Stoking the flames of Advent [excerpt]

We’d rather talk about the easier and safer things. What do we do when we come face to face with the raw pain present in many lives? Such pain and grief may be all around us — behind us in the checkout line, in front of us at a stoplight, beside us in church.

In my living room, we also have a fireplace that we like to use in the winter. Just several feet from the artificial lights on our tree that eventually burn out is a place for God’s natural gift of light and heat that will burn for as long as it has wood and oxygen. Fire is a much more apt image and one that is used in scripture for God. Throughout centuries of Christian tradition, a simple flame on a candle has symbolized the presence of Christ. If God is indeed “a consuming fire,” it is God who provides the light; we simply allow our lives to be consumed.

I have to wonder if we sometimes have expectations of ourselves and others that are too much like the artificial lights. We’re expected to shine bright, so long as we’re plugged in. We are expected to produce our own light, and if not, we could get discarded and replaced.

[Read the full article at Baptist News Global]

"Just stuff we're supposed to do": Pope Francis' message

"A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces."

That was one of the many zinging one-liners in Pope Francis' speech to the United States Congress on September 24, 2015. He organized his remarks around the highlighting of four American figures: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton. 

I had been looking forward to it since it was announced earlier in the year. Admittedly, I was watching not just for the content of the speech itself but for the image of lawmakers—wined, dined, and bribed by special interests—squirming in their seats at the sound of his words; words which combined dominant and non-sectarian Judeo-Christian themes with the highest principles of a free and democratic society.

What should most disturb us is how deeply fundamental are the principles which the Pope mentions compared to how controversial or political they are now considered, and how much we have forgotten them. Fox News's Shepard Smith, during an interview the day before, bemoaned how issues like economic opportunity for all and stewardship of the environment have now somehow become political and controversial. As he said, that is "just stuff we're supposed to do."

*****

The Pope began by reminding Congress of what their job is:

You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.

It's hard to find bills that are advanced "based on care for the people" and lawmakers who are in a "tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good." We function out of a mindset of scarcity, not abundance. If our federal budget is any indication, we are in a position of debilitating fear, our proverbial fists clenched, spending unspeakable amounts of money on weapons and defense while we penny-pinch and cut our education system, infrastructure, and other things that we once knew made us prosperous and secure. The Pope mentioned this reality at the end of his speech, calling out our endless selling of the tools of destruction:

Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade. 

If our goal was to destroy terrorists, we would be hearing just as much about Central Africa as the Middle East, perhaps more. Or consider that Saudi Arabia, one of the most religiously extremist countries in the Middle East and from which 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers came, is one of the U.S.'s closest allies. Their government possibly beheads more people than ISIS. They are rich in Islamic extremism, but also rich in oil, and are willing to flood the market when we tell them to. National security and fighting terrorism, as the Pope seems to know, are only a small part of what is actually going on.

Be it individuals or nations, fear and insecurity drives us to try to take over or control situations that are not going our way. But as Pope Francis brilliantly put it, "A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces."

The Pope lifted up, in less forceful words than I would have preferred, the daily struggle of the working poor. But he did more than just call attention to them; he told the truth about them, that they "sustain the life of society." It is here that he could/should have explicitly called for a living wage to be paid to all workers. He did, however, express appreciation for both the elderly and the young, two segments of the population that are more likely to be poor. In a largely unnoticed but great line, he encouraged visionary and ambitious young people whom he said "face difficult situations, often as a result of immaturity on the part of many adults."

The Pope also lifted up the dangers of religious extremism and fundamentalism...of any type. He did away with our culture's persistent narrative that a certain religion is necessarily bad or good:

We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.

This "balance" he mentions is highly elusive but was nevertheless the vision of our country's founders who, having their own deep religious commitments, penned a religiously neutral Constitution that never mentions God or Jesus, never quotes from the Bible, forbids religious tests for office in its sixth article, and establishes a religiously neutral government in its first amendment.

In that same section of the speech, the Pope also smacked down a "simplistic reductionism" that separates the world's people into two categories of good and evil: "The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps." Then, in a nod to the many biblical passages that forbid revenge and the repaying of evil with evil, the Pope uttered a great line: "We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within."

The Pope's speech-as-prepared included a reference to the Declaration of Independence's affirmation of "inalienable rights." For whatever reason, he skipped these two sentences in his oral delivery, but picked it up with this affirmation: "If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good." Packed into these words are many allusions, including Jesus' teaching that we cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24) and the "social contract" felt and affirmed by our country's early leaders, summarized in the final words of the Declaration of Independence: "...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

As he held up Martin Luther King, Jr., Pope Francis called us to remember and repent of the ways in which we have built our wealth on the backs of others, and said that "when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past." Warnings against oppressing foreigners are many in the Scriptures. He spoke of the current refugee crisis, and pleaded with us not to be scared away by the numbers but to "view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation." Then he said, "Let us remember the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others as you would...'" But the assembled lawmakers started applauding before he could finish reciting it. I found it ironic that the applause started and interrupted the quote right at the point at which it is a much more accurate reflection of our practice: "Do unto others as you would." Might the whole thing just be too hard to hear? He started over and got the whole quote out. "If we want security, let us give security;," he went on to say. "If we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities."

He briefly mentioned that "the Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development." This surely is a nod toward the Church's ongoing opposition to abortion. I've heard more than a few progressive folks express disappointment that the Pope takes this stance, but it is absolutely in line with a focus on protection and justice for the vulnerable. It has always been curious to me that progressives, who otherwise stand for many causes related to vulnerable populations, do not seem very interested in protecting the most vulnerable form of life there is: an unborn child.

But before anyone could think the Pope was only on their side, he immediately took this principle of the value of all life and applied it to the death penalty, calling for its abolition. He also gave a nod to the idea of restorative justice (without using that exact term), and said that "a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation." This is another point at which I wish the Pope had been more forceful. He missed an opportunity to call out the United States for incarcerating more of its population than any other country, and the practice of locking people up with no other goal than to get them out of "civilized society."

The Pope mentioned the crisis of "environmental deterioration caused by human activity," a reality about which the science is clear and the predictions apocalyptic. Quoting from his work Laudato Si', he put forth the apparently crazy idea that we can both "develop" and "limit" our power. "In this regard," he said, "I am confident that America’s outstanding academic and research institutions can make a vital contribution in the years ahead." In other words, we have the necessary tools to pull it off! It is amazing that the concept of caring for and preserving the earth has become controversial, but it is not a mystery why. Energy companies have much to gain and much to lose, and they are a strong lobbying force in Washington.

Pope's mention of Thomas Merton as a man who encouraged dialogue and peacemaking included a very important but easily missed line: The Pope said Merton was "a thinker who challenged the certitudes of his time and opened new horizons..." Some today see the Catholic Church, and often religion in general, as being too certain about the unknowable. Here, the leader of the Catholic Church just praised a philosopher who very much embraced mystery and challenged some long-held assumptions.

Finally, the Pope ended by affirming marriage and family. "How essential the family has been to the building of this country!" he said. He lamented that "fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family." He did not further explain this, but this presumably includes the Church's opposition to gay marriage. But here's what's important to note: instead of going on a tirade against the redefinition of marriage, he instead focused on the increasing dysfunction, abuse, and neglect seen in today's families..."traditional" or not. Even in the midst of his belief in "traditional marriage," he has his priorities straight and knows what the true problems are. The Pope seems to realize that there is more to be condemned about the Duggar family than about Jack and George.

*****

It was a profound and historical speech. Of course, many will talk in the coming days about what he did and didn't say. Some have criticized him for being tone deaf on the priest abuse scandal of his Church, which was not mentioned at all in his speech to Congress. I wish he had been more explicit or forceful on certain things. But overall, the speech served a very important purpose, and I can only hope it was enough to make both lawmakers and citizens pause and think. I share his hope and prayer: "...that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream."

He ended by saying, "God bless America." I dare say that among the many who have uttered those same words from that same podium, he is among the few who know the meaning and purpose of being "blessed."

Communities, Borders, and "Persons of Peace" [excerpt]

Persons of peace...know they’re never going to [achieve peace] by exhibiting an exclusionary stance toward others. The fact of the matter is that there are persons of peace in every neighborhood, city, and nation. The trick is for these people to come together across society’s dividing lines (in the face of the cries of infidelity or impropriety that they inevitably face for doing so). The community developers I met this summer have all settled and invested into communities which they were warned not to enter, and in so doing they have been able to form incredible and unlikely partnerships that were the catalyst for neighborhood transformation.

This is not how we normally operate. Most of us are conditioned to see the world in terms of the good guys vs. the bad guys; us vs. them. It’s almost as if we approach real life the same way we do a sports event. Think about how it goes: All the fans gather together with their team’s regalia and cheers, and are there to rally behind their team in a defeat of “the opponent.” When a call is made against our team, we boo, hiss and lash out, regardless of whether the call was correct. When our team makes a mistake, we either say nothing or blame it on the opponent.

Does any of that sound familiar? The team sport approach is how we seem to run a lot of things...

[Read the full article on the Associated Baptist Press blog]

In Search of More Acts 10 Moments [Excerpt]

It is sobering to think about how much violence and oppression can be boiled down to hatred of people who are “of the wrong group,” judging their personhood and worth with “face value” criteria. We can at least start to make sense of it—though not excuse it—when someone seeks revenge for harm done to their family, livelihood, etc. “An eye for an eye,” though rejected by Jesus, is at least based on empirical action; a wrong committed. But a far more disturbing human tendency is the way we hate based on an abstract narrative of supremacy. In this space, a person is not guilty because of something they did but because of who they are.

In Acts 10, when Peter was first confronted by a world with less boundaries, he first responded, “Surely not, Lord” (Acts 10:14). I fear we still often do the same. But we need more Acts 10 moments—those times when we remember that “the Lord does not look at the things humans look it” (1 Samuel 16:7). Those times when we work, play, and make policy from the standpoint of our shared humanity and Creator. Land borders are man-made. Flags and national anthems are man-made. Ethnic group check-boxes are man-made. But all humans are God-made. What might the world look like if we lived and governed from this truth?

[Read the full article on the Baptist News Global blog]

What Is It We're "Never Forgetting"?

"Never forget," we say on this day.

Sometimes it includes the words "never forgive." I've never understood how a Christian can say "never forgive" with a clear conscience. Perhaps we misunderstand what forgiveness is. Forgiveness is not saying, "What you did is OK." Forgiveness means refusing to let the actions of another rule your life and your decision-making (and it seems to me that terrorists have ruled our national life and decision-making ever since that day).

Jesus said, "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matt 6:14-15). I guess we thought this teaching only applies when someone cuts you off in traffic or steals your lunch from the break room fridge.

But let's get back to the "never forget" part. What is it we're not supposed to forget? It can't be that people are afraid we're going to forget it ever happened, because we are reminded of it every time our politicians use it as a reason to restrict liberty in the name of security or go do something in a Middle Eastern country. It seems to me that the terrorists have occupied quite a bit of rent-free head space in the American psyche.

So what's the meaning behind "never forget"?

If "never forget" means that we should remember and repeat the bravery, comradery, and service to our neighbor that the tragedy spawned, and honor the self-sacrifice of emergency responders, then I'm on board. If "never forget" means that we should reverently remember those who lost their lives and the pain and grief felt by the family members, then I'm on board. That day represented a horrifying loss of life that shook our nation to its core. There should be no dismissal of the raw emotional pain we suffered. If "never forget" means that we should remember how that day reminded us of life's brevity and the way in which it brought us to our knees in prayer, then I'm on board.

But if "never forget" means that we should annually rekindle our anger and thirst for revenge, I'm not on board. If "never forget" is some sort of veiled threat that we can be counted on to meet violence with violence, I'm not on board (Rom 12:17; 1 Peter 3:9). I don't see how any of that distinguishes us from others we condemn.

We say we "never forget," but there's actually quite a bit we've forgotten about 9/11 and the circumstances surrounding it.

• Most have forgotten that then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10--the day before--that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion in transactions. That's a lot of money. Like, 12% of the national debt. Where is the outrage from the penny-pinchers on this one?
• Most have forgotten that 15 of the 19 identified hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq or Afghanistan. 
• Many have forgotten, judging by the ongoing hatred and suspicion of Muslims, that all prominent Muslim groups in the U.S. condemned the 9/11 attacks as well as other terrorist acts. One website documents when and how the groups announced their condemnation, and it uses the same "never forget" graphic near the top of the page. Close to 3 million Muslims call America home and love it as much as all its other citizens.

I have a feeling we wouldn't take too kindly if we were on the other side of the "never forget" rhetoric. Something tells me we wouldn't be as understanding if we heard "never forget" from an innocent Yemenese family who lost loved ones in one of our drone strikes. Something tells me we wouldn't want to hear it from Iraqi victims of U.S. chemical weapons. Something tells me we wouldn't want to hear it from the people of Chile after we backed a coup there that brought to power a military government that killed 3,000 people and imprisoned 27,000. Oh, how we have turned a blind eye to our own sins.

Here's what I hope we don't forget. I hope we don't forget that there is more to being on the side of truth and right than striking back harder. I hope we don't forget the words from Proverbs: "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the Lord will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from them." (Prov 24:17-18).

Let us not say "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt 5:9) while using rhetoric that divides and angers. Let us not say "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21) and continue to repay evil with evil.  Let us not say that God loves the world (John 3:16) and wants all to be saved (Ezek 18:23) while wishing for and taking pleasure in the destruction of our enemies.

Some hear such words as weak, mushy nonsense that is a call for us to sit back and take a beating. Not at all. It would be irresponsible not to defend ourselves. But if you think the best way to defeat evil is to strike back harder and faster, you have not understood the gospel.

O, That You Would Remain in Your Slumber

O, that you would remain in your slumber
The sun rises soon and the sparring will resume
How at peace you are
How close to what I intended as you sleep in stillness
No task, no consciousness
Helpless, asleep, and quiet
Even before your rest, you yourself chose the time that this bliss will end

You rise to come at anything standing in your way
Before even a knock had come at your door
You burst forth to conquer and compete
So afraid of yourself
So unaware of the peace and stillness that had taken you by necessity
As if rest were erased, you rise to aggress

You leave me with no choice
My eyes and my eyes alone see the innocent toward which you unabashedly barrel
How I want - just for a moment - to take your hand
Lead you, heal you
I stand in your way so that you will trample over me instead
My own reputation I put on the line for the sake of your prey
I must protect those who have done you no wrong
Other than to exist without your consent

What pointless pursuits have brought you to exhaustion
What damage you have done in your fight for your want
I hang, battered and bruised
I am put away; you know it not
You think only of the hours of rest, seemingly wasted
Until you start again

O, that you would remain in your slumber

*****

Call this what you will; a poem, creative writing piece, I don't know. The speaker is God.  It came to me as I was on an early morning walk in my neighborhood. 5:00 a.m. Everything is so peaceful and everyone is asleep, and I was deeply struck by the stark difference between the world at rest and the world at work. Each new day brings more fighting and discord, more selfish pursuits. The closest we get to what God intended for us and our society is when we are asleep.

Stooping to the Level

Lots of people know the name Fred Phelps.  He's the "pastor" of Westboro "Baptist" "Church," the group who has become known for their protests of military funerals and the signs that say "God hates fags."  I, like many, am disgusted by his message and the way he uses religion to justify hatred.

But the response people give has always been troubling to me.  Here's a sampling of things I've read or heard:  "When Fred Phelps dies, I'm protesting his funeral."  "I hope his spot in hell is 10 times hotter."  "Fred Phelps is the devil himself and doesn't deserve to live."

It bothers me that the response of many Christians is no different in kind than the language used by Phelps himself.  Are our motivations different? Sure.  Are we out spreading hate and teaching it to our children? I hope not.  But you would think that if we want to show that our way is more correct, more loving, etc., then our response would model how we believe people should respond (instead of, "Phelps, God is love, now go to hell").  In other words, if we believe we're on higher ground, why do our actions and words stoop to the level?  He wishes death on us, we wish death on him.  He protests our funerals, we're going to protest his.  This is a boxing match, not the higher ground that God calls us to.  The Bible tells us not to do this kind of thing over and over.  Proverbs 20:22, 24:17-18; 1 Peter 3:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; Romans 12:17; and I seem to remember Jesus telling us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48).

Late Sunday night, 5/1/11, it was reported that Osama bin Laden had been killed by the U.S. military.

Many Americans responded with what Diana Butler Bass called "patriotic frenzy."  Chants of victory filled the streets well into the night with chants of "U.S.A.," flags waving.  Facebook and Twitter exploded with comments, mainly of the following nature:  "Rest in pieces."  "Yay!  Woohooo!!"  "Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead."  "I love karma; now you know how it feels!"  One person even wrote, "Let's change the 's' to a 'b'."  Pages for Christian organizations had some of the most vitriolic and shameful rhetoric I could find anywhere.

Again:  If we believe we're on higher ground, why do our reactions stoop to the level?  Our behavior is no different in kind.  Substitute in another country's flag, and it all looks the same.  We're doing nothing but fueling the fire of war and brokenness.  We have to ask ourselves what we truly want.

Diana Butler Bass said it well:  "What if we responded in reverent prayer and quiet introspection?...That would truly be American exceptionalism."  It bothers me when Christians celebrate death as opposed to praying and working for the restoration of life.

Let me just address the objections I'm bound to hear.  One is, "This is justice for the families of loved ones killed on 9/11."  Let me be clear:  I do not in any way wish to minimize or dismiss their loss, nor do I pretend to understand what they have gone through.  But what is "justice?"  I'm reminded of that quote from the character Prot in the movie K-PAX:

"You humans subscribe to this idea of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which has become known throughout the rest of the universe for its stupidity.  Even your Buddha and your Christ had very different ideas, but no one has really listened to them, not even the Buddhists or the Christians."

Another objection will be, "Why do you sympathize with Osama bin Laden?"  I don't sympathize with him.  I wonder if we can see him as a human being made in the image of God just like the rest of us, but just like with the Phelps, I despise what he has done. I just see no redemptive quality in expressions of revenge.

This is notwithstanding all the other things that were largely unconsidered in the moment.  First of all, is this going to be the big step toward ending terrorism that we think it is?  We've just reinflamed the terrorists, so I doubt it.  There will be lots of things to come, lots of nuanced dynamics, and lots of media mess to sort through. And it's interesting that we are now talking as if we've been relentlessly pursuing him but, at least on the level of the American consciousness, we've barely talked about him for years.  He wasn't on our radar, and I really think the main purpose his death will serve is to provide talking points for upcoming political campaigns.

In other words, bin Laden's death will have a tremendous effect on the American psyche, but not, I suspect, on the war on terror.  Our boogie man is gone.  In time, we will find another one.

This is a call to higher ground, a call to explore what the world might think of us if we treated this a little less like a sports match.  And this is a reminder to people of faith that God calls us to a very different place, away from the loud victory dances of the masses.

"Do not gloat when your enemies fall; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from them."  Proverbs 24:17-18