss any such texts as secondary and probably inauthentic. Option two represents John Dominic Crossan.

Horsley asserts we must understand the place of metaphor and hyperbole in ancient Jewish literature to get a fresh look at what apocalytptic really is. In this light, we do not find texts that speak of the end of the world but of foreign domination.

He then walks through Mark and Q and Jewish tradition to demonstrate that the message of Jesus' gospel contained two very concepts: 1) judgment of foreign rulers and the temple cooperating with those rulers, and 2) the renewal of the oppressed people. This is what makes imagery of Moses, who led the exodus from oppression in Egypt, and Elijah, who resisted oppressive, idol-worshipping Israelite kings, so vital to understanding Jesus, a peasant from oppressed and exploited Galilee.

Horsley sets forth that Jesus even held in common with the scribes the belief in God's direct, forceful judgment of foreign rulers. This was part of the Mosaic tradition which embraced the idea of self-governance of the people with God as only ruler of the people. He points to Joshua and Judges as how that tradition expresses itself post-Exodus.

The difference between Jesus and the scribes is that Jesus rejected the scribes belief in the restoration of the temple and the Jerusalem elite by judging the elite in favor of the peasants. Unfortunately, says Horsley, later Christians, including later biblical writers lost sight of this move in favor of the community of the peasant or tribal life.

This is an area in which Horsley and Crossan agree, though Crossan rejects the idea of a violent God directly judging the powers. Indeed, the contemporary reader reads Joshua and Judges and questions if Gid can really be love if God once called his chosen people to slaughter a civilization's men, women, and children.

It seems that what takes shape in Scripture is an evolution in the understanding of God moving from seeing God as violent judge to being represented by Jesus who was nonviolent and called us to be peacemakers. Even the more violent themes in the latter New Testament are located in apocalyptic language with all its metaphor and hyperbole. A good commentary on this in Revelation can be found in J. Denny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement.

Walter Wink takes yet another approach. He states both humans and governing powers are created. Both have rebelled against their creative intention. Both will be transformed and restored to their intended role in creation.

Horsley then reviews the social tensions in Galilee which he presented in earlier chapters before making his case for the judgment of the temple in the early sources about Jesus.

He continues as well with his speculative reliance on Q in an effort to locate it closer to Jesus and away from the commentary found in Matthew and Luke. Beyond my criticism in the previous post there are two thoughts here: 1) Mark provides a wealth of material to support his thesis, and 2) careful reviews of Matthew and Luke illustrates there are very similar messages in the gospels thought to rely on Q. There are more concrete foundations on which Horsley can stand. This can be found if we strip away the interpretive dross in reading Matthew and Luke the same way Horsley challenges us to do with Mark.

In his effort to remove that dross, Horsley also insists the historical Jesus had little interest in the inclusion of the Gentiles and that the language of coming from the east and the west and of the mother hen gathering her children refers to diaspora Jews rather than Gentiles. While there seems to be some hint of the gospels, Horsley's focus is on reading the gospels with Jewish tradition in the background. It becomes inconsistent then to deny Jesus was a truly Jewish prophet if he denied the Abrahamic covenant's call to be the light of the world to which all nations would be drawn.

What is clear is the notes on the judgment of the temple and its priests with the cleansing of the temple, the curse of the fig tree, the parable of the vineyard which turned the tables on the Jewish elites and put them in the position of sharecroppers who they exploited. We are also asked to rethink what it means to have a temple not made by hands and understand there was a tradition in which such language referred to a community of people thus pointing to the restoration of the people as free of "oppressive ruling institutions."

Horsley then moves on to the tradition concerning the judgment of the foreign rulers. Even Jesus' saying regarding, "Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's" would have subtly been an assertion that there is only one true ruler of the people so that the tribute required by Rome was illegitimate and would be part of the reason for judgment.

The tradition is also seen where most of us would not expect it: in the exorcisms. In this time in history and in the tradition of Moses and Elijah, exorcism was not a magical act but the defeat of the satanic powers of empire and its effects on a person or a people. This is seen most clearly in Mark 5 when Jesus cast out the demons who called themselves Legion and they charged downhill inhabiting the herd of pigs into the Mediterranean Sea from which the Roman armies would have arrived. It points to the military powers of Rome being judges in the same way as Pharoah's army which charged into the sea. In the gospels, the significance of exorcism is the defeat of Roman rule.

Horsley does closethe chapter trying to explain his embrace of violent justice on the part of God stating the judgment is "not particularly vengeful." He states the judgment is not about vegeance and punishment, but about liberation of a peasant people from oppressive institutions.

This, however, fails to make sense of the peaceful Jesus who defeats the power by exposing their violence against his non-violence. Yet, Horsley brings incredible insight to reading the gospels as he prepares to discuss how this program of judgment of the Jewish elite and Roman rulers leads to the restoration of the people's traditional way of life and how that confronts us today as Christians and Americans.

The Show Me Kingdom

2009-07-19T11:29:00.000-07:00

It is part of our humanity to ask questions. To wonder if what we have before us is all we’re going to have. To wonder if this is our reality. To wonder if God really cares for us.

John Legend’s experience in the country of Ghana brought a lot of questions to mind as he viewed the extreme poverty there. That combined with the story of two young boys inspired the following song and video.

You can imagine the feeling of desperation of these young boys living in squalor in Africa thinking they must try everything to find a better life. Staying home just wasn’t cutting it. Willing to risk life and limb for a better life. Seeking liberation from their circumstances they climbed into the wheel well of a plane with a message to the West about the suffering of their homeland written in French.

In the Gospel According to Mark we encounter a people who faced similar circumstances. Leading up to these accounts, Jesus had sent his apostles on mission throughout Galilee to spread the gospel of the Kingdom of God, the same message of liberation that threatened the power and legitimacy of Herod Antipas as we discussed last week.

And then his apostles returned to report to him all they had said and done. And note the significance of apostles. It was an ancient term used to refer to emissaries sent to take a message from one kingdom to the next. The Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of hope was announced and was greatly received by a suffering people.

These people were the Galilean peasants under Herod Antipas’ rule. Bearing the burden of taxes, tributes, and tithes, this region reliant on subsistence farming and fishing was stressed under the exploitation of the empire and its different rulers.

They, like the people in Samaria, Judea, and other Jewish regions were troubled by one question, “Why has God forsaken us?” After all, they believed they were God’s people that would never be overcome by any enemy. Their God was the one true God and, thus, the most powerful God who would not be defeated by the gods of other peoples.

So how were they now under the thumb of foreign rulers for several centuries without end? Where was God? They needed to see God to truly believe. Many messiahs and prophets had come in recent decades promising liberation from the Gentile dogs and the rulers in Jerusalem who worked for and with the empire. Yet, they were all defeated and their movements slaughtered.

These people were so hungry for liberation from oppression they embraced Jesus and his mission and were excited by the exorcisms and healings which were seen as signs of overcoming the oppressive powers that created the miserable lives they lived.

They were, as the gospel narrative tells us, like sheep without a shepherd. No accidental metaphor. This was a metaphor used by Moses when he requested that God lift up a leader in the wilderness following the exodus from oppression in Egypt.

It was the metaphor used in 1 Kings 22 as the kings failed to care for the people and persecuted the prophets as the kings sought to conquer other lands. It was a metaphor of freeing people from poverty, oppression, and exploitation and liberating them to the abundant life of peace.

The Kingdom of God appeared to these people in healing and exorcism and confronting the Romans and Jewish leaders for their failure to love their neighbors while delivering the gospel that the Kingdom of God had arrived and was transforming the world.

The message was of utmost importance to the Galileans. They heard a message of freedom from the economic oppression of the empire and the temple and were reminded they were indeed worthy of the presence of the creator. This was a message they hungered for. It spoke to them in such a way, that whenever they heard Jesus and his disciples were near, they would hasten throughout the region to meet them where they were going. Nothing else mattered. Nothing else mattered. Nothing else mattered.

And Jesus responded with compassion. He stayed with them and taught them and healed as needed. The simplest act of staying and feeding these people which takes place in between our two passages revealed to them the love of neighbor that characterized the Kingdom of God. It also symbolized the renewal of true Israel through the faithfulness of Jesus.

And the need and the hunger of the Galileans continues today. It continues in places like Ghana which broke John Legend’s heart so that he founded the Show Me Campaign to alleviate poverty and its effects in Africa. It continues in the Middle East and South America, and Eastern Europe as well. People are dominated and manipulated to serve the desires of others.

In recent months, we have seen ourselves come closer to such a malaise. We’re going through a deep recession. The jobless rate is inching closer to historic levels. Retirement funds have been depleted. The cost of living continues to increase while wages stagnate. And despite the fact that we still have it great compared to much of the rest of the world, we’re starting to feel the pinch. We’re starting to worry.

We see the news this week. Union workers told to go home and wait for a phone call by the Lear Corporation in Arlington who brings in at least temporary workers to replace them. We see the bailout dollars at work as Goldman Sachs prepares to pay bonuses of $700,000.00 each to its executives while the average American is struggling to make ends meet and hasn’t received the same assistance and protection.

It’s become clearer the rat race is devouring more people. It’s becoming harder to survive in our society built on individualism and competition.

And with that in mind, we need a prophet. So let’s turn to one who went face-to-face with one of the greatest injustices of the latter 20th century. I speak of the Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu who stood with Nelson Mandela and many others nonviolently resisting apartheid in South Africa. Hear his words.

Can we leave competition behind to do what’s right in God’s eyes? Can we, like the Galileans, hunger for Christ in such a way that nothing else takes precedence over running after him in covenant faithfulness by loving our neighbor as ourselves and seeking the healing and liberation that only the Kingdom of God can bring? Can we both give and receive the compassion of the Kingdom?

I’m reminded of a story I heard of roofers in Arizona. They had formed a union which help protect their rights as workers.

A crisis arose, however, when the businesses they worked for began hiring less expensive undocumented immigrant workers to get around union labor. This created tension and competition between the union and the immigrant workers. The union workers began intimidating the immigrants by following them with cameras to pose the threat of reporting them to immigration.

But as this tactic failed to work, a member of the union had a change of heart and realized the way to resolve the situation was not intimidation but cooperation. They invited these undocumented immigrants to join their union so they would all be compensated alike. The cooperation created an atmosphere in which they could each thrive.

And that is our challenge. To come together with the mutually suffering and those suffering more greatly to figure out how we can mitigate the hardships in which we live. How we can embrace the mutual dependence which we discussed a week ago.

This will bridge the ever increasing gap between rich and poor. The separation between East and West. The separation between citizen and foreigner. The separation between documented and not. The unity and reconciliation that will result from mutually dependent love will announce the Kingdom of God.

So today we seek to go out and embrace in every aspect of our lives Jesus Christ above all others seeking to be the light to the world who is wondering why God has forsaken them and answer the challenge to show me the kingdom of God.

And we proclaim the gospel that God’s kingdom has won. Jesus has come. The sheep are not without a shepherd.

Supreme Court Justices and Judeo-Christian Roots

2009-07-13T20:36:00.000-07:00

Senator Chuck Grassley was interviewed by NPR's Robert Siegel on All Things Considered today following the first day of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Grassley has been outspoken advocated against the idea of judicial empathy. He was again today, though he praised Sotomayor statements that her number one priority as judge is fidelity to the law.

Siegel questioned Grassley on this issue, pointing out that Justice Samuel Alito had mentioned a similar influence, due to the discrimination against his descendents, on his reading of the law. Grassley had voted to confirm Alito.

Siegel then mentioned how Justice Stevens has been jailed unjustly and asked if this would not create a certain bias for a judge in interpreting the law. Grassley responded that Stevens' experience did not have to be his starting point as there are plenty of examples of injustice in legal cases throughout our history and that is what we have the law for. It is up to the judge to interpret the law and render justice.

Grassley's response belies a certain assumption: that American laws are just and that there origins and passage do not often times carry the bias of legislators and others of wealth and power. In such a case, a simple, unbiased application of the law does not render justice. It extends injustice.

Grassley makes a fair point in that legislators are elected and judges are appointed. Also, his is not the only party that resorts to spin to advance an agenda while ignoring their own previous positions/statements on any number of issues.

But this is where we need to question if the Judeo-Christian roots which many in this nation claim are truly at work in our legal system. I suggest they are not. Our legal system is based on punishment. On Vengeance for the wronged.

The ancient Jewish ideal was a different kind of justice with a different kind of judge. While punishment was at times involved and the ideal was seldom met, the focus was on justice which determined which party had been faithful to the covenant with a thrust toward expressing love of God through love of neighbor. The judge's role was not to announce guilt, but to announce righteousness, especially in finding for the person(s) who has been oppressed by someone with more power. The focus was not vengeance but liberating a person(s) from injustice. In fact, it went further by seeking reconciliation, best expressed in the person of Jesus.

It was a system that left a lot of room for empathy and interpretation. If this is a part of our roots, maybe we need to rethink how we view the law and our legal system and quit thinking that just because a law exists that it is just and creates justice when it is applied.

Now I'm no expert when it comes to the Jewish legal system. I think I have a good feel for what it was, but a lesser feel of how to put it words. But I think it is worth beginning the discussion.

Jesus and Empire, Chapter 3

2009-07-12T21:49:00.000-07:00

First, a correction. Richard Horsley, author of the book mentioned in the title is not a member of the Jesus Seminar. I had thought he was. He is, as I knew, a liberation theologian and is, in fact, critical of the approach of the Jesus Seminar in this chapter.

Horsley stresses the importance of taking a relational-contextual approach to the gospels, meaning the sayings and actions of Jesus must be placed in the relationship in which Jesus had in his social location and religious tradition and in the context of the historical crisis in which his people lived. A reader must consider the division between the ruling classes, (kings, tetrarchs, priests) and the peasants in the outer regions and the populace in Jerusalem. Also, Galilee had spent several centuries free of Jerusalem rule before the Hasmoneans took control of the region from Jerusalem which was followed by Herod Antipas ruling directly in Galilee, so the people of Galilee had few fond feelings of Jerusalem. In fact the history of Hasmonena rule followed by Herod the Great created bitterness toward Jerusalem.

The ambivalence the people of the agrarian regions had for Jerusalem led to a development of a covenantal tradition that embraced figures like Moses and Elijah as inspiration of the popular messianic and prophetic movements of resistance rather than embracing the kings and supporting the status quo in the way the Pharisees and scribes did for the most part. It also led to more communal living of economic cooperation and sabbatical debt forgiveness.

Once we understand how the social and cultural context influences the sayings of Jesus, we then have to understand how to read the gospels. The vital aspect here is to understand the significance of the text being in oral performance. For centuries, the gospels have been interpreted as written texts that were revelatory in that they brought something completely new to the table.

As oral performance in a social, cultural context, however, the sayings and narratives of Jesus are revelatory for the ways in which they invoke the Jewish tradition to point to the significance of Jesus' life for the historical crisis in which they lived. The audience hearing the performance wouold have responded to certain cues in the text which pointed to their tradition and the entire text, not a single saying would have been the most meaningful text. In this context, Horsley reads Mark and Q, a theoretical collection of sayings from which the books of Matthew and Luke are believed to have drawn material, are read as the "little tradition" of the peasants in Galilee. This "little tradition" carried the theme about the Kingdom of God expressed through the renewal of Israel and the judgment of the oppresive rulers.

Horsley's insights on the relational-contextual approach to the gospels and Jesus is vital to uncovering the roots of our faith which has been watered down over the centuries as Christians gained more power and sought to justify their new situation. This approach will give us the insights to understand what the life of sacrifice is all about.

Horsley approaches this idea from the mainline perspective in his critique of the Jesus Seminar which, he says, has individualized a communal faith though the Seminar reaches many of his same conclusions about resistance of the powers.

I have emerged from a conservative evangelical perspective, one that has viewed Scripure as inerrant and hardly influenced by its authors who were pens in the hand of God. This view strips Scripture of all context and reads it as timeless word. The result is that many read it as if there is little to no historical understanding needed as the Bible speaks to us in the 21st century. Influenced by the Enlightenment and American individualism, many read it as all about an intimate relationship between the individual and Jesus and about going to Heaven when you die. The significance of the Kingdom of God being at hand to transform the world now is lost.

Reading the gospels as oral performance is also an important insight. However, I question Horsley's reliance on Q. While the theories regarding this source of sayings are quite convincing, it is a theoretical source we cannot review. He speaks of it as a complete source based on what is found in Matthew and Luke as he seeks to treat the entire collection as a text the way he did with Mark.

This source is of questionable reliability, though, in that Q may have included a much larger set of sayings or perhaps a related narrative so that what we try to understand as the entire text may not be at all.

Also, what we know of the tiiming and intentions of the books of Luke and Matthew could lead us to question if Q really does belong to the "little tradition" of the Galilean peasants in the same way Mark appears to do.

Despite those concerns, Mark read relational-contextually becomes a valuable resource in understanding just who Jesus was and why his life, death, and resurrection were, and are, significant. In the next two chapters, we will see Horsley's reading of Mark and Q and what they have to say about the Kingdom of God.

The Great Rivalry

2009-07-12T21:31:00.000-07:00

The following is the text from the sermon I preached today.

Whether it's in the comics, the television series, or the movies, Batman’s enemies have always been out to get him. Most saw him as the main obstacle to the success of their deviant plans and wanted him out of the way. The Joker, however, was obsessed with Batman.

The Joker wanted to be bigger than Batman. He wanted revenge on Batman. You see there are many accounts as to what the origin of the Joker was. Almost all attribute his disfigurement and resulting criminal rampage to an encounter with Batman. One account even starts the story with Bruce Wayne and the death of his parents at the hand of Jack Napier who would become the Joker. Their story ran deep.

These two men were great rivals. And in today’s gospel reading, we encounter another great rivalry. We could call it The Great Rivalry. The rivalry between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdoms of the World for the heart of humanity here represented in Herod Antipas on one side and John the Baptist and Jesus on the other.

But we need to take a few moments and get to know the backstory. These events take place in the region of Galilee. The regions of Galilee and Perea were ruled by the tetrarch Herod Antipas. This Herod had inherited this rule from Herod the Great who had been appointed by the Romans who had reconquered the Jews. During his rule which included the entire region long before governed by the nations of Judah and Israel, Herod the Great was not against mass slaughter of the Jews when they resisted Rome’s or his rule.

Nor was Herod the Great against killing his own offspring. He executed his two eldest sons who were descendants through their mothers of the Hasmonean dynasty who ruled Judea prior to the Romans reconquering the region. His third born was exiled for plotting to poison him. That placed Herod Antipas next in line to succeed him as heir to the puppet king’s throne. However, before his death, Herod the Great decided to split the kingdom among three sons. The biggest prizes, Judea, Samaria, and Idumea went to Herod Archelaus. Herod Antipas got the aforementioned regions of Galilee and Perea. And Herod II who Mark names here as Phillip got the regions to the north.

But Herod Antipas was a man of ambition. If he would not be given the entire kingdom, he would sure try to earn it. He set out on an unprecedented building program placing shrines to Caesar in Galilee pronouncing great honors on Caesar while increasing the tax base on an already impoverished and exploited people. This was an attempt to gain Caesar’s favor to be given his brothers’ areas of governance.

Beyond this, he made the move mentioned here in the gospel, he took his living brother’s wife, Herodias, as his own. A move that was driven by more than mere attraction. It fed Herod Antipas’ ambition. Herodias was the daughter of one of Herod the Great’s executed elder sons. Therefore, she was of Hasmonean descent meaning the people of Judea might be appeased by the potential for such a lineage in their governor making it easier for Rome to maintain order in the region and gaining Herod Antipas yet more favor. Herodias would have been closer to being queen.

So what’s the point of this history lesson? The point is that John the Baptist’s censure of the ruling couple was more than John the Baptist confronting a couple for their personal sin. It was about John, along with Jesus, confronting a Jewish ruler who sought his own gain by partnering with a foreign power while his own people especially in the region of Galilee where he governed and from where John and Jesus came were exploited. This was about violation of covenant. Failure to worship only the one true God.

The covenant we speak of here was that which God established with Moses on Mount Sinai and renewed on Mount Horeb. The covenant in which God promised he would always be with his people and that called them to rely on no other gods and to love God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their mind and to love their neighbor as themselves.

Prophets like John had a habit of confronting kings for violating covenant. Samuel confronted Saul when he failed to follow God’s instructions. Nathan confronted David when he had Bathsheba’s husband Uriah killed. Elijah confronted Ahaz for the idolatry which followed his marriage to the foreign woman Jezebel and which led to the murder of Nabaoth over a piece of land. Each of these stories were of kings exerting their power for personal gain. Love of self and not of neighbor. Covenant violated.

In Jewish tradition, at the root of breaking covenant was idolatry, and at the root of idolatry is love of self over against your neighbor or love of one’s people over against all others. In the Old Testament, you had the rivalry between the worship of Yahweh and the worship of Baal. Worship of Baal offered one supposed control over the elements and the ability to manipulate them in one’s favor. It was a self-serving worship which many Jewish kings, especially later Jewish kings, found appealing. It was this self-serving worship of Baal which the young king Josiah rejected when he found the law in the temple and tore down the Asherah poles.

When we really consider what is taking place throughout Scripture, we find idolatry is about much more than merely praying to another god. It is that the worship of that god is linked to a self-serving way of life as opposed to a self-giving way of live which the Jewish tradition was supposed to be. And which Jesus exhibited.

So here, John had confronted Herod Antipas who placed his faith in Caesar who was known in the Roman empire as the Son of God. Herod found it convenient to his personal ambition to worship at the feet of the emperor and the gods of the Roman imperial court. This violated covenant as much as his self-centered marriage to his living brother’s wife had. In fact, his pursuit of status in the Roman empire led him to that covenant breaking marriage.

John and his movement questioned and even threatened Herod’s legitimacy among his own people. It was this movement and its threat which the Jewish historian Josephus attributed to John's imprisonment. Herod had him jailed and Herodias found a way to have him killed.

We’re told now Herod Antipas hears tales of Jesus and believes John must have returned from the dead. Others have other theories, even harkening the name of Elijah who confronted Ahaz and Jezebel. This points to a question Jesus will ask his disciples at a later time in the same way that Herod’s role in John’s death foreshadows his role in Jesus’ death.

Herod must have been nervous. He thought he had done away with the nuisance in prison and then in death. Now there’s this Jesus going about with the same message about the Kingdom of God. The Great Rivalry between king and prophet is still alive accept in this case, it is also king v. king. And as we see in the rivalry between king and prophet, the prophets take the side of the peasants.

At this point in the narrative and in the resurrection, we know you may kill the revolutionary, but the revolution you will never bury as Ben Harper put to song. The covenant of love of the one true God as expressed through love of neighbor will ultimately win the day through radically different methods than any revolution or campaign that has gone before. This love of neighbor is so radical it includes our enemies. The legitimacy of all rulers and nations and peoples that fail to exhibit love for neighbor will be called into question by the light of the world that practices such love.

Those who call themselves by Christ’s name are to be this light. They are to demonstrate what true humanity is by living lives of sacrificial love for their neighbors. And prophetically resist those powers in the world that refuse to do so. In fact, this is The Great Rivalry: The Kingdom of God and The Kingdom of the World. And this rivalry is at a fever pitch, even enticing many to leave behind the Kingdom of God for greater comfort and greater wealth and greater prestige.

So where do we discern The Great Rivalry for the heart of humanity today?

I’m sure we can find it other places in the world, but let’s stick closer to home. We live in the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world so stands to reason that perhaps some of our life as a nation and a people is lived based on love of self. After all, we as a nation make up about a 5% of the world's population, yet consume almost a third of the world's resources.

We can start on a personal level: Are we manipulating people whether it be our friends, acquaintances, or even our family to get what we want with no concern for their needs? Are we seeking personal gain while turning a blind eye to the impoverished among us? Do we make decisions based only on our own desires?

On a societal level, are we not told that self-sufficiency is the most important thing? We are told that the important thing is to get bigger, better, faster material goods. We are pressed to seek financial security.

On one hand, the thought is very well-intentioned. We do not want to be a burden on our children. On the other hand, it tends to individualized our lives to the point of isolation. All while we seek to save in a system that makes our well being dependent on forces controlled by those with much less direct consequences at stake.

I wonder myself if the current recession couldn’t serve as a wake up call to a different way of life as many have seen the retirement accounts they worked so hard for be taken from them.
What if love of neighbor is not about self-sufficiency? What if its living for one another in such a way that we become dependent on one another? What if this is how we are created to live? This is true community.

Lately, I’ve been envisioning a church that took radical approach to life. You’ve heard the saying from the book of Matthew, “Do not worry about tomorrow, what you will eat what you will wear,” to paraphrase. “For today has enough trouble of its own.” What if we decided saving for retirement is this worrying about tomorrow while our neighbor goes hungry today?

Then the church may begin to pool its resources and sell its possessions the way the church did in the book of Acts. When someone needs care in retirement, the church provides. When someone needs funds for higher education, the church provides. When someone needs food, shelter, health care, the church provides.

This way of life would be so different as to be called foolish by many. As to be viewed as a threat by some. But could it not serve as a light to the world as we step beyond mercy, which is important, to embrace justice, the idea that everyone will have enough? It would make it clear just who our world is dealing with. The people radically committed to covenant and the love of God and love of neighbor and willing to stand up to the powers that be as people continue to suffer through poverty, to have their income and ability to afford health care determine their life span, and be exploited by those with the power.

Maybe this isn’t the exact starting point. Maybe dreaming together we find a new vision of love that will make us the light of the world and help bring incredible transformation to the lives we come in contact with.

But we must choose our side in The Great Rivalry, even though the divisions may at times overlap and be hard to discern. But when the Kingdom of this World calls us to embrace ourself and our own, we will run to the Kingdom of God and the love of neighbor which through the Holy Spirit will restore our true humanity and true community so that we experience the abundant life of the faithfulness of Christ.

Jesus and Empire Review, Part One

2009-07-06T17:14:00.000-07:00

Richard Horsley is a well known liberation theologian and member of the Jesus Seminar from the University of Massachusetts. He is closely associated with the likes of Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, and more loosely with N.T. Wright. In Jesus and Empire: the Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder, he sets forth his point of view on the anti-imperial message of the gospel proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers.

The Introduction and Chapters One and Two, which we review today, set the historical stage for Horsley's argument: that the failure to understand our roots as Christians in America and the roots of Jesus of Nazareth's message result in the failure by the church in America to discern the imperial forces at work in American life both here and around the globe and how they parallel the life of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus.

Horsley proposes two influences on the roots of American ideology: 1) the narrative of Israel's exodus from slavery in Egypt which inspired both America's revolutionaries and slaves in the decades leading up to the Civil War, and 2)the republican virtues of ancient Rome, though these virtues were historically idealized and the United States has abandoned many of these virtues of the common good in much the same way Rome did.

Horsley goes on to explain that the narrative of Jesus has since been depoliticized as a private religion in which Jesus' time and place have no relevance and in that the New Testament is nothing but a dispute about private religious issues. Much of this has come about due to the modern separation of religion and politics and individualism of the West, the isolation of the sayings of Jesus from the rest of the narrative failing to respect the literature from which these sayings are taken, and people's discomfort with any judgmental sayings of Jesus.

However, this approach ignores the deeply political roots of Jesus' identity. His Jewish background focused on two hopes: 1) deliverance from and judgment of foreign oppressors and idolatrous Jewish oppressors, and 2) the renewal of Israel. Jesus may have redefined these hopes and expectations to a degree but they were central to his message.

In chapter one, Horsley demonstrates how Rome established and maintained "peace" through overwhelming violence and humilation and reminds that Augustus Caesar had been named savior and Son of God meaning anyone else who claimed that title could be subject to crucifixion as a rebel. He also shows how the Roman empire appointed even the Jewish kings and chief priests who reaped numerous economic benefits for cooperation with the empire meaning even their role as Jews in the gospels cast them as agents of the empire.

Chapter two focuses on the many revolutionary movements before and after the time of Jesus and how they were all based in the aforementioned dual hope of the Jewish tradition. He gives an enlightening discussion I had not seen elsewhere before as to the difference in the resistance on the part of the rural peasants and the urban scribes. The former tended to be more violent with more participation and longer lasting while the latter were mostly nonviolent and not as prolonged. The exception in Jerusalem would have been Sicarii and the revolts during Passover when the diaspora pilgrims joined the resistance.

There is not a great deal of new information in the book's opening pages outside of what is mentioned in the paragraph above. However, it is clear that Horsley is slowly making his case. He compares the ancient client kings of Rome with those governments the United States worked to overthrow, specifically the Shah in Iran. He also brings light to how that sort of intervention led to terrorism against the Roman empire as oppressed people became economically exploited and distressed in much the same as we are seeing against the West today. But it is clear he is not justifying the terrorism of the ancient Jews or of terrorists today as he proclaims the violent actions of the Jewish rebels only continued the cycle of violence leading to further death and destruction.

Horsley briefly and skillfully sets forth his foundation for the argument throughout the remaining chapters and for detailed discussion as we study just how Jesus adapted his tradition of resistance, deliverance, and renewal. Specifically, it will be interesting to see how he approaches the idea of judgment, inasmuch as Crossan has sought, in God and Empire, to explain how any thoughts of a violent, judgmental God don't stand the weight of the revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth.

Independence Day!?!

2009-07-04T17:23:00.001-07:00

Don't get me wrong. I am thankful for the freedoms I have? But does our practice of freedom and protection of our freedoms really provide freedom for our neighbors?

Did our forefathers truly believe all men are created equal? After all, for the first almost century of American independence slavery persisted even though "tyrannical" Mexico and Britain had long done away with the institution. This was followed by a lengthy period of our history in which blacks were considered 3/5 of a person and blacks and women couldn't vote. Perhaps wealthy colonial land owners simply wanted to be the dominant power in the colonies.

The industrial revolution only continued the exploitation of labor by the wealthy in our country. This was aided by government powers who helped quell labor movements. Today, labor continues to be exploited through a minimum wage that doesn't provide a living income for families and many of our products are made in sweatshops overseas.

We denounce Iran. We topple Saddam. Yet are we willing to admit that we topple a popular government in Iran to put a dictator in place in the Shah that led to a revolution that has led to an extremist government and strong anti-American sentiment in that country. Or do we admit it was America that put Saddam Hussein in place. Or even that we financed Osama bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. Our that military force was used in Central and South America in the early 20th century to enable US businesses to grow fruit there. Why? Because these actions were convenient to our economic agenda at the time.

The US Congress approved the North American Free Trade Agreement knowing it would it put thousands upon thousands of Mexican and American family farms, who couldn't compete with corporate, government-subsidized farms, out of business. They anticipated this would lead to an exponential increase in Mexican immigrants seeking survival and took measures to make immigration, both with and without a green card, more difficult. For more information, you can see the upcoming book Testimonies of Terror by Dr. Miguel De La Torre.

Today, the debate is over health care reform and whether all people should have access to affordable, effective health care. Should this be a debatable question? Do we hear the talk of the potential for rationing and not think that health care is not already rationed based on income and access to health insurance. Whether we find a solution that is public or private, the change must come and be all-inclusive.

So I may free. You may be free. But are the establishing of our freedoms oppressing others? Does our nation pass the Kingdom of God test? Obviously, my thought is no.

Don't get me wrong. It's not as if I don't see this country as having made strides toward justice in its history, especially in the domestic arena. The question may be if, while we have made some progress domestically (not to ignore those domestic injustices that persist), we have actually created and/or participated in more injustice on a global scale.

And I believe much of this progress has been due to people of faith moved by the Spirit to resist evil and oppression in this country. One of the great evangelists of the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney, preached there was no gospel without justice and called people of faith to become abolitionists. And we are all at least partly familiar with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream and the faith-filled Civil Rights Movement.

And more progress may be on the way in the form of Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Health Care Reform. But I believe for a true move toward changes that concern ourselves with our neighbors' interests rather than our own, people of faith must speak out.

Because of this, I believe the church, especially the church in America must embrace its prophetic role in nonviolently resisting the powers of our nation that continue to directly oppress or indirectly participate in the oppression of the others. So, I suppose my celebration of freedom is a conflicted celebration with an eye toward the true freedoms that are wrought in the Kingdom of God at work in this world today wherever followers of Christ hunger and thirst for righteousness.

Worrying About Tomorrow

2009-05-18T21:59:00.000-07:00

Here's something that has given me angst for some time but which I have never shared with anyone. At the end of Matthew 6, we have Jesus' teaching about not worrying about tomorrow because today has enough worries of its own.

We often read this in an individualistic fashion. I suggest we need to read more of Scripture in a collective fashion. To me, this saying points to the fact that there is not just so much in my own life to worry about today but there is enough to worry about in my community today so that my concerns about tomorrow on the backburner.

This becomes more evident when we see the preceding verses include teachings on treasures and wealth. We do not store up treasures on earth by hoarding what we've got but by using it to help others. Love of God and love of neighbor go hand in hand.

So what gives me angst is the concept of saving for retirement. I've been taught it's important so you are not a burden on anyone. I have been unable to save for it up to now, but as my children outgrow daycare and I get further cost of living wage increases there will be money available. The question is do I do what I've been told my entire life or do I view this as the ultimate tomorrow?

I wonder what would happen if churches lived for today. What we would save for retirement we go to help people in need today. Kids going to college. People needing healthcare. People unable to pay mortgages. I tend to think this would live rather close to the picture of the church in the first chapters of Acts.

The challenge is vulnerability. It's a scary thing. By committing to other people's todays we are risking our tomorrow hoping our needs will be met when our tomorrows become our todays. It also looks weak to our dominant cultural ethos to not provide for oneself.

Extremely curious to know your thoughts.

Reclaiming Church: The Decline of Modernism Takes Shape

2009-03-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

In chapter two of Reclaiming Church, Transforming Theology Project's Dr. John Cobb looks at two models for returning theology from the academy to the church.

The first model posits the decline of modernism and focuses on the end of three of the main foci of modern society.

The first of these foci is Eurocentricism. The dominance of the West has given way to pluralism. Despite the evidence that the West continues to dominate, Asia led by Japan is now a viable competitor and this competition means the military strength of the United States will prove to be economically unviable in the long run.

The truth is that religion is where the end of Eurocentricism is most evident. Christianity is viewed globally no longer as superior but as one among many options. In fact, the most vibrant churches exist in non-Western parts of the world. Here, Cobb notes the coming reality discussed in Philip Jenkins The Next Christendom.

The second ending is the replacement of nationalism, which we can historically say was greatly fueled by religion even while being a reaction against state religion, with the global pursuit of economic prosperity. Even propagandically nationalistic countries, in truth, have given up control of many of their own interests in the name of the global economy.

The third ending is that of the Rational Enlightenment and the idea that the universe operates in some deterministic, mechanistic fashion which can be discerned by universal common sense. This has fueled theology as well.

However, it has become clear that what was understood as common sense is truthfully a matter of one's perspective and culture.

Cobb then leads into two other endings which have both fed the demise of these three main foci and been fed by them: the end of both sexual repression and patriarchy. Those structures of gender roles, same sex relationships, and family are under question which many have long held as foundational are crumbling underneath us. The question is what of these foundations really has basis in our faith informed by Scripture and how much of them has to do with the domestication of our faith. A great discussion of rethinking Christian sexuality and patriarchy can be found in Dr. Miguel De La Torre's A Lily Among the Thorns.

Cobb then moves to offer two proposals as to how the church can provide comfort to those seeking to find their bearings amidst crumbling foundations.

The first proposal is to look at the inner life of the church and identify where the church accomodated itself to modern cultural trends and embraced those as universal Christian ideals to be forced on all. In doing this, the church will realize the need to constitute itself as a true and distinct community. The church can then embrace the symbols of its heritage and be the Church as opposed to the European Church or American Church.

Renewal is committed to justice, especially for women. It, however, is not as favorable to the end of patriarchy and sexual repression as it views aspects of these as part of our biblical heritage.

The second proposal is that of transformation: an approach that embraces the church's heritage while understanding the church can learn from and be changed by its surrounding culture and seek to redeem that culture. The threat is not accomodation but uncritical accomodation. This approach atually reaches out to those excluded by and harmed by the church in seeking a new way.

The question as we seek to be a transformational influence in this changing world is to consider what role the church can rightly and ethically play as dispersal of power replaces Eurocentrism, economism replaces nationalism, and deeper intellectual thinking replaces surface rationalism. Also, in what ways does a transformational church challenge society's proposed new beginnings with even greater beginnings.

Cobb closes by applying these proposals of renewal and transformation to the new beginnings and shows how renewal stops at the life of the church itself while transformation believes God wants to renew the world as well.

While you get a sense Cobb leans toward transformation over renewal, the value of this chapter is in his refusal to choose one over the other. Instead, he states there are times needing renewal and times needing transformation. In fact, if Cobb leans toward transformation it may be simply because he belives that is what today requires.

And what better way is there to combat the dangers of each than to leave the door open for each. When renewal leads to entrenchment of the Church, it is clear transformation is needed. However, when the church has accomodated too much to culture, it needs to be reminded of just where its identity lies.

I think today calls for transformation, especially as a member as the Church as it exists in America. So often, Christians find themselves accomodating either Republican or Democratic views as to how to treat the current difficulties of the global economic disaster. This should b more a time for people of faith to critique the ever widening gap between global and rich and poor and growing loss of self-determination as Cobb does here. Too many, however, have given in to the temptation of adopting big party ideologies rather than being an instructive voice for change.

However, the move is in this direction as we approach the Mobilization to End Poverty and we may have the seeds for a new movement to end hypocrisy by calling America to lead the charge in abolishing nuclear weapons.

Reclaiming Church: Reclaiming Passion

2009-03-11T22:14:00.000-07:00

Chapter one of Dr. John Cobb's Reclaiming Church takes us through a history of the mainline church in America. The church in the early days of American settlement, or forceful appropriation of lands from indigenous peoples, was full of passion and experienced in many different fanatical varieties. These groups turned on one another in the name of Jesus.

Cobb explains this was followed by a period of lukewarmness as the church embraced nationalism and rationalism to avoid past sins. Then, John Wesley and John Edwards sparked a new fervor with a renewal of personal commitment and social transformation. The brilliance of these men was to be able to redefine the faith to embrace science and nation while keeping Christ in the position of supreme importance. However, as other challenges to the faith such as the search for the historical Jesus and evolutionary thought arose, the church resisted and began to decline while becoming more individualistic.

Another great movement of the church arose with the Social Gospel but waned after World War II because it did not have answers for the chaos of two mega-wars and didn't take evil seriously enough.

The challenge now is to rediscover shared conviction that Jesus is primary in this life and speak a gospel that is truly good news. The mainline church has repented of many of the sins of the American church but still needs a theology to back its morals and show it arises not out of mere universalist values but out of a desire to follow Jesus. And this theology needs to be done in the churches where pastors and laity can take ownership in this faith.

But what is the root of the problem today as the church wrestles now with the evil it has wrought throughout its history and especially in the 20th century. Cobb suggests the church has realized its evil comes not from a failure to live up to its high ideals but because of its conformity to them.

The question we must then ask in light of Cobb's words is, "Were our ideals really that high?" Isn't the problem that the church has defined its ideals through the ways of the nations of the world rather than the way of Christ? After all, if the Christians in Germany in the first part of the 20th century truly followed the Jesus that refused to take up arms against the Jews and Gentiles who were to execute him, could Hitler have had the clout to pull off the holocaust? If American Christians during that same point in history truly followed the Jesus who calls us to love our enemies, could the American government ever believe it could justify dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan?

Great works have been written on the concept of Jesus as Lord and Messiah. We have not, however, greatly applied these to the life of the church. Jesus is Lord, not Caesar. Jesus the Messiah is one who chose not to operate under worldly strutures of domination as the Jewish people expected him to do.

Then, why is the Christian community not appalled to hear President Obama declare in his inauguration that we will defeat our enemies. His emphasis in warfare may be different than the previous administration. However, it is still embracing the spirit of the nations of the world. How can we embrace capitalistic thinking that embraces trade agreements that exploit the poor both here and in other countries all in the name of competing on the global market? How can some branches of liberation thought believe militant action is justified?

Isn't it time we declare Jesus is Lord in the way he defined it? It is a risk of theology that will cause the decline of which Dr. Cobb speaks but will revitalize the church. This, I believe, is real Transforming Theology.

Good for George W Bush

2009-03-09T19:26:00.000-07:00

You know, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. However, I did not remain a supporter. I will not go in to detail right now because I write with a word of praise. I learned this weekend that the Bush Administration closed a loophole in sex trafficking laws last year. With the loophole closed, Americans can no longer travel to other countries to have sex with young girls without few of prosecution in the States. Granted, enforcement will be difficult, but it should provide a second thought for at least a few looking to take advantage of enslaved young girls in other countries.

With that in mind check out the International Justice Mission.

Lukewarmness in Many Forms

2009-03-05T19:48:00.000-08:00

John Cobb's Reclaiming the Church offers a diagnosis for what ails the church. It is the lukewarmness of Laodicea in Revelation 3. It is the absence of shared convictions. It is part of what the Transforming Theology Project is all about.

I've seen this myself in the church. We all so desperately want to be moved by the Spirit that, rather than truly wait for the Spirit, we equate the Spirit with whatever we get excited about. Our discernment is reduced to emotion. We fall in to the Enlightenment trap of chasing our own individual desires (work, family, friends) and miss out on the depth of community, justice, and real humanity the Creator calls us to embrace.

But this lukewarmness can be found in many forms. It can be found in churches where Cobb might see the strength of shared conviction. This is especially true where churches embracing the gospel and moving together are quite likely embracing an American gospel (Pax Americana) rather than a Christian gospel (Pax Christi). The result is that while their hearts seem to burn for their faith, whether or not Jesus is the priority is in question. Thus, their lukewarmness for Jesus is masked by their fire for their country.

A final form this lukewarmness takes is that articulated by Cobb: low expectations. This is found in some of the most compassionate people. They give their time and resources to charity because they know God calls them to be in solidarity with the vulnerable in society. It is to be commended because they are giving much more than most. Yet, they have trouble embracing the thought that the Spirit can move people together to overcome the systems of power that create the injustices they are responding to.

I can speak from experience because I am wrestling or have wrestled with all three of these forms of lukewarmness. It is as if I, along with many others, cannot believe the message artfully crafted in U2's Get Your Boots On.

The Financial and Ecological Crisis

2009-03-03T22:13:00.001-08:00

This brief discussion for the upcoming Transforming Theology conference on the economy shares some interesting thoughts from Dr. John Cobb.

As he comments that while he doesn't believe God will intervene to save us but is at work within us made me think of Walter Rauschenbusch and the social gospel. The social gospel made an important contribution to theology. However, it's application and development during the 20th century came close to removing God from the equation and believing that we ourselves can build the kingdom of God.

I prefer the thought of N. T. Wright. He explains we are called to work for justice and our work will serve as building blocks for the kingdom so as to not be discarded. However, the ultimate establishment of God's reign on earth in all its justice, beauty, and love does require the powerful return of the Messiah.

Cobb goes on to suggest true repentance in these times of economic uncertainty will, unfortunately, likely require a total collapse of all we have invested ourselves in. If this is true, I would say there is no more important task, other than finding repentance before it is our only option, is to reacquaint ourselves with the Old Testament prophets whose task was to warn of and help explain the total collapse of all the Jewish people had invested themselves in. For if Cobb is right, we will have our own wilderness and exile experiences to come to terms with.

However, before we start feeling sorry for ourselves. Let's remember suffering is relative. Are we suffering simply because we are being forced to give up some of our great American excess or because we have lost all that is necessary to survive? I was reminded of this by a report today on NPR explaining how the economic crisis traveled from the United States to Western Europe and then to Eastern Europe which will be hit the hardest because they have had to rely on the West for survival. And that won't compare to how parts of Asia and Africa may suffer.

As we reflect on these things, let us be reminded to be compassionate, no matter hard it gets. And be planning now to rediscover true humanity that deemphasizes material goods and emphasizes the kind of community that will prepare us to overcome whatever crises may arise.

Dallas Justice Revival

2009-03-01T19:42:00.000-08:00

Get Ready, get ready, get ready. A revival is coming. One that I hope and pray will take the DFW metroplex by storm. It is the Dallas Justice Revival led by Sojorners head Jim Wallis that will take place in the Fall.

It is his hope that all followers od Christ will be awakened the way many young evangelicals have been.

The crazy thing is about a month before I heard anything about this I had emailed Dr. Joerg Rieger at Perkins Divinity School at SMU suggesting that what we need to wake people up is an old school big tent revival calling people to seek justice. It will be sometime this Fall and I can't wait.

Justice Gets Complicated

2009-03-01T19:31:00.000-08:00

My wife and I decided to make efforts to be more environmentally responsible and help care for the creation God gave us. We're recycling more and more. Started using the long lasting light bulbs in our house. Bought cars that achieve at least mildly better gas mileage than others in their class.

And recently we bought some reusable grocery bags to help spare the landfill all that non-biodegradeable plastics. Except upon closer inspection, we discovered they were made in China, meaing probably a sweatshop.

Well, crap. You try to be environmentally just and further compromise your desire for global economic justice.

Politics and the Reign of God

2009-02-16T21:17:00.000-08:00

So my brother-in-law Brandon and I had a discussion yesterday we've had a few times. We discussed how the church in America is more American than Christian. This came out of an observation of the kind of persecution Christians in a place like India have been known to suffer and wondering why we have it so easy.

My assertion is if you live in a society in which Hindu extremists play a part, your belief in Christ challenges their spirituality. To proclaim Jesus is Lord is to challenge the caste system which is integral to their life. After all, if in Jesus, there is no slave of free, no Jew or Gentile, no male or female, the religious and political powers that sustain the caste system are declared null and void as Jesus is declared the one Lord of the world.

I would follow this up by stating we have made the mistake as Christians of allowing American powers to operate as synonymous with Christian and have thus baptized the actions of our government. This idolatry has made us blind to the injustices of our nation.

If, indeed, Jesus is Lord, then America (be it the White House, Congress, the Pentagon) is not. The question then becomes where does our allegiance lie? America or Jesus? If we truly answer, "Jesus," then our spirituality will be likely to challenge that of the religious and political powers of our day in a way that would make our lives much less comfortable.

Now Brandon and I are in agreement up to this point. It is when I take this thought beyond the idea of simply living differently to being a people that calls on the nations to repent that we disagree. This gets us involved in politics which makes many uncomfortable and which others view as hopeless.

The discomfort comes from the fact that the Enlightenment has attempted to move religion out of the public sphere and made it difficult to see how integrated religious and political thought in the ancient world and the thought of Jesus and the prophets who proceeded him was.

The feeling of hopelessness comes from the belief that we will never be able to overcome all the injustice in this world.

To the discomfort, I would simply say it is time we rediscover that church, savior, lord, faith, and numerous other terms found in the New Testament were political terms that carried great weight and a challenge to Jewish and Roman ways of life. To say "Jesus is Lord," is to say "Caesar is not," and to call the world to the Pax Christi (peace of Christ) as opposed to the Pax Romana. When we start to understand this and take the message of the prophets to the nations seriously, we start to understand that there is more to it than forming a Christian ghetto that reaches beyond itself with charity and evangelism. It is about preaching a message of justice to the nations and calling them to justice while seeking daily to stop being complicit in the unjust benefits of our nations' abuses of power.

To the hopelessness, I would simply say you are right. We will not achieve the absolute end of injustice in the world. That was the mistake of the social gospel that assumed we ourselves would establish the Reign of God on earth as it is in Heaven. That will come in the climatic return of Jesus establishing that reign. We are, however, called as post-resurrection people to build toward that kingdom by opposing injustice by non-violent means, as Jesus did, in an effort to establish building blocks toward the establishment of the kingdom until Jesus returns.

The church is at its best when we realize that we are nation among nations and daringly declare that Jesus is the one Lord of the world. We are that nation's ambassadors and our churches are its embassies who call the nations in which we reside to repent and seek the salvation of those who the nations exploit and abuse while understanding there is salvation of the nation that repents like Nineveh in the book of Jonah.

This is a much more complex subject than be laid out in a single blog, but those are my thoughts this night.

Two Calls for Peacemaking

2009-02-10T12:15:00.000-08:00

This past Sunday, I led a discussion on God's love focusing on the book of Hosea. We discussed the metaphor that comes from Hosea's call to marry a promiscuous woman and how his unrelenting love for her despite her infidelity was symbolic of God's love for faithless Israel.

The discussion ended by focusing on Hosea 2:16-20 and asking the question if the language concerning God "abolishing war from the land" and "taking her as his bride in righteousness and justice" was only referring to a promise of God to his people if they accept the love he offers or if it is a call to his people as part of the life they are to live if they love God.

When you consider the book focuses on abolishing Canaanite religion and linking that to injustice and the reliance on military might and alliances for deliverance rather than depending on Yahweh alone the answer seems to be clear.

A similar thought crossed my mind yesterday in watching the movie The Kingdom. You watch this film in which an FBI squad goes into Saudi Arabia to investigate a terrorist attack on a US compound there and it becomes quite compelling.

It is a relatively intelligent film but it appears to be your typical action film with gunfire and explosions to get the viewers' juices flowing and in which the US heroes stand victorious. But then it turns.

Following the terrorist attack which opened the film, we see a meeting of FBI agents in the States. A female agent who was a dear friend of an agent killed in the attack is in tears until her fellow agent and superior whispers something in her ear.

As similar scene occurs with a young Saudi Arabian boy when his grandfather, who was the mastermind behind the attacks and was just shot, delivers a personal, whispered message as he passes.

The film ends by revealing that both messages were the same: "Don't worry. We will kill them all."

The message of the film is chilling. The actions of both sides are worthless. This endless cycle of violence will continue unendingly until humanity either destroys itself or a group rises above the violence.

Where else can we find this model, if not in the person of the one we call Savior and Lord, who laid down his life and was executed by the authorities without violent resistance as a call to a new way of life.

Dr. Randall Balmer, author of God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush made that point clear in an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He said we haven't pursued the question of a president's faith far enough. For example, President Bush had said in campaigns that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. He then asked why it was, following September 11, 2001, the White House wasn't questioned about their actions in light of the fact the president's favorite philosopher had called his people to love their enemies and be peacemakers.

Perhaps similar reflection is needed as we reflect on President Obama's inauguration speech as contrasted with Elizabeth Alexander's poem on love and Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction.

So can we, as followers of Christ, embrace the role of the world's peacemakers and demonstrate the hope that comes from the sacrifice of joining the reign of God?

The Meaning of Christmas

2009-01-31T19:30:00.000-08:00

I'm several weeks late directing you to this article "Peace on Earth" but it's worth looking at this alternate reading of Christmas.

You'll have to enter your email address and look for the article by title.

Keep this in mind as we move toward Lent.

Temptation of Jesus

2009-01-30T12:28:00.000-08:00

I’ve come across a couple of readings of the temptation of Jesus recently that have intrigued me. I thought I’d share them:

Unmasking the Powers by Walter Wink

This book left my head spinning in a good way. It begins with Wink looking at how the understanding of Satan evolved through the history of Scripture and beyond. This being/idea began as part of the heavenly hosts and was a viewed as God’s sifter who presented tests to his humanity to separate the wheat and the chaff.

However, as the Jewish people began to rethink their understanding of God as behind all good and evil, Satan began to take on a more prominent role as adversary. However, it is most likely after the biblical account closes that Satan is finally seen as evil personified.

Wink says Satan, in the gospels, is adversary. Satan, through Jewish tradition, is offering Jesus a quick fix. He can turn stones into bread to feed the masses and start a movement. Satan then uses Scripture to tempt him again to prove he is the Son of God by casting himself off the temple, perhaps alluding to Malachi 3:1-4. Then, Satan tempts him with the leadership of a Jewish empire ruling over all nations having overthrown Rome.

Wink concludes of Satan:

“He is no archfiend seducing Jesus with offers of love, wealth and carnal pleasures. Satan’s task is much more subtle…Satan offers him, in short, not outright evils, but the highest goods known to Israel. That is when the satanic is most difficult to discern- when it offers the good instead of the best.

The question to us becomes, “What traditional ‘goods’ are keeping us from the post-resurrection ‘Best’?”

Then take John Howard Yoder’s Politics of Jesus.

Yoder begins with the announcement at the baptism that Jesus is the Son of God, which he says,” is not the definition or accreditation of a metaphysically defined status of sonship, it is a summons to a task.”

Thus, “The tempter’s hypothetical syllogism ‘If you are the Son of God, then…’ is reasoning not from a concept of metaphysical sonship but from kingship”

Yoder goes on to state the temptation in Luke begins with the economic option, not a concern of Jesus feeding himself. A miraculous banquet supplied by turning stones into bread would yield him great power.

The second temptation is to be an imperial ruler. Bowing the knee before Satan is embracing the “idolatrous character of political power hunger and nationalism.”

Yoder then states that the pinnacle of the temple is about much more than Jesus taking a leap of faith. Two possibilities of meaning exist within the history of Jewish thought in the image of the pinnacle of the temple. One is that being thrown from the tower in the temple into the Kidron valley outside the temple was the punishment for blasphemy. Jesus may have been tempted to seek miraculous deliverance from the penalty for his claims to divine authority and kingship.

The second is the descent of an apparition within the temple which Wink too directed us to in Malachi 3. Jesus may have considered stopping at being an unheralded religious reformer and heavenly messenger and taking the violent path of many a “messiah” before and after him. Even here, the ultimate expectation is that the victory would mean the messiah wouldn’t die for his claims but his enemies would.

The question for Yoder would be, “Would Jesus follow the way of the kings of the world through all history in their thirst for personal and nationalistic power or as king of the world be the “bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships.”

So are we stuck living in the now or bearing the new possibility of humanity?

It’s a lot to work through, but give some thought and let me know what you think.

Peace Is the Way

2009-01-25T13:33:00.000-08:00

This is the title of a recent book by philosopher Deepak Chopra. He has submitted a memo to President Obama seeking to apply his thoughts on peace to converting America's economy to a peace economy. You can see it here:

Now I know I'm biased toward Jesus, and don't seek to strip Chopra as a purveyor of truth per se, but it is a shame some such work has not come from Christian leaders. We follow Jesus who called us to be peacemakers and who was prophesied by Isaiah who looked to the day when we would beat our swords into plowshares. Yet, our high profile Christian leaders fail to call for peace.

Instead, we see the United States as justified in its violence with no eye toward how our past violence led to this present violence. Until Christians recover their tradition of being a people who refuse to take up arms because they follow the one who was executed and refused to take up arms, we will find little of the hope we are promised. It is time to make peace. It is time to use our creative minds not to speak of Just War, but to dream dreams of peace, even if it cost us dearly.

And don't be mistaken. It is not passively standing by. It is discipleship that is willing to courageously lose our lives so we may be saved.

Immigrants in North Texas

2008-05-14T19:00:00.000-07:00

In this election year, we have heard great quantities of propaganda, much of which is directed at immigrants, especially those that are undocumented. Many have used heartless words such as illegal and lawbreakers to identify these immigrants in perpetuating the propoganda machine.

Now, I understand some of the histeria that has led cities like Irving, Texas, and Farmers Branch, Texas, to push so hard to resolve their own immigrant "problems". And now Carrollton, Texas, is looking to partner with Farmers Branch in their efforts. After all, we've been told by people in power that these people are drug dealers, terrorists, and job stealers. And we're reminded that there are laws to regulate immgration that these "illegal" immigrants so willfully ignore.

In joining the hysteria, we tell ourselves we do not break laws (how often do you speed to get somewhere increasing the likliehood of a dangerous accident). In this we fail to put ourselves in the immigrant's shoes.

Do you think people go around looking to uproot themselves and their families from their homelands? Would you? Exactly. These are folks that are desperate. They're under oppression. They and their children are starving while their homes decay around them. If your children were in this situation would you stay put? Would you allow US immigration laws to keep you from crossing the border? Would you wait for the red tape to be crossed while your family starves? Probably not.

We also fail to remember that American borders are drawn in the blood of the genocide of Native Americans. We fail to remember that slavery, a practice of Americans invited by Mexico to settle in Texas, and not just religious freedom was a major factor in the Texas Revolution. We forget that immigration laws are written to protect what we took unjustly and to protect an excess of resources we have in this country. After all we have 300,000,000 Americans out of a global population of over 6,000,000,000 and yet consume over 30% of the earth's resources.

And then we fail to hear the call of the gospel and the numerous passages throughout the Bible instructing us to welcome the stranger. Or alien or sojourner, etc., depending on your Bible translation. This call is out of the recognition that immigrants are among the most vulnerable and in the most need like the orphan and the widow.

So let's consider there's more to the conversation here. Let's welcome the starnger with the love of Christ Jesus who lived a life of making himself vulnerable in confronting the powers that be.

Are We Guilty of the Sin of Regression?

2007-01-03T21:12:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing the 20th century and the early part of the 21st century has proven, it's that the tenet of continuous progress, whether based on faith, technology, society, or science is a myth. What other conclusion is there after two world wars, two holocausts, and the raging ideological warfare between the West and the Middle East?

Let's face it. Preaching to people that life will obviously get better if you believe in Christ just holds little water. And fewer and fewer people are buying into the escapist theology that teaches we must simply bear what this life brings and look forward to the afterlife where all will be well.

So does the gospel say anything meaningful? Is there something it says that can be radically positive and life-changing?

Well, I find it meaningful, but not in the previously mentioned categories of belief. I have become more and more convinced in viewing the gospel another way: the struggle between progress and regression.

Look at God's mode of being as future. I take this from German theologian Jurgen Moltmann. He says that God's mode of being is future and God calls us to join God there. Now, you could use this bare thought in the previously mentioned theologies. In my thinking it works much different.

God has called us to progress. To move closer and closer to how he would have us live, laying aside ourselves for one another. Unfortunately, humans and humanity as a whole often fail at this. We are guilty of the sin of regression. This goes all the way back to creation in Genesis. God had called the earth from the chaos of uncreation and nonexistence. Humanity, instead of trusting the the creator and the creator's order, tried to be like God and chose to thrust itself back into chaos. Thus, the first sinful act of regression.

God, in his love, has called humanity to progress ever since. Humanity, in its free will, responds to God's grace and makes great strides. Other times, though, it rebels and takes great strides backwards.

This struggle demonstrates itself in the constant struggle between greed and giving. Justice and injustice. Grace and self-righteousness. Marital fidelity and adultery. War and peace. Hate and love. And so on and so forth.

God, indeed intervenes throughout history calling us into the future when his way prevails. But he refuses to coerce, thus leaving space for continued regression in all its forms.

It is my hope when can embrace willful progression and see the Kingdom of God in all its fullness.

Golden Rule Ethics vs. Free Market Capitalism Ethics

2006-12-18T21:43:00.000-08:00

Robert Parham's Wal-Mart Interview (CNBC)

As I begin this blog, please know I have learned something about myself. I lean on the website ethicsdaily.com too heavily in generating ideas for this blog. It's not that I do not read other sources, but I do gravitate to that site a great deal and it shows in this blog. And the last thing I want to be is someone's sounding board. I will work to broaden this blog's horizons and increase credibility.

That being said, the above video, while disturbing in many ways, sets forth the current debate about Wal-Mart. It is a debate, as I stated yesterday, that needs to take more than Wal-Mart into consideration. That debate is which ethic is closer to Christ. Is it the Golden Rule ethic set forth by Baptist Center for Ethics executive director Robert Parham? Or the Free Market Capitalism ethic set forth by Greater Bible Way Temple of the Apostolic Faith's pastor and National Republican Committee member Ira Combs?

Now try to get past the propaganda. On one hand, you have Parham's almost-Republican appeal to thinking of the children and asking if it insults God to to be a Wal-Mart patron. On the other, Combs says free market capitalism is a biblical idea and claiming this is not a theological question but of an ideology that has more in common with union backers, socialists, and communists than it does the free market.

There is an important issue here. What is the driving ethic? Now I believe capitalism as practiced today is a system that is mostly selfish. I view it mostly about the profit margin and little about respecting humanity. I hear Wal-Mart is averaging $10/hour for its employees. I hear over 700,000 Wal-Mart employees have no insurance coverage. But there will be no true dialogue until the parties are open about how they arrive at these numbers. Remember, average income could be be skewed by the income of upper managers. Also, the number of uninsured could be blurred by including teenage workers in the mix.

But I do see definite flaws in free market capitalism. Capitalism, in relation to other ways of life, may seem like the best option. But this is a system that allows us to say someone creates jobs for those in poverty, even if it does not exactly remove them from poverty. Their life may be better than it was, but it is not just. Just would be a laborer working hours conducive to being a parent, while having equal access to health care, and being able to provide for the entirety of his/her family's basic needs.

I can't say the free market allows justice. It simply allows charity. Paying above minimum wage is not the answer. Paying a living wage is. So maybe where to shop is not the question to ask. Mzybe the question to ask is if we are willing to pay a little more and live with a little less so others (men, women, and children) can have lives that had previously evaded them.

Now, we are not talking about socialism or capitalism. Those are manmade ideas and easily corrutped. This is the Golden Rule principle. In fact, it is a principle beyond that that calls to sacrifice for your fellow human being.

I believe it is a principle discussed at length in the prophets and by Jesus in the gospels. Indeed, it's a principle prominent in Kingdom of God language. So I lean beyond the Golden Rule. I lean on a principle that requires sacrifice. A sacrificial willingness to overhaul our current way of life for the good of all. A sacrificial willingness to lay down hateful proganda and speak to one another with respect to discover together that better way.

Is Wal-Mart a Sleeping Giant?

2006-12-17T19:09:00.000-08:00

During the Christmas season talk of controversy usually centers on the mythical "War on Christmas." This season has seen a couple of new entries: the Left Behind video game (see this blog on November 30, 2006) and the "Wake up Wal-Mart" campaign.

The "Wake-up" campaign has been joined by a group of moderate Baptist pastors who have signed an open letter to the corporate icon asking for better treatment of their employees. The letter also includes the John Hancocks of ministers from other denominational bodies as well.

The face of the Christian voice of the campaign is Joe Phelps, pastor of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He has gone before the cameras to answer tough questions and face the ridicule of a number of pundits.

Neil Cavuto of Fox News had Phelps on recently berating the pastor about how it is horrible to bring this up during Christmas and unfair to bring Jesus into the argument. Phelps adeptly, though talking to a brick wall, demonstarted that Mary's magnificat, the namesake of this blog, speaks of a savior coming who will lift up the poor and "leave the wealthy empty."

Cavuto did his pundit thing a brief moment longer and then dismissed Phelps, following the interview with interviews of four people who conveniently agreed with his position. One of these four even referred to Phelps as a "nutjob." David Kuo's book seems to ring true in this case when it come to the GOP and religion.

Needless to say, I believe the gospel of Jesus and the message of the prophets is a great deal about economic justice. Without it, there is no gospel. I can back the movement on that point, as well as a number of the issues they raise in how Wal-Mart does business.

Despite that, I have trouble supporting this movement. I viewed their ad and, instead of coming across as deeply troubled religious leaders, the ad gives an air of arrogance to the campaign. It states selective factoids without any explanation of what they mean. This comes across to me as propagandic and not facilitating productive dialogue.

And looking to the website for elaboration is not much better. A number of salient points are made on the site. However, their are other points that can be easily refuted and numbers put forth without clarifying if the group has made the effort to differentiate between the teenage worker and the adult worker with a fmaily to support.

Also, asking people whether or not they should shop at Wal-Mart is really just a not so cleverly disguised way to ask for people to boycott the retail king. Again, I don't find this productive. True, it is vital that businesses treat their employees justly, including labor being rewarded with a sustainable life. This includes living wages, fair and decent hours and pay, and access to quality medical care.

However, to call for a boycott could ultimately hurt those you are trying to help. Now, I assume this is not a movement large enough to do any real damage to Wal-Mart's bottom line. But, say it is. You make your point. Wal-Mart is financially hurt. But, they respond by laying off the workers you attempted to provide a better life for through this campaign.

I simply believe boycott is something to use very selectively. Alabama bus boycott. Che Guevara. These were effective actions at important times. But is the time right for this?

I say no. The public support isn't there for it. And it puts up a wall between advocate and target. It, also, covertly seeks to define one group as good and the other as evil. But consider that those lines are not always drawn as clearly as one might think.

True, Wal-Mart's business practices, for many, do little to help the employee escape poverty. This is a grave concern for a working class in some sense enslaved by market forces leading them to work for whoever will hire them with no real voice to be compensated more justly.

But is Wal-Mart's upper management not enslaved by the market as well. They are chided by their stock holders to compete. To make money. Raising pay limits that. The uncontrollable hike in medical costs and the costs of living make that even more difficult. So management makes decisions based on that pressure. Sure, these are often selfish decisions, but often the product of the slavery of wealth and power. And I acknowledge this form of "slavery" is not equivalent to that of poverty.

Instead of drawing lines between good and evil, the sides need to talk. Continue to shop at Wal-Mart, but explain you are a concerned consumer who is willing to pay a little more for their products so their employees can lead a viable life. Buy voting stock in the company and attend stock holders' meetings to work from the inside, of course not caring how much your stock rises or falls. These might be more constructive approaches in the name of justice.

And this is not to deny that there is injustice in Wal-Mart's actions. But I do believe there are more productive ways to solve this problem. And why, ultimately, single out Wal-Mart. Because of this, you give them free publicity. Why not be sure to make it clear that many of Wal-Mart's problems being protested plague much of corporate America, especially the retail industry.

Because, we can continue to flail away for justice or seek healthier, more creative ways, to bring it about and find salvation not only for the oppressed, but for the oppressor.

Interesting Article from a Christian Ethicist

2006-12-14T21:21:00.000-08:00

Miguel de la Torre is a christian ethicist I have grown to admire. His works delve into Liberation Theology and understanding the gospel from the viewpoint pushed to the edges of society.

This article gives a stirring account of the United States connection to the bloody reign of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

Chuck, Stick with the Total Gym or Check Your Facts

2006-12-14T21:05:00.000-08:00

Read an article recently discussing how Chuck Norris has taken up political commentary in Worldnetdaily.com, a conservative website that helped launch the career of Bill O'Reilly and other prominent political pundits.

Norris stresses his religious side in speaking in favor of such things as Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument while speaking against "perpetrators" of the War on Christmas and claiming ACLU stands for Abolishing Christian Legacy Union.

On that last point, I suggest Mr. Norris check his facts. Seems he is another in a long line of pundits who select their data carefully to attack the ACLU and rally their "base." This is generally due to the fact that conservative Christians have trouble understanding why we should be tolerant of other religions.

Yet, consider the town of Frenchtown, New Jersey. Seems a girl in a public school wanted to sing Rich Mullins' "Awesome God" in the school talent show. The principal prevented it saying the song was the equivalent of a spoken prayer in a public school.

The parents took the school to court and guess who was one of the parties on the family's side: the ACLU. And this is not the first time they took up the cause of a Christian individual or group. Just the most recent.

So, Chuck, consider that the roundhouse kick to your intellectual head.

Peacemaking and Anti-Semitism

2006-12-12T21:08:00.000-08:00

Two pieces of news over the last two weeks concerning Israel have peaked my interest. One challenges Israel and its supporters. One, on its face, is simply proof of an utter disregard for the Jewish people.

The first piece of news was the release of Jimmy Carter's new book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. According to intereviews the former president has participated in, this book is call to Israel and its supporters to take a long, hard look at both sides of the Israeli-Palestine struggle. It is a challenge for Israel to recognize its own evils as well as those of the Palestinians.

He goes on to support the formation of a free Palestinian state minus any wall hemming the Palestinians in an apartheid-type fashion. For now, the situation leaves that people in poverty with no way to leave the region and look for more resources or opportunity.

Admittedly, Carter has come under serious fire in both religious and political fire for his lack of total, blind support for Israel. Yet, he stands by an approach that is very similar to the one he backed as President when he helped jumpstart a peace process in 1978.

He is accused of irresponsibly changing his views because as a presidential candidate he said he would not recognize the PLO but now says we need to send the Palestinian people aid though they voted for members of Hamas. However, I would not take this as support of Hamas so much as support for the people in the West Bank who are dying in myriad ways.

Also, because he admits Israel has failings, some have called him anti-semitic.

Carter's is one of compassion. One of peacemaking, as difficult as the process may be. It is one of committing to tearing down the walls of hate no matter how daunting or risky a task that may be. It is one of a country looking at the speck in its one eye before blowing the plank out of its neighbors.

But not is not to be flippant about Israel's position. There's is tenuous at best. They are virtually surrounded by people who state they want Israel gone. There existence is volatile. The situation difficult. But it is important for Israel to see ways in which they have surpassed trying to defend their existence and have become an oppressor in at least a few ways.

But this is something both sides must do, and something former president Bill Clinton found difficult to acheive while in office. But it is one of the difficult steps to peacemaking set forth in Glen Stassen's Just Peacemaking: that being the need to identify each other's legitimate concerns. This often leads to humanizing the parties toward one another and opens up dialogue.

I believe this is what Carter calls Israel and Palestine to do. He is hardly an Anti-Semite.

On the other hand, this week Iran staged a conference in which "scholars" including the like of Iran's president Ahmanimajad and former KKK member/presidential candidate David Duke discussed the holocaust as a myth. It even includes an ironically anti-Israel, ultra-conservative Jewish group.

Now speakers at the conference say it is not a simple denial of the holocaust but also looks at the potential exaggeration of the events of the holocaust. Conference leaders even go so far as to say there were no gas chambers at the death camps.

Even if that were true, they were still called death camps for a reason, right?

This is cleary hate-driven Anti-Semitism. As if to say there's a non-hateful bigotry. The event of the holocaust is so clear to people like me who weren't even alive at the time. If you meet a Jewish family who didn't have direct ancestors killed in the holocaust, you should enter the lottery because you just beat significant odds.

I'm sure we could point out plenty of reasons to hate Israel...Palestine...Iran...Or the United States for that matter. But that is not God's way, no matter what disturbingly mistaken purveyors of the major world religions would have you believe.

So , while Carter rightly calls on Israel to see the wrongs it has committed in this process, it is time those guilty of hate speech for the purpose of forcibly securing the "Holy Land" take a serious self-inventory. Such propaganda is of the purest evil and does not lend itself to peace. It is a power-driven religio-political statement seeking to rile up the masses to help one maintain and acquire power, something of which, if we fail to give up, will prevent us from ever experiencing peace on earth.

Blow Them Away in the Name of the Lord?

2006-11-30T19:19:00.000-08:00

You may have heard Jerry Falwell say something very similar to the title above in the run up to the US's most recent Iraq War. You may have heard other leaders of the Religious Right make statements that at least hinted at the same idea. Next it could be coming to a PC near you.

That's right. Just in time for the holidays, we get the Left Behind video game. This game has a twisted premise. A "Christian" militia goes through New York City, I believe post-rapture (for those who believe in such an event), to either convert or kill the non-believers. You can read more about it here.

For a response to the negative coverage the game has received, you can see it at the games' official site. Now, I read the response and it seems to make a response without addressing the real outcry. It says there is no blood or gore. The problem is, just because you don't depict bleeding when people are shot and killed doesn't make the content any more acceptable. The gaming company also claims there is no first person involvement with the killing. It is a strategy game so the gamer only makes decisions that sets things in motion. Well, does that mean we should proclaim Saddam Hussein innocent of his fellow Iraqi's blood?

No! It also doesn't mean this game has no harmful message it will be teaching the gaming youth. If people are going to decry games like Grand Theft Auto for what they potentially teach young children, don't justify this game simply because it uses "biblical references", and badly interpreted references at that.

The good news is there are Christians across the board (liberal, moderate, and conservative) speaking out against the game. The bad news is it exists with a message of hate while claiming the Jesus of Love.

Now, despite the fact I graduated from a conservative Christian university, I never read this series, though at one time I celebrated its existence. This means I don't know if the game is consistent with the series. It's certainly true, however, that if the gaming company is using the franchise, then authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are familiar with its content and endorse it proudly.

That fact suggests to me they endorse what is depicted in the game and the hate it projects toward non-Christians. It's a violent hate that makes the game just that.

A New Kind of King? (John 18:33-38)

2006-11-26T19:33:00.000-08:00

Today was Christ the King Sunday. This can be a difficult Sunday as King language is loaded in today's context. With it, people reflect on religious manipulation, faith oppression, etc., which have pushed them away from the church. Besides that, in this age, king and kingdom language is quite outdated and, thus frequently misunderstood.

But put in the context in which this conversation between Jesus and Pilate took place and the context in which the Gospel of John was written, we see how charged and how vital this language was.

The Jewish authorities have brought Jesus before Pilate on the charge of blasphemy and seeking he be sentenced to the death penalty. It is a historically established tenet that the Jews, while their law required execution in certain instances, could not legally execute someone, though there were also times they bypassed that requirement. They had to go through the Roman in charge: Pontius Pilate.

Pilate was the governor in charge of the region of Judea and answered directly to the emperor. His main charge as governor was to keep order in the region, one containing a deeply religious people who often times would act out in violence in an effort to evict the Romans from the Holy Land.

The Passover was the time most likely to result in uprising. Thousands upon thousands of Jews flocked to the city for the special day and Pilate would visit to keep a close eye on the situation setting the stage for tension and violence between the Jewish people and their occupiers.

It is in this setting Pilate examines Jesus. Jesus never outright claims to be a king to Pilate. But notice as he explains that those who belong to the truth listen to his voice. This correlates directly with Jesus' Good Shepherd discourse in chapter 10. The shepherd metaphor was used in direct reference to a king at the time. This was surbordinate speech. It was the speech of a revolutionary leader.

So that makes us uncomfortable. Jesus is a king? Someone who will Lord power over us and coerce us once the revolution is complete?

Absoltuely not. Notice the differences between the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God. Jesus has not trained and led a military uprising. His followers have not taken up arms and stormed Pilate's castle to save him. Instead he has submitted, committed to peace, and is willing to die without resistance.

Also, he does not coerce, or manipulate, or guilt people to follow him. He simply testifies to the truth and allows his hearers to decide whether or not to follow. You may recall how he shared with his followers that they are no longer called servants (kingdoms of the world) but are now called friends (kingdom of God).

You see, his people set the stage for their religious and political fiasco years before. As recorded in 1 Samuel, God pleads with his people to forego their request for a king, advising that they not be like the other nations, but seek a higher ground. They insisted and the stage was set for coming exile. If only they had chosen the kingdom of God.

Thankfully, Jesus chose the kingdom of God. Instead of violent resisitance, he chose another way. His death exposed the evil of the powers of the Jewish authorities and Roman occupiers. His resurrection demonstrated that the powers of the world are powerless to stop the kingdom of God.

What if Jesus had chosen violence? Consider the scenario in light of the current Iraq War. In Iraq, you have the Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims as the main players. These two groups hate each other to the depths. The only group they hate more is the USA who they now view as an occupying force. Bloodshed continues beyond what anyone imagined going in as all the players fight for power.

In Jerusalem in the first century, you had the Jewish authorities with their followers and the followers of Christ. They despised one another. I believe Jesus, while exposing hypocrisy, loved his Jewish foes but his followers did not quite grasp that. The only group they hated more was their Roman occupier. If Jesus had resisted, the movement may have been wiped out in an unimaginable three-way blood letting before it ever really began. Sure enough, decades later, violent resistance led to the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem.

Does this suggest something to us as we consider international relations? Does war bring peace or does insisting on being peaceful bring peace? I think it's clear by my choice of words which way I lean. I invite you to ponder that and decide what you believe.

What does this tell us about our personal lives? Is life better lived trading offense for offense? Insult for insult? Or shall we rebuff ill intentions with disarming love? How different would our lives be then?

Because I believe they could be radically different. Christ invites us to follow him and join the one, true world superpower and see how radically different this world can be.

Let's Not Pile on Haggard!

2006-11-03T23:05:00.000-08:00

I'm sure you heard the story this week of Ted Haggard, the recently-resigned president of the National Association of Evangelicals who has been accused of soliciting male prostitutes this week.

I'm sure the first reaction is to broach the subject with all the verbal intensity one can muster with cries of hypocrisy or roars of laughter that this happens to a group aligned with the religious right.

But, as you consider your reaction, please consider the man caught in these allegations is a human being, created by God. Remember that maybe we do not know all the facts. That we have not walked in his shoes.

First, consider the possibility that the allegations are an absolute farce that are intended to cause harm to Haggard himself or Evangelicals as a whole. I've haven't carefully reviewed all the evidence or what's been said. I do know Haggard resigned while claiming he never did what he's accused of doing. I also know the accuser claims to have recordings of phone calls Haggard made to him to solicit sex. But I can't say for certain what happened.

Second, and this is vital if these accusations are true, consider the potential anguish Haggard faced in his life. What if he has been wrestling with homosexual tendencies and self hatred his entire life? If he's grown up a Christian conservative believing that homosexuality is among the worst sins, but is gay, that would be sheer torment. Years of prayer and determination to be straight would only add to the pain. His self repulsion could be the very reason he has preached so strongly against hommosexuality and opposed gay marriage.

This would result in a self-denial that could well lead one to satisfy desires privately and illegally so no one would know the real person. One certainly would not have anyone in their inner circle to confide in, one could not pursue companionship publicly, and one couldn't hope to ever be in a committed marriage relationship, so one's options would be limited and desperation would certainly grow.

And I assume he is married with children that only makes matters harder to deal with for Haggard and his family. Consider having to go home to your wife after these allegations are aired publicly. Having to address your children whom you have probably instructed to believe the things you have preached. Talk about devastation.

So as you consider your reaction to Ted Haggard, remember in a time when people will want to make him an object and isolate him, he needs to be embraced and allowed to belong.

No Blind Potential (Mark 10:46-52)

2006-10-27T21:50:00.000-07:00

An elderly man sits on a porch in a rural town with a broken, jagged stick. What others might see as waste, he sees as an intricate carving.

A songwriter seeks rest at the end of an emotionally draining day. What others see as a bad day, she sees as the source of a heartfelt lyric.

Martin Luther King, Jr., lived in the Deep South. Where others saw the way things were and would always be, he saw integration and equality.

Mother Teresa went to India. Where others saw the sick and demented to be cast into the gutter, she saw a church.

Bartimeas had heard of Jesus. He knew where others saw a blind, good-for-nothing beggar, Jesus would see a child of God. He longed to be in Jesus' presence the way the Rich Man had, but the crowd prevented him the way they did the little children. But, like with the little children, Jesus insisted he be granted passage.

This story is full of potential. The potential both Bartimeas and Jesus saw for a man struck with blindness to be restored to wholeness. The refusal to accept things the way they were and imagine something new.

And this story sets the stage for Jesus to unveil something new. Having turned toward Jerusalem, Jesus was now in Jericho, 15 miles northeast of that city. And notice. No longer does Jesus silence those he aids the way he has in the earlier parts of this book. He does not rebuke Bartimeas for proclaiming him the Son of David. The stage is set for the story's climax.

He is headed toward the Holy City with his rag tag band of followers for the Passover to confront the old with the new. The confront the religious and political leaders of his day with the potential of what he called the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of justice...compassion...peace. He and his followers, though they were not yet sure what was about to happen, dared to see potential.

Where others created and saw a world ruled by power, they saw, and sought to create, a world ruled by grace.

And it is true, as we contrast the Rich Man and Bartimeas, it is easier to dream when we have nothing to leave behind. Nonetheless, experiencing the life of Christ confronts us with a question. Can we dream? Will we live by fate powerfully forced upon us? Or will we live by grace in faith which powerfully delivers? Will we accept the world, our lives, and the lives of those around us as they are? Or will we dare to see potential?

Lord or Servant?- Mark 10:35-45

2006-10-22T20:36:00.000-07:00

We, like the apostles, so often misunderstand who Jesus is and was. Here, James and John are still expecting a military revolt, led by Jesus, who would then take the throne in Jerusalem. Ironic, in that he had, according to Mark's arrangement, just predicted his death, but this is what they thought.

After all, following a lengthy sojourn in the countryside, perhaps hiding out, Jesus was well on his way to returning to the center of it all. All political and religious tension that faced his followers centered in Jerusalem. Surely they were headed that way to confront the powers that be and force them out of the holy city and the temple. And James and John wanted to be his trusted advisors.

But Jesus reminds them of the hard times ahead. and tells them the key to greatness is not in lording power over one another, but serving one another.

I wonder, how much easier could our lives be if we handled conflict differently? You have an argument with someone. What's the tendency? The volume and the intensity increases as one party tries to outsmart, outargue, and outyell the other party. Often, irreparable damage is done to the relationship. To the victor goes the spoils and the parties go their separate ways. If the duel is not so bad to end a relationship, it definitely changes the bond between the parties involved.

I'm married, so I know a good deal about conflict. It's part of two people continually becoming one and having to adjust their way of life for one another. I've seen how that conflict gets resolved in a negative way and, it seems like everything is good, but deep hurt continues to fester under the surface. One spouse feels taken advantage of. The other feels unappreciated. These suppressed feelings come back to the surface making each conflict worse until it either blows up for good or one or both spouses sacrifice their own selfish needs to understand and meet the real needs of the other. Only then, is true peace acheived. Thankfully, my wife and I have been able to do this before it was too late. But it's a continual challenge with each new problem.

What if, instead of lording our power over one another, or striving to be seen as right or better, we sought to serve one another? Instead of being the alpha dog in a relationship, we became servants to one another.

People may view you as weak, but they'll view you in peace. And that's not to say we simply roll over even if the other party is clearly in the wrong. But we seek peaceful resolutions to conflict. In fact, laying ourselves aside for others would greatly reduce the occurence of conflict and anger in our lives and in the lives of those around us.

This is something the writers of the biblical narrative came to understand. Early on, say the books of Joshua and Judges, they viewed God on their side. God, in his great power, would destroy those in conflict with them and give them victory and salvation. In the great flood of Genesis, he lorded his power over the earth punishing humanity for its rebellion.

What we see in Jesus is vastly different. This is not the creator of lording power. This is the servant savior. He wasn't completely understood in his time but by the time the gospels were written, it was mostly understood. God would not destroy humanity for its rebellion. God chose to suffer to free humanity from its own rebellion. The suffering of Jesus exposed the great evil that is humanity trying to be its own god and exposed the overwhelming grace that God offers in its wake.

Now, take that a little further. We face a great ideological conflict in this world today. It centers mainly in the Middle East with some spill over into the Far East. The nations and paranation organizations have a choice. Do business as nations have throughout history. Lord your military and political power over one another so the only resolution to conflict is annihilation of the other, while taking on a great deal of your own suffering.

Or, seek to be a servant to all. Risk appearing weak by making the first great good faith gesture toward the other nation or group. Instead of blowing up hate with hate. Disarm hate with compassion. Does this seem illogical? Well, no one's really tried it. Seems we're stuck on a scratched track with the sounds of war repeating over and over despite proclamations of peace.

But why should the most powerful nation try it? After all, it can have its way with the world. Well, Europe had some powerful nations prior to World War II. They leaned on their power until they were broken by forces more powerful. Now, Europe, having learned the historical lesson, is reluctant to go to war. Japan was a powerful, imperialistic nation prior to the Great War until the nuclear holocaust. Having learned the lesson through the evils committed against its citizens, it is a peaceful nation, not pursuing war.

And, if we study history, we know the life of "great" nations is not infinite. The question in America is will we learn the lessons of others or will we require our own annihilation to break our hubris? Will we repent and serve? Or will we continue lording our power over others until it destroys us?

The Hate of Christ?

2006-10-19T22:05:00.000-07:00

"I'm sorry that I ever resisted.
Never had a doubt that you really existed.
Just have a problem when people insist on,
Taking their hate and placing on your name."

-Franz Ferdinand
"The Fallen"

I have the same problem. Especially with people like Southern Baptist Convention Second Vice President Wiley Drake claiming the name of Christ. I wonder what Jesus would write in the sand at Mr. Drake's feet as Drake gets ready to throw his stones.

This is a major reason I, myself, am no longer a Southern Baptist. I had enough of the garbage. Enough of the hate that is justified as righteous indignation, much like thousands of dead civilians are dismissed as collateral damage.

And look I am usually civil about controversial matters. Let's face it. I was once a conservative fundamentalist jerk. I then went through a transformation where I had more in common with moderates and/or liberals. The problem was, I caught myself slowly becoming a new kind of fundamentalist jerk. I'm still more left now theologically, and in most things political, but strive to bring civility to the discussion.

But this pisses me off. First, there is Drake's propagandistic use of the word "Sodomite" in referring to homosexuals. Second, there is Drake rationalizing the use of this hate-filled dehumanizing term by claiming it is in the Bible. Except for one thing: it is not. Drake, you owe it to the self-proclaimed people of the book to be more careful than that.

This comes on the heels of the Family Research Council's Liberty Sunday, a special, nationwide worship service via satellite used to rally conservative evangelical voters to the polls to vote for Republicans, who would theoretically support a Gay Marriage Amendment to the constitution.

In case you haven't heard, the event included Wellington Boone, a man who in previous FRC events has referred to homosexuals as "faggots" and sissies", in addition to Drake's term of choice. Oh, and Boone expressed at last Sunday's event that gays and lesbians should be subjected to capital punishment. I suppose that would be more humane than shooting electrodes through their genitals to mercifully kill their homosexual urges.

So why am I not more civil right now? Am I not claiming to be tolerant? Well, I am, except for one thing: intolerance. In fact, I have attempted to not lose all civility in this post. I caught myself name-calling earlier in this column and elected to remove that language. But such opinions as expressed by these men is hate in its purest form and a pure slap in the face of the Jesus we all claim to follow.

This is the kind of language that could incite people to take evil actions. Will Boone and the FRC tear their clothes and repent when we have a few more Matthew Shepards on our hands? Or will they claim they weren't the direct killers so there is no blood on their hands?

So I'm no longer a Southern Baptist and this is a big reason why.

Happy Oppression of the Americas Day!

2006-10-09T21:13:00.000-07:00

Well, that's what I call this day in which we commemorate the time Christopher Columbus "discovered" America and began to rape and steal all its resources, including women. (As a Jamaican comedian explained on my honeymoon, he didn't discover America. People were already here. He was lost.)

One friend of mine calls it World Genocide Day. Another? World Smallpox Day.

You may call that cynical or mean-spirited but the intention is to rename the day for what it is. It is a day I had off from work today. Was able to spend it with my daughter. But it is not a day to be celebrated. Ethicist Miguel de la Torre suggests we remove it from our national calendar I would say I support the idea.

This is a dark day when Europeans entered the land they named the Americas and proclaimed God gave them the land and to not cooperate was to seal one's doom. They then proceeded to steal not only their land, but also their DNA, blending the genes of the races through rape.

This theft of the land was the precursor for the Manifest Destiny asserted in the United States in the genocide of the Native Americans. This was a dark, dark chapter in the history of "Christianity."

It is a racism or prejudice that continues to be exposed in our lives today. Consider the idea of eminent domain where people have their homes ripped out from under them for the pursuit of corporate profit. Ironic considering the Religious Right asserts Scripture supports private property and not state-ownership. I saw stock footage from Billy Graham this evening asserting just that idea. Truth be told, Scripture does not speak of either but of an idea somewhere in between the extremes.

Or immigration laws that assert we, and not God, own the land within our man-drawn borders. Do you remember, "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it." I'm just not sure we have the authority to go around drawing borders, here or in the twentieth century Middle East.

Or the waging of war where we lash out in anger for the death of our own innocent civilians, but do not hesitate to take out 100 Arab innocents with "smart" bombs to kill one or two terrorists. The objectification of human life is at the root of all these things.

I believe Christ, on the other hand, calls us to something higher. Love of enemies. Coexistence. Reconciliation.

And removing this day from our calendar would be merely a first, but significant step in our ministry of reconciliation. I'm sure it would meet with resistance just as adding Martin Luther King, Jr. Day did. But let us acknowlwedge we don't keep this day in high esteem anyway with its lackluster recognition and that the first step would be the most painless.

And then let us proceed further to true reconciliation and repentance that changes the very way in which we live.

So today, though my office was closed, I did not observe Columbus Day. Instead, I challenge it.

The New Geneva?

2006-10-02T23:43:00.000-07:00

There has been plenty of politicial talk surrounding Geneva in recent days. It has mostly centered around torture and what its definition in light of the Geneva Convention is or if Geneva even applies in the war on terror.

However, Geneva is significant for another reason, one that we would do well to familiarize ourselves with today. Geneva was a place of "Christian" rule. Engineered by celebrated reformer John Calvin, it was touted by many medieval Christians as a beautiful place with its legalistic way of life and the purity produced by stiff discipline.

There are those who want to bring Geneva to the States. Like a recent Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary speaker, there are those who interpret scripture to suggest Christians are to impose their will on the entire nation, urging as many as possible to fight their way onto school boards, city councils and other governmental offices to make this a "godly" nation.

This a dangerous and historically misguided principle. It is a dangerous principle because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps, I do not use biblical phraseology in stating this, but this is biblically grounded. Consider Jesus Christ who came not to dominate but to serve. Who suffered the ultimate humiliation in order to demonstrate that true power relies not in forceful strength, but in trust in the Creator. Not in political or military might, but in humble servitude.

Now I doubt a government run by fundamentalist Christians would be as oppressive as nations governed by Islamic radicals. But be sure that oppression would exist. People would be marginalized. Fellow citizens would be harmed for not conforming to the expected "American" standard.

For historical reference consider that the citizens of Geneva were punished for their moral misdeeds. Dancing. Adultery. Attempted suicide. That's right. Attempted suicide. And consider what America would look if extreme right wing Christians got their wish. Homosexuals imprisoned at the very least. Muslims abused. Women forced to leave the workplace. This is not the America we know or ever want to know, let alone the Kingdom of God as witnessed in scripture.

It is a historically misguided principle: both in U.S. and Baptist history. This speaker suggested the First Amendment was composed to "protect Christianity." I beg to differ. Our forefathers were not threatened by the prospect of losing Christianity. They were threatened by governmentally-established Christianity. Many of the forefathers were deists, not traditional theists. They were concerned about what might happened to them if Anglicans or Presbyterians or some other Christian group help full governmental power. Thus, they contructed what was to be a religiously tolerant society. It may be that they did not ever conceive of such a religiously diverse country, but they did seek to protect the right to differ on religious beliefs.

And Baptists, such as John Leland, fought the rhetorical fight at their side. It seems at least some Southern Baptists have forgotten that their forebears were imprisoned, beaten, and thrown into stocks for being Baptist. That they were the oppressed. Now, they wish to be the oppressor.

And I cannot be sure how widespread this train of thought may be, but we must be aware of its presence. Be aware that while some conservative Christians deny the legitimacy of such a movement, prominent Religious Right leaders, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have spoken strategically of forming a Christ party with an eye at taking office in the name of Christ to build a theocratic society. We must be prepared to proclaim the love of Christ if, and when, intolerance rears its head.

And it may truly be that this is a movement that does not have enough backing to ever come to fruition in our country. But our greatest failure is often times to underestimate someone's or something's potential. Let us be vigilant.

Jesus Confronts!

2006-09-12T21:04:00.000-07:00

Mark 7:24-37

It's been some time since I've done the lectionary blog I, many months ago, pledged I'd be doing. Time gets away from you, you know. Besides, are you reading this? Is anybody reading this?

But this week's reading pulled me back in. It is part of what makes the lectionary so valuable. Sure, there are certain ways its organization may be flawed, but read this gospel passage. If you are a pastor or preacher or teacher, you do not stop on this passage when looking for a topic. It's ugly, uninviting making it so easy to gloss over in our worship and study.

Let's begin with the first, and uglier, part of this story. (vv. 24-30) Jesus' actions do not jive with all we have known about him. We've seen times he's been alone. We've seen him heal. But reluctant? Insensitive?

On one of side of this, its beautiful. Jesus walking in Gentile lands where the gospel can be shared with those considered the most unclean. But then he challenges the request of the Gentile woman. We've seen his kindness at other points in the gospel toward women and toward Gentiles, so why the shocking exchange?

Classical biblical commentator William Barclay starts with Jesus' use of the word "dog" here. He is quick to point out this is no affectionate term. It was used as an insult especially by Jews toward Gentiles. It was the ancient equivalent of the insult "bitch" as used today.

However, Barclay goes on to say that Jesus uses a different, more affectionate form of the word here. As opposed to speaking of wild dogs, which were seen as a scourge, he is referring to say, a house pet.

His point is to say that what takes place here is not insult, but playful repartee, common among Gentiles, so that what you have is Jesus joyfully helping a woman in need even though he sought a vacation.

Pheme Perkins challenges this intepretation. She says there is little evidence of a distinction between the form of the word for "wild dogs" and "house pets" or their connotation. What you have is Jesus demonstrating his humanity, frustrated by the interruption, but healing the woman's daughter in the end.

There, you are faced with a struggled. Which interpretation is correct? Are they both maybe partially on track? The picture of Jesus in Barclay's version is inviting. Warm, compassionate, playful.

Phermes version is dark for a couple of reasons. The warm, inviting picture of Jesus is challenged and it ends with the one we call Lord losing a debate. The One who is so clever with the Pharisees has to look at this Gentile and say, "Dang, you got me! I guess I have to heal your daughter."

I wonder if it is parallel to Abraham's conversation with God before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or Moses' pleading with God not to destroy the Israelites for their disobedience. God has a plan, but his interaction with humanity leads to a change of heart.

Or perhaps he is challenging a Gentile woman's faith who might really be seeking all the benefits of following Jesus without any real commitment. Is she willing to place a real faith in one who comes from among her people's rivals?

Besides, as Thiessen demonstrates, the root of this tension was more than religious. It was also socio-economic. The Syrophoenician region was a wealthy one that benefitted, perhaps unjustly, from the produce of the Jews in Galilee who faced poverty. She would have to accept the way of one from among a people for whom there was a mutual disdain, challenging everything she had been taught to accept and called to go a new way. That, it seems, might drive a dagger through pray-the-prayer salvation theology.

And it gives the reader a startling contrast with the story that follows. (vv. 31-37) The deaf mute man is brought before Jesus, who takes him to a private place for healing with a special touch and concern.

This is followed by Jesus instructing those present to keep this to themselves. Seemingly wanting to avoid the first century paparazzi or just wanting to finally start his R&R, he wants them to tell no one. Now, I don't know about you, but this seems to be the equivalent of telling someone hanging from a cliff not to look down. That's the first thing they are going to do.

And what's this man with a newfound gift for speech to do? He goes to see friends and family the next day and says, "Good Morning."

They respond,"Whoa! You can talk. Tell us about it. What happened?"

Trying to be quick on his feet, he replies, "I fell off a cliff. Hit my head. Now I can talk."

I don't think that story will hold water for long.

It could be the point of all this is to demonstrate the Gentile's longing for the gospel despite the rejection of God's chosen. The incredible openness of the Gentile woman resulted in Jesus opening up to her and welcoming her. It was followed by openness of Jesus in the embrace of the deaf, mute man who, it is unclear, may or may not have been Gentile.

What we can be reminded of, despite this passage's rough edges, is God's love is available to all, no matter race, gender, or socio-economic standing. May our love be inclusive as well.

Justice in Sports

2006-09-04T21:10:00.000-07:00

You may not know this about me, but I'm a huge sports fan. Football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. If there's a game on television, college or pro, I'll watch it if there is a tv set available. Just ask my wife Katy. Drives her crazy.

Yet the last couple of years, it has created a personal inner struggle as I seek to write about and work towards peace and justice and see the greed and extravagance that is often associated with sports.

Take the new Dallas Cowboys' stadium that is under construction in Arlington, Texas. It was ballyhooed for election purposes as being a project that would help generate revenue and create jobs in the city while cleaning up crime-infested neighborhoods.

But you know what those are generally code words for because the increased revenue does not often get passed from the wealthy to the people in need and the neighborhoods are cleaned up up by using eminent domain laws to tear them down, often leaving poor renters needing to relocate.

But two stories have arisen recently in the juggernaut Sports Illustrated that bring a positive tone to the sports business.

The first concerned 2005 Heisman winner Reggie Bush. If you have watched him play, you know he is a great player. However, he was criticized for holding out for more money and missing the first two days of training camp practices, insisting that even though he was picked second in the NFL draft, he should be paid as if he was the first player selected. It would be easy to believe he was out of touch as he has received much hype over the last two years and ego could have been a serious problem.

But consider what he has done since signing with the Saints, who reside in Katrina and Levee ravaged New Orleans. He donated $50,000.00 to a local Catholic school for disabled students. Has donated $86,000.00 to help seed and maintain a local high school football field, an obvious action for a football player. Is donating 25% of all profits from the sell of his Saints jersey to hurricane relief efforts. And, along with Pepsi, donated $1 million to help rebuild homes in the New Orleans area.

I would say this is compassion. It may be charity, and not the justice that U2 lead singer Bono constantly reminds us the Bible requires, but it is doing a great deal for people in need. Surely his actions are gospel to the residents of New Orleans.

Besides, one human being cannot bring justice on his own, though Dikembe Mutombo is trying in his homeland in the Congo. In his column "The Center of Two Worlds" Steve Rushin informs the reader of Mutombo's efforts. The lesson his mother taught him was the more you give, the more you receive and he has taken it to heart. Mutombo is set to cut the ribbon of a hospital he helped to build. The ribbon cutting has been delayed by the outbreak of violence in the area. But he has helped establish the hospital through extensive fundraising efforts and by donating $15 million of his own money to build the $29 million structure.

He also contracted malaria the last time he went home. It can kill within two days, but he survived because he returned to the States before he fell ill. Sufficient health care was available. He reminds us the same is not true for his people: "These are diseases of the poor," speaking of the malaria and AIDS epidemics that have left millions of children in Africa orphaned. Again, for the people of the Congo, this man has brought gospel to them.

It is important for us to remember that the Bible presents a God who acts on behalf of the poor. Surely his love is for all his creation but the Creator has a special concern for the most vulnerable in this rebellious world. Can we throw our money at luxury while people suffer? While they die? While they go homeless? Orphaned?

We would be amazed by what a rethinking of our American lifestyle could do for the rest of the world. If our attitudes changed from "Me and Mine" to "You and Yours", especially in the Christian Church where this call of God seems to often fall on deaf ears because the gospel of Jesus is drown out by the gospel of Uncle Sam, huge strides could made, not in bringing democracy to the world, but gospel. And men like Reggie Bush and Dikembe Mutombo, whatever their faith may or may not be, provide glimpses of that today.

The Stranger and the Alien (Matthew 25:44-46)

2006-04-09T20:56:00.000-07:00

I don't know if you saw it, but I did. It was inspiring. Somewhere between 350-400K people jammed the streets of Dallas and Fort Worth to demand justice. They did not come angry. They did not riot.

Instead, they wore white symbolizing peace and carried flags while chanting, "USA, USA." They simply ask for a small slice of the biggest pie this world has ever seen.

These were hispanics fighting peacefully for just immigration laws. I wish I could have been there but family obligations prevented me from attending. I, after all, view this as a biblical matter. I believe it is a matter that will test how much followers of Jesus in America love God.

You can look no further than Jesus' own words in Matthew 25. When we love the stranger in our land, it is a major way through which we love God. The OT prophets scorned their own people for oppressing the alien and Jesus carried on this tradition.

I hear the concerns of Americans. There are legal ways to enter this country. People are coming across to sell drugs and start drug wars when they come. It is a matter of national security. We do not have enough resources to support everyone.

I suggest, as a follower of Christ, that kindness ot the poor, the orphan, the alien, the widow, overrides such concerns. And I think it would help if we understand our unintentional complicity in the poverty that wracks Mexico leading thousands to try to enter their country.

By this I mean our support of NAFTA. I thought it was the greatest thing when it came into existence. What I know changes all that. It essentially opened the borders to American big business to flood the Mexican market, while putting restrictions in place to limit competition from the Mexican businesses themselves. The result is American business in many industries, especially farming, has put the Mexican small businessman out of business. The jobs brought by American corporations has been far outweighed by the numbers put out of work by American capitalism.

Poverty was a problem in Mexico before NAFTA and has increased many times over since. I ask you this question: do people leave their homes for no reason? Would they risk death or punishment without cause?

The people of Mexico are desparate to survive the poverty created by American business and Mexican government corruption. These legal channels to pass through. They know those are in place to limit who and how many can enter the states. So why risk it?

Meanwhile, those who make it across are taken advantage of without recourse for fear of being sent back. Businessmen love low wages and they are more than happy to employ illegals to pad their own pockets. But yet this situation is better than the immigrant's home. Doesn't this tell us something?

My Bible doesn't tell me to be kind to just legal aliens. Besides, immigration laws are manmade by people want to protect the piece of the pie they have carved out for themselves, never mind the history of violence that carved the pie.

Besides, who does the land belong to anyway. You may say to Americans. Some may say the Native Americans who were already here. I say it belongs to God who created this earth. God calls us to live peacefully with one another and sacrifice for one another putting our own interests aside. God made himself vulberable to save us from ourslelves. Let us do the same.

I urge us to ponder this idea of sacrifice while we remember the ultimate sacrifdice commemorated on Good Friday.

Modern Day Samaritan

2006-02-10T22:43:00.000-08:00

You see the title of this blog. Perhaps your familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan as told by Jesus in Luke 10:25-37, and you know what to expect. To follow is a story about someone who was a good samaritan. Gave aid to a stranded motorist, helped an old lady cross the street, or some such thing. Good, kind things but not the way I'm going today. That path is well worn and heavily trod.

Instead, let's look into the depths of this story. Who was this Samaritan? He was the bad guy. He was the man in the black hat. He was not liked by the Jewish people.

It wasn't without reason he was disliked. There was a deep seeded history of hate. It began with prejudice against the Samaritans because they were half-breeds. They were the offspring of Jewish woman taking captive and given to Baylonian men after the fall of Jerusalem. It was one of Babylon's ways of stripping a conquered people of the identity and their hope. It was an effort to blend them into Babylon so they would not be a distinct people who might try to rise against their conquerers in the future.

Add to this political tensions that arose between the Jews and Samaritans over the centuries.

Add to that they were viewed as heretics because they claimed to be the true Jews and worshipped on the true Holy Mountain. There was little the Jews could bring themselves to like.

So a teacher of the law asks Jesus, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus asks him what he thinks the asnwer is. This teacher seemingly takes the word straight from Jesus when he says "Love the Lord your God...and your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus says he is correct and then is asked, "Who is my neighbor?" To answer Jesus stresses the depth of this way of life by telling this story of the Good Samaritan. A man is robbed and beaten by the thieves and left by the side of the road half dead. A priest comes along and passes him by. So does a Levite. Two of the most religious men in Jerusalem fail to love their neighbor. So who will help?

Along comes this dirty, filthy, stinking Samaritan. He sees a man from among the people most hated by his own. Surely he will pass by. This Jew doesn't want his help anyway, does he? But he helps.

Jesus asks who was this man's neighbor? They say the Samaritan. Jesus replies with hard to swallow yet famous words, "Go and do likewise."

"Holy crap!" they may have thought. The Samaritan's my neighbor so Jesus is saying to love him myself.

I'm sure many quit following that day. When we are confronted by the challenge of discipleship, we start to fade. And so I wonder, "Who are the Samaritans in our lives?" Who are those that we despise and dehumanized to justify our hate?

A few folks come to mind. The Mexican immigrant we view as the scum of the Earth working for less and taking our jobs while bringing drugs across the border. The one increasing numbers of people are calling to be kept out of country. At least that's the dehumanized version. Yet, this one is our neighbor coming here to find a job that pays enough to feed the starving, suffering family back home. As our neighbor, this one should be loved.

What about the Muslim? This one who may be a part of a sleeper cell waiting to unleash untold horrors on american citizens. After all, this one's religion is purely violent. Again, dehumanized. In truth, this one is suffering from profiling and suspicion thrusts upon him by the extreme and perverted beliefs of a few and is marginalized by the extremist beliefs in his adopted home. This one is our neighbor and should be loved.

What about the homosexual? The evil disease spreading homosexual looking to molest your children and make them gay while threatening family values. That's the dehumanized version. This one was taught to hate. But not others. Him or her self. They may have been suicidal after years upon years of being told they are dirty and unnatural though they are simply who they were made to be. This one just wants to be accepted and allowed to be. This one is our neighbor and deserving of love.

How does one inherit the kingdom? Heaven? Whatever you want to call it. We better stretch ourselves. We better replace hate with love and follow Christ when he says "Go and do likewise."

Where's the Outrage?

2006-01-29T00:37:00.000-08:00

Two incidents involving US military on foreign soil in the past weeks have brought to light a deeply disturbing military tactic. One was in Pakistan and one was in Iraq.

In Irag, insurgents discovered planting roadside bombs were tracked to a building in Baghdad. An instant air attack was unfurled on that building leaving many innocent men, women, and children dead. Pentagon officials said in this war there is no time to find out who else is in a structure where insurgents hide because the target must be struck quickly before the insurgents can escape.

In Pakistan, three homes were bombed by US military planes when it was believed that Al-Zarqawi had taken up hiding in one of the three homes. Again, many men, women and children dead. No Zarqawi. Military officials did say the attack killed two foreign fighters.

I understand the pressure US leaders find themselves under to defend the country from terrorism or least put forth the guise of doing so. I understand the pressure those taking orders must face. Like I’ve stated before, a lot of times people make decisions they believe they have no control over.

Yet, these actions are evil. Doesn’t mean I’m looking for soldiers to be imprisoned for these wrongs, or a president to be impeached, or anything. I’m not sure what needs to be done in response. But I think I know what needs to be done to prevent this for continuing to happen.

There needs to be moral outrage on the part of Americans. From the Christian church, from Muslims, from Jews, from people of other religions and the non-religious. We must demand that this practice on the part of our military leaders going right up to the commander-in-chief be brought to a halt immediately.

I’m sure these are not the first instances of such attacks. I’m sure this is not the first war where this has been practiced. I’m pretty sure the US is not the first to put this into practice. But we have to stop it. Our history is soiled with instances where more value is placed on our military personnel than another countries’ civilians. There’s a term used to describe this in a more positive light but we must stop accepting it. (Collateral Damage or whatever the term for civilian casualties is).

In my mind, there is no justification for this action. I’ve heard what the White House and the Pentagon have to say and I’m not buying. Why is it those on the right stand up so strongly for the unborn but we don’t hear from them now when living civilians, including children, are massacred?

And say there was some kind of reason given for this that I thought made some sense. If they see the hornets’ nest that has been stirred up even more in the Middle East does it still make sense? Haven’t we just served the recruiting efforts of bin Laden and his gang.

So I’m speaking out. I’m contacting my reps and letting them know this does not fly. I know I’ll probably get some lousy form letter from maybe one of my congresspersons like I did last time, but it starts with one and I know I probably will not be the first or the last.

No Justice, No Gospel

2005-12-18T00:05:00.000-08:00

I was reading an article on alternet about multinational corporations and human rights abuses and came across this post in response to an article:

"Too bad all those self-righteous Christian people are not in the caring about people business. They could take their energy and put it into fighting these world wreckers. "

The fact that can be said about so-called followers of Christ is a tragedy. The American church has become the male prostitute in this nation. Don't know what I mean? Take a look at 1 Corinthians.

A blogger named Real Live Preacher was introduced to me by a dear friend. He explains two words that are used by folks to condemn homosexuals. They are the words that are translated "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders". RLP explains to us the Greek speaks to specific acts and not sexual orientation. "Male prostitutes" were young men selling themselves as a prostitute tends to do. "Homosexual offenders" were older men who paid for the male prostitute's services. Now he is not the first to suggest, or even the first time I encountered this line of thinking but he summarizes it quite well.

So what's my point? Well, the American church has sold itself to those in power and do it's will. In some circles, you might say the church has become Uncle Sam's bitch. Can the American church serve two master's? Hell no, friend.

Multinational corporations based in the good ol' US bring on injustice around the globe, either actively or implicitely and the church says and does nothing. It helps us live in luxury at a cheaper rate so we can hoard more crap. Never mind our goods are produced on the backs of the poor. We get cool stuff. Mega church pastors drive Hummers and live in mansions, all by the blessings of God I'm sure. After all, it's freedom. It's democracy. It's God's will.

That's why people can say we are self-righteous and don't care. We are and we don't. And you know what? Until we decide justice is worth fighting for, and I don't mean with bombs and tanks, we don't have gospel. We don't have good news. Without that good news, we are Hosea's third child Lo-Ammi. We are not God's people.

We are not God's people because we are seriously misguided. We fight to strip homosexuals of their dignity, waste time making sure athlete's aren't using drugs, and drop bombs all over the globe. All this in the name of protecting our children.

Say that's truly the reason for all this crap. How selfish are we? We don't care who we hurt or kill if it means we protect our children. We don't care that we make people who can't change what they are hate themselves and want to kill themselves. We're protecting our children from some mythical gay virus that will infect the kids if they get too close. We don't care that there are much more important issues going by the wayside while congressmen campaign for votes by calling in athletes to talk about steroids. Who cares if my American brother and sister are starving, I have to protect my child from steroids. We don't care about the thousands of orphans created by American peacemaker bombs. We are protecting our children from terrorists. We don't care about the thousands of children killed by our bombs. We're protecting ourselves. All for the myth that exerting our military power will bring peace rather than stir up hornet's nest after hornet's nest of enemies.

We just don't care. And as long as we don't, we have no gospel. We are Lo-Ammi. We are not God's people.

Oh, the Joy of the Holidays!

2005-11-13T20:10:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year again. The turkey is around the corner. The next day we could be taking children to see Santa and shop as we prepare for Christmas. At least for those of us who can afford it.

As the year winds down, that yearly corporate tradition commences as people with families to feed, and I don't mean you, Latrell Sprewell, are mercilessly fired (they call it laid off) so profit margins can be increased.

Sometimes, it is because the company has lost money. Sometimes because stock prices have leveled out and the stockholders are seen as more important than the labor. After all, they help decide if the CEO keeps his job or gets a boost in his six- or seven- figure salary.

So here's to you PepsiCo/Frito Lay! Here's to you Beall Bank! Here's to you all those other American and multi-national corporations cutting costs to make a buck for keeping the ill-timed injustice alive. For you it's just business. For those fired, it is their lives. It is wondering how they will pay for their house and other needs without completely draining their children's college fund. Or worse, realizing they have to sell their house they can no longer afford and go on welfare if a comparable job is not available. Or having to uproot their families to find other work while leaving all family and friends behind. Or taking a low paying job and working so many hours you no longer really a part of your family.

But what do you care? You and your fellow execs keep your six- or seven-figure salary with six-figure bonus. Your Christmas is joyful. Your pastor cries with joy when he gets your holiday tithe. Peace on Earth. Goodwill toward men.

So here's to you Mr. CEO labor layer offer. You're a Real Man of Injustice.

Compassion or Manipulation?

2005-11-07T20:42:00.000-08:00

Read a ridiculous story about hurricane relief in Alabama. Seems Anheuser-Busch donated cans of water for the relief effort but the Southern Baptist workers heading up relief efforts at one particular location did not want to hand out the water because it had Anheuser-Busch's logo on the cans. Not the name of Beer. Just the Beer company.

It seems not only the beer is evil, but the cans as well. I can see Steve Martin as The Jerk right now having become a preaching and exhorting his congregation, "He hates these cans!!!!!!"

But what's the deeper issue. I saw a video report and it really bothered me. You have the Alabama Baptist Convention with a relief trailer that is almost com,pletely covered with the convention's name. You have the cans with a large Anheuser-Busch logo. Are these people helping because they see people in need or because they see an advertising opportunity?

This happens often in our society. I'm willing to help if I can put my name on it and take credit. It's more about helping to get credit than it is helping because people need it. On the church side they think, "These people will see our name and see us helping them. Then maybe they will come to church. Numbers increase. Offerings increase. We get a builder church building. Everybody wins." Trust me, I've been in that culture. They think like that. They tried to get me to think like that but I will always resist a manipulative gospel, knowing the authentic one is much better.

For the beer company, I suspect they put their logos figuring once people are set back up and have beer money again, they will remember Anheuser-Busch and buy their beer. Not much different and not much better.

I tend to think when things like this take place, or a celebrity's donation is publicized for their recognition, God will use it, but he's not very pleased.

A Weal-ly Good Day

2005-10-16T07:43:00.000-07:00

Isaiah 45:1-7
Matthew 22:15-22
1 Thessalonians 1:1-10

This text in Isaiah today speaks of weal replacing woe. Hope replacing despair. Salvation replacing exile.

It is one that speaks to those of us who live in nations claiming to be called by God as liberators though war spreading democracy around the globe.

Taken on the surface, this appears to be what the prophet is saying to his listeners and readers. Cyrus, who did not even know God, is called by God, signified in this announcement of annointing.

Taken in the context of Isaiah's day and the people to whom he writes, however, this text takes a much different shape. The Jews were and are a people expecting a savior to come from the line of David. In their current time, it was known that Persia was on the move and Assyria, their captors, had a serious new threat. Isaiah, the prophet and historian, speaks to the people and informs them God is going to work through a new kind of savior, Cyrus of Persia.

You see, it was also known Cyrus was different from other tyrant kings. While others sought to remove people from their lands, remove their religion from the people, breed them with their own people, and strip them entirely of their identity, Cyrus was different. He allowed his subjects to retain an identity as long as they were subject to him. It was in this context Isaiah saw hope for the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild the temple. A savior was coming, but not from the line of David or any of the tribes of Israel. And Isaiah needed a way to communicate a truth that would be difficult for his own people to accept.

God, as he had in the destruction of Israel and Judah and the fall of the temple, is working through extraordinary means. Is it really a matter of the creator condoning and even causing war for his purposes or is it a matter of God working all things together for the good of those who are called by his name? A new tyrant is on the move and God will not hesitate to use this this sucker to bring good to the world through the tyrant's evil.

The God who caused woe to the Jews, his own anointed people, by removing his hedge of protection from that lawless people will use the evils of men to create weal for the same. Two great empires will clash and the Jews will be set free. By this, the nations will know who is God.

In Matthew, a different side of the coin, so to speak, in the relationship between emperor and God comes into question. The question the Pharisees bring, trying to entrap Jesus, is whether it is against the Torah the pay the Roman taxes. How ironic that this "pure" group trying to make a point supplies the idolatrous coin for the discussion.

Again, we must be careful here. Taken out of context, we may think this question is about the separation of church and state and that Jesus responds in its support. However, Jesus and the prophets never spoke of life divided into two realms: religion and politics. (That's a topic for another day and I will blog about how it relates to us in the US and the rest of the world sometime later this week.)

The point Jesus makes is that loyalty to God is on a much higher plane than loyalty to the emperor. We can know it is on a much higher plane than loyalty to poltical ideologies created by men to further their agendas of power. It is a loyalty that must be clung to but may cause us to suffer when it is in contrast with political leadership.

This is what the Thessalonians whom Paul addresses faced: great persecution for their conversion to the discipleship of Christ. They turned their backs on Greco-Roman idols to follow the living God. The Hellenistic culture too, did not separate religion from the public sphere. To not worship the gods was to cut yourself off from the public sphere so as to not be able to participate in the marketplace and support your family. This was obviously a great consequence. Yet, they continued on in great courage and became widely known for their strength and humility. They made themselves low and were exalted by God.

So we wrestle with these texts, seeking to grasp the difficult connection between religion and politics. Trying to understand a God who uses emperors and tyrants and governments for his purposes yet calls us to a higher loyalty that will put us at odds with our own many a time, bringing us weal and bringing us woe. Let us persevere in the wrestling match through faith. Through courage and faith may we witness of light in the darkness of death. Amen.