To drink or not to drink: is this really THE question?

There is a movement afoot in Columbia County AR called "Vote for Growth in Columbia County" whose purpose is to make alcohol sales in Columbia County legal once again (the county was voted dry in 1942 and chose to stay dry in 1974).  To be fair, the group's expressed goal is revealed in the group's name; "Growth in Columbia County".

Is this issue, however, strictly about tax revenue being lost to neighboring counties?  What would we do with the additional revenue?  There is no doubt Columbia County residents who imbibe are driving to the county line to buy home stock but as revenue goes, how can one lose what one never had?  That revenue has been off the table since 1942; there are very few, if any, in county government today who can possibly remember when that tax revenue was available to be spent.  Apparently that revenue was not such a big deal in 1942 or in 1974.  Why now?

The state lottery was hyped as a means for enhancing the educational quality of life in Arkansas, but the only measure I have seen clearly showed a substantial increase in remediation rates in colleges and universities for students who were not prepared for college life, but I have yet to see that debt-free graduation rates have increased.  The level of awards has also been cut because the anticipated revenue did not keep up with demand.  I think that hype has been shown to be exactly what it was: snake oil.

In Nevada every vice known to humanity is available and legal, yet that state's unemployment rate is well above the national average.  No state enjoyed any real or tangible benefit from creating a lottery or legalized gambling, yet Arkansas believed it could somehow do better.  It hasn't.  It is just the same tired story in another setting.  Now Columbia County believes liquor sales will somehow create new opportunities and benefits.  This remains to be seen, but it is very hard to believe industry will suddenly break down this county's doors because of legal liquor sales.

I question the "quality of life" issue that may or may not be enhanced with the sale of alcohol.  Have those companies which have recently left Columbia County or downsized in the past five years done so because there are no liquor stores, or did they move because there are no major river, railroad, or interstate arteries?  Did these companies aggressively recruit the university for quality employees, or did they succumb to a dwindling labor pool and a supply/demand economy?  Have restaurant chains refused to move into Columbia County strictly because of the wet/dry issue?  To my knowledge there was one such public restaurant in Magnolia that gained permission to sell alcohol by the drink; it is now closed.  Alcohol sales apparently did nothing for that business.

We must also not overlook the fact that gasoline in Columbia County is often as much as $.05 - $.15 higher per gallon than in neighboring counties.  Could this not also be considered a "quality of life" issue?  There are many more voters who drive than who drink.  What has the city of Magnolia or Columbia County done to recoup this lost revenue?  Many commuters and weekend shoppers never purchase a single gallon of fuel in Columbia County because it is much less expensive in neighboring counties.  Surely this is an economic issue that continually affects the quality of life in Columbia County and adversely affects the county's coffers.

We can have a civil discussion about alcohol sales in Columbia County without questioning one's state or narrowness of mind, but let us have an honest discussion.  There are wet counties in Arkansas that are far worse off economically than Columbia County, at least two of which sit on a major highway, a railway, and/or a river (Jackson and Desha).  There are dry counties doing quite well without alcohol sales that also sit on major railroad, interstate, and river arteries although admittedly several restaurants are permitted to sell by the glass (Faulkner).  While no one would want to stand in the way of up to fifteen new jobs in Columbia County, I hardly think these potential opportunities will compel high school or university graduates to stay.  Nor do I believe liquor stores will be a gateway to bigger and better things to come.

Quality of life is a big issue for companies seeking to relocate, expand, or upstart; but education opportunities and affordable housing are usually at or near the top of the list of desirable places to locate and live in, in addition to a sufficiently educated labor pool.  Will liquor stores and convenience store beer encourage this potential labor pool to stay in the hopes that some new company will relocate to Columbia County because we have beer for sale?

Yes, city and county coffers will have some additional revenue; and I think most will readily agree that law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and rescue workers (to name only a few) should be paid more for the jobs they do so well.  I believe, however, city and county leaders need to think a little bigger than alcohol sales in terms of economic growth. 

Call it what it is: a drive to make alcohol sales legal in Columbia County, and let the voters choose based on real information - because these voters are not as gullible as some seem to hope.  

The First Step

Isaiah 42:1-9
Acts 10:34-43
Matthew 3:13-17

Last week I shared that it is time for the Church to "come out of the closet".  We must reinvigorate ourselves in the Holy Spirit because we cannot do this alone, renew or begin anew our commitment to discipleship because it is our God-given, Christ-commanded mission from which no one has been exempted, and reinvest ourselves in mission as the Body of Christ because we need one another.  I proposed to you no one is going to follow a God whose own followers are more devoted to their own interests and in following some pop-culture icon; and that when we withhold any portion of ourselves, our witness and our testimony and perhaps even our salvation all become lies.

It is true that the salvation of all is the goal and mission of the Church as the will of our Holy Father, but we too often stop short of helping others (and ourselves) to understand WHY we are justified before the Lord and why sanctification (becoming more and more Christ-like) is so important and must never be taken for granted as a "given" just because we think we are "good people".  These are not multiple choice issues; they are two sides of the same coin in the fullness of life.

By the same token we emphasize the necessity of baptism as initiation into the Covenant and the Church, but we lose our way when we get hung up on the "how" in exactly what must be done or in defending our own superstitions.  Thus we miss altogether the "why" of what baptism is about.  So rather than devote ourselves to exploring the fullest meaning of baptism, we get stuck in needless disputes about the method of baptism.  This helps no one.

The method is probably the biggest hang-up for many, beginning at the River's bank.  Is it possible the Baptizer was fully immersing those who came to him?  Of course it is.  Is it also possible John was scooping water with his hands and pouring it over their heads?  Of course it is.  We cannot know which way it was being done because it is not written for us to know; we can only speculate.  So I would suggest that because there is no precise written prescription we must follow, we should pay more attention to what is written for us to know.

The word "baptism" in the Greek can mean to "immerse" or "to dip", but it can also mean simply "to wash".  In the Gospel accounts we are reading a "record" of what happened at the River and clearly not a "prescription" as to how baptism must be done simply because it is not told or even inferred. 

So when we read about John's baptism of repentance, we must remember John did not fall from Elizabeth's womb onto the river's bank.  Like the rest of us, John had a background that informed this practice he was offering; and what we are reading in Matthew's gospel has a much broader context than these few words written on a page.

It is believed, for instance, that John came from the Qumran community where an ascetic Jewish sect called "Essenes" lived (like our idea of the Amish); a people who chose to remove themselves from what had been deemed a "godless" urban culture under pagan (the Romans) rule.  Qumran is near caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (perhaps buried there for safe-keeping in AD68 when Roman invasion was imminent?). 

Within these scrolls was found a Manual of Discipline, or the "community rule".  Like our own United Methodist Book of Discipline, it may not have been considered scriptural since as Jews, they had the Tanakh (First Testament) as their scriptures.  Rather, this Manual, like our own Discipline, served as their community covenant in how they would live and work and worship together as a community of faith.  Religion was not incidental to their being and their living.

This manual, then, stated that a person could not become clean if one failed to obey the Lord's commandments.  The manual states, "It is through the spirit of God's true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his sins be expiated (atoned for); and when his flesh is sprinkled (emphasis mine) with purifying water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God."

Baptism by "purifying water" was the point of interest rather than the method itself.  Even as the Manual John may have been familiar with seems to stipulate "sprinkling", we would still miss the entire point of baptism if we allow ourselves to get hung up on a single word rather than appreciate the much broader context.   The method of delivery of that water does not seem to be emphasized as much as the water itself - AND THEN - what must necessarily follow.  It clearly does not end at baptism; for baptism is only the beginning of a whole new life.

This is the context of John's baptism of repentance.  His discourse beginning in verse 7 (Mt 3) in calling people to "bear fruit worthy of repentance" seems to come from the community whose standards he embraced for himself; that baptism can cleanse us from past sins, but it cannot save us from ourselves if we have no intent to commit.  "Bearing fruit worthy of repentance" to prove our commitment is very much a part of a much broader and more all-encompassing context. 

The Essenes also shared an apocalyptic vision of the future which looked to the coming of Messiah as the Manual also requires: "[those wishing to enter the Qumran community] shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him, as it is written, 'Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a path for our God'." 

This seems to be what John was doing; not establishing a new "Christian practice" with no instructions but rather practicing what had long been established.  And since Jesus Himself refers to John as the "greatest", we have to more seriously consider what John was saying and not getting hung up on what we can only guess he may have been doing.  Perhaps more importantly, we should more seriously consider why Jesus found it necessary to go to John.

Commitment is key, I think, to a fuller understanding of baptism as the beginning rather than as a singular event; whether we are talking about the commitment of the Church, the parents, and the godparents at the baptism of an infant in preparing that child for life and service in the Church; or the commitment of a new believer, sponsors, and the Church in preparing that person for life in the Church, the issue is the same because if there is no commitment, no discipline, no accountability, no instruction, no follow through, and no intent to follow through, people just get wet.  And when vows are spoken and then disregarded, there is blasphemy.

Although there is no definitive interdenominational consensus, the one dominant opinion for Jesus' baptism that is consistent with His life, His ministry, His love for all of humanity, and that "fulfills all righteousness" is His willingness to identify with sinful humanity and take upon Himself the sins of the world - as St. Paul describes it to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:21): "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." 

To "fulfill all righteousness".  That is Messiah's commitment to the Holy Father AND to us.  Shall our commitment be any less to Him who "became sin for us"?

So our "first step" out of the closet this New Year as disciples of Christ is to reconnect and recommit ourselves to our Lord.  Put aside the superstitions and remember the only thing required is commitment to a life beyond oneself and toward the fullness of life in Christ Jesus.

Let the Holy Name be glorified in your life, in my life, and in the life of the United Methodist Church!  In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.  Amen.  

One never knows, do one?

How does a Christian "try" atheism?  Seventh Day Adventist pastor and teacher Ryan Bell had decided to "give atheism a try" as an "intellectual experiment" after he had been asked to resign as pastor of the church he was serving.  According to CNN Belief Blog co-editor Daniel Burke, Bell had advocated for church leadership roles for gays, actively campaigned against California's Proposition 8 (same-gender marriage ban), and questioned (apparently vocally) church doctrine about the End Times.  Once his pastorate had ended, Bell had stated: "I could finally pursue those questions that had been bouncing around in my head."

Where to begin?  Any pastor or priest, preacher or deacon would be less than honest if never admitting to any sort of doubt.  Discipleship is not supposed to be easy, and Jesus never promised life on this earth as a bed of roses.  In fact Jesus virtually guaranteed following Him would cause more problems in this life than would be solved, including perhaps death.  Discipleship, however, is entirely about discovery and almost always involves "those questions".

I have long held that our Lord is a "Big Boy" and is not threatened by our questions or any doubts we may have.  The test we endure (not unlike the 40-day test Jesus endured in the wilderness) revolves around discovery of The Truth.  We Christians, however, have come to confuse Truth with fact; and by doing so have probably created more confusion for those among us who are spiritually weak and struggle in the faith.  When these weak ones cannot settle on or accept our proposed "facts", they begin to question their own faith by asking perhaps the wrong questions or getting insufficient answers from those who claim to have the "facts", and eventually walk away altogether.  This, as my most humble opinion, is the legitimate beef of the so-called "Nones" (18-29 year-olds who have walked away from the Church in substantial numbers).

Maybe Bell's "experiment" hits a little too close to home for me (and probably others) because I have constant questions and very few answers, just as every little thing I do learn only raises more questions.  I freely admit that sometimes my sermons are so off-the-wall because of these very questions.  By these off-the-wall observations, however, I often assume that because I have such questions surely others do as well.  I cannot say for sure, of course, but there is one conclusion I have drawn: people typically want whatever beliefs they have affirmed, not challenged.  They like the safety and the certainty of their own set of core beliefs even if those beliefs may be biblically and doctrinally questionable.  They embraced whatever sounded good at a particular time in their own lives, and they've held on ever since - probably with doubts but refusing to question.

I get that.  I get that because some classes I have had to endure toward my own religious education and the books I've had to read have shaken my own faith many, many times.  Discipleship is always going to come with a certain risk level, and discovery can often be downright dangerous.  One class I recall in particular and its assigned books very nearly caused me to withdraw altogether because everything I had come to believe came into question - and by quite biblically sound logic, I might add.  I had to learn to read the Bible much more critically and in a whole new light, a light sometimes a little too bright for my own comfort.

It came to be, however, that this "light" I once thought so disturbing and so blinding was actually "The Light" which came into the world, the very Light which "the darkness did not comprehend" (John 1:5).  And though I cannot say I settled for any new beliefs, I did find an assurance by "The Light" (which is Messiah Jesus, in case you were wondering) that it is ok that I do not have all the answers and that it is ok to continue asking - as long as I am willing to ask Him ... and trust Him even when the answers I seek are not forthcoming according to my own demands.

Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."  I have no doubt and no quarrels with this statement.  I simply doubt those who claim to have found that "truth" and expect me to come along with them and embrace their concept of "truth".  This is when it gets dangerous because this is often that moment when we discover those who think they have complete command of spiritual "facts" and have completely resolved all "mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven". 

But to "try" atheism?  No thanks.  One irrefutable conclusion I have drawn is simply this: I will probably doubt at least on some fundamental level until I die, but I must never try (even as an "experiment") to face these doubts without "The Light".  

Coming out of the closet in the Year of our Lord 2014

Ecclesiastes 3:1-13
Ephesians 1:3-14
John 1:1-18

A question was recently posed: "How do we finally draw the line?"  Though the question was spoken by one person, it is a common frustration shared by many in the faith who feel pushed, put upon, marginalized, and even threatened for a conservative understanding of the Scriptures and the proper role of the Church in a modern society that demands the Church "keep up with the times".

We are told that love is "tolerant", but how tolerant is too tolerant to the point at which we feel we are expected to condone sin disguised as "social justice"?  How open-minded must we be before our minds, the minds of our children and grandchildren, and the minds of those who try to sway us become filled with Ezekiel's "dead bones"?  How far can we bend before we finally break? 

Most importantly, how do we responsibly and faithfully convey to the world that neglect of the soul is the easy path, the "wide and broad gate that leads to destruction" as our Lord Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount, while genuine and compassionate love of our neighbor's soul is the "narrow and [much more] difficult way which leads to life" (Matthew 6:13-14)?

We share, I think, a generalized understanding that the Church must never be reduced to little more than a "social club" of like-minded people who happen to "like" each other; that the Church as the Body of Christ in the world today has a God-given mission - one which must not be neglected - as the ultimate hospital for broken souls in need of some intensive care and rehabilitative therapy.  The potential of such therapy is that although the regimen may be long and arduous, the end will justify the very uncomfortable - and sometimes downright painful - means as we work to help others to spiritually recover from their broken lives.

Yet the position the Church has found herself in is one of extreme disadvantage, that of perpetual defensiveness; that is, we feel constantly compelled to RE-act to everything we deem offensive and have no energy left to attend to our PRO-active, Spirit-driven calling. 

We RE-act to any number of social media "stink bombs", but our protests are not taken seriously because no one hears from us until we get our "duck feathers" ruffled (yes, pun is intended).  No one knows of discipleship or the mission of the Church because our discipleship in mission is virtually non-existent.  Sadder still, few seem to care - but they seem to know whom to blame when things go wrong.

As it is written in Ecclesiastes, life itself is a series of seasons in which there is a "time for everything under the sun".  In the life of the faithful, it is always "time" to do something positive and constructive in and for the Body of Christ.  Though it may seem as though destruction has its own season such as a time to "break down", we must remember it is sometimes necessary to put away the "old" to make room for "new", to prune dead branches so new life may spring forth. 

So for the American Church it is the "season" of renewal and reinvigoration.  The forces of darkness and destruction have had their "15 minutes", and so it is time for the Church to COME OUT OF THE CLOSET and unapologetically make known who we are and Whose we are - but not by militancy or angry words or spiteful slogans that seek to demean those with whom we disagree!   

By these actions (which seem to have become our forte of RE-action), and by our neglect, by our complacency, by our spite, by our petty jealousies, by our selfishness, by our vindictive gossip and slander we have denied the reality of our Savior in denying our own salvation and why we have been redeemed in the first place!  We then wonder why people do not take us seriously or believe our witness - our witness has become a lie. 

None of us can escape this stinging indictment, and yet as the Church we must all face this indictment together - as Israel had to face its own indictment - with a sincere desire and an earnest resolve to live into the "redemption from all iniquity", as it is written; the "redemption" that belongs to the Church called forth in faith and in love, "destined [as we are] for adoption as children of the Living God through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His Will" (Ephesians 1:5)!

We must never deny our God-given destiny by a willingness to settle for less than what we have been created, redeemed, and called forth to be AND to do.  Far be it!  For the Lord promises His faithful (that is, those who follow Him and not themselves or some pop-culture icon): "I will gather [My people] ... and with consolation I will lead them back" (Jeremiah 31:8, 9); back to blessedness in the safety and the promise of the Eternal Covenant.

So there is much more we are faced with than merely "how" to draw the line.  There is also a "when" and a "where".  And the "when" is now.  The "where" is right here, and the "how" is first by our own complete repentance and total surrender to the "Word which became flesh and dwelt among us" rather than trying to make that Word subjective to us and our own purposes! 

Even though it may seem to be "people" who are a threat to us and to the Church, we must remember as St. Paul reminds the Ephesians: "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities and rulers of the darkness of this age" (Ephesians 6:12); so "though we walk in the flesh, we [must] not war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)!

None of this will happen, however, until WE (that is, the Church) are completely captive to the "obedience of Christ".

It is time to stand up and be counted - but to be counted in the righteousness of Christ our Lord in the "whole armor of God" - not just the tiny pieces we select for ourselves - the WHOLE armor; most especially as He is revealed in the Written Word of the Holy Scriptures in the First Testament AND the New.  If we will take the time to be still, to stop and remember what we have been redeemed for and called to, life as we have come to know it will cease to exist - as the dawn of the Promise of the fullness of life is upon us by His Mercy and by His decree; but not until we give Him our "whole" life - personal AND corporate: "You will seek Me and find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13)! 

Sometimes these are harsh words, I know, but they are always Words of Promise and Assurance - for nothing less than our immortal souls are at stake!  The territorial nature of the Church has become so acute that its being as "The Body of Christ" has been so completely surrendered that earnest seekers will never wander in without a direct invitation from a member of that church whom they know and trust.  A seeker will never seek a God whose followers do not earnestly seek Him.  A seeker will never offer himself or herself to a God whose own followers hold back a substantial portion of their own "hearts, souls, minds, and strengths" and gifts.  And this most certainly and perhaps especially includes our children and our grandchildren - for they learn from us FIRST. 

If we truly want this country to turn around, the Church must take the lead PRO-actively as if it truly is the "Year of our Lord" (AD).  Just as Jesus came to show us the Way to the Father, the Holy Spirit has empowered the Church from the beginning to show others the way to Jesus!  It is a duty and a privilege we dare not take lightly!  And no one - NO ONE - is too old or too busy or too ill-equipped or too infirm or too "saved" to offer their very best to the Lord our God through His Holy Church which is the Body of His Only Begotten Son.

It is His very best we have been given, and it is no less than the Very Best called forth from us.  Let us as the Body of Christ resolve not to waste energy in pointing out fault in others but together search for solutions within ourselves; for the promise of our Lord is sure and certain: "The Holy Spirit will teach you" (Luke 12:12). 

We, however, must be willing to be taught.  Or else 2014 will look exactly like 2013 - or perhaps worse as we continue to assimilate and degrade ourselves in this modern culture and drift further and further away from our Holy Father.  We must proclaim much more than the NAME of the Lord; we must embrace the entire LIFE of Messiah! 

For it is Messiah who beckons us and assures us; REPENT; for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! 

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Out with the old ...

“The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul … Unless one made New Year resolutions, one would make no resolutions. Unless one starts afresh about things, one will certainly do nothing effective.”  GK Chesterton

And the old 18^th-century preacher, Jonathan Edwards, said this: “My resolution is that I will live for God.  And when no one else will, I will still live for God.”

Unless we turn our backs on the hatefulness of the past, the past will continue to haunt us.  The spite and the rhetoric have grown so vile in the past year that it seems we can – or will – do nothing for God because we are too busy trying to defend ourselves and what we believe is most important to us.  We can do better, and indeed we must.  Our children are depending on us.

It is not about being politically correct because I doubt any of us can avoid saying or doing anything that will not offend someone in some way (some people are not content unless they feel victimized).  It is not about trying to be popular or well-liked because someone will always take issue with us especially if we strive to be true first to our Holy Father.  And it is not about being so tolerant that we would condone behavior, especially by our silence  – any behavior - which has been proved time and again to be destructive to the body, the mind, the soul, the family, and the Church.

The only thing that will separate 2013 from 2014 will be the darkness of night.  How we greet the dawn when we awake tomorrow and every day from that moment will determine whether we will remain stuck in the past or resolved to live for God and let the secular chips fall where they may.  As St. Paul states in his Epistle to the Romans: “Not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified” (2:13).

Resolve to live first for God.  Put away the selfish habits and practices of the past.  Rebuild the crumbling Church, and thus refresh your souls and the souls of your neighbors; for the Lord’s promises for those who turn to Him are sure and certain, and the fullness of life will be yours.

Happy New Year!

Blessings,

Michael

A Renewed Awakening - 1st Sunday of Advent 2013

Isaiah 2:1-5

Romans 13:11-14

Matthew 24:36-44

"That which has been is what will be, that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

The wisdom of Ecclesiastes is expressed in our experiences as well as in the adage, 'If you don't know history, don't worry; it'll come back around.'  Then we add our own folk wisdom, "And it will bite you on your back porch!"

The life cycle of the Church is no different, for Church history is human history.  As we continue to analyze the decline since the 60's and 70's and try to come up with new "programs" or a misguided "marketing strategy", we overlook a crucial period in history in trying to understand why so many are walking away and why many more have fallen into a complacency about discipleship and faith.  That period is known as The Enlightenment, the so-called "age of reason" which ran from about the middle of the 17th century to about the middle of the 18th century.

This period with its subsequent worship attendance decline was surely at least as bothersome to the Church then as it is now.  This was the time when science was making itself known in explaining the natural world (often challenging biblical "miracles").  Philosophy also became its own force independent from religion with its own rules to break down the "old" structures and barriers and, ironically, create "new" structures and barriers (emphasis mine) (plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment).

Knowing what we do about the often heavy-handedness of the Church preceding this period in human history, there can be little doubt that the Church perceived an existential threat to its own well-being as well as to the spiritual well-being of untold numbers of souls when human reason began to trump religious faith; and any authority, particularly that of the Church, was called into question.  

Following this period of spiritual rebellion was what came to be known as the First Great Awakening which was, for lack of a better term, a century-long revival within the Church intended to awaken the faithful from spiritual complacency.  John Wesley's contribution to understanding and expressing faith and life in the Church cannot go without at least honorable mention as he sought to awaken the Church of England rather than try to start a whole new church. 

In a nutshell, Wesley saw no conflict between our capacity to think for ourselves and the faith necessary to "see" the Lord at work in our lives and in our hearts.  The doctrine of Free Will in our tradition demands that we use our own noodles, and Jesus Himself is very clear that one must first "count the cost" of discipleship lest we come off looking foolish later on when we discover we are unwilling or unable to bear the cost.  In order to accept or reject, however, or make any decision of any kind, one must first have knowledge.  As is so often stated but just as frequently rejected - no one "just knows" anything.  Knowledge does not come from a vacuum.

Although St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written well before the 17th-century Awakening, he was calling for an "awakening" in his own time.  "It is now the moment for you to wake from sleep; for salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers" (13:11).  We must understand, however, that St. Paul was not referring to that moment of justification when we become individually aware of our sins and our need for a Savior; that moment "when we became believers".  Paul was not referring to a "come to Jesus" moment.  Rather St. Paul was clearly talking about the "Jesus will come to us" moment when our Lord returns to "judge the living and the dead", to separate the "sheep from the goats"!

Isaiah and Matthew are also referring to a time which goes far beyond the birth of Messiah.  It is often that the prophecies are used to point to that wondrous Day of the Nativity which the Church must continue to commemorate, but Isaiah's prophecy and the mission of the Church which Jesus clearly addresses obviously go far beyond Christmas Day as Jesus Himself affirms that The Day of the Lord is yet to be - that Day even the Son of God is not privy to.  

So it could be suggested that this Day of the Lord is not on our spiritual radar screens, perhaps especially during this time of year, because we are so focused on the past that we refuse to look to the future; the concept of which is expressed by our Lord through the prophet Amos: "I hate, I despise your religious festivals ... I will not accept [your offerings] ... and I will not hear [your music]; but let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream" (5:21-24). 

All is well with us if we have a "good" Christmas ("good" being relative to our own standards), but we rarely match our human ideal of "good" with the best of what our Lord calls from us before His return.  Our Lord was admonishing His people for getting too wrapped up in their own celebrations to the exclusion of those who were on the fringes of society.  Amos was all about justice.

Do we ignore the cry of the needy by suggesting they made their own beds to lie in?  Do we turn our backs on the lonely and curse those families who ignore their own?  Do we further marginalize those who already live on the fringes of society by insisting the government minister to them instead of us?  Do we do all these things and much more because these might interfere with our "good" Christmas?  Then I assure you, dear friends, we are not ready for our Lord to return!  This was at the heart of the First Great Awakening. 

Does this mean we have yet to sufficiently "earn" our place in the Kingdom?  Of course not.  It does mean, as our Lord Jesus has plainly said, "Not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven ... depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:21-23); for "inasmuch as you did not [feed those who were hungry or clothe those who were naked or minister to those who were sick or visit those who were in prison], you did none of these things for Me - depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41-46).

In our own period of contemporary enlightenment when "universalism" (all will be saved) has made significant gains among the faithful, the concept of such a harsh judgment coming from such a loving God is very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile.  After all, we did not cause someone to be hungry, did we?  We did not cause someone to be without the basic necessities, we did not cause someone to be lonely, and we certainly did not cause someone to break the law and wind up in prison.  Did we??  

We cannot account for the conduct of others nor will we be held accountable for the sins of others.  Being accountable for our own actions and our own neglect of those things over which we do have some measure of control, however, is at the heart of "watching" for the return of our Lord just as one would "watch" his house if he knew exactly when the thief would show up.  In "watching", however, we would not merely sit idle; we would work to make necessary preparations.

How do we "watch"?  What is expected of us?  It's not as if we can manipulate the time of our Lord's return so that He will come only when "we" are ready, but there is something which must be taken into consideration.  It is not strictly that "reveling and drunkenness", "debauchery and licentiousness", "quarreling and jealousy" are offensive to our Lord; they are, of course.  It is rather that these things, these behaviors stunt spiritual growth.  It is that while we are engaged in these and so many other actions, we cannot live up to our full spiritual or even human potential. 

We cannot reflect the very Image in which we are all created, having become so spiritually disabled.  Thus we cannot "watch" because we are spiritually blinded.  We cannot "see" because the shade of spiritual darkness has overwhelmed us, and we will not "see" or "hear" until the door of the ark is sealed against us and the waves of sin and degradation wash over us and sweep us away.

The success of The Enlightenment was in giving humans "permission", so to speak, to think for themselves, including the people of the Holy Church.  The fallacy of The Enlightenment was - and still is - the insistence that faith and the human capacity for reason are inherently at odds with one another.  We can acknowledge the usefulness and necessity of human reason, but we must also be willing to acknowledge the limitations of human reason and the arbitrariness of human standards of "good".

The Glory of the Lord our God, however, came shining through in the First Great Awakening when the Church was reminded of her need for Her Lord and Savior in Her willing submission.  The fallacy of The Enlightenment was revealed in our human weakness borne of our innate limitations!

So we as the Church are again standing at a crossroads.  What we face is "nothing new under the sun", for we have been here before.  If it seems good to our Lord that the Holy Spirit should awaken us once again, we must then be willing to cast aside those things that weigh us down, those things that bind us, those things that degrade and exploit us.  Let us once again "put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no [more] provisions for the flesh" - for we all have now more than we will ever need.

The Lord speaks through His prophet Jeremiah, "Return, My backsliding [children] ... for I am merciful; I will not remain angry forever.  Only acknowledge your iniquity ... [admit] that you have not obeyed My Voice" (3:12,13).

Let this first Sunday of Advent be a day of New Beginnings without a definitive ending on a calendar.  Let us welcome and embrace a Renewed Awakening so that we may once again find His Way beyond our own; the way to Glory, the way of the Lord's Messiah; the Way of Life, the way Home.  Amen.

The Real Promise

Jeremiah 23:1-6
Colossians 1:11-20
Luke 23:33-43

We are a week away from the beginning of the Advent season, yet the lectionary prescribes Luke's account of Jesus' final moments on the Cross, a reading we might think more appropriate for Lent than for Advent!  What strikes me more than anything is the supposition we all probably share in the traditions of the Church; that Jesus was born, He preached, He was killed, and then He was resurrected - BUT - only in the "appropriate" calendar season!  Because frankly, these "seasons" are the only times we give these events much thought.

There is, however, a perpetual element of Advent since the Resurrection of Messiah, a component of its life the Church is compelled to always be mindful of.  It is our Lord's Word in The Revelation in which He declares: "I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me to give to everyone according to his work" (22:12 NKJV).  This is the very spirit of Advent itself which means "arrival".  We are "expecting" the return of Messiah.  But are we really?

Small children can afford to use the calendar to count down to Christmas Day which means little more to them than when new toys and games may be found under the tree - that is, children whose parents have means to indulge a child's every whim.  Grownups, however, - and particularly the Church! - are charged with the responsibility of preparing children, young and old, not for a rebirth of the Christ Child nor a visit from a jolly ol' elf but rather living in and for the Covenant and the Gospel in preparing for the Coming of Messiah.  The vast and empty pews across the churches of America suggests we've dropped the ball.

So the placement of Jesus' final moments would be appropriate for the "season" such as it is so we are mindful of what lies ahead for the Church and for all of humanity.  A manger, dear friends, is not in our future - but there is a KINGDOM; a Kingdom of untold riches which beckons us beyond ourselves and the consumerist mentality that has overwhelmed our culture, poisoned our children's minds, has invaded the Church, and has essentially come to define Christmas to the point that the Promise Fulfilled by our Lord has become an incidental afterthought - and the Promise Forthcoming; no thought at all.  We must be constantly mindful that Messiah came once to call us and to redeem us.  He will return to judge us - perhaps especially we who constantly throw His Name about so casually or give the jolly ol' elf a more prominent place in our children's hearts during this particular season.

The evidence of what I submit Christmas has become is revealed in a demographic study which shows a vast majority of those who live right in Magnolia's zip code area who are firmly entrenched (and enslaved!) in a "high- or very high-risk" debt ratio  situation.  This means the vast majority lives well outside its own means; and while these individuals must take personal responsibility, the Church cannot afford to ignore the dominant social message that demands personal satisfaction and instant gratification even if it means walking willingly into the shackles of debt.  This is NOT the message of the Cross or Advent - and certainly not Christmas.

We will have our month-long fantasy regardless of what is written in Scriptures or spoken from pulpits, but the Church cannot - must not - ignore the reality which exists the other 11 months of the year.  There are so many who live in constant fear and uncertainty, enslaved as they are to a merciless task master who virtually owns them, the many who are perhaps only one paycheck or one catastrophic illness away from financial disaster and even perhaps homelessness.  These many cannot possibly live up to their fullest human and spiritual potential, bound as they are to the merciless and utilitarian world which measures human value according to social usefulness.

So the placement of Messiah's final moments on this earth is a good way for the Church to get real, a good way for the Church to reconnect to the essential promise from our Lord that for all we are willing to faithfully endure for His sake and for the sake of the Gospel, this is what lies ahead; an utter rejection by the world in which we live, a rejection of the Eternal King and His call to repentance and the fullness of life.

It is not the Cross itself that is before us in that final moment - or should not be - because we should already be freely and joyfully burdened with the Cross Jesus charged us to take up in choosing to follow Him.  It is the burden we should freely share together as the Body of Christ.  Instead, the moment which is ahead for the faithful is the Assurance from our Lord that "you will be with Me in Paradise".  As I pointed out last week, this Assurance is the one we like and have no problem with.  It is those pesky "other" promises and commandments we have flatly rejected, oftentimes in the very name of Jesus - the One whose Name we so carelessly and incidentally - rather than purposefully - toss about.

I have often wondered how many of those "thousands" recorded in Acts would have come to Christ if they could have known, really known, what was ahead for them and what would come to be expected of them in spiritual growth and accountability.  Of course we always have to remember that, like Peter's confession of Jesus as "the Messiah, the Son of the living God", these confessions cannot come from human sources. 

Humans cannot make such a convicting argument that other humans are compelled to believe. No human person possesses that capacity alone.  In fact we should recount St. Stephen's speech in Acts 7 in which he tells "The Story".  There is no record of any coming to faith in that moment.  Rather the crowd which heard him reacted angrily and aggressively in their rejection, and St. Stephen was murdered.  The crowd clearly heard the words, but they refused to listen to their own Story!

There are two points of interest in that story; the reaction of those "convicted" (or accused), and St. Stephen's vision just before his life was taken from him.  No one likes to be "accused" of anything, and no one likes to be told they could be wrong or misguided.  Those who "accuse" us of anything will not find themselves endeared to us, and we often react very strongly when we stand "accused" - and we react rather aggressively when we are "convicted".  In this it is very hard to distinguish ourselves from the crowd that took Stephen's life.

St. Stephen's vision, on the other hand, is the essence of the Promise our Lord has made to His people - to Joshua as he was preparing to lead Israel into the Promised Land, and to the Church itself by Jesus just before He ascended into Heaven: "I will not forsake you", and "I am with you to the very end of the age".  Both statements are unquestionably conditional (and I know many Christians grind their teeth at this statement!). 

We must be following and obeying and doing and living faithfully in His Name and not exclusively for our own sakes - for our Lord says plainly, "I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me to give to everyone according to his work".  St. Stephen's vision in his final moments on this earth was the fulfillment of our Lord's Promise, and Stephen was granted the vision he would need to endure his last painful moments on this earth, to remember he was not standing alone, that his faithfulness had not been forgotten.

The common connection between these two points is, ironically, the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit certainly gave Stephen this vision, this strength to endure what we can only imagine as excruciating - if we can imagine this at all.  Those who were unwilling to listen, unwilling to repent, unwilling to change were as ignored by The Spirit as the crowd ignored Stephen. 

It is actually a lot like how modern white America reacts to the genocide of the Native Americans and slavery in the earlier days of this republic.  There is no denying the truthfulness of these events as these are matters of historical record, yet it is very hard to hear because we simply cannot wrap our minds around the human capacity evil and cruelty in our innate need to dominate our world.

St. Paul's prayer and wish for the Colossians, however, is what calls us to look higher and beyond our present moment, beyond our own "world" as we know it.  St. Paul does not suppose bad things will not happen as so many modern "prosperity gospel" preachers do (though it is hard to imagine Paul or our Lord would wish persecution and torture on the faithful!).  Rather St. Paul offers a prayer of support and encouragement that the people of The Church be granted Divine strength in the present reality, and "be prepared to endure [rather than fight against] everything with patience" (Col 1:11) - just as our Lord did in His final moments.

Then when we arrive at "The End" of our time, the end of our mission, the end of our journey we will utter the simple prayer offered by the thief on the cross, "Jesus, remember me."  The assurance from our Lord as we stand bloodied and broken for our faithfulness by a fallen world? "Today you will be with Me in paradise."

"Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus."  In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Justice, Faith, and the Law

Jeremiah 31:27-34
Psalm 119:97-104
2 Timothy 3:14-4:5
Luke 18:1-8

"When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?"

This is a compelling and somewhat awkward question given that the parable of the judge and the widow seems to have more to do with persistence than with faith.  Yet it is a colossal mistake to read into this parable any notion that we will always get what we want if only we are persistent in our prayers - because the key word in this parable is "justice", and it is the ideal upon which the entire parable hinges; "justice", not "personal desire".  In other words, the Lord's Way and not our own.

The widow was persistent as she "kept coming" to demand "justice against my opponent", but it must also be assumed the widow had a legitimate beef in the first place; that in the fullest sense of the word, real "justice" had been denied her.  It would not do for our Lord to use an entitlement-minded chronic complainer who simply did not get her own way as a positive example of our "need to pray always and not lose heart"; that in the face of persecution, in whatever form that absence of justice may take, true justice will one day be restored.  We just don't know when that day will come nor can we demand that day on our own terms or in our own time strictly by persistent prayer. 

It must also be noted the judge did not simply give in to the widow's personal demands.  Rather, as it is written, "I will grant her justice."  And yes, as it pertains to the parable itself, there is a profound difference because depending on the actual case before the judge (we are not told what the complaint was in the first place), the truly "just" ruling may not have favored her.  So it seems inferred the widow had a "just" claim.

We often think the world would be a much better place if everyone would just go along and get along, but there is a crucial component missing in such a foolish notion that would pretend such a concept would ever work, let alone become a human reality according to human standards.  Looking at the hot mess that is the United States Congress, we can clearly see that 535 "alpha" minds between the House and the Senate representing 535 different constituencies and agendas will never fully agree on anything. 

The crucial component missing in that human dynamic, the crucial component often missing in the Church itself, the crucial component that is inferred in the parable is - DIVINE WILL.  Of course there are many who have convinced themselves they are doing the Lord's work (because their personal desire for whatever they seek for themselves is so intense), but Jesus teaches that "not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven ... I will declare 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'" (Matthew 7:21-23).  Righteousness and justice transcend the false idea that we need only know Jesus' name or call Him "Lord" in an empty prayer. 

Thus it is written in 1 John 3:4: "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."  The absence of justice.  St. Paul writes to the Galatians that "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law" (5:18) even though he follows this statement with a list of behaviors which are specifically prohibited by The Law.  Yet St. Paul also writes to the Romans: "Do we overthrow the Law by faith?  By no means!  On the contrary, we uphold the Law" (3:31).

Righteousness and justice are clearly defined by the Law according to One Divine Standard rather than many human standards, so it is a rather disingenuous argument to suggest faith and The Law become somehow disconnected and incompatible in the New Covenant - for this reason: Jesus IS the Law (Matthew 5:17).  So faith in Jesus as Messiah, the anointed One of the Lord our God, is faith in The Word, the same and very Word that was "with God in the beginning".  One Eternal God.  One Eternal Word.  Not an Old (or "obsolete") Testament Word opposed to a New (or improved) Testament Word. 

Anything less than this One Standard is "polytheism" - that is, belief in multiple gods, more than one deity often with conflicting standards.  When we try to pretend that "faith, justice, and the Law" are incompatible according to different covenantal standards or that they have no meaning apart from "being saved", we pit the Holy Father against Jesus of Nazareth as if Jesus Himself can or did rewrite or throw out altogether The Law. And yet, just as we are shown through Jesus' very life, it is not only possible but required that The Law be upheld by and with "great grace".  Not shallow "excuses" as "God understands me" but rather allowances and patience for time to come to one's spiritual senses.

If this parable is read carefully enough, we should see the promise of vindication for the faithful not for the sake of any individual plea but for the sake of justice itself, the true restoration of the Holy Kingdom.  We would also see a tension that pits the coming "true justice" against the current emptiness by which justice can never be truly measured or upheld by fickle human standards: the absence of faith - unqualified trust - in our Lord.  That we claim to believe the Lord is coming and will restore His Just Kingdom is not the question as it pertains to persistence in our faith and "not losing heart".  Rather the question is - will our faith be part of His Solution, or is our lack of faith part of the existing problem?  Only a fool would suggest there is no problem.  An even greater fool who claims Christ as Lord would suggest "it is not MY problem".

The psalmist writes, "Oh, how I love Your Law!  It is my meditation all day long" (119:97).  That is, every waking moment is devoted to The Word not only in its written form but also in daily living.  And our Lord Jesus says, "Will not God grant justice to His chosen ones who cry to Him day and night?"  If there is no reading and meditation of the Word, there can be no appropriation or appreciation of the Word; for the Word does much more than simply call out Jesus' name, and it is much more than simply being "religious" or "spiritual".  It is about BEING Christ in the world today which is the Holy Church. 

This is "justice, faith, and the Law".  They each require response, and they each demand complete devotion "all day long" - for they each represent the Word; the Word which existed before the birth of Messiah and yet the Word "which became flesh and dwelt among us".  The Word of God for and in the people of God - and yes, even for the people who do not yet know our Holy Father! 

The witness of the Truth, the witness of "justice, faith, and the Law" moves far beyond simply inviting people to "know" Jesus' name.  They need to know what Jesus represents.  They need to "see" Jesus in us.  They need to "see" the Word manifest in our daily living.  They need to see that we believe it enough to actually "do" it, to embrace it, to revel in it, to rejoice in it, to live it each and every day of our lives inside and outside the Church. 

WE need it, too!  When life beats up on us, when the world tries to convince us we have no intrinsic value, when we feel we have nowhere to turn, when we feel we are standing alone against the tide of secularism and popular culture inside AND outside the Church, we need to know we can depend on one another - or the Church crumbles.  It does not do well for anyone to discover we are only butting heads with someone who, like the judge in the parable, "neither fears God nor has respect for people" - especially if that someone is inside the Church.  

The promise of the parable is that the Lord will one day come and make right the many wrongs which should have never have been allowed or ignored by the people of God in the first place.  And in that Day our Lord's question will be answered: whether there is "faith on earth".

In the Revelation it is written: "I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the Throne, and books were opened.  Also another book was opened, the Book of Life.  And the dead were judged according to their works as recorded in the books ... and all were judged according to what they had done ... and anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:12-15).

We must not allow ourselves to be deceived by cheap grace and expressionless theology that professes empty prayers and hollow promises of Something from Him for nothing from us.  Faith is much more than an acknowledgement of a concept.  Faith defines the character of the whole person.  Faith is a life devoted to Christ in Word AND in works!  Let our Lord find this upon His return, so that we may find Life Eternal in Him.  Amen.

If your heart is as my heart ...

Lamentations 1:1-6
Romans 3:21-31
Luke 17:1-10

"Thought we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?  May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?"  John Wesley

Among the many challenges we face in our Sunday evening study of the First Testament is that of the diverse opinions we have, opinions we have come by honestly from our own diverse traditions; and some, admittedly, rather carelessly.  That is, we have traditional understandings we have probably not tested carefully enough.  Sort of like how so many atheists and Protestants are misunderstanding Pope Francis because of what someone else told them he said (or meant); for instance, that the pope said homosexuality is ok.  No, he did not.  He affirmed that "the Church's teachings are clear".  Or that the pope said being an atheist is ok.  No, he did not.  Opinions can be good, but often they can do more harm than good if these opinions are not based on some real, first-hand knowledge and experience and tested through tradition and Scriptures.

The Church universal has historically faced and continues to face a profound threat when we allow uninformed personal and political opinions based on second-hand information or "the hairs on the back of the neck" to trump the essential nature of the Holy Church, the nature of which is to serve just as our Lord came "not to be served but to serve".  When we lose sight of this - and I think we did a long time ago - it is the children who get stuck between what we grown ups think and what we should know. 

What we are left with is an age of confusion that feeds on itself from generation to generation - and our children are in perpetual danger of losing sight of and forgetting altogether the essential sacrificial love that is perfected in Christ and should be personified in His Body the Holy Church; the sacrificial love that can bind us together ... if we are willing to put aside "our own" for the sake of the Lord's own.  This concept of service for the sake of something greater than self is, thankfully, exemplified and embodied in Scouting; making these young men and their leaders worthy of our support, prayers, and encouragement!  Keep them free from politics and personal opinions, and just let them serve!

We will not always agree on what are essentially disagreeable opinions.  Not about denominational doctrine, not about what constitutes proper worship, not about the Sacraments of the Church or theology in general, and certainly not about politics.  For the sake of the Holy Church we of the faithful, however, must necessarily agree with our Lord who more or less puts us in our place in Luke's gospel by reminding us that His "slaves ... have done only what we ought to have done".  Not what we think should have been done, not what we felt like doing when we felt like doing it, and certainly not doing in anticipation of some reward or individual recognition of achievement.  No, our Lord is clear there are things we "ought" to do simply because they need to be done.  Period.  No reward.  No thank you.  No recognition.  Just integrity within the true nature and character of His Church.

Before we even get to this point, however, Jesus still has much to say.  Even if this whole text seems somewhat disjointed, there is a connection, a common element that ties everything together.  Strangely enough, however, even this connecting point is not something many disciples are willing to agree on.  Jesus is very clear that we have duties.  We have duties which go beyond a personal profession of faith.  We have duties to our Master, and we have equal duty to our fellow disciples.  Together as the Church - the Body of Christ - we have a duty to the communities we are called to serve. 

It is especially important to allow the preceding story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) to lead us into this discourse because the duty imparted to the rich man, to his brothers, and to all of Israel is what was revealed to them by "Moses and the prophets"; what they would have known as the "Holy Scriptures".  The clear duty which comes from the Lord on High, the duty to have been embraced by the faithful, would have assured that Lazarus would never have been allowed to fester in his misery and die an excruciating death - alone. 

So we come into chapter 17 and find Jesus expounding on the idea of what a community of faith is supposed to look like, what our Holy Father surely envisioned when the Law was revealed to Moses.  As our Jewish friend from last week had plainly stated, it's not about how to get to heaven (that is, worrying only about saving your own cheese); it is about how to live with and for one another for the well-being of the entire community.  Chief among these duties is the protection of the "little ones", the next generation, be they biological children or new believers.  They need to be taught - by Word and deed.  It will not simply occur to them one day somehow by magic.  And Divine revelation and epiphany without context will be meaningless.

Notice also that Jesus is referring to our relations with those of our community of faith when "another disciple sins" (vs 3).  We have as much a duty to call our fellow disciple on his or her sin as we do to forgive that fellow disciple who seeks forgiveness.  It seems to me there cannot be one without the other which is another way of saying the disciple may not realize the depth of his or her offense as "sin" if we are not willing to make it known, if we do not care about them enough to teach them - not to merely criticize them.  Then we are to be as patient with them as we all must surely hope our Lord is patient with us!

The disciples' response is rather surprising, though I would suppose faith to be the thing to ask for.  After all, Jesus is telling His disciples to forgive without condition.  Our Lord does not recommend it nor suggest it; He says, "You must forgive."  For most of us, this is a pretty tall order!  What will an "increase in faith" do for the disciples, though?  How will having more faith make forgiving an offense easier?  Or maybe it won't become easier to do more than it might be a little easier to swallow our pride when after the seventh offense, the offender comes to us yet again seeking forgiveness - no matter how we may have been personally harmed! 

But I don't think Jesus is letting us off the hook so easily because Jesus clearly states that faith the "size of a mustard seed" can do remarkable things.  So it is not necessarily more faith we need, for even a little faith can "move mountains".  Think of this request in the whole context, and what we may discover is that Jesus is telling them they already have sufficient faith. 

How much faith they actually have, however, is as immeasurable as yours or mine - although I would suggest we each may have a cut-off point at which time fear may overwhelm our faith.  Then more "faith" would come in quite handy, but Jesus is not going there.  He is talking about something much more enveloping, much more all-encompassing, much more communal. 

Especially moving into that "slave thing" which would obviously rub many of us the wrong way - after all, we are Americans! - Jesus may be suggesting we are going to need a little more than faith imparted.  Remember the Bible teaches us that faith, true faith, is given from Above.  To understand how this faith matters beyond self, however, is going to require something from us: first the will to respond.  And secondly the gumption to respond.  So in faith the Lord is going to do His part to give us what we need to respond.  In fact Jesus seems to suggest this much has already been done.  So then comes our response.

We respond not for bragging rights.  We respond not for individual achievement or recognition. We respond because our "neighbor" needs us to respond.  We respond because our community needs us to respond.  We respond because our nation needs us to respond!  We respond because Divine Love compels us to respond, and we respond because in the faith that is imparted to us we are assured that others will respond for us as well.  We respond not to "earn" anything for ourselves, for we already have the assurance of the Resurrection of our Lord. 

You and I may not agree on the finer points of doctrine and we may not agree on political philosophy - and we will NEVER agree on rooting for LSU or UofA! - but I think we can agree that the essential nature of the Church, the essential nature of the Body of Christ, is to "do" for our Lord by "doing" for His loved ones just as surely as He did for His beloved Israel, just as surely as He did for His beloved Church - long before we had a chance to love Him, our Lord clearly loves us first!

Let us agree on this, and we will find much less to disagree about.  After all, we do not want to be mistaken as members of the Congress, do we?  To the Glory of His Holy Name, let the people of the Lord say, Amen!    

The lack of rudder

As much as President Obama is being blamed for the stalemate that is Washington DC, has no one really noticed that the spitting match actually comes down to John Boehner and Harry Reid?  This president is merely a sidebar in this drawn out sand-box drama.  The House passes a bill (allowed by Boehner) and sends it to the Senate; Harry Reid makes a decision on behalf of the entire Senate. The Senate offers something back to the House, but Boehner decides what the House will consider.  And the President of the United States stands off to the side and says, "Nasty Republicans!"

I have some advice for these many members of the Congress who claim to be frustrated by all that is going on: remove the current House speaker and the Senate majority leader from their posts, and stop the nonsensical talk of impeachment.  It will not be the president who will cost you your jobs, for he is entirely too insignificant.  Impeaching this president will be as meaningless as he already is, it will be futile, and it would be a colossal waste of precious time because the Democrats simply will never vote to convict anyway. 

No, the problem is not the White House in this one.  In fact I dare suggest the White House is the very definition of impotence in this matter.  This president will not deal face-to-face with the Republicans (it has been reported he has made a few phone calls, but he also called the newly elected president of Iran.  Take these calls for what they are worth.); this president will only go to an open microphone and insult the Republicans, somehow believing he can shame them into submission. 

This president overlooks or chooses to ignore one very important item, however: this Affordable Care Act which is at the heart of this shut-down was passed in the shadows by the Democrat-controlled Congress and received not one Republican vote and in fact lost several Democratic votes.  Therefore the congressional Republicans who were in the Congress when it passed and the newly seated Republicans who came to Congress as a result of voter backlash in 2012 are simply not free to go along with ObamaCare.  Their constituents prohibit it!  These are the very constituencies that did not carry this president in 2012.

The House is firmly in Republican hands, and the Senate is under Democratic control.  What should a president be doing?  Dealing with reality, not fantasy.  This president can only wish that somehow Republicans will come around to his way of thinking.  This president can only wish he could offer such a compelling argument through his public insults that the Republicans would finally see the light. 

This is not going to happen by his calling names and casting blame.  If anything, this president's public lambasting of the Republicans will only steel their resolve as it well should.  This president is seriously missing the boat on this one by making clear his refusal to sit face-to-face like a grown man with these duly elected Republican members of Congress and negotiate an end to this nonsense.

This president does not have to negotiate, however, and he obviously does not want to.  He is in his final term.  He has no other elections to worry about, no other political decisions to be concerned with.  And since this president has made himself very clear by his past loftiness, he does not even want this job because this job would require him to get serious about working toward a reasonable solution to a legitimate problem rather than hoping a solution will fall into his lap.  As many have said in the past and as is becoming more and more evident, this president is clearly not up to the job.  What is at hand requires a leader, and this president is not that leader. 

So we are stuck with Harry Reid who runs the Senate like his own personal fiefdom (actually setting in concrete the idea of this president's impotence); we have John Boehner who is doing virtually the same thing in the House, and both refusing to blink.  This president does not (by his own clear choice, mind you) even factor in.  So we have this massive ship without a single rudder.  Of course there is stalemate in Washington DC!  What else could possibly come as a result?

Neither Republican majority nor Democratic majority will break the log jam or serve the nation well.  A nation as ours requires an engaged leader, not an elected figurehead.  It is little wonder nothing constructive will happen anytime soon.  Not until Democrats stand up to Harry Reid and not until Republicans stand up to John Boehner will anything useful come from this Congress.  If we really want to talk about "term limits", let us consider limiting the terms a single person can hog-tie an entire chamber of Congress.  This president is not the problem; one must actually be in the game before one can be blamed for costing the game.  Reckon?