Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7
Romans 5:12-19
Matthew 4:1-11
“In the beginning …” begins the story of salvation. Many have suggested that the creation story of the Bible is actually the beginning of humanity as we know it. And as the arguments persist regarding creationism vs. evolution, I cannot help but to wonder if the Bible story is offering to us the beginning of a particular civilization rather than the “first man” or “first woman” such as Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal, the existence of which cannot be reasonably denied, the so-called “cave man”.
Civilization may not even be the appropriate term since it can probably be argued that “civilization”, at least according to some, may have already existed. “Culture” may come closer to describing what was intended to exist in Eden, and it would seem that a culture was beginning to take shape before the serpent introduced a “counter-culture” that was designed for and intended to be opposed to a culture which had really yet to be established. However, if it is true that any sort of culture or civilization existed before the time of Eden, then Eden itself may have been the “counter-culture”.
The “culture” which may have been envisioned for Eden was one of utopia, a perfect society in which all needs were to be provided for by the hand of YHWH. It was, in perhaps one word, “heaven” on earth. There were no worries, no cares, no concerns, no credit, no debt, no mortgages or taxes to be paid; just living. What may have been intended for later can only be speculated since the serpent made his move early on.
While it can be argued that it was the serpent (aka, the “evil one”) who disrupted this culture, the fact remains that Adam and Eve were completely and solely responsible for their own actions. They were deceived, of course, into believing that they would become “god-like” once they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but their sin, their mistake, was one of deliberate disobedience maybe because of pride itself; Eve even quoted what they had been told by the Lord, so she could not claim to have forgotten. They had perfection at their hands and yet by their own hands and the actions of their hearts, it was over … but not completely gone.
Maybe it was at the point of eviction from Eden that the salvation story begins even if it does not seem so. After all, we cannot believe that man was in need of redemption while existing in the Garden. It could not have gotten much better than it was. Somehow, though, it was not good enough.
Throughout all subsequent generations from Adam until the time of Jesus, man has been reaching for something that seemed just beyond his grasp. What we have been reaching for has been illusive, though, because even though we want utopia, we want that perfect society, we don’t quite know how to define it because we don’t quite know what it looks like or even what it should be like. And because we are unsure of what it is we are seeking, we reach. We reach, we strive, we contend, and we seek. We are looking for something that will help to bring meaning, fulfillment, and contentment to our lives. Always seeking, reaching, and striving will sooner or later take its toll, and we will still come up short of what we truly need as long as we seek it in this world.
Additionally, we tend to confuse “need” with “want”, and sometimes our desire for something can become so intense that we can easily rationalize that intensity with bona fide “need” even if we can reasonably put that intense desire into its proper perspective and come to realize that we can actually live without it. It’s not easy, but it can be done.
Even from the time of Eden it was the Lord who had knowledge of our actual “need” and He provided for those needs, but the blessing/curse of that gift of “free will” soon created a conflict in which “need” and “want” were at odds; a decision soon became required, and man made a bad decision.
The whole purpose of Lent is to prepare. It is a time of reflection and introspection. It is a time in which we examine our lives and our ministries, and it should be an honest assessment of what we are because of Whose we are. To be completely honest with self will be difficult and, perhaps, painful because we can easily see ourselves partaking of the forbidden Fruit of the Tree because we lack vision and maybe even faith.
It is entirely appropriate to examine Eden and Jesus’ time in the wilderness on the first Sunday of Lent. Both were created in Godly Perfection, and both faced a challenge of temptation. Both had the “escape hatch”, but only One chose to remain faithful and obedient; and make no mistake – it was a free will choice and not a compulsion. Only One chose to live by the Word which sustains us and nurtures us. It is the Word which gives us the strength to look beyond mere self and see a much bigger picture. It is the Word which shows us the way Home.
Let this be for us a season of Lent like no other, a time when we will finally be enabled to resist the “Tree” which appears pleasing but is actually a means by which we are separated from the Holy One who has, since the time of Adam, continually reached out to provide, to comfort, to heal, to sustain. Let this be the season when we finally and completely reach back … and hold on tight.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Container - Ash Wednesday 2008
One of the (many!) defining differences between orthodox Christianity and Gnostic Christianity is the understanding of what is required of Christians toward salvation. The common factor of grace, which is commonly understood to be YHWH’s unmerited favor and mercy, remains. Requirements of a life lived worthy of Christ, according to orthodoxy, seems focused on suffering which is rejected by Gnostics. To them, it is incomprehensible that a “loving” God would require misery and suffering of His faithful as a means by which salvation is achieved.
Some of the biggest churches in the United States today are non-denominational churches whose pastors and teachers seem intent on preaching “happy” theology, insisting that the God of mercy and grace is a “happy” God who wants His faithful to be happy maybe because happy people are fulfilled people, and fulfilled people may be better Christian witnesses. People are flocking to these churches in droves because a “happy” message seems to be what they want. I don’t see a real problem with this notion on the surface, but I do see a colossal failure in another sense. The failure is restricted, in my humble opinion, to what we perceive as “suffering” and how we equate “suffering” with “misery”. Therein, I think, is the fundamental problem.
Another difference between orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism centers on our understanding of the difference between our mortal bodies and our immortal souls. On the surface there is little to disagree with because orthodox Christians do understand that our physical bodies will one day expire but until then, we strive to do the best we can with what we have. Gnostics focus on the spiritual existence as the primary focus and seem to believe that orthodox Christianity puts too much emphasis on the physical in its insistence upon suffering as a must. Though these are somewhat related, the conflict still seems to focus on the difference in perspective.
No one wants to go through life unhappy, and few of us like to witness misery. Indeed, the idea that the Lord requires, let alone DESIRES our misery may be one of the reasons why orthodox Christianity is experiencing a slide in membership in favor of “spiritual” Christians who reject such teachings and thus reject denominational church membership. The desire for salvation is as intense, as well it should be, but such a simplistic understanding may fall more in line with a “something for nothing” mentality that speaks volumes toward our consumer mentality, get-rich-quick schemes that more and more people are falling victim to, and easy credit that has produced a market system which is overwhelmed and beginning to show signs of extreme stress and, maybe, potential collapse.
Resolving these problems will not be an overnight solution because these problems were not arrived at overnight. By the same token, moving from sinner to saint is going to require much more from us than to simply say, “I’m sorry” or to merely call ourselves “Christian”. This is not to say that we are not forgiven when we truly repent and seek this forgiveness but we must repent … and many simply don’t want to because being repentant means making a physical and mental change from one lifestyle to another, from one system of thoughts and beliefs to another. It is a process that requires effort and sacrifice. It is a process that is inherently conflicting.
Sacrifice and “suffering”, however, seem to be the sticking points where too many get hung up. After all, being “happy” means doing what is pleasing to us and, well, the Lord wants us to be “happy”, yes? Is this not what “feel good” theology is all about? Living life to its fullest potential which will lead to prosperity, health, and …. Happiness? From my own perspective, the only ones getting very happy are the TV preachers who are making millions selling a false, or at least misleading, product that has a very weak basis in biblical merit. They are merely marketing a consumer product that people want while ignoring what many actually need.
The whole purpose of Ash Wednesday is in direct conflict with “feel good” theology which is focused on this life; its purpose and intent is to remind us of something far more lasting and enduring than anything “feel good” theology will ever produce. Ash Wednesday is also an extreme challenge that pushes us outside our physical presence – which is mortal and finite - and demands attention to the life that will endure far beyond the grave – which is immortal and infinite.
Ash Wednesday begins a process not unlike cleaning out the refrigerator or any other storage container. These containers cannot be wished clean; they have to be examined and scrubbed. The old stuff will need to be tossed out lest their consumption make us sick. This process will necessarily require that we examine the differences between our worldly desires and our genuine needs. It may not be a pleasant process but it is a process, and it is necessary.
The only thing unpleasant about “suffering” is the conflict which is created when we place too much emphasis on self-pleasing endeavors that sustain our physical, mortal being. The imposition of the ashes demands suffering in this sense: our physical bodies are but mere dust. We can take reasonable care, and we should, but it is not the life that will endure beyond the grave. We are not required to make peace with mortality. “Suffering” merely requires that we focus less on self.
Let us remove from our “containers” the impurities which cause illness and death. Let us create for the Lord new space within these tired, old containers and enter into the season of Lent with a renewed sense of being, purposed for other-than-self existence, to give all glory where glory is due: to God the Father, the Almighty.
Amen.
Some of the biggest churches in the United States today are non-denominational churches whose pastors and teachers seem intent on preaching “happy” theology, insisting that the God of mercy and grace is a “happy” God who wants His faithful to be happy maybe because happy people are fulfilled people, and fulfilled people may be better Christian witnesses. People are flocking to these churches in droves because a “happy” message seems to be what they want. I don’t see a real problem with this notion on the surface, but I do see a colossal failure in another sense. The failure is restricted, in my humble opinion, to what we perceive as “suffering” and how we equate “suffering” with “misery”. Therein, I think, is the fundamental problem.
Another difference between orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism centers on our understanding of the difference between our mortal bodies and our immortal souls. On the surface there is little to disagree with because orthodox Christians do understand that our physical bodies will one day expire but until then, we strive to do the best we can with what we have. Gnostics focus on the spiritual existence as the primary focus and seem to believe that orthodox Christianity puts too much emphasis on the physical in its insistence upon suffering as a must. Though these are somewhat related, the conflict still seems to focus on the difference in perspective.
No one wants to go through life unhappy, and few of us like to witness misery. Indeed, the idea that the Lord requires, let alone DESIRES our misery may be one of the reasons why orthodox Christianity is experiencing a slide in membership in favor of “spiritual” Christians who reject such teachings and thus reject denominational church membership. The desire for salvation is as intense, as well it should be, but such a simplistic understanding may fall more in line with a “something for nothing” mentality that speaks volumes toward our consumer mentality, get-rich-quick schemes that more and more people are falling victim to, and easy credit that has produced a market system which is overwhelmed and beginning to show signs of extreme stress and, maybe, potential collapse.
Resolving these problems will not be an overnight solution because these problems were not arrived at overnight. By the same token, moving from sinner to saint is going to require much more from us than to simply say, “I’m sorry” or to merely call ourselves “Christian”. This is not to say that we are not forgiven when we truly repent and seek this forgiveness but we must repent … and many simply don’t want to because being repentant means making a physical and mental change from one lifestyle to another, from one system of thoughts and beliefs to another. It is a process that requires effort and sacrifice. It is a process that is inherently conflicting.
Sacrifice and “suffering”, however, seem to be the sticking points where too many get hung up. After all, being “happy” means doing what is pleasing to us and, well, the Lord wants us to be “happy”, yes? Is this not what “feel good” theology is all about? Living life to its fullest potential which will lead to prosperity, health, and …. Happiness? From my own perspective, the only ones getting very happy are the TV preachers who are making millions selling a false, or at least misleading, product that has a very weak basis in biblical merit. They are merely marketing a consumer product that people want while ignoring what many actually need.
The whole purpose of Ash Wednesday is in direct conflict with “feel good” theology which is focused on this life; its purpose and intent is to remind us of something far more lasting and enduring than anything “feel good” theology will ever produce. Ash Wednesday is also an extreme challenge that pushes us outside our physical presence – which is mortal and finite - and demands attention to the life that will endure far beyond the grave – which is immortal and infinite.
Ash Wednesday begins a process not unlike cleaning out the refrigerator or any other storage container. These containers cannot be wished clean; they have to be examined and scrubbed. The old stuff will need to be tossed out lest their consumption make us sick. This process will necessarily require that we examine the differences between our worldly desires and our genuine needs. It may not be a pleasant process but it is a process, and it is necessary.
The only thing unpleasant about “suffering” is the conflict which is created when we place too much emphasis on self-pleasing endeavors that sustain our physical, mortal being. The imposition of the ashes demands suffering in this sense: our physical bodies are but mere dust. We can take reasonable care, and we should, but it is not the life that will endure beyond the grave. We are not required to make peace with mortality. “Suffering” merely requires that we focus less on self.
Let us remove from our “containers” the impurities which cause illness and death. Let us create for the Lord new space within these tired, old containers and enter into the season of Lent with a renewed sense of being, purposed for other-than-self existence, to give all glory where glory is due: to God the Father, the Almighty.
Amen.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Transfiguration: evidence of Divine Presence
Exodus 24:12-18
2 Peter 1:16-21
Matthew 17:1-9
One of my favorite TV shows of all time has to be M*A*S*H which is set during the Korean War and features a medical unit near the front line of the fighting. There is a lot of good comedy in the series, but there are also some very dramatic moments. In a recent episode, Father Mulcahey the chaplain was about to receive a visit from a Cardinal who was touring Korea. And because this Cardinal was a particularly well-known figure, Father Mulcahey wanted everything to be in order as evidence of his effective ministry as the camp’s spiritual leader. When he didn’t get everything he wanted when he wanted it, he got rather persnickety with the people of the camp with his seemingly excessive demands.
The Cardinal was to be the celebrant at the Sunday service, and Father Mulcahey was to be given the honor of introducing the Cardinal. However, a crisis had developed on Saturday night due to a soldier having been diagnosed with leukemia during a routine blood test, and Father Mulcahey had stayed up all night with the soldier to visit with and console him. Because he had gotten so wrapped up in where he was needed, Father Mulcahey had lost track of time and was late for the service where the Cardinal and most of the camp were all waiting.
Father Mulcahey showed up in his bath robe looking disheveled and was obviously and admittedly not as prepared as he would like to have been. Rather than try to remember the sermon he had been preparing, he chose instead to tell the story of what had happened during the course of the previous few days in his rather self-centered preparations for the Cardinal’s visit in wanting everything just so in his vain effort to impress the Cardinal. He then pretty much slam-dunked himself and his apparent lack of humility as well as his selfishness when he was confronted with the other man’s imminent demise due to leukemia. He had come to realize how self-centered he had been and was reminded about how fragile and short life is. He was also reminded that the Lord did not put us on this earth so that we could look good for visiting dignitaries; we were put here so that the Lord’s presence could be evident in the eyes of the last, the least, and the lost.
The Transfiguration is among the most difficult topics for me to address primarily because I tend to over-think it. For instance, Jesus orders Peter, James, and John to “tell no one of the vision …” until after He has been raised from the grave. There is another element that makes the passage a little more difficult to comprehend: how did the three disciples know they were looking at Moses and Elijah? Additionally, throughout the Gospels whenever the disciples did not fully understand something such as many of Jesus’ parables, they asked questions that were usually answered by Jesus. It would seem to me that the Transfiguration would raise a whole host of questions, but Peter only offered to build three dwellings.
That Moses would represent the Law and that Elijah would represent the Prophecy is pretty simple to appreciate since Jesus makes it known early in Matthew 5:17 that He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, but does such an appreciation fully address what it was that could obviously wait until after the Resurrection?
Offering to build dwellings for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus would indicate that perhaps Peter at least thought he was fully aware of what he and the others were witnessing: the completeness, the wholeness of the Lord God in the Law and the Prophets through the complete manifestation of His glory in the Son, and They were all coming to claim all of creation as the Kingdom of Heaven. Even still, Peter was missing some important element because Jesus seemed to indicate that Peter’s willingness to build permanent dwellings on earth for each of these was premature, that it was not the right time and, perhaps, not the right place.
Like the baptism of Jesus, however, I think the message of the Transfiguration must go much deeper than a mere doctrinal prescription of how man thinks things ought to be. The image that was before the disciples was not like any image that is comprehensible to the human mind – they were seeing Jesus in a whole new form as well as looking at Elijah and Moses! I think maybe that Jesus finding it necessary to comfort the three was an indication that they clearly could not comprehend what they had seen; this notion may also help to explain why Jesus had ordered the disciples to keep quiet about it. After all, if they were unable to understand it, how could they possibly explain it to others?
If you’ve not already seen it, I highly recommend the movie, “The Last Sin Eater”. It is set in 19th century Appalachia in which Welsh immigrants settled. The Sin Eater was a man who had been designated by a casting of lots to come only during burials which were always conducted at night. No one was allowed to cast eyes upon the Sin Eater as he came to accept a gift of bread and wine laid upon the body of the deceased on a shawl. The Sin Eater would take the gifts, eat and drink, and then offer this mournful prayer: “Who will take away MY sins?”
The main character of the movie, an 11-year-old girl called Callie, had a difficult relationship with her mother due to the untimely death of her 5-year-old sister for which she blamed herself. She was determined to find the Sin Eater who lived up in the mountains away from the community so that he could take away her awful sin. Throughout this ordeal the relationship between her and her mother seemed to be one in which mom really did seem to hold Callie responsible for her sister’s death.
When Callie finally caught up with and found the Sin Eater, she convinced him that she needed her sin taken from her before her death because she could not bear the overwhelming burden. When the Sin Eater told her that he could only perform his duty at burial, she swore that this would be her next step if that’s what it would take. Upon hearing this, the Sin Eater agreed to perform for her the next day. The next day came and the Sin Eater did his deed while Callie lay with the bread and wine on a shawl upon her chest with her eyes tightly shut, but she felt no different once the Sin Eater had finished. She still had her sin upon her!
Shortly thereafter, Callie happened upon a stranger near a creek whom she had actually met a few days before when she about to cast herself off the same tree bridge her younger sister had fallen from when she was killed. The stranger got to Callie just as she was about to fall and had asked her what could possibly be so bad in such a young life to do this terrible thing, but she ran away.
At the second meeting the stranger invited her to sit with him and eat while he spoke to her. Their conversation finally turned to the sin which so haunted her, and she told the stranger of her visit to the Sin Eater who was unable to take this awful sin from her. The stranger turned out to be an evangelist who spoke with her about the ORIGINAL SIN EATER who had come some 1800 years before to take away sin. It was not long before Callie was able to embrace this New Reality, and she had proclaimed to her imaginary friend who had come to her earlier that “it no longer hurt” after she had been made aware of THE Sin Eater.
It turned out that the community “boss” was the son of a very mean man who had helped the Welsh get settled in the cove by slaughtering the Indians who were already settled there. This very mean man, upon his death bed, needed a “sin eater” to take away the overwhelming burden that was now his as he lay near death. The Sin Eater who hid in the mountains had been deceived into believing that it had been the “will of God” that he serve the community in this capacity. It was not until an elderly woman who was a child when this massacre took place decided to come forward that this practice of using an earthly “sin eater” ended.
I will stop short of the ending so as not to ruin it. Needless to say, the ending was everything it should have been, but the message that came from it was even more powerful. It may be a message that has a parallel with the Transfiguration.
The disciples who had witnessed this phenomenon on the holy mountain could not have possibly been able to fully understand or appreciate what was before them, and would likely not be able to until after the Resurrection when they would then be able to see the resurrected Christ in all His glory. Peter’s willingness to build dwellings for each of the Three seemed good TO HIM to do, but he and the others were not ready for the true meaning of the Transfiguration.
The message of eternal life lay in the Transfiguration by the witness of Moses whose grave was unknown (Deut 34:6) and by Elijah who had been taken up from this world into Heaven by a “chariot of fire” (2 Kings 2:11), personified by the Glorified Christ whose wholeness of the Lord God was attested to by the Voice which had been heard by Peter, James, and John on the holy mountain. I don’t think they would have been able to fully comprehend the meaning of the Transfiguration if they had run off half-cocked and make something up that seemed to make sense to them but would still come up short of what subsequent generations would need to know.
The Transfiguration was the evidence that was needed then, and is by many needed now, to remind us that we are not alone. The world comes crushing in around us, and we need to know that we’ve not been forgotten, not been forsaken. But it also seems to me that the other necessary parallel in the Transfiguration that helps it to make more sense is that one must be walking with Jesus in order to not only witness such a thing but, more importantly, to embrace it and appreciate it for what it is: Emmanuel – God with us.
We are about to enter into the season of Lent. It is time for renewal and revival not only in the Church but, perhaps more relevantly, in our communities. It is time for us to reconnect with The Sin Eater so that we may go about our work of making disciples and not be overburdened with the drudgery of daily living but with a sense of freedom like no other. If we feel like we are missing that now, I can think of no better time than during Lent to reconnect, to experience for ourselves the New Reality that always was, is, and is to come.
Amen.
2 Peter 1:16-21
Matthew 17:1-9
One of my favorite TV shows of all time has to be M*A*S*H which is set during the Korean War and features a medical unit near the front line of the fighting. There is a lot of good comedy in the series, but there are also some very dramatic moments. In a recent episode, Father Mulcahey the chaplain was about to receive a visit from a Cardinal who was touring Korea. And because this Cardinal was a particularly well-known figure, Father Mulcahey wanted everything to be in order as evidence of his effective ministry as the camp’s spiritual leader. When he didn’t get everything he wanted when he wanted it, he got rather persnickety with the people of the camp with his seemingly excessive demands.
The Cardinal was to be the celebrant at the Sunday service, and Father Mulcahey was to be given the honor of introducing the Cardinal. However, a crisis had developed on Saturday night due to a soldier having been diagnosed with leukemia during a routine blood test, and Father Mulcahey had stayed up all night with the soldier to visit with and console him. Because he had gotten so wrapped up in where he was needed, Father Mulcahey had lost track of time and was late for the service where the Cardinal and most of the camp were all waiting.
Father Mulcahey showed up in his bath robe looking disheveled and was obviously and admittedly not as prepared as he would like to have been. Rather than try to remember the sermon he had been preparing, he chose instead to tell the story of what had happened during the course of the previous few days in his rather self-centered preparations for the Cardinal’s visit in wanting everything just so in his vain effort to impress the Cardinal. He then pretty much slam-dunked himself and his apparent lack of humility as well as his selfishness when he was confronted with the other man’s imminent demise due to leukemia. He had come to realize how self-centered he had been and was reminded about how fragile and short life is. He was also reminded that the Lord did not put us on this earth so that we could look good for visiting dignitaries; we were put here so that the Lord’s presence could be evident in the eyes of the last, the least, and the lost.
The Transfiguration is among the most difficult topics for me to address primarily because I tend to over-think it. For instance, Jesus orders Peter, James, and John to “tell no one of the vision …” until after He has been raised from the grave. There is another element that makes the passage a little more difficult to comprehend: how did the three disciples know they were looking at Moses and Elijah? Additionally, throughout the Gospels whenever the disciples did not fully understand something such as many of Jesus’ parables, they asked questions that were usually answered by Jesus. It would seem to me that the Transfiguration would raise a whole host of questions, but Peter only offered to build three dwellings.
That Moses would represent the Law and that Elijah would represent the Prophecy is pretty simple to appreciate since Jesus makes it known early in Matthew 5:17 that He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, but does such an appreciation fully address what it was that could obviously wait until after the Resurrection?
Offering to build dwellings for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus would indicate that perhaps Peter at least thought he was fully aware of what he and the others were witnessing: the completeness, the wholeness of the Lord God in the Law and the Prophets through the complete manifestation of His glory in the Son, and They were all coming to claim all of creation as the Kingdom of Heaven. Even still, Peter was missing some important element because Jesus seemed to indicate that Peter’s willingness to build permanent dwellings on earth for each of these was premature, that it was not the right time and, perhaps, not the right place.
Like the baptism of Jesus, however, I think the message of the Transfiguration must go much deeper than a mere doctrinal prescription of how man thinks things ought to be. The image that was before the disciples was not like any image that is comprehensible to the human mind – they were seeing Jesus in a whole new form as well as looking at Elijah and Moses! I think maybe that Jesus finding it necessary to comfort the three was an indication that they clearly could not comprehend what they had seen; this notion may also help to explain why Jesus had ordered the disciples to keep quiet about it. After all, if they were unable to understand it, how could they possibly explain it to others?
If you’ve not already seen it, I highly recommend the movie, “The Last Sin Eater”. It is set in 19th century Appalachia in which Welsh immigrants settled. The Sin Eater was a man who had been designated by a casting of lots to come only during burials which were always conducted at night. No one was allowed to cast eyes upon the Sin Eater as he came to accept a gift of bread and wine laid upon the body of the deceased on a shawl. The Sin Eater would take the gifts, eat and drink, and then offer this mournful prayer: “Who will take away MY sins?”
The main character of the movie, an 11-year-old girl called Callie, had a difficult relationship with her mother due to the untimely death of her 5-year-old sister for which she blamed herself. She was determined to find the Sin Eater who lived up in the mountains away from the community so that he could take away her awful sin. Throughout this ordeal the relationship between her and her mother seemed to be one in which mom really did seem to hold Callie responsible for her sister’s death.
When Callie finally caught up with and found the Sin Eater, she convinced him that she needed her sin taken from her before her death because she could not bear the overwhelming burden. When the Sin Eater told her that he could only perform his duty at burial, she swore that this would be her next step if that’s what it would take. Upon hearing this, the Sin Eater agreed to perform for her the next day. The next day came and the Sin Eater did his deed while Callie lay with the bread and wine on a shawl upon her chest with her eyes tightly shut, but she felt no different once the Sin Eater had finished. She still had her sin upon her!
Shortly thereafter, Callie happened upon a stranger near a creek whom she had actually met a few days before when she about to cast herself off the same tree bridge her younger sister had fallen from when she was killed. The stranger got to Callie just as she was about to fall and had asked her what could possibly be so bad in such a young life to do this terrible thing, but she ran away.
At the second meeting the stranger invited her to sit with him and eat while he spoke to her. Their conversation finally turned to the sin which so haunted her, and she told the stranger of her visit to the Sin Eater who was unable to take this awful sin from her. The stranger turned out to be an evangelist who spoke with her about the ORIGINAL SIN EATER who had come some 1800 years before to take away sin. It was not long before Callie was able to embrace this New Reality, and she had proclaimed to her imaginary friend who had come to her earlier that “it no longer hurt” after she had been made aware of THE Sin Eater.
It turned out that the community “boss” was the son of a very mean man who had helped the Welsh get settled in the cove by slaughtering the Indians who were already settled there. This very mean man, upon his death bed, needed a “sin eater” to take away the overwhelming burden that was now his as he lay near death. The Sin Eater who hid in the mountains had been deceived into believing that it had been the “will of God” that he serve the community in this capacity. It was not until an elderly woman who was a child when this massacre took place decided to come forward that this practice of using an earthly “sin eater” ended.
I will stop short of the ending so as not to ruin it. Needless to say, the ending was everything it should have been, but the message that came from it was even more powerful. It may be a message that has a parallel with the Transfiguration.
The disciples who had witnessed this phenomenon on the holy mountain could not have possibly been able to fully understand or appreciate what was before them, and would likely not be able to until after the Resurrection when they would then be able to see the resurrected Christ in all His glory. Peter’s willingness to build dwellings for each of the Three seemed good TO HIM to do, but he and the others were not ready for the true meaning of the Transfiguration.
The message of eternal life lay in the Transfiguration by the witness of Moses whose grave was unknown (Deut 34:6) and by Elijah who had been taken up from this world into Heaven by a “chariot of fire” (2 Kings 2:11), personified by the Glorified Christ whose wholeness of the Lord God was attested to by the Voice which had been heard by Peter, James, and John on the holy mountain. I don’t think they would have been able to fully comprehend the meaning of the Transfiguration if they had run off half-cocked and make something up that seemed to make sense to them but would still come up short of what subsequent generations would need to know.
The Transfiguration was the evidence that was needed then, and is by many needed now, to remind us that we are not alone. The world comes crushing in around us, and we need to know that we’ve not been forgotten, not been forsaken. But it also seems to me that the other necessary parallel in the Transfiguration that helps it to make more sense is that one must be walking with Jesus in order to not only witness such a thing but, more importantly, to embrace it and appreciate it for what it is: Emmanuel – God with us.
We are about to enter into the season of Lent. It is time for renewal and revival not only in the Church but, perhaps more relevantly, in our communities. It is time for us to reconnect with The Sin Eater so that we may go about our work of making disciples and not be overburdened with the drudgery of daily living but with a sense of freedom like no other. If we feel like we are missing that now, I can think of no better time than during Lent to reconnect, to experience for ourselves the New Reality that always was, is, and is to come.
Amen.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Economic Analogy vs Economic Reality
How to even begin to line up the challenges facing the US economy at this time might be no real challenge to a bona fide economist but since the majority of American voters is only an “arm chair” economist at best, fundamental economics would need to be addressed and explained in such a way that the typical layman could comprehend. Since this is not likely to happen anytime soon, at least not in my lifetime given certain political realities, it would be responsible to consider what is at hand and try to make reasonable election-year choices. That is to say, whom we elect to the US House and to open US Senate seats in this election season is going to have a much more profound and lasting impact on the US economy than who is to become the next US president.
The current economic stimulus package before the House contains billions of dollars in incentives for individuals and businesses in an effort to “jump start” the economy since it is showing signs of losing momentum. So let us consider the analogy of jump-starting a car. The jumper cables in this instance could be the cash rebates that will be offered to all US taxpayers. However, even though the car will likely start with the “jump”, a problem will still exist that will require further mechanical analysis. Is the starter going bad, or do the batteries have to be replaced? The starter is obviously going to cost a bit more than simply replacing the battery but if a new battery is all that is needed, then we could say we got off cheap. But if we replace the battery in the vain hope that this is the only problem without considering all other possibilities which led to the need for a jump start in the first place, then the brand new battery and its expected life could be diminished because we replaced the battery to deal with a symptom without considering and addressing the core problem.
Well, I’m not an economist and I’m even less of a mechanic. I’m one of those who might break down on the side of the road and will raise the hood to have a look while my foot is propped up on the front bumper, but I will be pretty clueless as to what I might be looking at except that it is an engine and it is currently not working. As an “arm chair” economist who has had some college-level classes in economics and who tries to keep up with the political situation of the day, however, I will be pretty sure that there is a potential problem serious than a quick jump-start will address.
I can appreciate President Bush’s philosophy regarding the tax rebates he proposed early in his first term. The Clinton administration bragged about creating a surplus; Mr. Bush maintained that any surplus belongs back into the hands and pockets of those from whom it was taken. The government should ideally not have a budget deficit, but it also should not have a surplus of funds. To suggest that a surplus is the sign of a responsible government misses the whole point of the philosophical differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Generally it is that the government is not inherently entitled to anything more than the public is willing to give. It is highly unlikely that the majority of Americans are OK with the US government having a surplus of funds while they continue struggling to make ends meet.
This term and this time around, the reasoning for the current rebate and incentives proposal is altogether under different circumstances but the philosophy remains the same: the economy needs the cash, not the government even if the government is facing not only a pretty hefty budget deficit but also a staggering, if incomprehensible, national debt. The blame game has been going on for years between Democrats and Republicans, but the bottom line is that the US taxpayer has done what he is supposed to do by paying the taxes. It is the US Congress that has failed. The current 18% approval rating (depending on which poll is used but was cited last night by news commentators prior to the president’s State of the Union address) is indicative of the reality that taxpayers are aware of the Congress’ failure to act responsibly. Then as if seeking to affirm the low approval rating, Congress would dare to suggest that American taxpayers will have to give up more of their hard-earned pay to make corrections, insinuating that the government needs the cash more than the working families who earned it.
The current incentives proposal before the US House has cash rebates to be paid to taxpayers, but the Senate has all but guaranteed that there will be more added to it by the time it comes before that body such as more in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work for too long. And that’s the rub, isn’t it? How much good will a few hundred dollars be for those who have been out of work for so long? At best, there will be groceries purchased or bills paid but the relatively small amount will be gone in less than a month. A job, on the other hand, will go a lot further and will provide much more help to the American taxpayer – and the government by way of payroll taxes – than a one-time, very expensive allocation of government funds.
I would much rather the Congress give US businesses more incentive to keep jobs in the US. I would much rather the US Department of Transportation end this experiment of allowing Mexican trucking companies to operate on US highways when US trucking companies are struggling to keep up with high fuel prices and low freight rates which will certainly be driven even lower. I would rather the Congress offer up tax incentives to US businesses according to the number of Americans who are hired or according to setting up in an already depressed region. I would much rather the US Congress seriously consider how expensive it is to do business in the US and then come to realize their part in creating this anti-business environment in an economy that demands it. Though I do not pretend to be an expert in international business, I think I would rather the Congress repeal NAFTA and let American business and consumers get back into the business of making commerce for consumption and jobs and, ultimately, additional tax revenue.
I will always welcome a little extra cash now and then. I would be much more appreciative, however, for a new job or other new opportunities. I do not ask for guarantees, but let’s be reasonable: I cannot compete with a worker in another country who can afford to work for less and whose employer is being given all sorts of incentives by the US Congress, the same Congress We The People helped to elect.
The Congress is about to offer us jumper cables. The truth, however, is that it is not the economic “battery” that needs a boost. There is something much more sinister afoot here. For the time, however, all we can do is to prop our collective foot on the US front bumper and just look under the hood, hoping that someone smarter and more experienced than we will come along with a genuine solution to a genuine problem.
The current economic stimulus package before the House contains billions of dollars in incentives for individuals and businesses in an effort to “jump start” the economy since it is showing signs of losing momentum. So let us consider the analogy of jump-starting a car. The jumper cables in this instance could be the cash rebates that will be offered to all US taxpayers. However, even though the car will likely start with the “jump”, a problem will still exist that will require further mechanical analysis. Is the starter going bad, or do the batteries have to be replaced? The starter is obviously going to cost a bit more than simply replacing the battery but if a new battery is all that is needed, then we could say we got off cheap. But if we replace the battery in the vain hope that this is the only problem without considering all other possibilities which led to the need for a jump start in the first place, then the brand new battery and its expected life could be diminished because we replaced the battery to deal with a symptom without considering and addressing the core problem.
Well, I’m not an economist and I’m even less of a mechanic. I’m one of those who might break down on the side of the road and will raise the hood to have a look while my foot is propped up on the front bumper, but I will be pretty clueless as to what I might be looking at except that it is an engine and it is currently not working. As an “arm chair” economist who has had some college-level classes in economics and who tries to keep up with the political situation of the day, however, I will be pretty sure that there is a potential problem serious than a quick jump-start will address.
I can appreciate President Bush’s philosophy regarding the tax rebates he proposed early in his first term. The Clinton administration bragged about creating a surplus; Mr. Bush maintained that any surplus belongs back into the hands and pockets of those from whom it was taken. The government should ideally not have a budget deficit, but it also should not have a surplus of funds. To suggest that a surplus is the sign of a responsible government misses the whole point of the philosophical differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Generally it is that the government is not inherently entitled to anything more than the public is willing to give. It is highly unlikely that the majority of Americans are OK with the US government having a surplus of funds while they continue struggling to make ends meet.
This term and this time around, the reasoning for the current rebate and incentives proposal is altogether under different circumstances but the philosophy remains the same: the economy needs the cash, not the government even if the government is facing not only a pretty hefty budget deficit but also a staggering, if incomprehensible, national debt. The blame game has been going on for years between Democrats and Republicans, but the bottom line is that the US taxpayer has done what he is supposed to do by paying the taxes. It is the US Congress that has failed. The current 18% approval rating (depending on which poll is used but was cited last night by news commentators prior to the president’s State of the Union address) is indicative of the reality that taxpayers are aware of the Congress’ failure to act responsibly. Then as if seeking to affirm the low approval rating, Congress would dare to suggest that American taxpayers will have to give up more of their hard-earned pay to make corrections, insinuating that the government needs the cash more than the working families who earned it.
The current incentives proposal before the US House has cash rebates to be paid to taxpayers, but the Senate has all but guaranteed that there will be more added to it by the time it comes before that body such as more in food stamps and an extension of unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work for too long. And that’s the rub, isn’t it? How much good will a few hundred dollars be for those who have been out of work for so long? At best, there will be groceries purchased or bills paid but the relatively small amount will be gone in less than a month. A job, on the other hand, will go a lot further and will provide much more help to the American taxpayer – and the government by way of payroll taxes – than a one-time, very expensive allocation of government funds.
I would much rather the Congress give US businesses more incentive to keep jobs in the US. I would much rather the US Department of Transportation end this experiment of allowing Mexican trucking companies to operate on US highways when US trucking companies are struggling to keep up with high fuel prices and low freight rates which will certainly be driven even lower. I would rather the Congress offer up tax incentives to US businesses according to the number of Americans who are hired or according to setting up in an already depressed region. I would much rather the US Congress seriously consider how expensive it is to do business in the US and then come to realize their part in creating this anti-business environment in an economy that demands it. Though I do not pretend to be an expert in international business, I think I would rather the Congress repeal NAFTA and let American business and consumers get back into the business of making commerce for consumption and jobs and, ultimately, additional tax revenue.
I will always welcome a little extra cash now and then. I would be much more appreciative, however, for a new job or other new opportunities. I do not ask for guarantees, but let’s be reasonable: I cannot compete with a worker in another country who can afford to work for less and whose employer is being given all sorts of incentives by the US Congress, the same Congress We The People helped to elect.
The Congress is about to offer us jumper cables. The truth, however, is that it is not the economic “battery” that needs a boost. There is something much more sinister afoot here. For the time, however, all we can do is to prop our collective foot on the US front bumper and just look under the hood, hoping that someone smarter and more experienced than we will come along with a genuine solution to a genuine problem.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Total Package
Deuteronomy 6:1-9
Galatians 4:6-11
John 8:31-36
The biggest issue of this year’s presidential campaign seems to be health care … or health insurance … or the high cost of each … or whether the government should provide … or whether the free market should be allowed to correct itself … or the definition of “adequate health care” … or who is to blame for those who don’t have insurance, or who do not have access to adequate health care.
Truth be told, I’m not sure how to narrow it down, but this I do know: if we are to get into a discussion on a correcting a particular problem, regardless of the problem, the first constructive step would be to define the problem, isolate it to its most common denominator, and then build a solution from there. And as much as we would wish it otherwise, health care is a complex issue that will have no easy 1-2 solutions. Do we need health insurance, or do we need access to adequate and affordable health care? Then we must determine exactly what “adequate” means, and “affordable” is, of course, relative. In other words, what do we need at the core level?
Our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual capacities are limited by our own humanity and mortality; there is only so much we can do, and we are only going to live so long. But if we are not hitting on all cylinders we are not living up to our own God-given potential. The Declaration of Independence says we were created with “unalienable rights”; the Bible suggests we were created with inherent duties and responsibilities as well as opportunities. And these opportunities come as a result of living up to our God-given potential.
We were created in a Divine Image with, I think, a specific purpose and a particular gift. We were carefully designed with something in mind. And just as the cylinders of an engine require regular maintenance in order to operate according to their design for maximum performance, so must we undergo regular, scheduled maintenance periods in which we are renewed, refreshed, and reinvigorated. The key to good health, dear friends, is maintenance because as was stated earlier, once something goes wrong a solution may be more difficult to come by.
Defining a problem is perhaps the greatest challenge because so much can be inter-related. For instance, depression can take its toll on our physical health nearly to the point of incapacity, and clinical depression is said to be a physical problem as a chemical imbalance in the body. Perpetual physical illness and chronic pain can each take their toll on the body as well as the mind and the spirit. Stress alone can cause all kinds of problems for the human person that could perhaps be treated with medication, but the medication will only take care of the symptoms caused by stress; the source of the stress itself will still exist. So even though we’ve chosen a relatively expensive treatment program (medication AIN’T cheap!), we have yet to isolate the genuine problem.
We need only to look around and read the headlines to see all sorts of stress-induced problems. The home mortgage industry is in disarray, and the consumer credit crunch is about ready to bury us all. Just trying to keep our heads above water is a full-time job in itself. We are working ourselves to death, going nowhere, and making record time in getting there because we simply cannot be satisfied with where we are, so we strive for more. In the end, the “more” turns out to be a worldly “god”, a slave driver and task master that demands satisfaction but can never be satisfied because its appetite is insatiable. And believe me when I tell you that these “gods” are C*O*N*U*M*E*R*S; they will eat us alive, sap our spirits, take our souls because we willingly give them up, and then bury what’s left of us after we’ve been all used up. Sadder still, we will have entered into such an arrangement of our own free will, blinded by our own ambitions and selfish desires.
The foundation of our faith has been spelled out to us in Deuteronomy. Paul reiterates the theme to the Galatians, and then Jesus drives it home: in a well ordered and healthful life, something must always come first. It is not a matter of rearranging priorities according to the day’s needs or as circumstances may warrant; something must always come first consistently. The Revelation directly implicates the Church at Ephesus, but we would do well to heed the warning that we have allowed our lives, and thus our well-being, to be defined by the moment – by the “gods” of this age - rather than by Divine design and intent of faith:
“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen, repent, and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp stand from its place – unless you repent.” Revelation 2:4-5
The Holy Healthy Initiative of the Arkansas United Methodist Conference speaks of these points in reminding us first of our mission: to make disciples. In order to fulfill this mission, the Conference recognizes that we may be in danger of falling short of our calling and our mission because we are not “hitting on all cylinders”; that is to say, we are not working according to our Divine Design. The Initiative, however, is not about vanity. It is not about making ourselves look better to the opposite gender. It is about fine-tuning the engine so that we may go as needed and respond as called. To do this, all cylinders – physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual – must be well maintained.
At first glance putting such an emphasis on personal care can seem too inwardly focused, a little uncomfortably selfish relative to the pain and misery with which we are surrounded unless we take such care in its proper context. Jesus often went away to be ALONE. We must surely know, just as Jesus did, that there are literally hundreds of lost souls in any given area who are depending on Christians to help them even if they may be reluctant to admit it. This does not absolve us from our mission, our ministry, our calling; it just makes it a little more challenging.
In this life, in this age, in this consumer-driven society overburdened by debt and its accompanying misery which testifies to the insatiable appetite of this greedy, worldly “god” that demands more of us than we should be willing to give, we must first return to our FIRST LOVE. This is the “something” that must always come first on our list of priorities, our list of do’s, no matter what lay ahead.
It is time to give the Lord His due. It is time to cast off the shackles that are borne of greed, ambition, and worldly desires and give back to the Lord what He asks, what He is entitled to, what He ALONE paid to redeem!
WE ARE NO LONGER SLAVES! We are sons and daughters of the Living God (Galatians 4:7)! We are the “total package” that was offered first to the world in its perfection – with God’s help, we can get it back … and we must. The world is depending on us, and the Lord is waiting patiently … for now.
Galatians 4:6-11
John 8:31-36
The biggest issue of this year’s presidential campaign seems to be health care … or health insurance … or the high cost of each … or whether the government should provide … or whether the free market should be allowed to correct itself … or the definition of “adequate health care” … or who is to blame for those who don’t have insurance, or who do not have access to adequate health care.
Truth be told, I’m not sure how to narrow it down, but this I do know: if we are to get into a discussion on a correcting a particular problem, regardless of the problem, the first constructive step would be to define the problem, isolate it to its most common denominator, and then build a solution from there. And as much as we would wish it otherwise, health care is a complex issue that will have no easy 1-2 solutions. Do we need health insurance, or do we need access to adequate and affordable health care? Then we must determine exactly what “adequate” means, and “affordable” is, of course, relative. In other words, what do we need at the core level?
Our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual capacities are limited by our own humanity and mortality; there is only so much we can do, and we are only going to live so long. But if we are not hitting on all cylinders we are not living up to our own God-given potential. The Declaration of Independence says we were created with “unalienable rights”; the Bible suggests we were created with inherent duties and responsibilities as well as opportunities. And these opportunities come as a result of living up to our God-given potential.
We were created in a Divine Image with, I think, a specific purpose and a particular gift. We were carefully designed with something in mind. And just as the cylinders of an engine require regular maintenance in order to operate according to their design for maximum performance, so must we undergo regular, scheduled maintenance periods in which we are renewed, refreshed, and reinvigorated. The key to good health, dear friends, is maintenance because as was stated earlier, once something goes wrong a solution may be more difficult to come by.
Defining a problem is perhaps the greatest challenge because so much can be inter-related. For instance, depression can take its toll on our physical health nearly to the point of incapacity, and clinical depression is said to be a physical problem as a chemical imbalance in the body. Perpetual physical illness and chronic pain can each take their toll on the body as well as the mind and the spirit. Stress alone can cause all kinds of problems for the human person that could perhaps be treated with medication, but the medication will only take care of the symptoms caused by stress; the source of the stress itself will still exist. So even though we’ve chosen a relatively expensive treatment program (medication AIN’T cheap!), we have yet to isolate the genuine problem.
We need only to look around and read the headlines to see all sorts of stress-induced problems. The home mortgage industry is in disarray, and the consumer credit crunch is about ready to bury us all. Just trying to keep our heads above water is a full-time job in itself. We are working ourselves to death, going nowhere, and making record time in getting there because we simply cannot be satisfied with where we are, so we strive for more. In the end, the “more” turns out to be a worldly “god”, a slave driver and task master that demands satisfaction but can never be satisfied because its appetite is insatiable. And believe me when I tell you that these “gods” are C*O*N*U*M*E*R*S; they will eat us alive, sap our spirits, take our souls because we willingly give them up, and then bury what’s left of us after we’ve been all used up. Sadder still, we will have entered into such an arrangement of our own free will, blinded by our own ambitions and selfish desires.
The foundation of our faith has been spelled out to us in Deuteronomy. Paul reiterates the theme to the Galatians, and then Jesus drives it home: in a well ordered and healthful life, something must always come first. It is not a matter of rearranging priorities according to the day’s needs or as circumstances may warrant; something must always come first consistently. The Revelation directly implicates the Church at Ephesus, but we would do well to heed the warning that we have allowed our lives, and thus our well-being, to be defined by the moment – by the “gods” of this age - rather than by Divine design and intent of faith:
“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen, repent, and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lamp stand from its place – unless you repent.” Revelation 2:4-5
The Holy Healthy Initiative of the Arkansas United Methodist Conference speaks of these points in reminding us first of our mission: to make disciples. In order to fulfill this mission, the Conference recognizes that we may be in danger of falling short of our calling and our mission because we are not “hitting on all cylinders”; that is to say, we are not working according to our Divine Design. The Initiative, however, is not about vanity. It is not about making ourselves look better to the opposite gender. It is about fine-tuning the engine so that we may go as needed and respond as called. To do this, all cylinders – physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual – must be well maintained.
At first glance putting such an emphasis on personal care can seem too inwardly focused, a little uncomfortably selfish relative to the pain and misery with which we are surrounded unless we take such care in its proper context. Jesus often went away to be ALONE. We must surely know, just as Jesus did, that there are literally hundreds of lost souls in any given area who are depending on Christians to help them even if they may be reluctant to admit it. This does not absolve us from our mission, our ministry, our calling; it just makes it a little more challenging.
In this life, in this age, in this consumer-driven society overburdened by debt and its accompanying misery which testifies to the insatiable appetite of this greedy, worldly “god” that demands more of us than we should be willing to give, we must first return to our FIRST LOVE. This is the “something” that must always come first on our list of priorities, our list of do’s, no matter what lay ahead.
It is time to give the Lord His due. It is time to cast off the shackles that are borne of greed, ambition, and worldly desires and give back to the Lord what He asks, what He is entitled to, what He ALONE paid to redeem!
WE ARE NO LONGER SLAVES! We are sons and daughters of the Living God (Galatians 4:7)! We are the “total package” that was offered first to the world in its perfection – with God’s help, we can get it back … and we must. The world is depending on us, and the Lord is waiting patiently … for now.
Monday, January 21, 2008
"I Have a Dream"
This is arguably one of the greatest speeches ever recorded. In its written form it is powerful but if you want to hear it as well, click on the title link.
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.
There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Life in Perpetuity
Isaiah 49:1-7
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
John 1:29-42
Attending funerals always brings certain thoughts to mind, not least of which is perhaps the greatest of all mysteries: what happens next, and not necessarily just beyond the grave. Answering this question, especially for those who are left to grieve, is compelling because loved ones almost always feel not only a profound sense of loss but also, I think, a lost sense of direction because of a traumatic, if often early or unexpected, interruption. In the case of the funeral I attended this week, the gentleman who was laid to rest is the father of one of my dearest friends since high school. He left behind his two sons, his three grandchildren, and his beloved wife of almost 52 years. It is she who may have a difficult time finding her footing even as his passing was not unexpected due to a long bout with cancer.
If there is to be any uncertainty in the new widow’s life, it will not be because she is not a strong person. In fact, no such statement can necessarily apply to anyone in particular because there are oftentimes circumstances that push us out of that strange but comforting sense of complacency that is borne of a hopeful yet blind notion that it will never end. Because life is but a fleeting moment in the realm of eternity, being prepared for these moments is necessary because there is no way that death will not come to us all.
I have encountered too many Christians over the years who are absolutely petrified at the thought of death; not just their own but also someone close to them. It is only when there is death or illness in the family that the reality of death really hits home. And the reasons for such fears are as varied as our opinions. Few are rational but in the mind of the one experiencing the fear and anxiety, it is as real as reality gets. There is little that anyone can do to allay these fears because it is virtually impossible to rationalize the irrational.
The Christian concept of the Lord and Heaven, however, should inhibit such fears because when we speak of the Lord and His grace, we are talking not about death but about life – even at a funeral. And life, as is said so often, is fundamental to the existence of humanity. There is life and there is death, but there is no in-between. To speak of death in the Christian vernacular, however, should be as foreign to us as any unfamiliar language.
None of this is to say that we will not hurt and grieve when we mark the passing of a loved one; not at all. From that moment life will not be the same, and it never can be because of the attachment we had with that person. Our lives are centered on a particular existence, and those lives sort of define our own being; our associations with these loved ones identify who we are. Though it may seem an unfair comparison, losing a job can be almost as traumatic because this, too, makes a statement about who we are and what we have become. Either way, I fear that we Christians have a long way to go in making peace with the reality that our lives will one day end.
When it is over, however, is it really ALL OVER? In the case of my friend, the answer is a resounding “NO”. He and his brother are both good and decent men. They were raised by good and decent parents who taught them how to love, how to live, how to work, and how to rely on their faith. The patriarch of that family is passed, but he has left behind a legacy of a life well spent as well as a life that will not end. And because he lived a life of faith and community service, his family can rest in the comfort of the REALITY of the Lord calling to this man and saying, “Well done, My good and faithful servant.”
Why, then, do we mourn? Why must our human grief disallow the reality that in the life of faith, there can be no death? Why do we know such fear that can sometimes nearly immobilize some who have become so attached to a life or a way of life so much so that anything outside that particular realm is completely alien to us? Could it be that we define ourselves, FIRST AND FOREMOST, by our worldly and man-made definitions? I am someone’s husband and father. My friend’s father was a farmer and a justice of the peace. She was a farmer’s wife, and he is the son of a farmer as well as someone’s husband and someone’s father. I was once a transportation manager but because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control, all these worldly realities are no longer true or will one day change beyond recognition. This is the one true and indisputable reality: things as we know them will come to an end sooner or later.
Is such reality restricted only to those who marry or who reproduce? Not even close -because we touch lives in a positive way NOT biologically nor physically but spiritually. Think of how a slap in the face will sting for a little bit, but words and actions cut straight to the core of our being. We are touched more profoundly by experience than by mere words. Thus is it reasonable to presume that others are as profoundly affected by what we do and say and how we live and teach by our examples. These are the things which compel people to want more of the goodness they can readily see. And these good things are perpetuated from generation to generation by spiritual strength and the courage borne of faith.
The disciples whom Jesus called to follow Him were fishermen, husbands, fathers, tax collectors, and maybe farmers. Those who chose to follow Him later were from all walks of life, but the Life shown to them has continued to this very day. Isn’t it strange how the more things change, the more they stay the same? Especially when it comes to experiences of life, we will certainly encounter traumatic events in our lives. It is absolute, and there is no escaping this inexplicable fact. However, notice how life continues to march. Notice how, no matter the evil that is still perpetrated on this earth and in this world, life somehow finds a way?
It is the way of the Lord. He is the God and author of Life, and He has chosen to perpetuate Life through a whole new Covenant. It is the Covenant for keeps. It is the Covenant of Life. It is the Covenant of Christ. And it is perpetual – and ETERNAL – Life.
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
John 1:29-42
Attending funerals always brings certain thoughts to mind, not least of which is perhaps the greatest of all mysteries: what happens next, and not necessarily just beyond the grave. Answering this question, especially for those who are left to grieve, is compelling because loved ones almost always feel not only a profound sense of loss but also, I think, a lost sense of direction because of a traumatic, if often early or unexpected, interruption. In the case of the funeral I attended this week, the gentleman who was laid to rest is the father of one of my dearest friends since high school. He left behind his two sons, his three grandchildren, and his beloved wife of almost 52 years. It is she who may have a difficult time finding her footing even as his passing was not unexpected due to a long bout with cancer.
If there is to be any uncertainty in the new widow’s life, it will not be because she is not a strong person. In fact, no such statement can necessarily apply to anyone in particular because there are oftentimes circumstances that push us out of that strange but comforting sense of complacency that is borne of a hopeful yet blind notion that it will never end. Because life is but a fleeting moment in the realm of eternity, being prepared for these moments is necessary because there is no way that death will not come to us all.
I have encountered too many Christians over the years who are absolutely petrified at the thought of death; not just their own but also someone close to them. It is only when there is death or illness in the family that the reality of death really hits home. And the reasons for such fears are as varied as our opinions. Few are rational but in the mind of the one experiencing the fear and anxiety, it is as real as reality gets. There is little that anyone can do to allay these fears because it is virtually impossible to rationalize the irrational.
The Christian concept of the Lord and Heaven, however, should inhibit such fears because when we speak of the Lord and His grace, we are talking not about death but about life – even at a funeral. And life, as is said so often, is fundamental to the existence of humanity. There is life and there is death, but there is no in-between. To speak of death in the Christian vernacular, however, should be as foreign to us as any unfamiliar language.
None of this is to say that we will not hurt and grieve when we mark the passing of a loved one; not at all. From that moment life will not be the same, and it never can be because of the attachment we had with that person. Our lives are centered on a particular existence, and those lives sort of define our own being; our associations with these loved ones identify who we are. Though it may seem an unfair comparison, losing a job can be almost as traumatic because this, too, makes a statement about who we are and what we have become. Either way, I fear that we Christians have a long way to go in making peace with the reality that our lives will one day end.
When it is over, however, is it really ALL OVER? In the case of my friend, the answer is a resounding “NO”. He and his brother are both good and decent men. They were raised by good and decent parents who taught them how to love, how to live, how to work, and how to rely on their faith. The patriarch of that family is passed, but he has left behind a legacy of a life well spent as well as a life that will not end. And because he lived a life of faith and community service, his family can rest in the comfort of the REALITY of the Lord calling to this man and saying, “Well done, My good and faithful servant.”
Why, then, do we mourn? Why must our human grief disallow the reality that in the life of faith, there can be no death? Why do we know such fear that can sometimes nearly immobilize some who have become so attached to a life or a way of life so much so that anything outside that particular realm is completely alien to us? Could it be that we define ourselves, FIRST AND FOREMOST, by our worldly and man-made definitions? I am someone’s husband and father. My friend’s father was a farmer and a justice of the peace. She was a farmer’s wife, and he is the son of a farmer as well as someone’s husband and someone’s father. I was once a transportation manager but because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control, all these worldly realities are no longer true or will one day change beyond recognition. This is the one true and indisputable reality: things as we know them will come to an end sooner or later.
Is such reality restricted only to those who marry or who reproduce? Not even close -because we touch lives in a positive way NOT biologically nor physically but spiritually. Think of how a slap in the face will sting for a little bit, but words and actions cut straight to the core of our being. We are touched more profoundly by experience than by mere words. Thus is it reasonable to presume that others are as profoundly affected by what we do and say and how we live and teach by our examples. These are the things which compel people to want more of the goodness they can readily see. And these good things are perpetuated from generation to generation by spiritual strength and the courage borne of faith.
The disciples whom Jesus called to follow Him were fishermen, husbands, fathers, tax collectors, and maybe farmers. Those who chose to follow Him later were from all walks of life, but the Life shown to them has continued to this very day. Isn’t it strange how the more things change, the more they stay the same? Especially when it comes to experiences of life, we will certainly encounter traumatic events in our lives. It is absolute, and there is no escaping this inexplicable fact. However, notice how life continues to march. Notice how, no matter the evil that is still perpetrated on this earth and in this world, life somehow finds a way?
It is the way of the Lord. He is the God and author of Life, and He has chosen to perpetuate Life through a whole new Covenant. It is the Covenant for keeps. It is the Covenant of Life. It is the Covenant of Christ. And it is perpetual – and ETERNAL – Life.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Race-Baiting and the Democrats
Alright … who dissed Dr. King? We have a bona-fide, life-enhancing public discourse going on right now between Hillary and Obama with a side of Bill (Clinton) jumping into the mix here and there (although I think Bill sort of backed off after being called to account for his ‘fairy tale’ remark by Al Sharpton). The following is an edited Tongue-In-Cheek transcript of a sound-bite conversation that has been going on between Hillary and Obama. Until now, dear reader, you have had to wait until the next day’s paper to find out what one said in response to another. As a public service to the informed voter, I have assembled the latest conversation and its bits and pieces into one easy-to-read format. I hope you find it as informative as I did.
Hillary: “Yes, you did ..”
Obama: “Nuh-uh”
Hillary: “I am more …”
Obama: “Nuh-uh … me.”
Hillary: “You don’t get it …”
Obama: “Oh yeah? YOU don’t get it!”
John Edwards: “But, but …”
Hillary: “Nuh-uh … YOU!
Obama: “Oh no she didn’t!”
Bill: “She didn’t say that; I did. But that’s not what I really said. The general public is not intelligent enough to understand me. I was misquoted. I was taken out of context. I am misunderstood. I’m way more black than he is!”
Well, I think you get the point. At least I hope you got the point, that being that these two (well, three if you count John Edwards) are SERIOUS contenders for the Democratic nomination. People are actually getting in line to vote for these people and what’s worse: they both currently serve in the US Senate. To be fair, however, we must also realize that some dialogue between two or more of the Republicans can be as easily reduced to such a level, but there seems to be no current spitting match among the Republicans over who is the “blacker” candidate.
Primaries in the south will be make-or-break contests for those who are barely holding on. In fact, these early primaries may well end two or more campaigns depending on the outcome. Political campaigns operations issues are not what is at stake here, however. The fact that there has been such a low level of discourse between Hillary and Obama each trying to stake some sort of political and/or racial claim to Dr. Martin Luther King and the movement he led indicates to me that these candidates and their political operatives really do have a low opinion of the intellect of the typical American voter. It is also very clear that as each of these “top” candidates has been very pointed in accusations against President Bush as the cause for divisiveness in this county, they are doing their level best to divide voters by color. Of course each will take whatever “white” votes they can get, but they really … really …. REALLY want the “black” vote. And to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what that is. Don’t we all essentially want the same things?
I had hoped that the certain positive thing that might come from this race with Hillary and Obama would be that color would not play into it since there is a serious contender who is not white. Yet it did, and they each fell into a public spitting match, from what I can gather, about who knew more about Dr. King’s part in the fight for civil rights. And Mr. Clinton jumped into the fray by insisting that it took a white, Democratic president to get the job done. Is he serious about trying to lead us to believe that President Johnson single-handedly passed this ground-breaking legislation? President Johnson was no more alone in this landmark than was Dr. King (let us not forget that Dr. King was not walking alone all those times). How did it come to this, and where will it go from here?
I can’t wait to see.
Hillary: “Yes, you did ..”
Obama: “Nuh-uh”
Hillary: “I am more …”
Obama: “Nuh-uh … me.”
Hillary: “You don’t get it …”
Obama: “Oh yeah? YOU don’t get it!”
John Edwards: “But, but …”
Hillary: “Nuh-uh … YOU!
Obama: “Oh no she didn’t!”
Bill: “She didn’t say that; I did. But that’s not what I really said. The general public is not intelligent enough to understand me. I was misquoted. I was taken out of context. I am misunderstood. I’m way more black than he is!”
Well, I think you get the point. At least I hope you got the point, that being that these two (well, three if you count John Edwards) are SERIOUS contenders for the Democratic nomination. People are actually getting in line to vote for these people and what’s worse: they both currently serve in the US Senate. To be fair, however, we must also realize that some dialogue between two or more of the Republicans can be as easily reduced to such a level, but there seems to be no current spitting match among the Republicans over who is the “blacker” candidate.
Primaries in the south will be make-or-break contests for those who are barely holding on. In fact, these early primaries may well end two or more campaigns depending on the outcome. Political campaigns operations issues are not what is at stake here, however. The fact that there has been such a low level of discourse between Hillary and Obama each trying to stake some sort of political and/or racial claim to Dr. Martin Luther King and the movement he led indicates to me that these candidates and their political operatives really do have a low opinion of the intellect of the typical American voter. It is also very clear that as each of these “top” candidates has been very pointed in accusations against President Bush as the cause for divisiveness in this county, they are doing their level best to divide voters by color. Of course each will take whatever “white” votes they can get, but they really … really …. REALLY want the “black” vote. And to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what that is. Don’t we all essentially want the same things?
I had hoped that the certain positive thing that might come from this race with Hillary and Obama would be that color would not play into it since there is a serious contender who is not white. Yet it did, and they each fell into a public spitting match, from what I can gather, about who knew more about Dr. King’s part in the fight for civil rights. And Mr. Clinton jumped into the fray by insisting that it took a white, Democratic president to get the job done. Is he serious about trying to lead us to believe that President Johnson single-handedly passed this ground-breaking legislation? President Johnson was no more alone in this landmark than was Dr. King (let us not forget that Dr. King was not walking alone all those times). How did it come to this, and where will it go from here?
I can’t wait to see.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
All Things New
Isaiah 42:1-9
Acts 10:34-43
Matthew 3:13-17
A pastor friend was once asked in class about his very favorite part of being a Methodist pastor. His quick response was, “baptizing babies”. Having had the good fortune of watching him in action, his enthusiasm for such ministry is readily apparent. It is not something he simply does as a portion of his office as pastor; the man genuinely loves offering this Sacrament of the Church and he also has a genuine love for children. For him, it is not a duty; it is both an honor and a privilege to welcome newcomers into the Body of Christ.
For baptism to be as important a part of Christian life as it is, it is also one of the sticking points between Christian denominations that causes a great deal of conflict and consternation. The nature of the Sacrament itself does not seem to be questioned. Rather, the timing and method are points on which far too many Christians simply cannot agree.
Some insist that baptism must be done by complete immersion as is presumed by the baptism of Jesus in a “river”; nothing wrong with this. There is also the general notion of the so-called “believer’s baptism” by which one would present oneself for baptism only after confessing Christ as Savior; nothing wrong here, either, except that this notion would necessarily exclude infants because they obviously cannot speak for themselves. What we must be mindful of, however, are the “whole households” that were baptized in Acts as a result of the head of that household coming to the realization of the New Covenant.
Baptizing infants can also be problematic for some because the doctrine of Original Sin comes into play in some traditions. Very simply put (perhaps overly so), this doctrine holds forth that all of mankind is born with the sin of Adam and Eve. It is only through the Sacrament of Baptism that one is restored. There are a couple of flaws with such a doctrine, at least from my own simplistic perspective, that lend to more confusion than anything else but in the end, the Sacrament of Baptism remains an Act Of God merely administered by the hands of man. When man reduces this spiritual encounter with the Divine to a doctrinal formula, it comes near to smacking of an unhealthy superstition and has the capacity, at least in the eyes of man, to diminish the nature of the Act and what is actually taking place.
That the Sacrament of Baptism is an act of God holds true regardless of the time and regardless of the method. Each of these, of course, is an act of man in response to the Lord, but they remain acts of man nevertheless. It is for this reason alone that I believe man should put away his years-old traditions and be a little more open minded about the Sacrament of Baptism. Treat it and approach it with reverence and respect, of course, but recognize that it is still by the saving grace and restorative power of the Lord alone by which man is saved. Anything else is self-serving and, thus, futile.
Rather than focus on the disagreements we Christians have about the correct timing or method of baptism, however, I would prefer that we explore the nature of baptism in the life of the Christian and Christ’s Holy Church. I would prefer that we put aside our own personal or corporate understandings of physical characteristics of the water for instance, and focus instead on the spiritual characteristics of one who is born anew. I would prefer that we dismiss the notion that there can be only one “right” method or “right” time and focus instead on the moment when the “old” is dismissed and the “new” is ushered in.
From what we know about Jesus and His conception and birth, He would be the last One needing to be baptized; yet He insisted upon it. Prior to this moment there is nothing to suggest that Jesus is any less the Christ than He is after baptism but according to what is written in Matthew, something does occur. “And when Jesus had been baptized, just as He came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him. And a Voice from heaven said, ‘This is My Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Mt 3:16-17
Gnosticism suggests that it was at this moment when Jesus became the Christ, when man spiritually aligned with the Divine and became one with Him. Even without such a notion, which flies in the face of orthodox Christian dogma, something transformative has taken place at this moment in the life of Jesus. There has been some sort of change that seems to have been visually and audibly apparent to those who were present.
It occurred to me this past week that man must never find himself static in any situation, that regardless of where we find ourselves doing whatever it is we do, we must always be mindful of velocity; it is the very nature of life itself. Forward movement. Constant and continuous evolution (and no, I do not mean Darwin’s ideas about physical evolution!). I was given a transcript of my pastor friend’s sermon this past week in which he reminded his congregation (and me) that “the moment” is never in one place, that man can and should constantly look and move and work forward because the past is gone, never to return. We can learn from the past, but we must not live there nor should we stay there. We can wish and pine for “the good ol’ days”, but spending too much time reminiscing might mean that we will miss the boat of life that is constantly moving forward.
Jesus did not need to be baptized, but the world needed to see what happened as a result of the baptism of man into the Divine; I think it may have been the “dove”. The language of Matthew speaks of the Spirit of God descending “like a dove” which would indicate more of a symbolic occurrence than the mere physical presence of a bird. It is not unlike the use of water in baptism. For being able to appreciate the truest nature of sin and all that sin represents, it would be inaccurate to suggest that any amount of water alone could wash this away.
The presence of the dove, however, goes far beyond the water and the removal of sin. The Spirit, which is represented in the dove, “alights” on the Son of Man. Since we believe that Jesus was born free from sin, the symbolism may come up far short, then, of what we think the physical act of baptism is supposed to mean for us. The act of baptism took place; this is physical. The descent of the Spirit, however, seems to have come as a result of this Act. Man is no longer alone, and the Lord has laid claim once again to His own creation that had once been separated from Him. It is the New Covenant manifest in Jesus the Christ.
“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers. You shall be My people, and I will be your God. I will deliver you from all your uncleanness.” Ezekiel 36:25-29a
Amen.
Acts 10:34-43
Matthew 3:13-17
A pastor friend was once asked in class about his very favorite part of being a Methodist pastor. His quick response was, “baptizing babies”. Having had the good fortune of watching him in action, his enthusiasm for such ministry is readily apparent. It is not something he simply does as a portion of his office as pastor; the man genuinely loves offering this Sacrament of the Church and he also has a genuine love for children. For him, it is not a duty; it is both an honor and a privilege to welcome newcomers into the Body of Christ.
For baptism to be as important a part of Christian life as it is, it is also one of the sticking points between Christian denominations that causes a great deal of conflict and consternation. The nature of the Sacrament itself does not seem to be questioned. Rather, the timing and method are points on which far too many Christians simply cannot agree.
Some insist that baptism must be done by complete immersion as is presumed by the baptism of Jesus in a “river”; nothing wrong with this. There is also the general notion of the so-called “believer’s baptism” by which one would present oneself for baptism only after confessing Christ as Savior; nothing wrong here, either, except that this notion would necessarily exclude infants because they obviously cannot speak for themselves. What we must be mindful of, however, are the “whole households” that were baptized in Acts as a result of the head of that household coming to the realization of the New Covenant.
Baptizing infants can also be problematic for some because the doctrine of Original Sin comes into play in some traditions. Very simply put (perhaps overly so), this doctrine holds forth that all of mankind is born with the sin of Adam and Eve. It is only through the Sacrament of Baptism that one is restored. There are a couple of flaws with such a doctrine, at least from my own simplistic perspective, that lend to more confusion than anything else but in the end, the Sacrament of Baptism remains an Act Of God merely administered by the hands of man. When man reduces this spiritual encounter with the Divine to a doctrinal formula, it comes near to smacking of an unhealthy superstition and has the capacity, at least in the eyes of man, to diminish the nature of the Act and what is actually taking place.
That the Sacrament of Baptism is an act of God holds true regardless of the time and regardless of the method. Each of these, of course, is an act of man in response to the Lord, but they remain acts of man nevertheless. It is for this reason alone that I believe man should put away his years-old traditions and be a little more open minded about the Sacrament of Baptism. Treat it and approach it with reverence and respect, of course, but recognize that it is still by the saving grace and restorative power of the Lord alone by which man is saved. Anything else is self-serving and, thus, futile.
Rather than focus on the disagreements we Christians have about the correct timing or method of baptism, however, I would prefer that we explore the nature of baptism in the life of the Christian and Christ’s Holy Church. I would prefer that we put aside our own personal or corporate understandings of physical characteristics of the water for instance, and focus instead on the spiritual characteristics of one who is born anew. I would prefer that we dismiss the notion that there can be only one “right” method or “right” time and focus instead on the moment when the “old” is dismissed and the “new” is ushered in.
From what we know about Jesus and His conception and birth, He would be the last One needing to be baptized; yet He insisted upon it. Prior to this moment there is nothing to suggest that Jesus is any less the Christ than He is after baptism but according to what is written in Matthew, something does occur. “And when Jesus had been baptized, just as He came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him. And a Voice from heaven said, ‘This is My Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Mt 3:16-17
Gnosticism suggests that it was at this moment when Jesus became the Christ, when man spiritually aligned with the Divine and became one with Him. Even without such a notion, which flies in the face of orthodox Christian dogma, something transformative has taken place at this moment in the life of Jesus. There has been some sort of change that seems to have been visually and audibly apparent to those who were present.
It occurred to me this past week that man must never find himself static in any situation, that regardless of where we find ourselves doing whatever it is we do, we must always be mindful of velocity; it is the very nature of life itself. Forward movement. Constant and continuous evolution (and no, I do not mean Darwin’s ideas about physical evolution!). I was given a transcript of my pastor friend’s sermon this past week in which he reminded his congregation (and me) that “the moment” is never in one place, that man can and should constantly look and move and work forward because the past is gone, never to return. We can learn from the past, but we must not live there nor should we stay there. We can wish and pine for “the good ol’ days”, but spending too much time reminiscing might mean that we will miss the boat of life that is constantly moving forward.
Jesus did not need to be baptized, but the world needed to see what happened as a result of the baptism of man into the Divine; I think it may have been the “dove”. The language of Matthew speaks of the Spirit of God descending “like a dove” which would indicate more of a symbolic occurrence than the mere physical presence of a bird. It is not unlike the use of water in baptism. For being able to appreciate the truest nature of sin and all that sin represents, it would be inaccurate to suggest that any amount of water alone could wash this away.
The presence of the dove, however, goes far beyond the water and the removal of sin. The Spirit, which is represented in the dove, “alights” on the Son of Man. Since we believe that Jesus was born free from sin, the symbolism may come up far short, then, of what we think the physical act of baptism is supposed to mean for us. The act of baptism took place; this is physical. The descent of the Spirit, however, seems to have come as a result of this Act. Man is no longer alone, and the Lord has laid claim once again to His own creation that had once been separated from Him. It is the New Covenant manifest in Jesus the Christ.
“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers. You shall be My people, and I will be your God. I will deliver you from all your uncleanness.” Ezekiel 36:25-29a
Amen.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
For the Sake of Change
If there is one thing politicians know, it is whatever reverberates with active voters. This particular “thing” can change from one election cycle to the next depending on what’s happening on the state or national scene. There are “experts” who are hired by political campaigns to advise candidates on how to connect with voters and potential voters. This year the catch phrase (or word) is “change”.
We have seasoned politicians all clamoring for the illustrative title, “agent of change”, and all are keenly aware of the public’s general perception of Congress and its effectiveness in dealing with everyday citizens and their particular needs. This perception is reflected in the public opinion polls which consistently show the Congress at or below the president’s own approval ratings. Americans by and large just do not believe in the Congress or the job it purports to be doing, and I don't think any political party is particularly to blame.
Political consultants are keenly aware of this fact, but these same consultants are also aware of this disturbing fact: Americans are generally ignorant of the policy development process and even more ignorant of their own members of Congress and their voting records, or even how government works. What Americans are aware of and what Americans pay attention to are sound bites, and these sound bites are more prevalent during election season. So while these presidential contenders are aware of America’s low opinion of Congress, these same members of Congress who now want to be America’s next president do not want Americans to know that the general problems America faces probably has more to do with the ineffectiveness of the US Congress than with the president himself. What’s worse: the contenders want us to believe that they can affect the “change” Americans so desperately want, the same “change” that has yet to occur from the Congress while these same people have been serving in the Congress. Now these members of Congress want us to believe that as president, they will bring the “change” so desperately sought.
The truth is, the promises of “change” that each of these candidates offer are not constitutionally possible. The president is limited in what he (or she) can do, and these wanna-be’s know it. What they are counting on, however, is that we don’t know it. This is why the “change” message seems so popular among voters. We’re all tired of the same old game, but the truth is that we have to take some responsibility for the nation’s condition, good or bad. The president cannot wave a magic wand and end wars or balance budgets without some cooperation from the Congress. And if there is one party in control of the Congress and another party in the White House, fugitaboutit. Not gonna happen. Why? Because each party wants Americans to believe that the opposing party is inherently evil and bent on the destruction of this nation.
Democrats want Americans to believe that President Bush and Republicans wanted to kick little old ladies out into the streets with their Social Security proposals. Republicans want Americans to believe that Democrats want to surrender to illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern terrorists and give them run of the country. Neither side is willing to admit that it is quite possible that Americans are a collection of individuals with different ideas about how to achieve a particular goal. Worse, Americans are willing to believe this rot. It seems that we are not happy unless we’ve found someone to blame for our lot in life, and politico's are more than willing to provide a list of fall guys.
The other presidential contenders who are not currently serving a political office are trying to convince Americans that they are the ones most likely to bring about “change” in Washington because they are trying to present themselves as “outsiders”. Well, I can’t say that Jimmy Carter’s “outsider” message carried well on several levels.
If we want “change”, genuine “change”, we have to start with the Congress. This means that NO INCUMBENT returns to office for a new term, including those who are running for president. Set members of Congress on a retirement that is entirely dependent on Social Security and their own personal savings like the rest of us, and end automatic pay increases. Then, and only then, can we look forward to serious “change”.
We have seasoned politicians all clamoring for the illustrative title, “agent of change”, and all are keenly aware of the public’s general perception of Congress and its effectiveness in dealing with everyday citizens and their particular needs. This perception is reflected in the public opinion polls which consistently show the Congress at or below the president’s own approval ratings. Americans by and large just do not believe in the Congress or the job it purports to be doing, and I don't think any political party is particularly to blame.
Political consultants are keenly aware of this fact, but these same consultants are also aware of this disturbing fact: Americans are generally ignorant of the policy development process and even more ignorant of their own members of Congress and their voting records, or even how government works. What Americans are aware of and what Americans pay attention to are sound bites, and these sound bites are more prevalent during election season. So while these presidential contenders are aware of America’s low opinion of Congress, these same members of Congress who now want to be America’s next president do not want Americans to know that the general problems America faces probably has more to do with the ineffectiveness of the US Congress than with the president himself. What’s worse: the contenders want us to believe that they can affect the “change” Americans so desperately want, the same “change” that has yet to occur from the Congress while these same people have been serving in the Congress. Now these members of Congress want us to believe that as president, they will bring the “change” so desperately sought.
The truth is, the promises of “change” that each of these candidates offer are not constitutionally possible. The president is limited in what he (or she) can do, and these wanna-be’s know it. What they are counting on, however, is that we don’t know it. This is why the “change” message seems so popular among voters. We’re all tired of the same old game, but the truth is that we have to take some responsibility for the nation’s condition, good or bad. The president cannot wave a magic wand and end wars or balance budgets without some cooperation from the Congress. And if there is one party in control of the Congress and another party in the White House, fugitaboutit. Not gonna happen. Why? Because each party wants Americans to believe that the opposing party is inherently evil and bent on the destruction of this nation.
Democrats want Americans to believe that President Bush and Republicans wanted to kick little old ladies out into the streets with their Social Security proposals. Republicans want Americans to believe that Democrats want to surrender to illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern terrorists and give them run of the country. Neither side is willing to admit that it is quite possible that Americans are a collection of individuals with different ideas about how to achieve a particular goal. Worse, Americans are willing to believe this rot. It seems that we are not happy unless we’ve found someone to blame for our lot in life, and politico's are more than willing to provide a list of fall guys.
The other presidential contenders who are not currently serving a political office are trying to convince Americans that they are the ones most likely to bring about “change” in Washington because they are trying to present themselves as “outsiders”. Well, I can’t say that Jimmy Carter’s “outsider” message carried well on several levels.
If we want “change”, genuine “change”, we have to start with the Congress. This means that NO INCUMBENT returns to office for a new term, including those who are running for president. Set members of Congress on a retirement that is entirely dependent on Social Security and their own personal savings like the rest of us, and end automatic pay increases. Then, and only then, can we look forward to serious “change”.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Joseph: a father's life
For the prominent part that Joseph must surely have played in the birth and young life of Jesus, there is not much written in scripture about him. Matthew says he is of the "house of David", but this point would seem irrelevant since Joseph is not the biological father. Yet like a responsible father, Joseph serves as provider and protector of his family.
When given an opportunity and before he is fully aware of what is happening to Mary, Joseph still chooses to treat her with respect and honor. When told of the Child's origin, he seems not to hesitate still to take responsibility for the care and the well-being of Mary and, ultimately, Jesus. For Joseph, then, the duties and responsibilities of service and honor mean something to him. He is a faithful servant of YHWH as a man, as a husband, and as a father. In spite of all this, the biblical writers chose not to give us very much information about such a man of honor and integrity, a "righteous man" whose service in his role could reveal to us a lot as to what it means to be not only a MAN of God, but also what it takes to be a REAL man.
It has been shown in certain polls that men in general are put off by the word "love" in church. The word itself has an almost feminine - or at least, less than masculine - quality to it because men don't typically think in such terms. Being referred to as a "child" or "servant" of God also seems to be another of those biblical phrases that don't seem to reverberate well with men. Being a “child” or a "servant" implies dependence and helplessness, not exactly the qualities we revere in men. I can't say that such phrases make me uncomfortable, but I also find myself almost hesitant about using them too freely especially when there are a lot of men present. Maybe it is because of my knowledge of such polls which come close to suggesting that men - in large numbers - typically stay away from church because church is not generally considered "a guy thing". I think, however, that Joseph would suggest otherwise.
Joseph was a carpenter. He worked with his hands long before power tools were even thought of! Consequently his would be the hands of a working man, calloused hands rough to the touch and with probably more splinters and cuts than we could imagine. Being a skilled tradesman, it would also be easy to imagine a muscled man who is accustomed to lifting, pushing, and pulling a lot of weight alone. This is NOT by any account a "girly" man!
This was also a man unencumbered by foolish pride, one of the so-called "seven deadly sins" that is, in my humble opinion, at the root of all sin. Think about the culture of the day; they are not married though they are betrothed (engaged), Mary is pregnant, and Joseph is not the father. Regardless of what Joseph thinks or believes about angels and dreams, he knows for a fact that this was not his child. How many men do you know would endure and persevere through such a stigma? A weaker man would have, could have, walked away choosing not to deal with what was surely a difficult and awkward situation with unforeseen obstacles and challenges, and society would have thought no less of him.
In the truest biblical sense, Joseph was the very personification of what constitutes love. Regardless of societal or cultural expectations and demands, Joseph put himself completely aside to care for Mary and, subsequently, the Child. Regardless of what he wanted for himself and his own life, Joseph put himself and his own personal needs or desires completely aside to care for Mary and her Child. In reading what little there is about Joseph, this was a man's man: a hard and hardy worker who did not seem too concerned with worldly expectations or preconceived notions of what "rights" a man in that culture could reasonably expect. An independent man capable of thinking for himself, Joseph chose not to involve a council of elders regarding Mary's then-questionable pregnancy. This, dear friends, is a man among men.
Aside from this, one must also consider the incredible faith that drove Joseph. In DREAMS he received his instructions! It would be one thing to be directly confronted while wide awake, as Mary was, by an angel who would make such pronouncements. It is another thing entirely to receive such information in one's sleep and be so compelled to act upon these dreams not for the sake of self or even for the sake of others, but for the sake of YHWH's own glory! Joseph is being asked to protect a Child who is not his own. Did he fully understand the implications? It would be impossible for us to speculate and draw any useful conclusions. Suffice it to say, he understood enough - and had faith enough - to do as he had been directed.
It must have also been a little overwhelming for a working man to be told, apparently in no uncertain terms, that the safety and care of the CHRIST Child and His mother would be entrusted to him. Imagine being asked to safeguard the Savior Of The World with no more experience than that of a carpenter. Yet without hesitation Joseph responded as a "righteous" man would. As a result, mother and Child are safe and well.
Joseph’s very brief but rather significant story has made me consider, or reconsider, many facets of my own life, and I should think that others would care enough to think more deeply and more intentionally about the role that Joseph played. We could speculate and make up “what if” stories about what might have been if Joseph had declined the role or if Joseph had not been a man of faith, but the truth is that the Lord would not have chosen someone like that and obviously didn’t. Joseph was chosen, and was chosen for a reason. To say merely that he was “of the house of David” would not be adequate consideration because he was surely not the only living descendent of David. To say that Joseph was chosen because he was a “righteous” man might also come up a little short because it is highly unlikely that he was the ONLY righteous descendent of David.
Could it be that the selection of Joseph was incidental to the selection of Mary only because they were betrothed? I suppose this is possible but while such a theory may speak volumes about Mary, it might not do enough justice to why the Lord chose Joseph. It would almost be like saying that I can only be considered a preacher as long as I serve one particular church. The church would still be a church with me or without me, but it would not remove from me my charge as a preacher. That is to say, if I am truly called to preach, then that calling is not incidental to anything; it is an intentional act of God.
We can come up with a long list of biblical characters whose lives come with a warning and disclaimer: DON’T DO THIS! Conversely there are tons of biblical characters whose lives not only served a divine purpose then but also stand now as shining examples of how true believers should conduct themselves. Yes, Joseph should serve man as a patron saint of “manly men” but regardless of gender, Joseph also stands as the patron saint of DO this, BE this, STRIVE for this.
I just don’t think Joseph was a man’s man who was afraid or squeamish about being considered a faithful “servant” or “child” of God the Holy Father. The sign he carried to make such things known was displayed by the life he freely chose to live, a live lived NOT in accordance with worldly or cultural expectations but according to the measure of his faith and willingness to serve.
I wonder if he ever knew that he served all of humanity by the quiet strength of his faith?
When given an opportunity and before he is fully aware of what is happening to Mary, Joseph still chooses to treat her with respect and honor. When told of the Child's origin, he seems not to hesitate still to take responsibility for the care and the well-being of Mary and, ultimately, Jesus. For Joseph, then, the duties and responsibilities of service and honor mean something to him. He is a faithful servant of YHWH as a man, as a husband, and as a father. In spite of all this, the biblical writers chose not to give us very much information about such a man of honor and integrity, a "righteous man" whose service in his role could reveal to us a lot as to what it means to be not only a MAN of God, but also what it takes to be a REAL man.
It has been shown in certain polls that men in general are put off by the word "love" in church. The word itself has an almost feminine - or at least, less than masculine - quality to it because men don't typically think in such terms. Being referred to as a "child" or "servant" of God also seems to be another of those biblical phrases that don't seem to reverberate well with men. Being a “child” or a "servant" implies dependence and helplessness, not exactly the qualities we revere in men. I can't say that such phrases make me uncomfortable, but I also find myself almost hesitant about using them too freely especially when there are a lot of men present. Maybe it is because of my knowledge of such polls which come close to suggesting that men - in large numbers - typically stay away from church because church is not generally considered "a guy thing". I think, however, that Joseph would suggest otherwise.
Joseph was a carpenter. He worked with his hands long before power tools were even thought of! Consequently his would be the hands of a working man, calloused hands rough to the touch and with probably more splinters and cuts than we could imagine. Being a skilled tradesman, it would also be easy to imagine a muscled man who is accustomed to lifting, pushing, and pulling a lot of weight alone. This is NOT by any account a "girly" man!
This was also a man unencumbered by foolish pride, one of the so-called "seven deadly sins" that is, in my humble opinion, at the root of all sin. Think about the culture of the day; they are not married though they are betrothed (engaged), Mary is pregnant, and Joseph is not the father. Regardless of what Joseph thinks or believes about angels and dreams, he knows for a fact that this was not his child. How many men do you know would endure and persevere through such a stigma? A weaker man would have, could have, walked away choosing not to deal with what was surely a difficult and awkward situation with unforeseen obstacles and challenges, and society would have thought no less of him.
In the truest biblical sense, Joseph was the very personification of what constitutes love. Regardless of societal or cultural expectations and demands, Joseph put himself completely aside to care for Mary and, subsequently, the Child. Regardless of what he wanted for himself and his own life, Joseph put himself and his own personal needs or desires completely aside to care for Mary and her Child. In reading what little there is about Joseph, this was a man's man: a hard and hardy worker who did not seem too concerned with worldly expectations or preconceived notions of what "rights" a man in that culture could reasonably expect. An independent man capable of thinking for himself, Joseph chose not to involve a council of elders regarding Mary's then-questionable pregnancy. This, dear friends, is a man among men.
Aside from this, one must also consider the incredible faith that drove Joseph. In DREAMS he received his instructions! It would be one thing to be directly confronted while wide awake, as Mary was, by an angel who would make such pronouncements. It is another thing entirely to receive such information in one's sleep and be so compelled to act upon these dreams not for the sake of self or even for the sake of others, but for the sake of YHWH's own glory! Joseph is being asked to protect a Child who is not his own. Did he fully understand the implications? It would be impossible for us to speculate and draw any useful conclusions. Suffice it to say, he understood enough - and had faith enough - to do as he had been directed.
It must have also been a little overwhelming for a working man to be told, apparently in no uncertain terms, that the safety and care of the CHRIST Child and His mother would be entrusted to him. Imagine being asked to safeguard the Savior Of The World with no more experience than that of a carpenter. Yet without hesitation Joseph responded as a "righteous" man would. As a result, mother and Child are safe and well.
Joseph’s very brief but rather significant story has made me consider, or reconsider, many facets of my own life, and I should think that others would care enough to think more deeply and more intentionally about the role that Joseph played. We could speculate and make up “what if” stories about what might have been if Joseph had declined the role or if Joseph had not been a man of faith, but the truth is that the Lord would not have chosen someone like that and obviously didn’t. Joseph was chosen, and was chosen for a reason. To say merely that he was “of the house of David” would not be adequate consideration because he was surely not the only living descendent of David. To say that Joseph was chosen because he was a “righteous” man might also come up a little short because it is highly unlikely that he was the ONLY righteous descendent of David.
Could it be that the selection of Joseph was incidental to the selection of Mary only because they were betrothed? I suppose this is possible but while such a theory may speak volumes about Mary, it might not do enough justice to why the Lord chose Joseph. It would almost be like saying that I can only be considered a preacher as long as I serve one particular church. The church would still be a church with me or without me, but it would not remove from me my charge as a preacher. That is to say, if I am truly called to preach, then that calling is not incidental to anything; it is an intentional act of God.
We can come up with a long list of biblical characters whose lives come with a warning and disclaimer: DON’T DO THIS! Conversely there are tons of biblical characters whose lives not only served a divine purpose then but also stand now as shining examples of how true believers should conduct themselves. Yes, Joseph should serve man as a patron saint of “manly men” but regardless of gender, Joseph also stands as the patron saint of DO this, BE this, STRIVE for this.
I just don’t think Joseph was a man’s man who was afraid or squeamish about being considered a faithful “servant” or “child” of God the Holy Father. The sign he carried to make such things known was displayed by the life he freely chose to live, a live lived NOT in accordance with worldly or cultural expectations but according to the measure of his faith and willingness to serve.
I wonder if he ever knew that he served all of humanity by the quiet strength of his faith?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Merry Christmas 2007
Christmas is a lot like Good Friday and Easter in that there is very little a preacher can say that will enhance what Scripture already teaches about these Holy Days. There are great mysteries involved with each that transcend our human capacity to comprehend and while we can and must offer up praise for the birth of Messiah, can we really appreciate it for what it is? For what it means to us? For what it means to the whole world?
I've shared before the conflicts I have with our American Christmas traditions so that there must surely be some who would refer to me as "Rev. Grinch" who tries to steal the joy of Christmas! In retrospect, I think I've been a little too hard on we Christians who spend too much time and money in stores worrying about and preparing for this coming Celebration, and I don't think I've been entirely fair - especially when I look at the wonderful thing the precious children of my little congregation have done in partnering with Heifer International and leading us with their enthusiasm and purity of heart.
I think we all agree that Christmas has become too commercialized, and I think we agree that many good people lose sight of what it all means because the true value of the Holy Day is lost somewhere in one of the many financial transactions which take place. I have opined that there are too many who claim the name "Christian" who just do not get the whole Christ-centered Holy Day, including Christians who write "hate mail" to newspapers virtually cursing and spewing condemnation toward those who would dare to use a holiday greeting other than "Merry Christmas".
In spite of my disdain for the commercialization of the Holy Day and its Advent season, however, it still must be important for me - and for others who think like I do - to get over the distaste, stop focusing on what's wrong, and choose to focus instead on what's right. It is the same argument I've made for so many other issues that haunt Christianity in the public realm - that we not be so focused on the negative that we fail to celebrate all that is right; by making our case and our cause for Christ to be that of LIFE and LIBERTY, REDEMPTION and HOPE.
Ours is the case and the cause that believes not only that there is a God but that He is also the God who cares enough to do this magnificent, mysterious, and marvelous thing to send into the world a Savior as a very personal and interactive God. This is the God who freely chose to walk among us, to teach us, to heal us, to comfort us and, yes, to confront and correct us.
This is the God who could just as easily have come to us in a way more reminiscent of the images of The Revelation, with blaring horns and sword-bearing angels charging and the whole Armageddon battle thing – but chose instead to come to us as a baby; quietly and with little fanfare, not to frighten us but to offer to us the Peace we so desperately need.
And perhaps in the still of the night the earth stood still and the world silent if but for a moment to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace by reveling in that moment of pure, unadulterated peace; peace unencumbered by the works of man.
Let this be for us a season when wrongs are made right, and negatives are pushed aside in favor of positives. Let this be for us the season when hard hearts such as my own will finally come to terms with the Spirit of the Christ Mass, having been led by the faith and purity of our children to the hope and the promise of the Christ Child.
Merry Christmas, dear friends.
I've shared before the conflicts I have with our American Christmas traditions so that there must surely be some who would refer to me as "Rev. Grinch" who tries to steal the joy of Christmas! In retrospect, I think I've been a little too hard on we Christians who spend too much time and money in stores worrying about and preparing for this coming Celebration, and I don't think I've been entirely fair - especially when I look at the wonderful thing the precious children of my little congregation have done in partnering with Heifer International and leading us with their enthusiasm and purity of heart.
I think we all agree that Christmas has become too commercialized, and I think we agree that many good people lose sight of what it all means because the true value of the Holy Day is lost somewhere in one of the many financial transactions which take place. I have opined that there are too many who claim the name "Christian" who just do not get the whole Christ-centered Holy Day, including Christians who write "hate mail" to newspapers virtually cursing and spewing condemnation toward those who would dare to use a holiday greeting other than "Merry Christmas".
In spite of my disdain for the commercialization of the Holy Day and its Advent season, however, it still must be important for me - and for others who think like I do - to get over the distaste, stop focusing on what's wrong, and choose to focus instead on what's right. It is the same argument I've made for so many other issues that haunt Christianity in the public realm - that we not be so focused on the negative that we fail to celebrate all that is right; by making our case and our cause for Christ to be that of LIFE and LIBERTY, REDEMPTION and HOPE.
Ours is the case and the cause that believes not only that there is a God but that He is also the God who cares enough to do this magnificent, mysterious, and marvelous thing to send into the world a Savior as a very personal and interactive God. This is the God who freely chose to walk among us, to teach us, to heal us, to comfort us and, yes, to confront and correct us.
This is the God who could just as easily have come to us in a way more reminiscent of the images of The Revelation, with blaring horns and sword-bearing angels charging and the whole Armageddon battle thing – but chose instead to come to us as a baby; quietly and with little fanfare, not to frighten us but to offer to us the Peace we so desperately need.
And perhaps in the still of the night the earth stood still and the world silent if but for a moment to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace by reveling in that moment of pure, unadulterated peace; peace unencumbered by the works of man.
Let this be for us a season when wrongs are made right, and negatives are pushed aside in favor of positives. Let this be for us the season when hard hearts such as my own will finally come to terms with the Spirit of the Christ Mass, having been led by the faith and purity of our children to the hope and the promise of the Christ Child.
Merry Christmas, dear friends.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Seeing Is Believing
Isaiah 35:1-10
James 5:7-10
Matthew 11:2-11
When John the Baptist saw Jesus approaching to be baptized, he proclaimed for all to hear: "Behold the Lamb of God!" (John 1:29), John seemed to have reason to believe he was being approached by Messiah and that he had no doubt about who Jesus is, especially when John questions why Jesus would be asking to be baptized "when it is I who should be baptized by You" (Matthew 3:14). Also recall that Jesus and John were contemporaries, growing up in the same area maybe even as playmates. Remember, too, Gabriel's words to Zacharias that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15). As-yet-unborn baby John also "leapt with joy" upon Mary's greeting to Elizabeth (Luke 1:44).
So Jesus and John are probably not strangers to one another, but how or even when John came by the knowledge to make such a bold proclamation can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit. When Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16-17), Jesus tells him that he could not have come by this knowledge except through the Lord. By these proclamations, then, it is apparent that there are no physical attributes by which one can identify Messiah. There has to be more.
John is now in prison (Matthew 11:2) after having offended Herod for the last time. From prison John instructs his own disciples to go to Jesus and confirm that Jesus is indeed "the One who is to come" or if they must continue to patiently wait. Knowing that John's time on this earth was about to come to an end and having my own confidence in John’s faith, I once believed that perhaps John sent his disciples to Jesus to confirm for themselves the reality of Jesus the Messiah so that they would not be left "stranded" after John's death. I once believed that John's whole purpose as a herald, as the "voice crying in the wilderness", would be finally and completely fulfilled by his disciples learning for themselves by encountering Christ for themselves and meeting Him face to face, leaving no doubts. Now I am not so sure that this was John's intent.
Up to this point John has apparently been free to wander and preach wherever he chose to. It seems clear that Herod gave John a lot of latitude out of fear even after being directly confronted by John because of his "unlawful" marriage, so it is reasonable that John could have felt so unencumbered with his preaching among the people. There is no evidence to suggest that John ever encountered any serious challenge or opposition, and he was popular among the people as a prophet. Suddenly John finds himself in prison though he may not have been entirely aware of the circumstances that led to his arrest. Surely he must have known, though, that sooner or later Herod would finally reach the end of his rope but because of the strength of his conviction, John knew he had to keep on preaching.
So because John had relative free reign in preaching whenever and wherever he would choose and because he could seemingly challenge Herod directly and walk away untouched, it might be more reasonable to wonder if it was John himself - and not his disciples - who needed some kind of confirmation that Jesus was indeed "the One who is to come" now that he's found himself in prison, possibly knowing he would never be released, maybe suspecting he may be facing execution. John's entire recorded ministry had been focused on this very thing, announcing the coming of the Kingdom, calling the faithful to be prepared, "to make straight the path". And because he had remained relatively untouched throughout his ministry up till now, it would be easier for us to understand that now, John needed to know.
I think maybe it is easier for us to appreciate such a scenario. We read Bible stories about such big players as John the Baptist, and he becomes larger than life to us as one who can do no wrong. Because of that perception, it is difficult to think that he was as human as the rest of us and could actually come face-to-face with fear and be overcome by certain worldly realities. THAT is something I think we can all relate to, especially when we surely must know that succumbing to such fear becomes its own prison in which we feel trapped and overwhelmed, unsure of what tomorrow may bring, not even being sure if we will ever again see the light of day.
When we find ourselves so enslaved, we are desperate for solutions, anxious for any ray of hope because we find ourselves virtually immobilized. It is very hard to think rationally when we are surrounded and overtaken by fear. Everything is blown out of proportion, and nothing seems to make any sense. To think for one moment that we might be in such a state for the unforeseeable future would be hard to endure, nearly impossible. Sometimes I wonder about prisoners who are sentenced to life behind bars. Though they may well deserve such a sentence, it might almost seem merciful to execute them, sort of letting them off the hook. And this even in our modern prisons with TV and other amenities to make them as comfortable as possible!
Beyond that, however, it may well be that John found himself in a position we all surely suffer from time to time, being enslaved within a prison of doubt, not being entirely sure that our lives have been well spent or that we were in some small way able to accomplish something meaningful. It must surely be at least this challenging for those in other countries who face the threat of torture and death almost constantly because they dare to call themselves Christians. Could the fear and anxiety possibly be worth all the misery? One might wonder, maybe even such a heavy hitter as John the Baptist.
So when John bothers to ask, he is not brushed off with a simple "yes, I am He" and he is not threatened with hell-fire and brimstone if his faith falters. Instead, he is advised to look around and see what is going on. There are stories of miracles being performed, sick people suddenly well, lame people suddenly made whole. It is a most remarkable time in human history, and it is unfolding right in front of anyone who wants to see, anyone who cares to look, everyone who bothers to ask!
Freedom from whatever prison enslaves us now is but an observation and prayer away. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Revelation 3:20-21
James 5:7-10
Matthew 11:2-11
When John the Baptist saw Jesus approaching to be baptized, he proclaimed for all to hear: "Behold the Lamb of God!" (John 1:29), John seemed to have reason to believe he was being approached by Messiah and that he had no doubt about who Jesus is, especially when John questions why Jesus would be asking to be baptized "when it is I who should be baptized by You" (Matthew 3:14). Also recall that Jesus and John were contemporaries, growing up in the same area maybe even as playmates. Remember, too, Gabriel's words to Zacharias that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15). As-yet-unborn baby John also "leapt with joy" upon Mary's greeting to Elizabeth (Luke 1:44).
So Jesus and John are probably not strangers to one another, but how or even when John came by the knowledge to make such a bold proclamation can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit. When Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16-17), Jesus tells him that he could not have come by this knowledge except through the Lord. By these proclamations, then, it is apparent that there are no physical attributes by which one can identify Messiah. There has to be more.
John is now in prison (Matthew 11:2) after having offended Herod for the last time. From prison John instructs his own disciples to go to Jesus and confirm that Jesus is indeed "the One who is to come" or if they must continue to patiently wait. Knowing that John's time on this earth was about to come to an end and having my own confidence in John’s faith, I once believed that perhaps John sent his disciples to Jesus to confirm for themselves the reality of Jesus the Messiah so that they would not be left "stranded" after John's death. I once believed that John's whole purpose as a herald, as the "voice crying in the wilderness", would be finally and completely fulfilled by his disciples learning for themselves by encountering Christ for themselves and meeting Him face to face, leaving no doubts. Now I am not so sure that this was John's intent.
Up to this point John has apparently been free to wander and preach wherever he chose to. It seems clear that Herod gave John a lot of latitude out of fear even after being directly confronted by John because of his "unlawful" marriage, so it is reasonable that John could have felt so unencumbered with his preaching among the people. There is no evidence to suggest that John ever encountered any serious challenge or opposition, and he was popular among the people as a prophet. Suddenly John finds himself in prison though he may not have been entirely aware of the circumstances that led to his arrest. Surely he must have known, though, that sooner or later Herod would finally reach the end of his rope but because of the strength of his conviction, John knew he had to keep on preaching.
So because John had relative free reign in preaching whenever and wherever he would choose and because he could seemingly challenge Herod directly and walk away untouched, it might be more reasonable to wonder if it was John himself - and not his disciples - who needed some kind of confirmation that Jesus was indeed "the One who is to come" now that he's found himself in prison, possibly knowing he would never be released, maybe suspecting he may be facing execution. John's entire recorded ministry had been focused on this very thing, announcing the coming of the Kingdom, calling the faithful to be prepared, "to make straight the path". And because he had remained relatively untouched throughout his ministry up till now, it would be easier for us to understand that now, John needed to know.
I think maybe it is easier for us to appreciate such a scenario. We read Bible stories about such big players as John the Baptist, and he becomes larger than life to us as one who can do no wrong. Because of that perception, it is difficult to think that he was as human as the rest of us and could actually come face-to-face with fear and be overcome by certain worldly realities. THAT is something I think we can all relate to, especially when we surely must know that succumbing to such fear becomes its own prison in which we feel trapped and overwhelmed, unsure of what tomorrow may bring, not even being sure if we will ever again see the light of day.
When we find ourselves so enslaved, we are desperate for solutions, anxious for any ray of hope because we find ourselves virtually immobilized. It is very hard to think rationally when we are surrounded and overtaken by fear. Everything is blown out of proportion, and nothing seems to make any sense. To think for one moment that we might be in such a state for the unforeseeable future would be hard to endure, nearly impossible. Sometimes I wonder about prisoners who are sentenced to life behind bars. Though they may well deserve such a sentence, it might almost seem merciful to execute them, sort of letting them off the hook. And this even in our modern prisons with TV and other amenities to make them as comfortable as possible!
Beyond that, however, it may well be that John found himself in a position we all surely suffer from time to time, being enslaved within a prison of doubt, not being entirely sure that our lives have been well spent or that we were in some small way able to accomplish something meaningful. It must surely be at least this challenging for those in other countries who face the threat of torture and death almost constantly because they dare to call themselves Christians. Could the fear and anxiety possibly be worth all the misery? One might wonder, maybe even such a heavy hitter as John the Baptist.
So when John bothers to ask, he is not brushed off with a simple "yes, I am He" and he is not threatened with hell-fire and brimstone if his faith falters. Instead, he is advised to look around and see what is going on. There are stories of miracles being performed, sick people suddenly well, lame people suddenly made whole. It is a most remarkable time in human history, and it is unfolding right in front of anyone who wants to see, anyone who cares to look, everyone who bothers to ask!
Freedom from whatever prison enslaves us now is but an observation and prayer away. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Revelation 3:20-21
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Christians and Self-Defense
In light of the recent attacks in Colorado in which innocent persons were viciously gunned down at a Christian gathering, discussions have begun about the morality or righteousness of armed Christians who carry loaded weapons for personal protection "just in case". Far be it from me to judge, but I am left wondering exactly how much suffering we are willing to endure for the cause of Christ. Though I don't carry a weapon, I am as guilty as many others who seek the comforts this world can offer and then reason to myself that the Holy Father has provided for my comfort and well-being. It is, of course, always good and right to give thanks to the Lord for every good thing that comes into our lives, but I sometimes wonder if we can tell the difference between what is good for our mortal bodies but not necessarily so good for our immortal souls.
I met a fellow pastor at our licensing school several years ago who commented that he had a concealed carry permit and was armed most of the time. Though I let it go, I was struck by a disciple's apparent need to trust only in himself and the state in which he was licensed to carry a loaded weapon for his well-being. The perspective changes, of course, when he mentions that he is primarily armed for his family's protection, but does the reality?
While most of us possess an intense desire to protect those we love from harm, I wonder if carrying a loaded weapon is the proper or practical course of action especially if confronted by a lone gunman, or two, bent on taking possessions from us (mugging). What would we have in our possession the value of which could be fairly compared to the inherent value of a human life, even a criminal’s? And lest we forget, we are in this particular scenario confronted by predators who are likely far more experienced in such confrontations than we would ever expect to be. Would pulling a weapon in hopes of being able to out-draw our opponent not put those whom we love, as well as other innocent bystanders, at far greater risk by invoking a gun fight? I'm not sure I know what the correct response might be, but I am relatively certain that those who confront with weapons do not necessarily mean to harm more than to overwhelm and frighten.
Years ago I had a knife put to my throat. I froze. The guy probably had no intentions of actually cutting or killing me, but he did get what he was likely after: fear. I cannot recall exactly what was going through my mind at the time, but I'm pretty sure I didn't want to die and I'm equally sure I agreed to whatever terms were presented to me at the time. I also cannot say that my response was measured or planned, but I am alive today because I did not take an already bad situation and attempt to make it worse. Of course I had regrets later. Of course I wished I had had the presence of mind to react a little more quickly but in any ensuing battle, who is to say that I still would not have been cut or killed? Or worse, who is to say that I would not have been the one to cut or kill had I gotten the upper hand? Would either outcome have been worth the struggle?
”Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Under such a situation, how would God have been glorified had I fought back? How would God have been glorified had I gotten the upper hand and actually ended that guy's life? Our society might suggest that I had every right – if not a manly obligation - to defend myself, but what will come first? In this particular case, my assailant had complete control - for that moment - over my mortal body. Not a happy memory, of course, but it is true enough. My immortal soul, on the other hand, was still owned by Another whose terms cannot be negotiated. Absent the assailant, what changes? My mortal body is indeed my own, but I have extremely limited control over the acts of another. I can take preventive measures to protect myself but if someone is determined to kill me AND is willing to go to jail or die in the process, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, I can do to stop it. The ownership of my soul, however, never changed hands.
Peter sought to protect his Friend, and his Friend rebuked him by declaring that we "who {choose} to live by the sword will be destroyed by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Noah received a similar admonishment about the penalty for spilling the blood of another man and offers no conditions (Genesis 9:6). Our own system of justice rejects a "vigilante justice" mentality which would bring nothing but chaos and anarchy. Ours would be such a "dog-eat-dog" society in which terms of survival would be dictated by the “fittest”, leaving the weakest among us vulnerable to the terms of another. It is for the sake of order (1 Peter 2:13-14) that our society demands law enforcement by professionals who are trained extensively and in more areas than what currently presents itself.
Essentially it is that there is only so much we can do to combat evil ... by worldly means. There are, however, other measures we can take such as refusing to respond in kind, “for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head” (Romans 12:20). Repaying evil for evil? What makes our action of self-defense, which is an EQUAL though opposite reaction, righteous or morally correct? How is it that a man with evil intent is about to commit an evil act by ending my life or even the life of one I love, but my act of ending his life in self-defense is somehow not equally evil, even if I could argue that my intent was noble? I cannot control his actions, but I can control my own because I possess the capacity of will to determine my next course of action. By the same token, I will also be held accountable for my own chosen course of action if not in this life, most certainly in the life to come.
I wish it were as simple as I seem to present it. Having such faith in the presence of a direct threat, especially a grave threat against our loved ones, is a tall order for nearly everyone. Peter failed when he was directly challenged, and he physically walked with the Lord and was witness to much we seem to cast doubts upon by our own perverted sense of "progressive" theology. Reasonable minds might suggest that Peter should have suffered absolutely no lingering doubts, yet he obviously did. For some reason when he needed his faith most, he chose to flee. How could this have been, especially when it was he who was prepared to protect Jesus previously (John 18:10)?
”Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25). So when we arm ourselves, we are making a statement to the effect that we are in fact willing (and ready!) to shed another's blood in order to "save [our] own life". What does this sort of mind set say about our profession of faith as disciples, or students, of Jesus? We would choose to "trust" Jesus for our eternal salvation, but we won't trust Him to help us across the street? Jesus chose to forego the protection He could have "called down" (Matthew 26:53) thus preserving His own mortal life, but He declined for something greater. Can it be said that such a choice was foreordained, or would it be closer to the truth to suggest that Jesus made a free will choice for the sake of something much greater, an ideal that is completely apart from the expectations of this world?
There are no easy answers for those who live under a cloud of doubt. In a world seemingly gone mad, it is easy for non-believers to wonder aloud where our God is in the midst of such chaos and suffering; it is even easier to live in fear as is evidenced by so many who choose to arm themselves. Christians must be constantly reminded, however, that this is not our Father’s world (Ephesians 2:2) and our battle is not against flesh and bone (2 Corinthians 10:3), “for the weapons of our warfare are not of this world but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
I met a fellow pastor at our licensing school several years ago who commented that he had a concealed carry permit and was armed most of the time. Though I let it go, I was struck by a disciple's apparent need to trust only in himself and the state in which he was licensed to carry a loaded weapon for his well-being. The perspective changes, of course, when he mentions that he is primarily armed for his family's protection, but does the reality?
While most of us possess an intense desire to protect those we love from harm, I wonder if carrying a loaded weapon is the proper or practical course of action especially if confronted by a lone gunman, or two, bent on taking possessions from us (mugging). What would we have in our possession the value of which could be fairly compared to the inherent value of a human life, even a criminal’s? And lest we forget, we are in this particular scenario confronted by predators who are likely far more experienced in such confrontations than we would ever expect to be. Would pulling a weapon in hopes of being able to out-draw our opponent not put those whom we love, as well as other innocent bystanders, at far greater risk by invoking a gun fight? I'm not sure I know what the correct response might be, but I am relatively certain that those who confront with weapons do not necessarily mean to harm more than to overwhelm and frighten.
Years ago I had a knife put to my throat. I froze. The guy probably had no intentions of actually cutting or killing me, but he did get what he was likely after: fear. I cannot recall exactly what was going through my mind at the time, but I'm pretty sure I didn't want to die and I'm equally sure I agreed to whatever terms were presented to me at the time. I also cannot say that my response was measured or planned, but I am alive today because I did not take an already bad situation and attempt to make it worse. Of course I had regrets later. Of course I wished I had had the presence of mind to react a little more quickly but in any ensuing battle, who is to say that I still would not have been cut or killed? Or worse, who is to say that I would not have been the one to cut or kill had I gotten the upper hand? Would either outcome have been worth the struggle?
”Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Under such a situation, how would God have been glorified had I fought back? How would God have been glorified had I gotten the upper hand and actually ended that guy's life? Our society might suggest that I had every right – if not a manly obligation - to defend myself, but what will come first? In this particular case, my assailant had complete control - for that moment - over my mortal body. Not a happy memory, of course, but it is true enough. My immortal soul, on the other hand, was still owned by Another whose terms cannot be negotiated. Absent the assailant, what changes? My mortal body is indeed my own, but I have extremely limited control over the acts of another. I can take preventive measures to protect myself but if someone is determined to kill me AND is willing to go to jail or die in the process, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, I can do to stop it. The ownership of my soul, however, never changed hands.
Peter sought to protect his Friend, and his Friend rebuked him by declaring that we "who {choose} to live by the sword will be destroyed by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Noah received a similar admonishment about the penalty for spilling the blood of another man and offers no conditions (Genesis 9:6). Our own system of justice rejects a "vigilante justice" mentality which would bring nothing but chaos and anarchy. Ours would be such a "dog-eat-dog" society in which terms of survival would be dictated by the “fittest”, leaving the weakest among us vulnerable to the terms of another. It is for the sake of order (1 Peter 2:13-14) that our society demands law enforcement by professionals who are trained extensively and in more areas than what currently presents itself.
Essentially it is that there is only so much we can do to combat evil ... by worldly means. There are, however, other measures we can take such as refusing to respond in kind, “for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head” (Romans 12:20). Repaying evil for evil? What makes our action of self-defense, which is an EQUAL though opposite reaction, righteous or morally correct? How is it that a man with evil intent is about to commit an evil act by ending my life or even the life of one I love, but my act of ending his life in self-defense is somehow not equally evil, even if I could argue that my intent was noble? I cannot control his actions, but I can control my own because I possess the capacity of will to determine my next course of action. By the same token, I will also be held accountable for my own chosen course of action if not in this life, most certainly in the life to come.
I wish it were as simple as I seem to present it. Having such faith in the presence of a direct threat, especially a grave threat against our loved ones, is a tall order for nearly everyone. Peter failed when he was directly challenged, and he physically walked with the Lord and was witness to much we seem to cast doubts upon by our own perverted sense of "progressive" theology. Reasonable minds might suggest that Peter should have suffered absolutely no lingering doubts, yet he obviously did. For some reason when he needed his faith most, he chose to flee. How could this have been, especially when it was he who was prepared to protect Jesus previously (John 18:10)?
”Whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25). So when we arm ourselves, we are making a statement to the effect that we are in fact willing (and ready!) to shed another's blood in order to "save [our] own life". What does this sort of mind set say about our profession of faith as disciples, or students, of Jesus? We would choose to "trust" Jesus for our eternal salvation, but we won't trust Him to help us across the street? Jesus chose to forego the protection He could have "called down" (Matthew 26:53) thus preserving His own mortal life, but He declined for something greater. Can it be said that such a choice was foreordained, or would it be closer to the truth to suggest that Jesus made a free will choice for the sake of something much greater, an ideal that is completely apart from the expectations of this world?
There are no easy answers for those who live under a cloud of doubt. In a world seemingly gone mad, it is easy for non-believers to wonder aloud where our God is in the midst of such chaos and suffering; it is even easier to live in fear as is evidenced by so many who choose to arm themselves. Christians must be constantly reminded, however, that this is not our Father’s world (Ephesians 2:2) and our battle is not against flesh and bone (2 Corinthians 10:3), “for the weapons of our warfare are not of this world but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Religion's Place in Politics
As we draw closer to the nation's first political caucus in Iowa, the campaign rhetoric heats up, names are called, accusations are made, fingers are pointed, and one can almost hear an audible "gotcha" each time a campaign launches a successful "zinger" against an opponent. Poll numbers fluctuate with each accusation and corresponding answer which serves to do nothing more than to add fuel to an already intense fire. Oddly, however, while Americans express a particular disdain for such political campaign antics, a candidate's numbers can surge after an especially brutal attack, having somehow proved that they have the gumption to stand up and answer to such attacks. Poll numbers and expressions of disdain do not always seem to correspond especially when we say we hate such behavior while simultaneously rewarding it by continually electing and re-electing these same persons over and again.
More strange, perhaps, is that most of the candidates from both parties have openly spoken of their faith and proclaimed allegiance to religion, predominately Christianity, which demands a moral standard, the commonality of a standard which prohibits "bearing false witness". Now consider Mr. Romney's latest attack against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in which Mr. Romney stated that Gov. Huckabee attempted to establish a "special" college scholarship fund for illegal aliens. Let it be noted that as an Arkansas citizen, I was keenly aware of Gov. Huckabee's proposal. Mr. Romney's characterization of this proposal is either seriously misinformed, ignorant, or a downright lie. Considering that Mr. Romney is probably of above average intelligence and will be called upon often to render decisions based on accurate information if elected, one might think that Mr. Romney would ask more questions about a specific proposal of a political opponent before lashing out in such a careless way especially when he asked the nation to entrust to him the “most powerful office” on earth.
I suspect that Mr. Romney is simply "playing the game" because Mr. Huckabee has directly disputed this accusation, and Mr. Romney has not, to my knowledge, retracted his "accusation". A little fact-checking would provide Mr. Romney with sufficient "egg in the face" but would also require that Mr. Romney take a moral stance and admit that he was dead wrong and out of line. According to his professed Mormon faith, this would be required of him.
In spite of all this, or perhaps because of it, Mr. Romney has decided that it is in his best interest to give a speech on Thursday (12/6/07) to enlighten the nation about his Mormon faith. Considering the exchange with and about Mr. Huckabee on only one particular issue, how will he religiously or faithfully or morally explain his attack especially when he should have reasonably known that his information about Mr. Huckabee was not correct? Will it be that we will discover that Mormonism requires that its adherents deliberately mislead others? I think not, but this dilemma goes a long way toward answering a question that asks honestly: what does a politician's religious faith have to do with anything especially when they clearly do not live according to a particularly religious standard? Or has religion in America become so bastardized to the point of being completely unrecognizable? If it is true, as Mr. Paul Greenberg of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette points out, that the central metaphor of all religious belief is “revealing light”, we are left to wonder exactly what sort of religion is being revealed in political races especially when a candidate’s particular religion becomes an issue.
For the record, I am the last man on the face of this planet who has any right to stand in judgment of anyone. What I find most distressing about the references to religion is that it appears that candidates from both parties seem to be pandering to a particular crowd while they continue to tear one another apart, make misleading accusations, and accuse one another of being less than sincere. If this is how their faith informs their politicking, I shudder at how their faith may inform their job performance especially when it comes to public policy.
As a Christian, I do not feel threatened by Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion and I’m in no position to question his spiritual faith, but I have to say that I question his sense of propriety in light of his gross mischaracterization of Mr. Huckabee’s policy proposals especially when, as of this writing, Mr. Huckabee has taken the #1 spot in national polls and had been steadily gaining in the past week. Is Mr. Romney panicking? Is this indicative of how he will react to an international crisis before he gets his facts straight?
Better pray on this one.
More strange, perhaps, is that most of the candidates from both parties have openly spoken of their faith and proclaimed allegiance to religion, predominately Christianity, which demands a moral standard, the commonality of a standard which prohibits "bearing false witness". Now consider Mr. Romney's latest attack against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in which Mr. Romney stated that Gov. Huckabee attempted to establish a "special" college scholarship fund for illegal aliens. Let it be noted that as an Arkansas citizen, I was keenly aware of Gov. Huckabee's proposal. Mr. Romney's characterization of this proposal is either seriously misinformed, ignorant, or a downright lie. Considering that Mr. Romney is probably of above average intelligence and will be called upon often to render decisions based on accurate information if elected, one might think that Mr. Romney would ask more questions about a specific proposal of a political opponent before lashing out in such a careless way especially when he asked the nation to entrust to him the “most powerful office” on earth.
I suspect that Mr. Romney is simply "playing the game" because Mr. Huckabee has directly disputed this accusation, and Mr. Romney has not, to my knowledge, retracted his "accusation". A little fact-checking would provide Mr. Romney with sufficient "egg in the face" but would also require that Mr. Romney take a moral stance and admit that he was dead wrong and out of line. According to his professed Mormon faith, this would be required of him.
In spite of all this, or perhaps because of it, Mr. Romney has decided that it is in his best interest to give a speech on Thursday (12/6/07) to enlighten the nation about his Mormon faith. Considering the exchange with and about Mr. Huckabee on only one particular issue, how will he religiously or faithfully or morally explain his attack especially when he should have reasonably known that his information about Mr. Huckabee was not correct? Will it be that we will discover that Mormonism requires that its adherents deliberately mislead others? I think not, but this dilemma goes a long way toward answering a question that asks honestly: what does a politician's religious faith have to do with anything especially when they clearly do not live according to a particularly religious standard? Or has religion in America become so bastardized to the point of being completely unrecognizable? If it is true, as Mr. Paul Greenberg of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette points out, that the central metaphor of all religious belief is “revealing light”, we are left to wonder exactly what sort of religion is being revealed in political races especially when a candidate’s particular religion becomes an issue.
For the record, I am the last man on the face of this planet who has any right to stand in judgment of anyone. What I find most distressing about the references to religion is that it appears that candidates from both parties seem to be pandering to a particular crowd while they continue to tear one another apart, make misleading accusations, and accuse one another of being less than sincere. If this is how their faith informs their politicking, I shudder at how their faith may inform their job performance especially when it comes to public policy.
As a Christian, I do not feel threatened by Mr. Romney’s Mormon religion and I’m in no position to question his spiritual faith, but I have to say that I question his sense of propriety in light of his gross mischaracterization of Mr. Huckabee’s policy proposals especially when, as of this writing, Mr. Huckabee has taken the #1 spot in national polls and had been steadily gaining in the past week. Is Mr. Romney panicking? Is this indicative of how he will react to an international crisis before he gets his facts straight?
Better pray on this one.
Why is it ...
Why is it that "the woods" are always "the woods" except during deer season when they suddenly become "the deer woods" even though they never seem to become "the squirrel woods" during squirrel hunting season? I also notice that "the fields" are always fields but never seem to become "the dove fields" during dove hunting season. Same with rabbit fields. And if a "catfish pond" has bass in it, is it still a "catfish pond"? And if the water is not clear, how does one know whether there are any fish in the pond at all? Seems like one would need to know this. After all, if one is given directions to a fish pond but there are no fish in the pond, does the location or nature of the pond change, causing the seeker to be in the wrong place by virtue of changing nature of the pond? Does this now mean that with the new Arkansas alligator hunting season, the rivers will soon be "the gator rivers" during the season but will remain "the rivers" throughout the year? And why do they never seem to become "the fish rivers" even though one can fish year-round?
Just curious.
Just curious.
Yes, Virginia ....
Eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of New York's Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial Sept. 21, 1897. The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial, appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps.
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."
VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."
VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)