What Was Stephen Seeing?

Acts 7:55-60

What was it that the apostle Stephen was seeing when he told that angry crowd, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”? I’ve often wondered what sort of vision he was being granted as his life was about to end.

Stephen knew he was turning some screws a little too tight. What else was he going to do? He knew what needed to be said, and he seemed unafraid to say it. I still wonder what he was seeing.

It would easy to close our eyes and imagine the clouds parting just a bit, and suddenly a blinding ray of light appearing like after a storm and the sun peeking out. In fact, some might suggest that this is exactly what happened. Some suggest that Stephen didn’t really see Jesus at all, and we can’t say for sure that Stephen saw the Lord God Himself. Isn’t that kind of a stretch considering that John writes in the Gospel that “no one has seen God at any time”?

We have to remember also that Stephen never saw Jesus. Stephen’s time was after the Ascension. So what exactly was he looking at? Whatever it was, it overwhelmed him. It would seem that somehow he was looking at something, or SOMEONE, more glorious that anything he’d ever seen before. It was also such a vision that, as he was being literally beaten to death with rocks, he was still able to say, “Lord, forgive them.”

Do you ever wonder if you could ever be so gracious if you were being pelted with stones big enough to crush your head or break your bones? I don’t think this would be my first choice if I could choose the way I will leave this earth.

Still, Stephen had to have seen something, and he certainly must have known the risk he was taking. His message of redemption in Christ was still considered to be “blasphemous” according to the Law.

There is no way that a man, any man standing alone, could withstand such punishment. A normal person would be running for cover, cowering, instinctively covering himself in an effort to protect. It’s what any of us would do naturally without thinking. There are very few of us who would not flinch even just a tiny bit if we could see something flying toward our face! Still, Stephen must be seeing something pretty incredible.

Whatever it was, it is pretty clear in John’s Gospel that Philip wasn’t seeing the same thing. “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” And Jesus seems almost incredulous at this statement! “Philip, what, or WHO, do you think you’ve been looking at all this time?” It is clear by what is written that the disciples are still completely clueless about what is happening in their lives, in their society, in their culture, and in history at this particular time. They seem to be looking for something “bigger”.

Thomas, the ever-present “doubting” Thomas has missed the boat as well. “Lord, we do not know where You are going. How can we know the way?”

What is everyone missing that Stephen seems to see so clearly?

Is it possible that sometimes we try so hard to see something that we completely look past whatever it is we are truly seeking in search of something MUCH BIGGER? It could very well be that when we have a mental vision of our expectations, the reality is not quite up to where we WANT it to be. In other words, we have likely built up in our minds a vision on such a grand scale that when we are finally confronted with the truth, it’s just not as magnanimous as we had hoped.

It’s not unlike what I and so many others have done with high school and college algebra. Whenever I looked at a problem, the answer SEEMED simple enough but I wanted to know more about where this particular formula had come from. Maybe it was a fair question, but all it did was make the work harder than it needed to be. The answer was right in front of me, but I was somehow looking for something much bigger.

Philip and Thomas are both obviously looking and searching much more deeply than they need to. The truth of what they seek is standing right in front of them, and they don’t see it. Or they don't want to see it.

If God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one and the same, how is it that Stephen was able to see and describe two distinct, and apparently individual, Beings, being “filled with the Holy Spirit”, as it is written in Acts? And if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one and the same, how is it that Philip and Thomas were looking directly at the Son but could not see the Father?

We can get caught up in trying to discern for ourselves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity if we want. However, I think it would miss the point of what it is that each of these disciples were seeing, or NOT seeing, and why. Could it be as simple as the difference between what we would LIKE to see against what we NEED to see?

Stephen is looking death in the face; he’s about to die, and he knows it. After all, the punishment for blasphemy is death, and Stephen must surely know that his message is considered by many to be blasphemy. The Gospel, the GOOD NEWS, however, dictates that he hold nothing back. Stephen is not seeking anything for HIS OWN SAKE – he is trying to offer the GOOD NEWS of salvation for anyone who will listen. And he is among a very hostile crowd.

Philip and Thomas, on the other hand, seem to be more concerned with how what Jesus is saying will affect THEM. “Show us the Father, and WE will be satisfied.” “Lord, WE do not know where You are going. How can WE know the way?”

I don’t know about you, but this sounds pretty selfish, self-centered, and self-serving; at least, compared to Stephen and his situation. It seems to me that Philip and Thomas, and perhaps all the rest who are present, are more concerned with how all this affects THEM as a group or as individuals. There does not seem to be much thought as to how this will affect OTHERS outside the group, though an argument could be made that they are wondering how to share this message, I suppose.

Notice, also, that Philip and Thomas – and the rest – are in a relatively friendly environment. They are among like-minded friends. There is no danger for them in asking questions amongst themselves or freely speaking their minds.

To be fair, however, when we gather with friends and family, it is more likely that we are of one mind and not necessarily hostile toward others in that group nor do we feel threatened. If we felt any such threat at all, there is a good chance we just wouldn’t go. The decision not to go, however, would not likely be due to any sense of physical danger although I know of some family gatherings that ought to require armed security!

When we consider our calling as witnesses, however, how many of us can honestly say that we would willingly and voluntarily venture into hostile territory and into a hostile crowd? If you try to answer to yourself that you would not be afraid to do so, then my next question would then be, “Why then have you not done it?”

It is within our nature to survive. Our instincts are geared toward self-preservation. It’s just as I suggested about being stoned to death. How many do you know who would stand still for it? Not many, I would venture to say. I am pretty sure that I will not knowingly enter into “hostile” territory. Does this mean that I am afraid? Does it make me “smart”? Does this mean that I exercise good judgment?

These are things the WORLD would tell me. More specifically, these are things that WORLDLY Christians would tell me. “Why go in ASKING for trouble,” they would say.

But it might very well be that I would choose NOT to enter into hostile territory because I do not have the clear vision or sense of calling that Stephen had. This lack of clarity would explain why almost all the disciples abandoned Jesus when He was arrested.

There are vital ministries in which we do take care of one another. These ministries are relatively safe, and they are also necessary. Each of us needs some support from time to time, and there is no shame in asking for it or receiving it. Think about this, though: when was the last time you actually took a RISK for the sake of the Gospel? It’s easy to say that we are not all called to be missionaries. And I’ll grant you that those who serve as missionaries are a special breed, and my hat is off to them.

However, in celebrating the life and the calling of missionaries, are we simply using the “special calling” they seem to have as a means for excusing ourselves? And I’m not just talking about overseas missionaries; that need is indeed great. But is the need for the Gospel any less so in our own communities?

It seems to me that what we SEE – or NOT – will depend entirely on the risk we are willing to take for the cause of Christ.

Memorial Day 2006

I watched the flag pass by one day,

it fluttered in the breeze.

A young Marine saluted it,

and then he stood at ease.

I looked at him in uniform so young,

so tall, so proud.

With hair cut square and eyes alert,

He'd stand out in any crowd.

I thought how many men like him

had fallen through the years.

How many died on foreign soil,

how many mothers' tears?

How many pilots' planes shot down?

How many died at sea?

How many foxholes were soldiers' graves?

No, freedom isn't free.

I heard the sound of Taps one night,

when everything was still.

I listened to the bugler play

and felt a sudden chill.

I wondered just how many times

That Taps had meant "Amen,"

When a flag had draped a coffin

of a brother or a friend.

I thought of all the children,

of the mothers and the wives,

of fathers, sons and husbands

with interrupted lives.

I thought about a graveyard

at the bottom of the sea,

of unmarked graves in Arlington.

No, freedom isn't free.

- Author unknown

Exclusive Rights

Reading all that has been written about immigration and the rule of law from lay persons as well as “experts” in the fields of constitutional law and immigration, I have wondered what more could possibly be said. It would seem that every base has been covered: we want secure borders, we like low prices, we hate the poor being exploited for the sake of cheap lettuce but we like relatively inexpensive produce. We hate the undue burden placed on the welfare system by those illegal immigrants who happen to be pregnant when they cross the border and giving birth to US citizens before we’ve had a chance to deport them and their unborn children, we wonder “what part of ILLEGAL is misunderstood”, and we hate that members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are seemingly playing to the “immigrant crowd”. We want our nation of laws to be fair, but we hate the shameless way members of Congress seem to be delaying the inevitable while pandering for favor with minority voters.

What finally struck me as unique, however, was a letter written to a newspaper’s editor in which the writer had insisted that US laws are intended exclusively and specifically for US citizens. The writer had maintained that law and order and the protections afforded us by this same constitution was a privilege intended for those select few who could honestly call themselves US citizens.

Was the US Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, designed and written to be an exclusive document to be applicable only to a specific people, or were these documents meant to serve as rules of law and order for a nation as well as documents of emancipation in which “ALL men (and not exclusively Americans) are created equal”? I happen to think we can be a nation of laws and maintain the integrity of that law while also recognizing that these documents serve a dual purpose. Not only are there rules of law defining our system of government as a means of protecting citizens from a heavy-handed dictatorship, but there are also rules defining the dignity of man and the sanctity of life regardless of citizenship status.

It is short-sighted and immoral to suggest that the dignity of the human person is protected only by US law and meant exclusively for US citizens. We have become US citizens ONLY by choices our parents made. Had we been born in, say, Mexico, would we be clamoring for a chance to cross the Rio Grande and find a better life in the US? What sort of claim do we have on this nation beyond the fact that our mothers gave birth to us here?

The Torah constantly reminds us that we are subject to the ultimate authority of YHWH and that part of our obligation as citizens is to welcome the stranger as one of our own since we were “once strangers in a strange land”.

Still, a nation must control its borders but according to the principles of our immigrant past, what must we protect ourselves from? Yes, 9/11 changed our perceptions about almost everything foreign, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that those responsible for that dreadful day were in this country legally.

I was shaken from a complacent “sleep” when I was reminded by a letter writer of the immortal words on the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch, whose flameis the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Perhaps it is for the sake of American principles and ideals that we must rethink what it means to be “one nation under God”.

The Height of Arrogance

Louisiana congressman William Jefferson is in trouble with the law (I do not distinguish his party affiliation because it is completely irrelevant). It appears that because of testimony from others, Mr. Jefferson became the target of a Justice Department investigation during which Mr. Jefferson was recorded taking bribes. In light of this evidence, a warrant was issued and Mr. Jefferson’s congressional office was searched and some items seized. It must also be remembered that part of what was recorded was Mr. Jefferson receiving a large amount of cash, some of which was found hidden in his freezer at home.

Prominent members of the Congress have expressed their collective concern over the FBI’s search of Mr. Jefferson’s congressional office. It seems there is some well-intentioned but misguided tradition by which the executive branch of the government cannot do such a thing to the legislative branch. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (again, party affiliation completely irrelevant) declared the search of Mr. Jefferson’s office to be “unconstitutional”; constitutional experts seem to disagree.

While the “hands-off” tradition between branches of the government is probably a good idea to some degree, this particular search involved all three branches: a judge (judicial) issued a search warrant to the FBI (executive) to search a congressman’s (legislative) office. Politics being what it is, there is a reason why laws exist to protect legislators from being harassed, manipulated, intimidated, or detained by the executive branch on not only the federal level but state levels as well.

Legislators are “we the people”. They are “us”. Instead of everyone going to the state capital to represent our concerns, we choose someone to attend in our stead. It is all part of the checks and balances system which exists within our system of government. One branch of the government cannot hold sway over another branch without due process. This is one of many very good reasons why judges should not be subject to the will of the people by popular vote.

Aside from political consideration between branches of the US government, however, there is also a reason why members of Congress should be concerned about what is happening. The current US president has an extremely low approval rating at this time. The approval rating of the US Congress is even lower. An argument can be made that the low congressional rating is a result of Republicans being in the majority, but this sort of argument would only go as far as partisan voters’ minds. In the end, there seems to be a general mistrust and suspicion of the Congress by the American people, and partisan politics cannot be blamed as the sole culprit.

The public’s mistrust of the Congress can be traced back to the term limits proposals that were enacted in some states as well as other proposals which were attempted at the federal level. That effort failed but not without great cost to former House Speaker Tom Foley. He was a leading opponent of citizen’s efforts to impose term limits on the federal level. Even though the measure was declared unconstitutional (it is) by the judicial branch, the voters reacted to what was perceived at the time as the very height of arrogance. The will of the people clashed with the will of a seemingly arrogant politician who seemed to suggest that the Congress does not have to answer to the voting public. The voters of Washington state, who denied Mr. Foley another term in office, reminded him that the Congress does in fact answer to the voters.

There may be legitimate legal concerns about Mr. Jefferson’s office having been searched and, we presume, documents relevant to the investigation seized, but these legal concerns must be traced to the branch of government responsible for creating laws, the Congress (legislative). The executive branch (FBI) is responsible for enforcing these same laws, and the judicial branch (the judge who issued the search warrant) is responsible for interpreting these laws.

The only “legitimate” concern that members of Congress should have at this point is that they are being reminded that they are not above the laws they created and that they are, indeed, “of the people”. The very essence of arrogance is to suggest that the search of an office of a member of Congress who is under investigation is not allowed under some misguided rules that are not specifically addressed in the US Constitution.

At this point, Mr. Jefferson may not be the only member of Congress who is in trouble with the law.

Gotta Wonder

This evening the new American Idol, Taylor Hicks, was crowned. More remarkable was the fact that 63 million votes were tallied and ready less than 24 hours later. The host of the show made mention that this is more votes than for any US president in history. What he failed to mention was that in presidential elections, we are (typically) only allowed to vote ONCE. I seriously doubt that 63 individuals voted in that election. (My wife and I were unable to vote because our 11-year-old daughter was playing softball, and she is the only one who knows how to text the vote!)

Meanwhile back in Arkansas, one county had some trouble with their new voting machines and ended up having to hand-count each ballot; they were expected to finish up sometime this evening. Not being real handy with numbers, I am still going to jump out on a limb and guess that the votes in that county will come in somewhere UNDER 63 million votes.

Even still, why is it that Hollywood and one accounting firm can tabulate this many votes in less than 24 hours but a government cannot manage a mid-term election vote tally? Is it the machines? Is it technology? Is it the expense of machines and technology? Or could it be that this accounting firm was under the gun of perhaps not being paid until the vote was final AND under threat of never again getting a chance to work for this TV show? Hmmm.

Just wondering.

Legalisms

John Battern encountered a difficult situation and asked a question that actually has profound implications far beyond his host’s back yard and as I was leaving him a comment on his post, I was reminded of a situation only a few days ago as I was driving across town.

I am a listener of talk radio, and in my listening area the station is extremely conservative. On this particular day, the talk was centered around Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s comment that our aversion to illegal immigration may have more to do with our prejudices than with our concern about the law.

Just about the time the radio host was blasting the governor about HIS prejudiced comments, the driver in front of me rolled down his window and tossed his cigarette butt onto the street. Now I have no idea about the politics of the person who committed this crime, but my own prejudiced mind took in the older model pick up truck and the general appearance of the offender and came to the conclusion that this person could well be amongst that crowd that “don’t want no damn Mexicans coming into OUR country, but that don’t make me no bigot”. I know, I know; the Lord loves him, too.

Still, the loudest and most prevalent objections to illegal immigration that have been so eloquently stated come from those who cry out, “What part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?”

Tossing even a tiny cigarette butt onto the street is littering, pure and simple. And in Arkansas, littering is a crime. In all states, there are posted speed limits and even though state police usually don’t seem to bother with we who choose to go “just a tad” over the speed limit, the bottom line is that the law places a definitive limit on how fast we are allowed to drive on our streets and highways.

That “everyone does it” as the common argument does not make any of these acts any less a violation of a prescribed law, and yet we are clear in our objections that “we ain’t no damn bigots; we’se law-abidin’ citizens”.

This all goes beyond what we think and what we do and what we believe. It moves into the lives of our children whose futures we influence by what we teach them and how we teach them. By word does not have the same impact as by deed; children watch much better than they listen, and they learn by both.

In John’s case, a keg of beer was being served at a party for high school graduates at the home of a parent. What sort of message does this convey to those young people? And what would it say if a concerned neighbor had bothered to call the police and report that minors were being served alcohol and the parents had been taken away in handcuffs? You can argue that the kids would have just been drinking somewhere else, but that makes this offense no more right. The law is the law, yes? On private property? So? Beating one’s spouse or abusing one’s children even on private property is still illegal. There is no imminent domain in this case in which parents can provide alcohol to the class of 2006 and be exempt from the law that prohibits such acts.

If we are going to be honest about obeying the law, let’s at least look to ourselves and our own communities and our future generation of law breakers or law abiders (entirely our choice!) before we begin to worry about “them damn Mexicans”.

Choosing Priorities

John 14:1-11

I will be the first to admit that I absolutely LOVED The Da Vinci Code! I read the book a couple of years ago shortly after it first came out and literally could not put it down until I was finished. I found the story to be put together very well and the plot line very exciting. I will also admit that some items in the book gave me more to think about than my comfort zone at the time would allow.

Now that the movie has been released, I am not yet sure if I will go see it because I am afraid that it will not be as good as the book was for me. Through it all, however, I have never doubted that the whole story is ***FICTION***. Oh, there were a few trouble spots in the story line that forced me to go back more than once in the book to try and find the place where I might have missed something. You see, the author does use some historic pieces here and there that are used as nothing more than reference points. And there are some acknowledgments of past conflicts between orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism that can get the reader bogged down. Other than that, however, the story is entirely made up.

Prior to the release of the movie, church folks from all over have gotten more and more excited about what “harm” the movie might do to the Church and Christianity in general. In this the so-called church “leaders” have virtually insulted the masses – sort of like politicians – by suggesting that we cannot think for ourselves and must be “protected”.

Now I will grant you that the Church as a whole has been far too silent for far too long about some moral and social issues, and I also believe that the Church as a whole has come dangerously close to surrendering to society and our secular culture in a misguided effort to appease some. So maybe it is that these church folks who are trying to “protect” us from The Da Vinci Code are just a little too late, having surrendered a measure of credibility long ago, to speak of what is “right” and what is “wrong” now.

“Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in Me.”

For those who may have been left confused about the premise of the book, Jesus has a word of encouragement. “Do not be alarmed”, He is saying. There is a core truth. Even back then Jesus was comforting His disciples because He knew full well that there will be moments of doubt about His mission, His ministry, and even His divinity. And Gnosticism challenges the divinity of Jesus as the Christ. What we are facing today with all the confusion about this novel is nothing new. I don’t believe for one moment that this book or movie poses any significant threat to the Church or to orthodox Christianity in general.

If there is any threat to the teachings of the Church as a whole, I assure you that the threat comes from within. In John 14:15, Jesus calls on His followers to prove their love for Him by obeying His commandments. Now we can speculate about WHICH commandments Jesus may be referring to and we can also speculate about the true definition of “love”, but what we cannot do is challenge what He means by this unless we are willing to admit that we are more “Gnostic” than we are “orthodox” because to challenge such a statement as this is to challenge the divinity of the Christ Himself.

When questioned about the “greatest” commandment of them all, Jesus responds in Matthew 22:37: “You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the FIRST and great commandment and the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

So it would seem that before we worry too much about what Dan Brown says, we might want to pay a little more attention to what Jesus is saying. Some might suggest that Dan Brown’s novel threatens the credibility of the Gospels. I say to you AGAIN that the threat to the Gospel – the GOOD NEWS – of Christ comes from we who consistently fail to live up to the very high standards that Jesus established.

The Church in its rich and storied history has a lot to be pleased with – and much to be ashamed of. The Church’s past is filled with men of power who ordered others killed because they didn’t think “right” or worship “right” or believe “right”. Thankfully, this is all in the past.

Or is it?

Contrary to what others have said, Dan Brown makes no remarkable “claims” to truth. As a writer, he set out to write a book that would sell and make him a living; he’s done that and THEN some. As for historic “claims”, it is a matter of pure speculation. He makes it clear in the beginning that his is a book of PURE FICTION and nothing more.

Jesus, on the other hand, does make some rather remarkable claims and He refers to Himself as “THE TRUTH” as well as “the way” and “the life”. In 1 John 5:6 it is written: “This is He who came by water and blood – Jesus the Christ; not only by water but by water and blood. And it is the SPIRIT who bears witness because the SPIRIT is TRUTH.”

My dear friends, do not let church folks tell you what you should be afraid of or what you should be mindful of unless they are telling you to BELIEVE the SPIRIT. As it is written: “IF we receive the witness of MEN, the witness of God is GREATER; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.”

The PEACE, the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE of Christ Jesus be with you now and forever.

AMEN.

So What If Jesus Was Married?

Christian history has never been as interesting to so many as it is now with the phenomenal success of The Da Vinci Code. With the movie soon to be released, those who are not inclined to read books will likely go see what all the hoo-haa is about. What they will find is an incredibly exciting and well-written story probably very well-played by the talented Tom Hanks. Anything beyond that will merely be icing on the cake. But why the interest in Christianity now? And more to the point, why are church people all over the country so bent out of shape over “heretical” fiction (is there such a thing?)?

Catholics have been advised by the Church to avoid reading the book or seeing the movie because of the negative light shed upon the secretive Catholic organization Opus Dei, about which very little is known, and the Catholic Church in general. Christians in general have been discouraged from indulging merely because of the premised “secret” marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and other “inaccuracies” that might mislead those who are perhaps weak in the faith. All in all, the protests from various Christian groups have helped this book break publishing records even as they have protested its contents.

Considering much of what is considered to be symbolic in the Bible, it is interesting that Christians would protest so vehemently the notion that Jesus as a man, divine though He was, could have possibly been married during His time on this earth. If all things remained the same with the exception of a wedding, would Jesus’ message be any less valued or valuable? Would His authority somehow be diminished if it were to be discovered that such a thing could have actually been possible? Would the divinity of Christ somehow take a “hit” if He were to have sullied Himself with such a worldly institution?

But wait. Marriage as taught by the Catholic Church is not a “worldly” institution, and in most Protestant doctrines it is taught as a “holy ordinance”. It is held as a sacrament of Christ’s holy Church, a gift from the Lord God. If we are encouraged to marry, how could the possibility of Jesus having been married somehow change the nature of His divinity?

By far too many traditions and teachings, Mary Magdalene has been portrayed as a prostitute by some Christian fundamentalists even though there is no correlation mentioned in the Bible between “prostitute” and Mary. This is also part of the “conspiracy” in Dan Brown’s novel that the Church had "fictionally" worked diligently to suppress. It must also be considered then to have implications far beyond merely what we know or have faith to believe to be true.

What if Mary was in fact a prostitute and Jesus married her after He had exorcised the seven demons? What would this say about the nature of the relationship between Christ and his people? Though there are many who would fight to the death any notion of such a relationship, there is a much bigger picture that must be considered. What could be derived from the knowledge of such a relationship? How could modern man possibly fathom such a union, and what would it take for disciples to swallow such a proposition?

There are many references in the New Testament of Christ the Bridegroom and His Church the bride. Jesus broke bread with sinners and tax collectors, a gathering that Pharisees and scribes tried to use as ammunition against Jesus, considering these people to be unclean and certainly not worthy of being in the presence of the Lord Himself. Yet Jesus preached all along that He did not come to condemn the world but, rather, to save us. He reminded any who would listen that those who are well are not in need of a physician. In all this, what is Christ saying to the world?

Could such a relationship between a woman like Mary, prostitute or not but formerly unclean in any case, and Jesus tell us something more about the spiritual relationship between Christ and His Church? It would speak volumes if the church were to acknowledge that we are a congregation of sinners rather than saints. It would be a voluminous message to those who live in a dark world and languish in despair. It would be a message that there is hope for a world in need of salvation and that Jesus Himself would still sit down to break bread with us as “worthy” of our invitation to have Him enter into our lives and our homes.

I do not know that Jesus was married anymore than I know that He was not. What I do know deep within the recesses of my being is that the Lord God chose to reach out to a world seemingly without hope to give us hope. Does it make me a gnostic if I were to believe that Jesus could have been married? Does it make me a heretic somehow if I were to acknowledge that there is more that I don't know than that I do know? Do I somehow not fit in with mainstream, orthodox Christianity if I believe that the LIFE of Christ Jesus was - and is - as significant to me as a disciple as His death and that His life, however spent, is supposed to be the model upon which I am to build my own life?

Getting Through the Day

It was reported in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the youth pastor from Warren (AR) United Methodist Church was arrested for using the Internet to arrange intimate encounters with minors. He is 33 years old; the child was "under 16". He has been charged with attempted sexual assault and Internet stalking of a child. He was arrested at his home, and his laptop was seized from the CHURCH OFFICE and sent to the state's crime lab for analysis. Police declined to say whether the youth pastor and the girl knew each other from church, but they did say the child was NOT assaulted.

....... **** long pause ****.......

It was also reported today that the treasurer for the Arkansas Conference confessed to the bishop that he had been diverting Conference funds for his personal use. He was immediately terminated and has promised full cooperation, including restitution. The article did not say how much money was taken, and the bishop has yet to decide whether there will be criminal charges.

.......***** another cup of coffee *****........

Sometimes there are no words. In fact, I cannot say for sure right now that I even have emotions. I don't feel a thing. These stories are cropping up in the news seemingly more frequently than ever before (or are these just the stories I happen to notice?).

How easy it is to be tempted without fully realizing or appreciating the destruction that lies in wait! We who call ourselves "believers" or "disciples" do not realize how easy we make it for hecklers to turn up their noses at the Best News Ever all the while laughing at us for being no different from they who are equally tempted by money and flesh. I also wonder the level of faith that ever existed in one who can so easily be taken right out from under the Lord's nose (in a manner of speaking, of course). Of course I would hope that the former youth pastor was at least smart enough not to .... oh, who are we kidding?

We ARE held to a higher standard than what the world would expect. We do not surrender to man's whims even as we are ridiculed for being "narrow-minded", "bigoted", etc. But when we demand that our church more accurately reflect the values of contemporary society, contemporary society is precisely what we will get. "You reap what you sow."

Being a diversified church means no more than coming from different backgrounds, different cultures, different races, different nationalities. The personality of Christ's Holy Church is losing her moral authority because she has become a thing of this world and not of the next. We are fighting our own battles from within because the evil one has been invited in.

You want to talk about love? First tell me what it means. "Agape" love, the kind of love Jesus supposedly had for His people. Tell me what it means. Tell me because I really want to know.

For my perspective, love means direct confrontations with danger. Just as I do with my own children, if they violate the rules of our home or our standards of behavior, they will pay a price and immediate correction will be expected. There are no long, drawn-out discussions about the "diversity" of opinions. My wife and I are of like mind, and our rules reign supreme in our household. Telling the children WHY what they do is harmful or dangerous is also part of the teaching process but, of course, you can virtually HEAR the eyes rolling while the "discussion" is going on.

My point is simply this: we the church CANNOT, MUST NOT become a reflection of society or of our contemporary culture. We CANNOT, MUST NOT succumb to the enormous temptations that exist in this world. Christ's Holy Church MUST ALWAYS stand as a sanctuary AGAINST contemporary culture, or she will cease being Christ's church. As it is right now, the church - or what is left of it - is becoming more and more like "culturally relevant". That is to say, the church is working its fingers to the bone giving in to a society that, like children, will take and take and take until there is nothing left to take. The one essential - genuine respect - will be absent. This must be earned, and it cannot be earned by being complacent or by being unable to stand on sound principles. If the church cannot or will not stand on moral principles, it cannot exercise moral authority. Once this is gone, there is nothing left to separate the sheep from the goats.

The only thing that gets me through days like this when all seems lost is only in knowing that He will one day put an end to it. In the meantime, I can only pray His mercy on others just as I continue to pray mercy for myself.

Lest We Be Judged

There is a man I know who recently left his wife for another woman and now attends church with his new love. It must be known that this man's wife is an active member of one church, and it is highly unlikely that she has been involved in any sort of extramarital affair though it is clear that this man is now. To complicate matters, he attends church pretty regularly with his new "friend". I don't know if they have plans to marry anytime soon, but I have to admit that I am extremely uncomfortable with the prospect that they may one day choose to do so or that the pastor of their church will allow it to happen, if not actually officiate.

The UM Judicial Council ruled that a pastor has broad "power" (and I hesitate to use that word) to decide who may or may not join a church, depending upon the new parishioner's understanding of what church membership actually entails. Rather than "power", I think "responsibility" or "duty" or "obligation" would be more appropriate words to use in the case of a pastor who would deny membership or nuptials under certain circumstances. In fact, "duty" would be more appropriate for the pastor to deny this man any active role in the life of this new church lest this man come to believe that what he has done can somehow be justified.

Who has a duty to speak up in such a case? Would it be appropriate for me to contact this pastor and make him aware of this man's new life? After all, we each have obligations toward one another. Is it right to allow this man to believe that what he has done, and is doing, is somehow ok? Like back in my drinking days when I chose alcohol over my own family (is this any less cheating?) and nearly destroyed my life and my family, this man's spiritual well-being may be in jeopardy. If I am truly a disciple of Christ and if I truly possess Christ-like love in my heart, should I not be disturbed that this man is poisoning not only himself but his new "friend" and perhaps his own children who are witnesses to this new relationship? Are they being somehow taught that what he has done is acceptable?

As I have stated so often in writings and in sermons (as quoting Fr. Corapi of EWTN), genuine, biblical, agape love is not an emotion; it is an intentional act of the will such as Jesus' refusal to back away from His crucifixion. His prayer at Gethsemane indicates very much a Man who did not cherish this "cup" that He asked to be removed from Him; He did not want to do this thing. However, a love that can only come from a divine heart somehow knew that this coming series of events was not about Him as an individual; it was about the love of the Almighty Father for an entire world of persons. "Self" chose others.

We all suffer to one extent or another, and in some cases it is ok to pursue other options such as a new job. A marriage, however, is another story. Our culture, our society, would tend toward telling this man that the Lord wants him to be happy and if he has been unhappy in his marriage, then he should do whatever it takes to regain his own happiness. Our scripture, however, says something entirely different. It is not ok to leave hearth and home in pursuit of worldly desires. The Bible makes this abundantly clear; our churches do not.

Politics in Law

For the last few years, voters and politicians alike have shown their extreme concern about judges with a “political” agenda serving time on any bench. Equal time has been spent by conservatives and liberals alike about judges who “legislate” from the bench. In simple terms, if we disagree with a judge’s decision, that judge must have “an agenda”.

Arkansas Appellate Court Judge Wendell Griffen and Roger Harrod are both running for open seats on the Arkansas Supreme Court. Both men are CAMPAIGNING openly with political agendas of their own, and we are left wondering how either can possibly not enter into a court room with prejudices already firming in place? Appointees for US Supreme Court seats are loathe to speak too freely during confirmation hearings about issues that may come before the Supreme Court, giving a more reasonable response that it would be unfair to judge any case based on general notions rather than on the finer legal points pertaining to each case.

What is a voter to do, then, when candidates for a state Supreme Court seat work to garner our support not by touting their legal experiences but rather by telling us what they think? Here is the twist: Judge Griffen is being investigated by the state’s judicial commission for violating the state’s code of judicial conduct, which requires that a candidate to judicial office “maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office.”

So he’s running for office and he is speaking to issues about which he is passionate and he has to get out in front of voters who will ultimately decide whether he can have the state Supreme Court seat, and he is being “investigated” for somehow diminishing the dignity of the office?

I grow very tired of hearing Judge Griffen tell me (a voter) how bad things are for black Americans and how President Bush is responsible for Hurricane Katrina and how the president must have, by design, made it hard for all those (black Americans) who refused to leave to get out once New Orleans was virtually under water. This man has a spike in his boot about just about anything relative to conservative issues and religion in general and “whitey”. However, is he not free to speak up?

The judicial commission gets to decide how far an appellate judge can go in speaking up in public. Is this fair? Would we be better off somehow if all judges; regardless of local, state, or federal level; were to be appointed by the mayor or the governor or the president? We seem to have a problem with judges getting a lifetime appointment, but we now seem to have a problem with potential justices (and sitting judges) speaking out loud from beyond the bench as if they are not entitled to their own human prejudices and frailties and failures.

We just can’t seem to make up our minds.

A Fit of Irony

Arkansas Appellate Court Judge Wendell Griffen has been making waves for quite some time. By all accounts, he is articulate, well-educated, charismatic, out-spoken, and not afraid to speak his mind. When the University of Arkansas fired basketball coach Nolan Richardson, Judge Griffen was at the forefront of the supposed fight over whether or not Mr. Richardson was mistreated by the University. Coach Richardson was fired for speaking his mind out loud.

In most other circumstances, skin color or race would have little to do with what I offer to you today. However, it must be said that these two particular gentlemen have been most outspoken about the continuing struggle of African-Americans and how mistreated blacks in general. Both gentlemen happen to be black.

Why is the color of their skin relevant? Because both men are loud, obnoxious, and unafraid to speak up. In politics, in law, in religion, tact is everything. There is always a more appropriate time and place to speak up, and the audience must be considered in all circumstances. But what makes these two gentlemen unique in their “struggle” against white society is the mere fact that both men are well-educated, very influential, and extremely successful in their endeavors. So it begs the question: if things are so bad for black Americans, how did they (and so many others) manage to make it?

Could it possibly be because they both determined long ago that they may actually have to work hard to achieve all they intended to achieve? Could it possibly be that they are successful because they actually worked for, and earned, their own achievements?

My being white precludes me from knowing too much about what it must have been like to grow up black in America, so I acknowledge that I lack a certain perspective. Having said this, however, I recall former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts (a black man) saying that he was not the least bit interested in someone “insulting” him by suggesting that standards must be lowered to accommodate him or any other black person who is willing to work hard to achieve a goal. Looking at Judge Griffen and Coach Richardson and hearing Mr. Watts, what is left for me to know? All three gentlemen are proof positive that the “system” some have professed to struggle against is the same “system” that worked for them and for countless others who chose not to feel sorry for themselves but chose instead to buckle down and do whatever it takes to achieve their goals and live their own dreams.

It takes sheer hard work and determination to become a successful basketball coach (Mr. Richardson was, and can be still) or a judge or a congressman. None of these things come easily regardless of the color of one’s skin. So they struggled and achieved. Why would they suggest that others coming after them work any less hard for the same goals?

Unreasonable Expectations

It's been a pretty tough week for me, so I've neglected my writing. In fact, I've neglected almost everything, choosing instead to draw up to myself and have a pity party. The reasons are not as important as my reactions to the circumstances that caused my distress. Suffice it to say, this has been the least productive week possibly of my entire life.

Numbers 11 is a piece of work in which the Israelites once again complain to Moses that the manna they receive abundantly and without any effort is no longer good enough for their nourishment; they want meat. It is no longer enough that they are being sustained and that their genuine needs are being met. They have desires, and they are beginning to remember (yet again) how "good" things were when they lived in bondage in Egypt. They recall all the different foods that were available to them, not realizing that they were being sustained like so much livestock.

(There could be a whole other thought about how food and eating should not be taken as some kind of recreational sport, but that is for another time.)

In the end, the Israelites get quail virtually thrust upon them and judgement soon follows due to their ungrateful hearts and lack of faith. They choke on the meat they thought they could not live without.

This is where I am now, dear reader. I have suffered some personal and professional setbacks and I have spent the week complaining that what I want is not coming to fruition, so there must be this grand conspiracy to "get" me. While this may be true, it is the aftermath of reacting to such circumstances that define the condition of the heart and soul. The "manna" that has been in my life in such abundance has suddenly become tiresome and is no longer good enough.

Though I still have a lot more to do in my efforts to "get over it", I am well on my way to being more aware of the blessings that are in my life in no small measure. I am being given all I could possibly "need", and then some. Why is it not good enough? I fear it is because I am wrapped far too tightly in my flesh and have neglected my spiritual needs which are substantial.

Count your blessings, dear readers. If we were to take stock of all the good in our lives and focus more on what we have rather than on what we think we lack, we could more easily see the majesty of the Lord in our lives just as surely as we can see Him in a fiery sunset.

He is there, and He is now.

What, me worry?

“I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value that they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?”

“Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own troubles.” Matthew 6:25-27, 31-34


First and foremost on our minds today is the skyrocketing price of fuel and what ‘evil’ the energy companies are up to and how we are forced to endure their “obscene” and record-breaking quarterly profits and what our Congress and our president will choose to do to “punish” these greedy people.

It was not too many months ago when Social Security was the primary concern we had about our government and how President Bush was “deliberately” trying to destroy the elderly and force them to eat more cat food and do without heating and cooling, etc etc. We cried out to our congressional representatives and pleaded with them to “save” us from this evil president who was out to dismantle what is arguably the most successful government program in place today.

Asking a congressman to “save” us from anything in light of what is written in Matthew is sort of like telling the Lord that we will trust Him to save our souls and get us into Heaven tomorrow, but down here we need our congressman today to “save” us from the day-to-day worries. Is it not just possible that, upon that Day when we stand before the Lord, He will ask, “Why didn’t you trust Me with your daily concerns? What did Congressman so-and-so ever do for you that I didn’t already do? What sacrifice did he make for you so that you could actually live a life filled with hope?”

Having genuine concerns for the state of our economy, especially in how it affects the “least of these” is not the same as incessant “worry” about how the price of fuel or the volatility of the stock market is going to affect our retirement funds. The tone of our protests and hateful words against the president and this congress and the energy industry is pure evidence that we are scared to death of what tomorrow will bring. How can we offer hope to non-believers when it is abundantly clear that we are ourselves without hope? How can we encourage non-believers to allow Christ to be Lord of their lives when it is clear that our congressman, senators, and president are co-lords of our lives now; that our faith and trust is clearly in man-made legislation and not in divinely inspired Scripture?

For the life of the faithful, what is happening today is not about social justice or supply-and-demand economics; it is about faith, pure and simple, and how we respond to our society, our economy, and our culture. It is about knowing that tomorrow is firmly in the hands of the Lord God and that believing this to be true goes far beyond what we put into the collection plate on Sunday.

Blessings from Above

There is hardly a sensation more spiritually or emotionally overwhelming than to be able to see, hear, taste, or feel the blessings that come from our Holy Father and know with absolute certainty from whence they come. Here in draught-stricken Arkansas where drinking water supplies are dangerously low and municipalities are restricting how we can wash our cars (only at high-pressure, low-usage commercial car washes) and when we can water our lawns, there has been a steady rain this morning that is as refreshing to hear and see as any other sensation I can imagine.

How timely it was, then, that in the "religion" section of today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is an article reminding us of the power of the "moment of silence" that we not-often-enough exercise in our worship services or in our daily lives. As I sat silently and listened to the abundant rain outside, I was instantly reminded of how it is by the hand of the Lord that we are protected and nourished. Even as the outdoors was being washed anew and refreshed with the much-needed rain, I was indoors and protected from the elements. I was reading a paper that is published in a free nation, and my family is well.

It doesn't get much better than this.

Truth is as Truth does

“Pilate therefore said to Jesus, “Are You a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the Truth hears My voice.”

Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” John 18:37-38 NKJV



Absolute truth seems to escape us even as we are absolutely convicted in what we believe. Whether we have come upon this conviction by personal experience or by what is written is relative to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. A reasonable person may often find himself or herself asking such a rhetorical question as, “What is truth?”

For Christians, Christ is the absolute Truth of the revelation of the Lord God. Father Eric Pohlmeier, pastor of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Hot Springs AR, wrote, “The Christian understanding is that all truth is a reflection of God because God is the source of all truth. So, many religions, many explanations of reality, can reflect the truth without fully capturing it.”

Rabbi Eugene Levy, spiritual leader of the Temple B’Nai Israel in Little Rock AR, states, “Rather than claiming ‘the truth’, we would all do ourselves and the world a gigantic favor if, instead of trying to usurp the ‘truth’, we would study what the ‘truths’ of each religion are and learn to appreciate and accept and love them.”

Finally, Imam Islam Mosaad, spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of Little Rock AR, offers this perspective: “We may disagree about God and spiritual truths, but this does not in any way preclude us from honoring our shared human dignity.”

“The Lord God forbids you not, with respect to those who do not fight you because of your chosen way of life or expel you from your homes, that you act in kindness and fairness towards them; for indeed, the Lord God loves those who are fair and equitable.”
Quran 60:8

“He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:8

The ‘truth’ can take quite a beating when we as individuals or even as a collective entity insist that we have a corner on the truth and then attempt to beat into submission those who disagree with us by trying to convince the masses that our "opponents" are trying to mislead and misguide and “lie” about what truly is. And when we are discussing any topic we may be passionate about, whether it is the economy or Christ the revelation, any dissension is met with anything but “loving mercy” because our counter-attacks are anything but merciful.

Truth is as truth does. And if our behavior in church or in politics is any indication, "truth" is not something that many will want any part of.

A Wise Father

A young boy had just gotten his driver's permit and inquired of his father, an evangelist, if they could discuss his use of the car. His father said, "I'll make a deal with you. You bring your grades up from a C to a B average, study your Bible a little, get your hair cut and we'll talk about the car."

Well, the boy thought about that for a moment, decided that he'd settle for the offer, and they agreed on it. After about six weeks they went into the study, where his father said, "Son, I've been real proud. You brought your grades up, and I've observed that you have been studying your Bible, and participating a lot more in the Bible study groups. But, I'm real disappointed, since you haven't gotten your hair cut."

The young man paused a moment, and then said, "You know, Dad, I've been thinking about that, and I've noticed in my studies of the Bible that Samson had long hair, John the Baptist had long hair, Moses had long hair and there's even a strong argument that Jesus had long hair."

To this his father replied, "Did you also notice that they all walked everywhere they went?"

The Fall Guy

Judas Iscariot is two-thousand years in the grave and is causing as much a stir now as in the day when he decided to sell Jesus out to those who wished Him destroyed. Jesus was, after all, a rebel with a cause who challenged the core religious establishment to its man-made foundation. This religion was filled with pious, righteous men who deemed themselves the enforcers of YHWH’s laws and as teachers of the faith that delivered Israel’s people from bondage and slavery in Egypt. Jesus was the One who was calling this same people back to the faith which had delivered them, and His calling of faith was getting in the way of the religion of this same people, or at least the religion of those who called themselves the teachers.

According to the synoptic gospels and with tongue firmly in cheek, were it not for the treachery and deceitfulness of Judas, the Pharisees and chief priests may never have caught up with Jesus. Recall in the Gospel according to Mark of the implication that no one would apparently know who to arrest, making Judas’ kiss necessary for positive ID.

“Immediately, while Jesus was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, came from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now His betrayer had given them a signal, saying, ‘Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him and lead Him away safely.’” Mark 15:43-44

There is an odd flavor in this passage which might suggest that something is not quite in sync with the whole Judas story, not the least of which is the likelihood that contained within the “multitude” is not one single person other than Judas who could recognize Jesus positively. Am I the only one who finds this strange?

Having read only commentaries from various historians and theologians, the Gospel of Judas, apparently written some two-hundred to three-hundred years after the synoptic gospels, portrays Judas in a more favorable light as a trusted companion of Jesus and one who may have been in cahoots with Jesus Himself in order to hasten that fateful day.

In all these years, it has been told to us that Judas alone was the one who gave Jesus up to the authorities. Then there are the passages in which Judas is sorry for what he has done and tries to give back the money he was paid for his betrayal and his hanging himself and, well, the rest of the gruesome details we are well aware of. Yet the assignment of blame does not stop with Judas.

A Vatican II document, entitled “Nostra Aetate”, was a ground-breaking piece of work through which the Catholic Church worked to correct some two-thousand years of oppression and fault-finding which somehow held the Jews alone responsible for the death of Jesus, likely because of their recorded dismissals of Christ’s message of salvation. Years later during the time of Pope John Paul II, Christians were called to account for some of the burden for the religious pretense used by the Nazi hate mongers. Thomas G. Lederer of the seminary of the Immaculate Conception writes, “According to the pope, it was much easier for Christians to turn away from the reality of the gas chambers and death camps with preconceptions of Jewish responsibility for Christ’s death coursing through the veins of those transfused with early childhood Christian religious education.”

In October 1997, Pope John Paul II stated, “In the Christian world … the wrong and unjust interpretation of the New Testament relating to the Jewish people and their presumed guilt circulated for too long, contributing to feelings of hostility toward these people.”

Did Judas somehow become too small a target so that throughout the course of Christian history, we would be able to turn our sights on an entire people and hold them responsible for the death of Christ Jesus, somehow “blaming” them even as we “rejoice” in the death that produced the blood by which we proclaim ourselves absolved of all our sin? I would admit that the killing of the Messiah would necessarily have to involve at least a conspiracy as “big” as Messiah Himself; one single person throughout all of human history is just not quite “big” enough to hang such responsibility on. Yet this is what is told to us through the New Testament.

Why do we feel such a need to hold someone responsible? Why is it so important that we be able to personify the treachery that turned Jesus over to the authorities as we “celebrate” His death? The entire premise is not theologically sound and yet we hold so fast to it that we virtually turn inside-out when some piece of ancient history is discovered and brought to light because it contradicts what we have always believed to be true, according to the canon we’ve always possessed.

For those who revel in the crucifixion of Jesus, it becomes necessary to ask ourselves whether the life of Jesus had any significant value if His death was the only real purpose of His entire existence. If His death alone were necessary for the redemption of mankind, why not allow Jesus to be executed as a child when King Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents instead of warning Joseph in a dream to flee the land? The Holy Child would have been just as dead and could have, by the power of YHWH, been just as resurrected as the Man.

This apparently is not what was meant to be. There are numerous passages from the Hebrew texts which seem to prophesy of the coming Messiah, and much of what happens to Jesus during His time on earth is a direct reflection of these prophesies.

It must be noted, however, that this is precisely what happens in Mark 14:50: “Then they all forsook Him and fled.”

Although Judas’ act may have served as a catalyst for what was about to take place, it is quite a stretch to suggest that Judas alone was responsible for subsequent events and that if Judas had not done what he had done, Jesus would not have been crucified.
My only point in all of this is what I consider to be overreactions from many evangelicals who have apparently cried “foul” over the release of this “gospel” that proclaims to be the gospel of Judas and that Judas is portrayed as Jesus’ “best friend”. We want Judas to be the fall guy; we NEED him to be the fall guy, because this somehow seems to take a little pressure off of us.

We do not want to believe that we could somehow, some two-thousand years removed, be responsible for the death of Christ. Yet we will still be among the first to proclaim ourselves “clean” from the blood that poured out as a result.

Just as Mark 14:50 suggests, those closest to Jesus were the ones who “forsook Him and fled”. Would we not have been as tempted?

Best and Worst

How can a presidency be defined so that one administration can be fairly compared to another, especially if comparing a liberal-to-moderate Democratic president against a moderate-to-conservative Republican president? Each would have a different set of core values and beliefs even if they shared common goals such as "a chicken in every pot" or "good, high-paying jobs for all who want them" or "national security at any cost", and so on and so on.

I am a news and op-ed junkie. I especially like reading "letters to the editor" written by regular folks who care as much, if not more, than any paid politician about the state of affairs in their community, state, and nation. What I cannot understand is the occassional letter that continues to remind us how awful President Clinton was and what a stain on our fair state of Arkansas his presidential library is. Mr. Clinton is five years removed from that office and is constitutionally barred from running again.

Well, I was never a fan of Mr. Clinton, but I love this library. My family and I found it to be very fascinating and informative. I also found a presidency that may (or may not) have accomplished much more if Republicans had been more concerned about the good of the nation rather than the demise of a Democratic president. Now, of course, it would appear that the Democrats are more concerned with fighting with President Bush than with trying to work with him, so maybe it is that Washington DC is nothing more than a "tit-for-tat" game board in which revenge is far sweeter than honest dialogue about differences in philosophy.

The negativity connected to former President Clinton that many conservatives try to keep rehashing has more to do with speculation that Hillary may take a shot at the White House in '08. Keeping the negativity from the Bill Clinton days seems to be the Republican/conservative effort to discredit Hillary before a campaign has even begun which would virtually guarantee that we poor citizens will have to listen to this garbage for three years!

In a word, dear reader, we ask for it every election year because we continue to "rehire" the same, tired, old mouth pieces who could not care less whether we live well or die hard. Their quest is for power, plain and simple. And they play the voter like a cheap fiddle, knowing perfectly well that we can be bought with cheap baubles and shiny beads. The only way we can actually tell the difference between a Democrat or a Republican is the manner in which they curse or bless Bill Clinton and George Bush.

It is becoming clearer that our politicians are merely a reflection of the culture that produces them.

Learning Something New

I have finally figured out that I am a Wesleyan. A classic liberal (egads! I wish I knew what that meant!!). A postmodern (is this healthy?). Good grief. Does this now mean that I hate commerce, free trade, and believe that Ted Kennedy, et al, is the salvation of the United States? Does this mean that I may have to change my party affiliation? Does this mean that I must now rethink everything I thought I believed?

I guess I can take some comfort in my low "fundamentalist" and "modern liberal" score. I still wish I knew more about these answers and what they really mean.

I suppose the more I try to evaluate what I really believe, the more confused I become. It may be that I and many others are trying desperately to fit ourselves into some sort of pre-conceived mold by which we may more accurately describe ourselves if or when we are ever confronted by boards that may ask us what we believe. Do I have intentions of rethinking some of my core values and beliefs simply because I don't care much for the answers I got? I think not. On the whole, however, I can be pretty satisfied with what I see except for one tiny detail: why should I care how some poll folds my box?

Dirty Laundry

Misleading title, but I couldn't really think of what else to call it. It's time again for some random thoughts with no real depth or meaning, just clutter that I probably need to remove from my attic.

• Easter has come and gone. There is still a little candy left over in my home. I am the last one in the world who needs it but as I am irresistibly drawn toward the Cadbury's egg I am compelled to ask myself, "What does any of this have to do with Easter?"
• A clinical psychologist has declared that Zacarias Moussaoui is mentally unstable. Good call, doc.
• Jane Fonda wanted to tour the country and speak out against the war in Iraq, but she was afraid that she is toting too much baggage from her Vietnam protesting days. She also believes Cindy Sheehan is doing a much better job than she could have. I'm not so sure of that if getting people stirred up is what she intends to accomplish.
• Speaking of the war in Iraq, I will go on record as saying I was not real sure about our willingness to go it alone. Now that we're there, what are we supposed to do? If we pull out, what will be left? I guess I'm still wondering what the protesters actually believe.
• The Gospel of Judas is said to portray Judas in a more favorable light. Fundamentalists are really up in arms about this latest "discovery". Why are we so determined to put Judas in eternal hell fire? Would it change the fact that it was SIN that put Jesus on the cross and not Judas nor the Jews nor the Romans? Do we really care, or do we just want someone other than ourselves to blame?
• I am still getting circular e-mails from folks trying to convince me that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and that this will somehow make Hillary a bad president (??). I am no Clinton fan and never was. I suspect I never will be.
• John at Locusts and Honey puts out a weekly summary of Methodist blogs and their writings with quick links. In addition, much of his stuff is thought-provoking and sometimes downright funny. For any who happen by, check out his blog and his unnatural fondness for rabbits. And incidentally, John puts out this summary all on his own. It is an incredible undertaking and I am quite certain that if he stopped doing it, it would end. Thank you, John, from the bottom of my heart.
• Speaking of the Methodist blogroll, there are several quick links to the left of this column. I dare say there are some incredible talents, theologians, and lay persons who have a genuine love affair going on with the Lord. You need to take time to visit some. I have my particular favorites, but you will just have to see for yourself that there is something for everyone.
• I wish there was some way in which to convince the voting public that they really need to read more newspapers about the candidates in the upcoming elections and not be influenced by sound-bites. We miss out on so much by refusing to listen to the whole story.
• I have some pretty incredible nieces (and one nephew), beautiful over-achievers they are. Of course I am proud of my entire family, but it amazes me sometimes how dedicated these young Christians are, including my own children. I sometimes wish I could turn back the clock and undo some of the careless and irresponsible stunts I pulled when I was younger (mostly involving alcohol). But then, this would change everything and, God help me, I love the life He has so abundantly provided to me.

It's almost time for bed. For you visitors (and my site meter says you're out there!), thank you for your visit. It is also lawful to leave comments from time to time.

Have peace.

Michael

Defining the America Culture

Since the immigration debate began heating up, there have been some thought-provoking ideas about the common culture that we Americans share. It is a culture believed to be important as a means by which we identify ourselves distinctly as Americans. It is a culture believed to be unique as well as one into which all immigrants should strive to assimilate themselves.

It would be difficult to completely disagree with such ideas. After all, even if we as a society can find ourselves celebrating such a diversity of cultures that serves to distinguish our various traditions and backgrounds, there is still a commonality that we must necessarily share if we are to identify ourselves as a unified nation even if it is nothing more than a common language. Instead, we are spending untold amounts giving, for instance, driver license tests in several different languages as all the street signs are printed in English.

Aside from what we as a nation must be prepared to do in order to protect our borders and control immigration – and I believe we must as a matter of national security – immigration and the problem of illegal immigrants are not what has been haunting me. Rather, I have been trying desperately to identify this “American culture” that many seek to protect. I suppose this unique culture can mean different things to different people, but a nation with a common purpose must necessarily be united in one form or fashion.

So what is the one unique thing that binds us together as a nation? Even as diverse a population as there is in the United States, there must also surely be one common theme that exists within the hearts and minds of Americans, that theme that distinctly cries out, “THIS IS AN AMERICAN (dream)!”

That’s it, isn’t it? The “American Dream”. It is that one simple ideal to which each American citizen, and even aliens who come to this country, aspires and works to achieve. Even the “American Dream” can be as diverse as the populace that seeks to identify the ideal for itself. We dream, we plan, we hope, we desire, we work, and we save so that one day we can claim for ourselves that piece of the “American Dream”.

So what is the “American Dream”? Is it home or land ownership? Is it education for our children? Is it other property not necessarily with lasting value but with an intrinsic value to us as Americans that we can lay claim to it as our piece of the “Dream” and call it our own American ideal? Or is it something as simple and yet as profound as “liberty”; the right to do and to be as we choose to do or be? Or to choose not to participate in the so-called rat race that has driven many a good American to an early grave?

The more I reflect and explore, the more the American ideal sounds like consumerism. The ideal and the quality of the dream may have as much to do with how much we can acquire and accumulate as it has to do with our right to do so.

Even beyond this is the amount and quality of “stuff” we can gather for ourselves and our families and even our old age. We have continued debates about an acceptable and mandated minimum wage while we lament about the high cost of goods and services we seek to acquire. Even as we do this, we cry out about those who would enter into this country illegally and take “our” jobs and then continue to pray for those who are unfairly exploited while we secretly are thankful that someone is out there holding down the cost of these goods and services we can no longer live without.

It would appear that the unique American culture has more to do with what we can do for ourselves rather than what we can for one another such as welcoming a stranger and giving not only of our abundance but also of ourselves. It may be that our culture, however unique, could use a shot of this culture and that so that we may learn more about what it takes to build up our communities rather than build up for ourselves that which can be taken from us without warning.

It may be that our American culture demands a $50,000.00 standard of living on a $35,000.00 paycheck. The American culture being what it is may have more to do with a sense of entitlement by which we justify our horse-choking debt loads and inability to pay what we owe, much less share what we have.

It does not seem to be enough to simply seek the ideal. It seems to me that we must first identify this ideal to determine whether or not we are truly prepared to live within such a society and then demand assimilation from others to share in the same.

Remembering 9/11 ... Again

In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, they are playing recordings from final phone conversations of passengers aboard that fateful flight as well as remembrances from some whose loved ones called from the World Trade Center even after the presiding judge had warned against such strategies lest the jury forget that there are certain "FACTS" in the case that require attention. Emotion is never a good way to judge a case, especially one like this.

I only say this because I still get emotional myself whenever I reflect on that day. The part that stands out in my mind, aside from the countless thousands of lives that were directly impacted, was the phone call I received that afternoon from my then 12-year-old daughter who had been told in school by someone that the Muslims were out to kill American children. To hear that sweet, innocent voice virtually begging for assurance that no one was specifically out to get her and try to maintain my own composure was overwhelming, to say the least. There was still anger in my soul over the events of the day, but there was also still chaos in the news with each station vying for attention to their own coverage. I am not so sure what I was feeling or thinking that day except that my daughter's innocence and sense of well-being had been violated.

I'm not so sure that rehashing such emotionally charged sentiment in a trial is a good idea because I am quite certain that all of America was feeling pretty much what I was feeling on that day. Having such recordings played and replayed can virtually shut out any sense of rational logic and fair play, especially for a "foreigner" standing trial and representing everything we hated, and still perhaps hate, about that awful day.

I do not wish to take away from those who lost their loved ones on 9/11/01. I do not wish to diminish the pain and grief they must still feel. I do wish, however, to diminish the power that evil can have when we allow our emotions to run away with us. We are, first and foremost, Christians who live by a standard of conduct that challenges us each day to be better and more Christ-like than the day before, ever striving toward spiritual perfection and seeking desperately to walk in the footsteps of the gentle One who showed us the way home.

None of this means that we are not allowed our human emotions; Jesus had such moments Himself. It means that it is ok, but it also means that we must strive to overcome those emotions and think in such a way that we could even have compassion for such as one who would have planned and participated in such a heinous act against innocent civilians. For we know, or should reasonably know, that Moussaoui may be lost - perhaps for all eternity. In this, we cannot rejoice and still claim the name "Christian".

Christ in the Passover

In Saturday's edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's religion section was a piece about the Passover seder, the meal that is in the Jewish tradition rich in symbolism and meaning. It seems that rather than have "Jews for Jesus" come visit and offer the seder with explanations with historical and theological implications, some Christian churches have "hi-jacked" the seder, changed the meaning of some of the fundamental elements, and have come very near to changing the entire presentation even if there are easily some parallels that can be made.

The author, Laura Lynn Brown, reports, "Some churches modify the seder to the extent that every symbol in the Passover becomes some symbol of Jesus' divinity", according to Rabbi Eugene Levy, spiritual leader of Temple B'Nai Israel, a Reformed temple in Little Rock. "For example, one element of the seder - three matzo wafers inside a cloth - symbolizes three layers of early Jewish society: the priests, the Levites, and the Israelites." Rabbi Levy has attended seders where the leader says they are a symbol of the Christian Trinity of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. When the middle mazto is broken and wrapped in a cloth, the leader likens that to Jesus' broken body and the cloth He was wrapped in after His crucifixion. Rabbi Levy says, 'That's their interpretation, but that's very far afield from the Jewish interpretation.'"

Rabbi Levy has a very good relationship with the Christian community in central Arkansas and has visited many congregations to present the seder and its proper context, and the rabbi is very highly regarded in Arkansas. He does not take away from what some of these Christian congregations are doing with what was at one time distinctly Jewish. I am not so sure that I am willing to be as gracious.

Our faith tradition has a very rich history, like it or not, that comes from our distinctly Jewish roots. Taking something as significant as the Passover seder and trying to turn it into something that it clearly is not is, for me, to take away from something in which the Lord God touched an entire nation. I think even Rabbi Levy finds this new twist somehow strange. "Some churches want to do a Passover seder very accurately. They want to model what the Jewish Passover is. What would Jesus have sat through?"

That very question is precisely what led me to attend worship one Sabbath at his temple. I wanted to know more about the faith of Jesus. What sort of worship service would He have sat through? What did He think? How did He worship? Of course I had to sit next to a smart-aleck who asked me what a Christian was doing visiting a Jewish temple. I stated that I wanted to know more about the faith of the One whom I call "Savior". My new friend very plainly told me that Jesus would likely have attended the Orthodox temple on the other side of town. I found the experience very enriching and enlightening. Almost the entire service was done in Hebrew even though there was enough English throughout that helped me to stay with the flow.

Still, during that worship service were some elements of praise that I could easily have imagined Jesus to have been an active part of. After all, did He not teach us to praise the Lord God? The whole thing was a remembrance that seemed to culminate in the Exodus much like the Catholic Mass culminates in the Eucharist, the celebration of that wondrous gift of eternal life. In each, the people had been freed from bondage. In each is contained a time of preparation, a time of reflection, and yes, even a time of sorrow. Many parallels but each distinct in its own right.

I think I would rather see the Passover as it was established with Moses and the people of Israel. Acknowledging a historic reality without trying to modify it does not diminish the reality of Christ in the Passover - "In the BEGINNING was the Word" - Christ is the eternal Covenant of the Lord our God. Without beginning and without ending - Eternal. With man, however, one step at a time but clear and distinctive steps on our journey to the Promised Land - HIS land and not our own.

Grace and Peace,
Michael

Mob Mentality

"A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of Him and those that followed shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, 'Who is this?' The crowds answered, 'This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee." Matthew 21:8-11

It has been said that this moment in Jesus’ life - entering into Jerusalem - was considered to be a “triumph”, as if Jesus had now made His final move toward victory over the Romans. I suppose this could be true in a way, but I also think this interpretation we have about Jesus coming into Jerusalem as "triumphant" is misleading and fails to acknowledge some historical and cultural truths. I also think that looking at this passage in such a way sort of lets us “off the hook”.

Notice that when the people greet Jesus riding into town on a donkey, they are greeting the “Son of David”. It is important when reading Matthew that we take a distinctly Jewish perspective of what the writer is actually saying. It is obvious in this reference that the great King David is of the lineage that gives Jesus His own credibility in the eyes of the people. I’m not so sure that these people are giving Him much more than this even though verse 11 reveals at least something: “multitudes said, ‘This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.”

There was much more that the people were looking forward to than what Jesus had any intention of doing – at least in THIS lifetime. And when Jesus failed to overthrow the Roman government and restore King David’s Hebrew tradition of, quite literally, “ONE NATION UNDER GOD”, He began to lose favor with the very crowd who had only recently received Him with great honor and eager anticipation.

What the people could not see, however, is that even though the Roman government seems to have tried to remove the Jew’s own national “identity”, the Romans were only a symptom of a much greater evil. The people who were virtually lining the streets to be “saved” had no concept of what it was they needed to be “saved” from beyond the Roman government. It would seem, then, that the people who were lining the road and greeting the “Son of David” were more likely “wannabe warriors” who were fully prepared to do battle with the Romans and have them ejected from Jerusalem – if only someone would take the leadership role.

I wonder why they didn’t seem to notice that Jesus was riding on a donkey instead of a majestic STEED or on a battle chariot and that He was not carrying any weapons of war or wearing any sort of body armor and had no battle-ready soldiers following behind Him.

We are now entering into the time of “Holy Week” which for the life of the Church is a time of great reflection – and GREAT SORROWS - in which we remember the final days leading up to the crucifixion of Christ. We are to take these passages and dig much deeper into the heart of what the writers were trying to say – but not so that we can be more historically accurate.

Instead, we should be more mindful of how easy it would be to repeat such happenings today and realize how easily we can be so caught up in our own misery and seek someone to blame for how things are.

Consider the current presidential administration. The war in Iraq seems to have no end in sight, and we are losing faith in the administration’s ability to put a workable timetable for withdrawal in place. In fact, we don’t even know if withdrawal will ever be an option. Where was the outcry when the president was virtually PROMISING war to the United States and the United Nations? Why were we not protesting then?

We have lost faith over time because, like the Jews in early Jerusalem, we were angry at someone. The anticipated results did not come to fruition. We did not expect to become bogged down as we are now. We were angry at Muslims in general, and we allowed ourselves to be convinced that Saddam Hussein was the end-all, be-all personification of evil that he may well be. We know what this man was capable of, and we were convinced that removing this man from power would settle the score and “make the world safer”. Now we’re not so sure.

Politics aside, no man and no government on this earth has absolute power over us now anymore than the Romans had absolute power over the Jews of ancient Jerusalem. Yet like the Jews, we needed someone to personify our fears and justify our anger. Now that the war continues, we are not so pleased with the president. We have placed all our faith in ONE MAN to make our lives better and make our world safer without realizing that the powers and “principalities” that are a genuine threat cannot be overcome by man.

We are painfully aware of our need for salvation – I’m just not so sure that we are fully aware of what or whom we need to be saved from! Jesus never promised His followers an easy way in this life. He never promised us fame or fortune, and He never suggested for one moment that material wealth would be key to our success and happiness. And He never came close to telling us that the threat to our eternal soul existed in this world

- EXCEPT by our own acts and words.

“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.” Matthew 10:28

When we become afraid, we seek others to share in our fear. We want them to be as afraid as we are, and we want to gang up against that which causes us to fear. It seems to be an instinct we have toward self-preservation.

In the end, however, we discover that our fears are generally unfounded and without merit. We have allowed ourselves to believe that we are on our own and that we have been left alone to fend for ourselves.

We need not look into the past to try and determine for ourselves how the Jews must have acted or what they must have been thinking. That time is past, and we have proclaimed for ourselves a Savior who has promised that He will one day come again. But before He arrives and rides through the city’s gate and before we throw our coats on the ground and shout “Hosanna”, it may be that we need to examine for ourselves WHY we are so glad to see Him. Will our joy be only for our own sakes or for the sake of His Glory?

More on Excesses

"Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and peridition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6-10 NKJV

I have often said, half jokingly, that I have nothing against rich people; in fact, I hope to be one someday! I suppose I've always had this semi-fantasy floating in the back of my mind of a day when I did not have to balance the check book and wonder whether there was enough money to make the house payment. O, the day when I could write a $1000 check to a worthy charity and be glad to have had it to share! Yes Lord, I would do great things if You would only trust me as much as (I say) I trust You!

We know that it doesn't work this way. We should also know that there is a very good reason why it does not and should not work this way. Some, such as I, could not be trusted with large chunks of money. I am absolutely certain of what drives my desire for money. Money = power. That's it. There really is not much more to it.

And the writer of Timothy hits on a key word as well: "contentment". I suppose it never really struck me until last night as I was reading through this passage in preparation for a Sunday sermon (YES!! I get to fill in for someone!). What does it take to be content, truly content? Does contentment feed fulfillment, or is it the other way around? There is enough contained in this passage to force any reasonable disciple to guess that there much more to life than the pursuit of worldly riches, those things "that rust".

It is easy for me to point a finger at the Vatican and high-dollar pastors and demand that they live like the rest of us, but the reality is that any among us is just as subject to these temptations. I for one don't seem too willing to sell everything I own and take up a cross. It would seem I am more willing to tote the extra burden (the cross) along with all my "stuff". This is not a pretty picture of someone who has virtually demanded that the Vatican be sold and the space be given up for homeless folks.

The very same can be said for saving money and fretting about Social Security. Whom do we truly trust if we actually spend time worrying about what will happen to us tomorrow, surely knowing that tomorrow may well never come for us?

That's it, isn't it? It's not that we fear tomorrow necessarily; it is that we are afraid there will be too many "tomorrows" and not enough cash to go around. Either way, we condemn ourselves by demanding that others live up (or down) to a standard we are not willing to abide by.

This is not to say that there are not excesses within the Church. It must be remembered, however, that until we are willing to lead BY EXAMPLE, the message is just a lot of meaningless noise.

The Da Vinci Code

Not long ago while attending a class, Principles of the Life of Christ, the instructor was introducing various historical documents that man has used over time to justify his religion. He spoke briefly of the Bible, of course, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha, and the Gnostic Gospels. What really got this man on a tear, however, was Dan Brown and his megahit The Da Vinci Code. The good reverend was extremely upset that Mr. Brown had the audacity to present his book as a historical source work. When I mentioned to the instructor that I had read - and thoroughly enjoyed - the book and found nothing that suggested such a claim (in fact, there is a printed disclaimer that reminds us that the overall work is a piece of FICTION). Mr. Instructor then suggested I go online to Mr. Brown's website to which I responded, "I have, and I stand by what I say." Did I mention that I got a "B" in the class?

Hence the title link to "Common Questions" on Dan Brown's website about The Da Vinci Code. There is no claim to historical accuracy even though there are some historic references such as ancient organizations and practices, but the plot of the whole story required that Mr. Brown take some artistic license with some of these references. Mr. Brown is not, to my knowledge, trying to sell this work as a "text" book for some future class in religion history.

I can only say that I have not enjoyed a book as much as I enjoyed this one (with the possible exception of The Grapes of Wrath). It was an incredible ride that kept me on the edge of my seat AND my sanity (I kept having to reread some portions to make sure I was not trying to "learn" something historic that was not meshing with what I had actually "learned" in some history and theology classes!)!!

If you choose to read this book, try to remember that it is a work of FICTION. This means that the story itself is not true even if some references are accurate. He is not trying to attack the Roman Catholic Church, and he is not necessarily trying to dispute 2000 years of Christian teachings (though I must admit that some portions of the book did force me to stop and think. In fact, I think one or two sermons came from this book!).

Did I mention that The Da Vinci Code is a work of FICTION? That's F*I*C*T*I*O*N.

The only reason I get so worked up is because I still read snippets here and there from some theologians who insist that Dan Brown is challenging the very foundation of the Church itself. One thing I can be sure of is this: what Dan Brown or I may think about the Church will not change its foundation one tiny bit. He thinks, and I think. That's just about it except for the fact that he probably gets paid a lot more than I for what he thinks.

More on "Repent from What?

Well, I guess I should have seen it coming. This post is linked to an MSN story which reports that the Vatican expects royalties from papal writings. That is to say, the wisdom of the pope seems to be for sale. That is to say, papal writings which has always attended church doctrine with practical application with a gospel perspective cannot be reprinted without royalties being paid.

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. I do recognize that there are expenses related to printing, but I'm not sure that a royalty payment is directly related to production expenses. I am not so sure that priests should be "moonlighting" for extra cash. Besides, does the Vatican have exclusive claim to what is written by a pope? After all, it is the Vatican that is demanding royalty payments presumably for encyclicals, a papal declaration of church teaching.

What do you think?

Repent from What?

"After John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:14-15 NKJV

All eyes are on the Roman church this weekend because of the commemoration of the passing of John Paul II. Because of the life this man had led, there is much to be remembered for I believe that his life was one of inspiration and dedication. I believe now as much as I believed then that John Paul II was true to his calling.

I also experienced some troubling thoughts as I was watching some of the reviews on TV that showed the Vatican. I hope my Catholic friends do not take offense with what I am about to offer because my intent is not to denigrate Catholicism at all.

I was reading this passage from Mark when an image of the Vatican was displayed on TV, and I began to recall some thoughts others have had in the past about the excessiveness of the Vatican and the private residence of one who had at one time taken a vow of poverty for the sake of the gospel. Now the pope resides in a palace and is nowhere near the level of poverty we know and understand.

The worldwide church, not exclusively the Roman church, owns property and has holdings worth millions, if not billions. Because some of these holdings are so massive, the cost just to maintain these holdings must be huge. There are pastors and bishops from other denominations whose compensation packages must be worth over $200,000.00 annually, and this is not even including a paid residence. I recall once a "bean counter" from the conference who came to our church to help explain the budget of the conference, and he made mention of $40 million in holdings for a "rainy day".

Considering the magnitude of poverty and hunger in the entire world, I'm thinking that it's raining cats and dogs in some parts of this country alone, and yet the church is waiting for a "rainy day". Can anyone tell me the proportion of the world-wide church's budget that is devoted to ministry and mission vs administration? If I had to guess, I would say that we are spending an awful lot of money on day-to-day "operations" that has little to do with directly confronting hunger alone.

We church people are eager to blame the United States and the Western nations for hording too much wealth and spending too much on war, but we do little with our own cash except to wait for "rain".

It is no small wonder that many have lost faith in the church so much to the point that tithing is not the act of worship it once was or could actually be. Administrative costs are a reality, I know, but what are we "holding" out for? How bad does it actually have to be before we are collectively willing to really stick our necks out for the sake of the gospel?

It seems to be that our costs have grown so out-of-control because we are more eager and wiling to spend money "on faith" that attracting more persons to our churches will somehow change the world. And maybe it will to some extent. Or maybe it is that building bigger and nicer buildings and paying the pastors more and buying CD's (certificates of deposit, not music) and hiring professional musicians and hording our money to make more money in order to see to the "business" of the church is more along the lines of the necessary repentance to which Jesus was referring.

If we truly possess the faith which we preach as necessary for salvation, why are we so afraid of tomorrow that we would horde money and wait for "rain"? Why must hundreds of thousands of persons literally starve to death or lose their homes while we pay accountants and attorneys to protect what is "ours"?

The church has no more need to repent of its past for racism or slavery or the Holocaust or the Inquisition or the Crusades. We blame governments for not doing enough for the masses but we give the masses little reason to believe in the mission and ministry of Christ's Holy Church.

The repentance of the Church, it seems to me, is for the "here and now".