Yesterday I wrestled a bit with the idea of possession. Today I want to look at a related process: demonizing.
Last week I got an e-mail from an old friend. It was a series of photos of Barak Obama and each picture was accompanied by a heartflelt thank you for Obama's smile, his care for the poor, his stand for the underclass, etc., etc. What struck me is how differently the President is portrayed in other e-mails which are sent to me.
Messiah. Anti-Christ. Help to Poor. Communist. Caring Family Man. Cold, arrogant, withdrawn. The contrasts go on and on. Yet what really hit me, hard, was how sincere the people who send me these disparate e-mails are. And in many cases, the opposing views are held by people who are dear to me.
In my Training/Quality Management days (late 90's) we always harped on the importance of data and the danger of 'perceptions.' We all tend to see the world in a way that reinforces are preconceived ideas. That is why marriage counseling is so difficult. It is why parent-child conflict is so difficult. It is why church fights are so difficult. Few of us are able to see the world through the eyes of another. We tend to react to the others, usually to defend something (a value, a position, maybe ourselves) and the conflicts tend to grow or fester.
The anger in the Republican primary (expressed in negative ads and pretty obvious disdain between a couple of candidates) is nothing compared to the pending show down in the actual election. Our divisions are manifest daily (and as a side note looking at the American revolution, or the Civil War, or most any time period it is clear that division and neagtivity are neither new nor worse). The issue is how to engage one another without demonizing? On a national level, a local level, in the church, in our families? Perhaps we Christians need to take more seriously the sorry state of things and pray more fervently for the coming of the Prince of Peace. Perhaps rather than add to the rancor we need to revision our vocation as repentant sinners and prayer intercessors. Which is a good reason for me to stop typing and start praying!
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Facing Reality on Church Debates
I was invited to join an Anglican Forum on Facebook. I receive e-mails on postings which I can read without going to the acutal site. Truth is I do not have time to visit the site. Recently I noticed several comments to the effect that the "tone was combative" and some people have left the forum. This led me to actually go there and look at it a bit. [Our church (Anglican) is torn between warring factions in the social wars. The Episcopal Church is dominated by Liberals. The break away Anglican churches (in America) are Conservative.]
I have plenty of experience with the debates, I served as one of the (minority) voices for the Conservative views on a discussion forum for the Episcopal Church in 2002-2003. The 'debates' are usually useless. Most people have made up their minds so it often times becomes a screaming contest. Many of the issues include a great deal of personal emotional baggage (as one guy wrote me "you are saying that I am...") so it is hard to make rational discussion happen. The culture wars in politics are reflected in much of the arguments and there is the same level of anger and disdain as we see in the culture wars. The only thing I try to remember is vitriol has long been a major component of all debate for all time. There has never been a golden age of respectful discussion and disagreement.
While I continue to hold the traditional Christian faith, I generally do not engage the Liberals in our wider church. They have the power and they are not in a discussing mood much of the time. I have, from time to time, engaged youunger clergy which has been fruitful. Being one of the only guys left, I am less intimidating. There is value in having a dissenting voice. I try to be reasoned and open in listening. I try to be respectful. I do not compromise on those things which are beyond compromise. I assume others will act on their principles as well.
Another thing with which I deal is the issue of 'where to draw the line'? I wrote several blogs on other issues (Bible, sacraments, etc.) which mean more to me than some of the current debate topics. There are lots of things about which we cannot agree, yet have to live together. Some Conservatives call me a sell out. I have some snappy responses, but in the end, but why waste breath arguing? God will judge me. I am worried enough about Him, why bother with fallible human judgments?
Personally, I have concerns about my baby. I pray for him alot. First off, that he will be holy, next, for his health. I worry about my other kids, too. It is a reminder that most people are also tied up in their own lives. Professionally, I counsel people dealing with death, divorce, job loss, illness. I try to pastor them in their here and now. Few of them really care about the "big issues" pulling the church apart on an ongoing, day-to-day basis. I am focused on leading my parish into the heart of God and caring for their needs. I am focused on prayer, worship, study, evangelism, and service. I am trying to be a good dad in the hours that remain each day. Not much left for debating about gay marriage or whatever the next big issue is. Not much energy left to defend my "outdated beliefs" or serve as "orthodoxy sheriff." I am not saying I won't engage if asked. I certainly write about things which are controversial. I just do not go out looking for trouble.
I would rather teach people to pray and read the Bible, involve themselves in the local parish to preach Jesus' Kingdom and serve others. I would rather help people to form loving community. If someone rejects my leadership because I am not politically correct or engaged in the latest Liberal action plan, so be it. It hurts, lots of people with whom I thought I had a close relationship have gotten mad and left, but I will survive. They do not like me and they can find peace elsewhere. God, in the end, is The Judge. It is better that way.
I have plenty of experience with the debates, I served as one of the (minority) voices for the Conservative views on a discussion forum for the Episcopal Church in 2002-2003. The 'debates' are usually useless. Most people have made up their minds so it often times becomes a screaming contest. Many of the issues include a great deal of personal emotional baggage (as one guy wrote me "you are saying that I am...") so it is hard to make rational discussion happen. The culture wars in politics are reflected in much of the arguments and there is the same level of anger and disdain as we see in the culture wars. The only thing I try to remember is vitriol has long been a major component of all debate for all time. There has never been a golden age of respectful discussion and disagreement.
While I continue to hold the traditional Christian faith, I generally do not engage the Liberals in our wider church. They have the power and they are not in a discussing mood much of the time. I have, from time to time, engaged youunger clergy which has been fruitful. Being one of the only guys left, I am less intimidating. There is value in having a dissenting voice. I try to be reasoned and open in listening. I try to be respectful. I do not compromise on those things which are beyond compromise. I assume others will act on their principles as well.
Another thing with which I deal is the issue of 'where to draw the line'? I wrote several blogs on other issues (Bible, sacraments, etc.) which mean more to me than some of the current debate topics. There are lots of things about which we cannot agree, yet have to live together. Some Conservatives call me a sell out. I have some snappy responses, but in the end, but why waste breath arguing? God will judge me. I am worried enough about Him, why bother with fallible human judgments?
Personally, I have concerns about my baby. I pray for him alot. First off, that he will be holy, next, for his health. I worry about my other kids, too. It is a reminder that most people are also tied up in their own lives. Professionally, I counsel people dealing with death, divorce, job loss, illness. I try to pastor them in their here and now. Few of them really care about the "big issues" pulling the church apart on an ongoing, day-to-day basis. I am focused on leading my parish into the heart of God and caring for their needs. I am focused on prayer, worship, study, evangelism, and service. I am trying to be a good dad in the hours that remain each day. Not much left for debating about gay marriage or whatever the next big issue is. Not much energy left to defend my "outdated beliefs" or serve as "orthodoxy sheriff." I am not saying I won't engage if asked. I certainly write about things which are controversial. I just do not go out looking for trouble.
I would rather teach people to pray and read the Bible, involve themselves in the local parish to preach Jesus' Kingdom and serve others. I would rather help people to form loving community. If someone rejects my leadership because I am not politically correct or engaged in the latest Liberal action plan, so be it. It hurts, lots of people with whom I thought I had a close relationship have gotten mad and left, but I will survive. They do not like me and they can find peace elsewhere. God, in the end, is The Judge. It is better that way.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
words and actions
I saw an interesting political debate which reflects well the Christian challenge. A group of rich people were advocating higher taxes on the rich. A reporter asks them to donate to a fund for the government, which the same people refused to do. The stark contrast was stunning. People unwilling to freely give of their own volition were committed to taking from others.
The tax system is set up in a way that we can take deductions. People who feel taxes are too low or that they make too much money are free to not take the deductions to which they are entitled. That would be an act of integrity. Yet, those people seem to be more than happy to take their deductions. Seems that this is inconsistent.
When I was in Europe, I met a German priest who explained that the government taxed people and then distributed those tax dollars to churches which the people identified. It produced a strained relationship between people and church. It also meant that the "collection" was nothing of the sort. In my parish, we have two collections in many times of the year. One is the normal collection for parish operations. The other is a special collection for 'outreach' (during Lent/Easter and Advent/Christmas). Each person decides to give as they choose. Every cent we receive is a gift to God. We get enough to run our parish and spend the other half of our money on the needs of others. Generosity can be manifest in freedom!
I do not know what the fair rate for taxes is. The discussion on that needs to take place. What I do know, is people who do not do something cheerfuly of their own free will ought not clamor for others to do the same. I say let the tax advocates lead by example. Let them inspire others by their remarkable generosity. Let them do the very thing which is in their power to do. Talk is cheep.
In the church, we face the same challenge. The parish must be a place of radical service to the poor and needy. It must proclaim the Gospel, bringing the light of Jesus into a dark world. We must embrace His Way (the cross). We ought not spend a great deal of time telling other people what they should do. Instead, we must let our example speak for us. The great divides in America are based on abuse of power. The Left is every bit as much at fault as the Right. I know that when someone does not lead by example, it irritates me. That is important to remember as I seek to preach Jesus and lead others in faith to His Father.
The tax system is set up in a way that we can take deductions. People who feel taxes are too low or that they make too much money are free to not take the deductions to which they are entitled. That would be an act of integrity. Yet, those people seem to be more than happy to take their deductions. Seems that this is inconsistent.
When I was in Europe, I met a German priest who explained that the government taxed people and then distributed those tax dollars to churches which the people identified. It produced a strained relationship between people and church. It also meant that the "collection" was nothing of the sort. In my parish, we have two collections in many times of the year. One is the normal collection for parish operations. The other is a special collection for 'outreach' (during Lent/Easter and Advent/Christmas). Each person decides to give as they choose. Every cent we receive is a gift to God. We get enough to run our parish and spend the other half of our money on the needs of others. Generosity can be manifest in freedom!
I do not know what the fair rate for taxes is. The discussion on that needs to take place. What I do know, is people who do not do something cheerfuly of their own free will ought not clamor for others to do the same. I say let the tax advocates lead by example. Let them inspire others by their remarkable generosity. Let them do the very thing which is in their power to do. Talk is cheep.
In the church, we face the same challenge. The parish must be a place of radical service to the poor and needy. It must proclaim the Gospel, bringing the light of Jesus into a dark world. We must embrace His Way (the cross). We ought not spend a great deal of time telling other people what they should do. Instead, we must let our example speak for us. The great divides in America are based on abuse of power. The Left is every bit as much at fault as the Right. I know that when someone does not lead by example, it irritates me. That is important to remember as I seek to preach Jesus and lead others in faith to His Father.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Occupy Wall Street: WWJD?
I am off this week and have spent much time holding the baby and watching the news. I have tried to switch between Fox and CNN to provide different perspectives. I even watched some MSNBC!
I have found it interesting to see the different views on the Occupy Wall Street crowd. According to surveys there is a general support among Americans for the sentiments expressed by the crowds. The general complaint is that rich people do not pay their fair share. Now I am distressed to see signs like "kill the rich" or "taxidermy the rich" because I think publicly advocating murder is wrong (reference the Ten Commandments!). I am also distressed because the main stream media seems to be comfortable ignoring such things. Imagine the uproar if signs read "kill the old" or "slaughter the fat." But I have been around long enough to know (and understand why) that prejudice and assumption blinds us. So, it is not a surprise that the coverage by a sympathetic media overlooks the horror of publicly advocating the murder of people because they are financially successful.
What would Jesus do? Liberal Christians would claim that He would be among the people, stirring up anger and resentment among the poor, condeming the rich. I am certian Luke's Gospel would come in handy here. Conservative Christians would counter with a couple of nice quotes from Paul (those who don't work, don't eat, for example). In the end, it would be a sincere and heartfelt verbal battle between two groups which do not agree on much of anything. They would hear God's Word, especially the parts with which they agree. (That is the way it works for me, too, so I am not just pointing fingers here)
I think it is hard to know what Jesus would do, mainly because He was in a different context than ours. We live in a democracy where we have the right to vote. Jesus did not. He lived in occupied territory. In His day the Roman army put a 'serious hurting' on crowds of people who gathered to complain. Clearly Jesus warned against wealth. The holy people of the Church have historically dispersed their material wealth to pursue spiritual wealth. I think it is fair to say Jesus would say, "use your wealth to help others in need." (in fact, that is exactly what He did say!) On the other hand, Jesus was not a big fan of envy or coveting (sort of follows the Ten Commandments here). I imagine Jesus would not be impressed with someone complaining about the success of others. I also think that the church has never advocated stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Sorry Robin Hood, but there is a reason for that. Stealing is generally bad for the individual and for society. It harms those who steal as much as it harms those stolen from.
I think we need to have a serious discussion about taxing and spending. I wish conservative Christians spent as much time preaching Jesus' warning about wealth as they seem to spend advocating for low taxes. However, that is a choice the person makes with their own money. It is not some mob deciding that they will take it for themselves. It is not a politician taking what someone earns to distribute to others (who conveniently then vote the politician into office). As I said before, pro-tax folks don't have to take deductions and they can pay their taxes on time!
When people are surveyed and they say "the rich should pay their fair share" I wish someone woul actually do some deeper research. I am not trying to sound elitist here, but really, does the 'average Joe' have any clue what the words mean?
What would Jesus do? He would point them (and us) to the Father. "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness," I imagine He would say, "and then all these other material things will be taken care of . After all, your Father loves and cares for you." Without a focus on the Father's will there will be no reform. Only uprisings which produce a reign of terrror. Check out history.
I have found it interesting to see the different views on the Occupy Wall Street crowd. According to surveys there is a general support among Americans for the sentiments expressed by the crowds. The general complaint is that rich people do not pay their fair share. Now I am distressed to see signs like "kill the rich" or "taxidermy the rich" because I think publicly advocating murder is wrong (reference the Ten Commandments!). I am also distressed because the main stream media seems to be comfortable ignoring such things. Imagine the uproar if signs read "kill the old" or "slaughter the fat." But I have been around long enough to know (and understand why) that prejudice and assumption blinds us. So, it is not a surprise that the coverage by a sympathetic media overlooks the horror of publicly advocating the murder of people because they are financially successful.
What would Jesus do? Liberal Christians would claim that He would be among the people, stirring up anger and resentment among the poor, condeming the rich. I am certian Luke's Gospel would come in handy here. Conservative Christians would counter with a couple of nice quotes from Paul (those who don't work, don't eat, for example). In the end, it would be a sincere and heartfelt verbal battle between two groups which do not agree on much of anything. They would hear God's Word, especially the parts with which they agree. (That is the way it works for me, too, so I am not just pointing fingers here)
I think it is hard to know what Jesus would do, mainly because He was in a different context than ours. We live in a democracy where we have the right to vote. Jesus did not. He lived in occupied territory. In His day the Roman army put a 'serious hurting' on crowds of people who gathered to complain. Clearly Jesus warned against wealth. The holy people of the Church have historically dispersed their material wealth to pursue spiritual wealth. I think it is fair to say Jesus would say, "use your wealth to help others in need." (in fact, that is exactly what He did say!) On the other hand, Jesus was not a big fan of envy or coveting (sort of follows the Ten Commandments here). I imagine Jesus would not be impressed with someone complaining about the success of others. I also think that the church has never advocated stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Sorry Robin Hood, but there is a reason for that. Stealing is generally bad for the individual and for society. It harms those who steal as much as it harms those stolen from.
I think we need to have a serious discussion about taxing and spending. I wish conservative Christians spent as much time preaching Jesus' warning about wealth as they seem to spend advocating for low taxes. However, that is a choice the person makes with their own money. It is not some mob deciding that they will take it for themselves. It is not a politician taking what someone earns to distribute to others (who conveniently then vote the politician into office). As I said before, pro-tax folks don't have to take deductions and they can pay their taxes on time!
When people are surveyed and they say "the rich should pay their fair share" I wish someone woul actually do some deeper research. I am not trying to sound elitist here, but really, does the 'average Joe' have any clue what the words mean?
- What is the definition of rich? Are we talking multi-millionaires? Folks making $100,000? Does where you live (cost of living matters) get factored in?
- Do the people marching and complaining know how much taxes the 'rich' pay? What is a fair rate? Are we saying 10%?, 25%? I hear people talking about not long ago it was 90% Are we seriously saying that at a certain point someone is no longer allowed to earn and keep any more money?
- Do the people marching know how large a group of Americans pays no income tax? I have seen where up to one in three people do not pay one cent. Should people not paying any taxes really be allowed to complain about people who do without at least a little push back? [and in fairness, when a conservative says that the top 10% pays the lion's share of the taxes, it is fair to point out that it is because they make such astronomically huge amounts of money]
- Is there a point where legitimate complaints about inequity and injustice collapses into adolescent whining and a childs tantrum that demands "gimme!" without any sense of personal responsibility? What is that point and should we not spend much time trying to make sure we do not cross it?
What would Jesus do? He would point them (and us) to the Father. "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness," I imagine He would say, "and then all these other material things will be taken care of . After all, your Father loves and cares for you." Without a focus on the Father's will there will be no reform. Only uprisings which produce a reign of terrror. Check out history.
Friday, October 7, 2011
The End of the Age
We are studying 2 Esdras on Thursdays and the High School Sunday School class is doing Revelation. So I have been reflecting a bit more on apocalyptic writing lately. In the last few years I have been more intent on trying to understand ancient writing. What exactly is their purpose?
These two lines, 2 Esdras 4:26-27, jumped out at me yesterday:
The world's history is measured by two types of time. Linear time is the long stretch from creation (Beginning) to Final Judgment (The Harvest). However, the movement from beginning to end includes cycles. Cyclical time is the repetition we see throughout history in the proverbial "rise and fall" of one Empire after another. This is why we divide history into ages. We often refer to "the end of an era" when marking the passing of a significant time period. (I am sure the death of Steve Jobs is just such a marker for his industry.)
So a cyclical 'end of the age' is a type of the linear final 'end of the ages.'
No one quakes today at the Italian army, but the Roman legions were certainly the world power for a long time. Babylon and Persia were Empires while Iraq and Iran are their truncated remnants. Our biblical apocalyptic writings were written about the Roman Empire, but often used the name Babylon (symbolic metaphor). The are a model for understanding the rise and fall of any empire set against God and His people. For Americans, the current shifting of global power to China has all the feel of another such end/beginning.
Yesterday's headline, "World's Economy Worst Ever" may be another such 'apocalyptic' message. Sir Mervyn King says that the current global disaster is the worst since 1930 and quite possibly the worst ever. My grandparents lived through the depression. My parents were born in 1934, smack dab in the middle of it. I recall their stories, but they are all long dead and my living connection with that period of history was buried with them. I wonder about my newborn son, will his world be like theirs?
Ten years ago I read a prophetic blog pretty regularly. In it, he shared visions of a coming time of great upheaval. He warned of judgment and exhorted to greater faithfulness. My preaching has often included a warning of the coming days. It was almost a vague feeling. I remember telling folks, "it is coming" not always sure what the it was. At times I feared I was just being morose. (Thats what people tell me, that I am pessimistic....) I have noticed that I do not preach about it so much the last couple years. As I ponder why, I think it is because the time has come. Now it is more imporant to preach repentance and hope.
I know that we are in the end of the age. The 'foundations' are being shaken. The changes in Europe, the Middle East, China, and the US are all substantial. I am not an economist, but I can figure out that the ongoing employment and financial problems are a big deal. I do not know if this end is the final end. I am not sure Jesus would have me speculate on that. I do know that Jesus warns me (and you) that we need to get our own house in order. It is time. The way it was is not the way it will be. This age passes away. Will the next age be better or worse? It depends on what matters most to you. Perhaps we are given a second chance to reset our priorities: a chance to worship, trust and serve the Triune God more completely and to love one another in word and deed. It is an apocalyptic end of the age, there is suffering and there will be more. Wars and rumor of wars (check out the Israeli military preparations today), earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, economic collapse and widespread riots---these are NOT the end, but they are the birth pangs. And so the church prays, "Maranatha!" Come Lord Jesus!
These two lines, 2 Esdras 4:26-27, jumped out at me yesterday:
- "If you are alive, you will see, and if you live long, you will often marvel, because the age is hurrying swiftly to its end. It will not be able to bring the things that have been promised to the righteous in their appointed time because this age is full of sadness and infirmities"
The world's history is measured by two types of time. Linear time is the long stretch from creation (Beginning) to Final Judgment (The Harvest). However, the movement from beginning to end includes cycles. Cyclical time is the repetition we see throughout history in the proverbial "rise and fall" of one Empire after another. This is why we divide history into ages. We often refer to "the end of an era" when marking the passing of a significant time period. (I am sure the death of Steve Jobs is just such a marker for his industry.)
So a cyclical 'end of the age' is a type of the linear final 'end of the ages.'
No one quakes today at the Italian army, but the Roman legions were certainly the world power for a long time. Babylon and Persia were Empires while Iraq and Iran are their truncated remnants. Our biblical apocalyptic writings were written about the Roman Empire, but often used the name Babylon (symbolic metaphor). The are a model for understanding the rise and fall of any empire set against God and His people. For Americans, the current shifting of global power to China has all the feel of another such end/beginning.
Yesterday's headline, "World's Economy Worst Ever" may be another such 'apocalyptic' message. Sir Mervyn King says that the current global disaster is the worst since 1930 and quite possibly the worst ever. My grandparents lived through the depression. My parents were born in 1934, smack dab in the middle of it. I recall their stories, but they are all long dead and my living connection with that period of history was buried with them. I wonder about my newborn son, will his world be like theirs?
Ten years ago I read a prophetic blog pretty regularly. In it, he shared visions of a coming time of great upheaval. He warned of judgment and exhorted to greater faithfulness. My preaching has often included a warning of the coming days. It was almost a vague feeling. I remember telling folks, "it is coming" not always sure what the it was. At times I feared I was just being morose. (Thats what people tell me, that I am pessimistic....) I have noticed that I do not preach about it so much the last couple years. As I ponder why, I think it is because the time has come. Now it is more imporant to preach repentance and hope.
I know that we are in the end of the age. The 'foundations' are being shaken. The changes in Europe, the Middle East, China, and the US are all substantial. I am not an economist, but I can figure out that the ongoing employment and financial problems are a big deal. I do not know if this end is the final end. I am not sure Jesus would have me speculate on that. I do know that Jesus warns me (and you) that we need to get our own house in order. It is time. The way it was is not the way it will be. This age passes away. Will the next age be better or worse? It depends on what matters most to you. Perhaps we are given a second chance to reset our priorities: a chance to worship, trust and serve the Triune God more completely and to love one another in word and deed. It is an apocalyptic end of the age, there is suffering and there will be more. Wars and rumor of wars (check out the Israeli military preparations today), earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, economic collapse and widespread riots---these are NOT the end, but they are the birth pangs. And so the church prays, "Maranatha!" Come Lord Jesus!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Violence II
Yesterday's lectionary contained three stories which centered upon violence. After blogging I went to read through the lectionary texts for the next Sunday I preach. The Gospel picked up a theme to which I alluded: the Cross.
The other day the President was speaking to a group. I did not hear all of his speech, but I heard enough. He kept repeating that "I provided a plan..." and "it is time to end partisan politics." I was struck by two things. One was his definition of 'partisan.' To be partisan, clearly, is to disagree with him. He said this over and over. The other thing is there are lots of people who agree with him. There are lots of people, many of them my friends, who would agree that the opposition to the President is based on petty, even evil, impulses.
I would much prefer to hear the President say that we have a disagreement. They hold to what they believe, but I am pushing what I believe. We are all attempting to do the best, and we read the situation differently. That, he claimed, was the kind of man he was, a 'new way' to do politics. Instead, we get the same demonization. I am disappointed that he ended up being more of the same.
Demonization is also behind the cross of Jesus. The elders and chief priests decide "Jesus must die." So they implement their power to hand Him over to Rome. In our world, such actions are not uncommon. Every day, many people are torutred, murdered and executed for their beliefs. In many lands, Christian faith is a capitol offense. Sadly, there are times when Christians abuse their power, too.
There is no clear delineation between church and state, religion and politics in the Biblical world. Emperors were gods. The citizen burned incense in civic worship. The power to enforce right belief was employed with vicious violence. Jesus was a victim of this, but also a conqueror. He rose, victorious over the false religions and secular powers. His disciples, those who carry their crosses and follow Him, do the same.
In my church, lawyers are used instead of gunmen. I pointed this out to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church. Like the President, she sees herself as the good one, dealing with the crazy right wingers. Like the Tea Party folks talking about Obama, the conservatives are equally harsh with her. Jesus says that some day He will return with the angels and "repay each one for what he has done." Judgment. I believe that she is wrong so I worry for her. I have told her that as well.
Today we have a twelve hour vigil of prayer at our church. We gather all day to ask God to make us the kind of church He wants us to be. We also interceed. We will pray for leaders of church and state. We pray for them because they need it. All of us will be judged. All of us. And our propensity to be blind to our faults and blinder to our adversaries virtues means that judgment may be unpleasant. So we cry for mercy and we seek the truth. It is especially important that we pray for those in error.
The other day the President was speaking to a group. I did not hear all of his speech, but I heard enough. He kept repeating that "I provided a plan..." and "it is time to end partisan politics." I was struck by two things. One was his definition of 'partisan.' To be partisan, clearly, is to disagree with him. He said this over and over. The other thing is there are lots of people who agree with him. There are lots of people, many of them my friends, who would agree that the opposition to the President is based on petty, even evil, impulses.
I would much prefer to hear the President say that we have a disagreement. They hold to what they believe, but I am pushing what I believe. We are all attempting to do the best, and we read the situation differently. That, he claimed, was the kind of man he was, a 'new way' to do politics. Instead, we get the same demonization. I am disappointed that he ended up being more of the same.
Demonization is also behind the cross of Jesus. The elders and chief priests decide "Jesus must die." So they implement their power to hand Him over to Rome. In our world, such actions are not uncommon. Every day, many people are torutred, murdered and executed for their beliefs. In many lands, Christian faith is a capitol offense. Sadly, there are times when Christians abuse their power, too.
There is no clear delineation between church and state, religion and politics in the Biblical world. Emperors were gods. The citizen burned incense in civic worship. The power to enforce right belief was employed with vicious violence. Jesus was a victim of this, but also a conqueror. He rose, victorious over the false religions and secular powers. His disciples, those who carry their crosses and follow Him, do the same.
In my church, lawyers are used instead of gunmen. I pointed this out to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church. Like the President, she sees herself as the good one, dealing with the crazy right wingers. Like the Tea Party folks talking about Obama, the conservatives are equally harsh with her. Jesus says that some day He will return with the angels and "repay each one for what he has done." Judgment. I believe that she is wrong so I worry for her. I have told her that as well.
Today we have a twelve hour vigil of prayer at our church. We gather all day to ask God to make us the kind of church He wants us to be. We also interceed. We will pray for leaders of church and state. We pray for them because they need it. All of us will be judged. All of us. And our propensity to be blind to our faults and blinder to our adversaries virtues means that judgment may be unpleasant. So we cry for mercy and we seek the truth. It is especially important that we pray for those in error.
Friday, July 29, 2011
US Debt Crisis
Having spent many years reading history, I am familiar with the rise and fall of nation states. Studying Biblical history, one comes across great empires which literally have ceased to exist. The awareness that all things are passing is one of a historian's gifts. It allows one to remember that there is nothing permanent on this earth. No ruler. No nation. No state of affairs.
Watching our leadership flounder with addressing the issue of debt ceilings (using their typical blame-game antics) has the stench of decay to me. We are falling apart as 'The' world power and literally within a very short while our status in the world may be changing. As an American that bothers me. As a Christian I have a broader horizon.
It is pretty popular to blame "Washington" and surely the politcal hacks and power brokers have a big part of the blame. But in reality, these people do not drop out of another dimension. Truth be told, they grow up among us and are elected by us. The sum total of our desires and wishes, at some point, get translated, at least some of the time, into their decisions. We are a people who love to live now and pay later. We do not like to delay gratification. Is there any wonder that people who are in debt would produce a government that survives on debt? Today I watched a Saturday Night Live review of the 1990's. At one point they had Dana Carvey doing his Ross Perot. I was laughing away until Carvey/Perot spoke about the budget deficit of 500 million dollars. Like a bucket of cold water! How we long for the good old days when debt was measured in hundreds of millions!
We have long known that we are spending more than we take in. In a country where half the people do not pay taxes and an almost equal percent receive checks it is hard to conceive that it is only the rich getting a free ride. On the other hand, those with money and power do usually find a way to make ends meet.
Whatever the other points of the debate, one question looms large in my mind. How long will the unraveling of America go on before someone rises up and does something? And when they do, how pleasant/unpleasant will it be? I, for one, am not optimistic. But I am hopeful. I look to Jesus.
Watching our leadership flounder with addressing the issue of debt ceilings (using their typical blame-game antics) has the stench of decay to me. We are falling apart as 'The' world power and literally within a very short while our status in the world may be changing. As an American that bothers me. As a Christian I have a broader horizon.
It is pretty popular to blame "Washington" and surely the politcal hacks and power brokers have a big part of the blame. But in reality, these people do not drop out of another dimension. Truth be told, they grow up among us and are elected by us. The sum total of our desires and wishes, at some point, get translated, at least some of the time, into their decisions. We are a people who love to live now and pay later. We do not like to delay gratification. Is there any wonder that people who are in debt would produce a government that survives on debt? Today I watched a Saturday Night Live review of the 1990's. At one point they had Dana Carvey doing his Ross Perot. I was laughing away until Carvey/Perot spoke about the budget deficit of 500 million dollars. Like a bucket of cold water! How we long for the good old days when debt was measured in hundreds of millions!
We have long known that we are spending more than we take in. In a country where half the people do not pay taxes and an almost equal percent receive checks it is hard to conceive that it is only the rich getting a free ride. On the other hand, those with money and power do usually find a way to make ends meet.
Whatever the other points of the debate, one question looms large in my mind. How long will the unraveling of America go on before someone rises up and does something? And when they do, how pleasant/unpleasant will it be? I, for one, am not optimistic. But I am hopeful. I look to Jesus.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Praying in Public
Last night I was the designated Pray-er at the Southern Legislative Conference. It is a gathering of State Congressemen from thirteen states in the south east section of our nation. They had a formal mela and paraded the flag of each state present. It was pretty exciting. I was tempted to begin with a joke about religion and politics, but decided it might send the wrong message. Instead, I said what I usually say in such circumstances.
I do not mind praying in public. I do refuse to make generic prayers. Some years ago an Episcopal Bishop was invited to serve as one of the people who prayed at the Obama inauguration. The bishop, someone with whom I have had e-mail contact in times past, made it clear that it was his intent to pray generically. He did not want to 'force' his Christian faith on others. I told him that if he planned to do that, if he had any integrity, he would also not wear his clergy shirt and collar. The bishop never did respond, as much as he and his buddies talk about "dialogue" they generally prefer to be listened to. I did see him pray on TV that day in his "full epsicopal garb", but my recollection is people were not paying much attention. The crowd seemed to all be chattering away. Maybe just as well, when churchmen dress up like churchmen but 'pray' like they aren't, maybe its best that no one listens.
I made the decision years ago that I would not do that. I would not deny Jesus and pray to "God" as if I had no idea what the content of the word "God" is. I also would not fail to pray in public the way I pray in private. However, I do think people deserve respect, even people of different faiths. So, I begin by acknowledging that there are people in the room of different faiths and perhaps no faith. I say that I want to respect that. Some Christians believe that all other faiths are little better than demonic. I am not inclined to that. (I have wrestled with that one in several previous posts. Enough to say, I think God is in charge of dealing with the errors of other religions and the errors of sincere 'other'believing people.) I think showing respect is the best way to garner respect.
Then, I tell people that I will pray out of a context of the Jewish Bible through the lense of the New Testament and faith in Jesus. That is my Bible and He is my Lord. I cannot and will not pray as though I were a minister of civil religion. Last night I prayed for wisdom and courage for these leaders. I asked God to help them know what is right and do what is right. I also prayed forgiveness for the failure to do right. I think important people in politics have many challenges. I think they are accountable for what they say and do, not only to citizens, but to Almighty God, the Creator and Judge. I think they need prayer, maybe even more prayer other folks.
I prayed in thanks for the blessings we take for granted in America, not just food but lots of good food. I prayed for those who prepared it and those who serve it. The 'invisible' people whom we also take for granted. I prayed that we would see them as models (think Jesus at the Last Supper). I hoped my prayer was sincere and I hoped God heard it. I hoped some how it was a means whereby a life was touched.
As we left last night, a yonug man came up to me and energetically explained that he had learned something that night. He told me that he was in Rotary and other civil groups and he now had a way to be respectful of others while maintaining his own integrity when he was asked to pray. He was pleased. So was I. God touched someone.
I do not mind praying in public. I do refuse to make generic prayers. Some years ago an Episcopal Bishop was invited to serve as one of the people who prayed at the Obama inauguration. The bishop, someone with whom I have had e-mail contact in times past, made it clear that it was his intent to pray generically. He did not want to 'force' his Christian faith on others. I told him that if he planned to do that, if he had any integrity, he would also not wear his clergy shirt and collar. The bishop never did respond, as much as he and his buddies talk about "dialogue" they generally prefer to be listened to. I did see him pray on TV that day in his "full epsicopal garb", but my recollection is people were not paying much attention. The crowd seemed to all be chattering away. Maybe just as well, when churchmen dress up like churchmen but 'pray' like they aren't, maybe its best that no one listens.
I made the decision years ago that I would not do that. I would not deny Jesus and pray to "God" as if I had no idea what the content of the word "God" is. I also would not fail to pray in public the way I pray in private. However, I do think people deserve respect, even people of different faiths. So, I begin by acknowledging that there are people in the room of different faiths and perhaps no faith. I say that I want to respect that. Some Christians believe that all other faiths are little better than demonic. I am not inclined to that. (I have wrestled with that one in several previous posts. Enough to say, I think God is in charge of dealing with the errors of other religions and the errors of sincere 'other'believing people.) I think showing respect is the best way to garner respect.
Then, I tell people that I will pray out of a context of the Jewish Bible through the lense of the New Testament and faith in Jesus. That is my Bible and He is my Lord. I cannot and will not pray as though I were a minister of civil religion. Last night I prayed for wisdom and courage for these leaders. I asked God to help them know what is right and do what is right. I also prayed forgiveness for the failure to do right. I think important people in politics have many challenges. I think they are accountable for what they say and do, not only to citizens, but to Almighty God, the Creator and Judge. I think they need prayer, maybe even more prayer other folks.
I prayed in thanks for the blessings we take for granted in America, not just food but lots of good food. I prayed for those who prepared it and those who serve it. The 'invisible' people whom we also take for granted. I prayed that we would see them as models (think Jesus at the Last Supper). I hoped my prayer was sincere and I hoped God heard it. I hoped some how it was a means whereby a life was touched.
As we left last night, a yonug man came up to me and energetically explained that he had learned something that night. He told me that he was in Rotary and other civil groups and he now had a way to be respectful of others while maintaining his own integrity when he was asked to pray. He was pleased. So was I. God touched someone.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Barry O'Bama and PLO
I am not a political writer. Don't intend to be. I was touched by the election of Barak Obama in part because as a black man he represented something to Black Americans which deeply resonated. There has been great pain in the Black community and their history has not been easy. I live in Memphis TN so the pain of Black Americans is part of the fabric of our city. The other thing about his election which was powerful was his name. Barak Obama is certainly not a name which one would expect to hear in the USA, especially in light of the global conflicts in which we are engaged. There are a large number of people who think he is Muslim, undercover in the most powerful position in the world. I am not one of those. In fact, based on extensive dealings with Liberal Christians I am pretty sure that the President is exactly what he claims to be a Liberal Christian. (I set aside the heresy debate for now)
I am a priest in the Episcopal church, so I have regular contact with liberal Christianity. I atttended the National Convention where Gene Robinson was confirmed. I saw the number of people advocating for Palestinians at our convention. There were several resolutions drafted. I was amazed by many things at convention. The attitude toward the Israel question was one of the most shocking and disturbing. I cannot fathom the affection Episcopalian Progressives harbor for the Palestinians.
A priest of our diocese once did some public speaking on the Middle East. When asked what I thought I responded, "If you do not have a PhD in Middle Eastern studies you are better off keeping your mouth shut." I still think that is true. But we live in a world where we have to make decisions based on partial understanding all the time. So I am going to open my mouth, with some trepidation.
The last week we have learned our President is Irish. Not much had been made of that prior to his recent trip. It is a bit jarring to have the public narrative suddenly shift. What was more jarring to me was the 'Irish' President's declaration (earlier that week) that Israel needed to give back land to the Palestinians so there can be peace. A return to the 1967 borders, he indicated, was the starting place. Israel's response: those borders are indefensible. I do not see anything in recent history to question that assessment. I think the President is wrong and has put Israel in an even more precarious situation.
My daughter made a statement at dinner last night when this came up. "We will kill America." Her point is theological. What we (US) do to Israel will impact how God treats us. I have heard much debate around that premise. I happen to agree with her. My degree of certitude, however, is moderate. I do not cling to this the way I cling to the resurrection, for example. So, I am disturbed by what is taking place right now. I think Israel is in a very difficult position and I think the President has made it more difficult. I am not as clear what God thinks about all this. Like I said, there are easily a dozen different positions on the question. Christians can, and do, disagree. But it is still an important question.
The theological question, voiced by my daughter, is the one which captures my mind. Is it true that the covenant with Abraham means that the US should support the existance of Israel as a nation? Is it true that Israel the present nation is connected to the Biblical promises to Israel the ancient people? Have the Middle Eastern nations intentionally kept the Palestinians in dire circumstance so that they are an 'excuse' to hate Israel? Is the political unrest in the Middle East a turn toward greater hostility to the Jewish people and the state of Israel? My reading of the Biblical narrative leads me to a pro-Israel position. My limited understanding of the Middle East makes me worry about the future of the tiny state of Israel. We live in a changing world. Nation states rise and fall, appear and disappear. I wonder if Israel will last as a nation.
I am a priest in the Episcopal church, so I have regular contact with liberal Christianity. I atttended the National Convention where Gene Robinson was confirmed. I saw the number of people advocating for Palestinians at our convention. There were several resolutions drafted. I was amazed by many things at convention. The attitude toward the Israel question was one of the most shocking and disturbing. I cannot fathom the affection Episcopalian Progressives harbor for the Palestinians.
A priest of our diocese once did some public speaking on the Middle East. When asked what I thought I responded, "If you do not have a PhD in Middle Eastern studies you are better off keeping your mouth shut." I still think that is true. But we live in a world where we have to make decisions based on partial understanding all the time. So I am going to open my mouth, with some trepidation.
The last week we have learned our President is Irish. Not much had been made of that prior to his recent trip. It is a bit jarring to have the public narrative suddenly shift. What was more jarring to me was the 'Irish' President's declaration (earlier that week) that Israel needed to give back land to the Palestinians so there can be peace. A return to the 1967 borders, he indicated, was the starting place. Israel's response: those borders are indefensible. I do not see anything in recent history to question that assessment. I think the President is wrong and has put Israel in an even more precarious situation.
My daughter made a statement at dinner last night when this came up. "We will kill America." Her point is theological. What we (US) do to Israel will impact how God treats us. I have heard much debate around that premise. I happen to agree with her. My degree of certitude, however, is moderate. I do not cling to this the way I cling to the resurrection, for example. So, I am disturbed by what is taking place right now. I think Israel is in a very difficult position and I think the President has made it more difficult. I am not as clear what God thinks about all this. Like I said, there are easily a dozen different positions on the question. Christians can, and do, disagree. But it is still an important question.
The theological question, voiced by my daughter, is the one which captures my mind. Is it true that the covenant with Abraham means that the US should support the existance of Israel as a nation? Is it true that Israel the present nation is connected to the Biblical promises to Israel the ancient people? Have the Middle Eastern nations intentionally kept the Palestinians in dire circumstance so that they are an 'excuse' to hate Israel? Is the political unrest in the Middle East a turn toward greater hostility to the Jewish people and the state of Israel? My reading of the Biblical narrative leads me to a pro-Israel position. My limited understanding of the Middle East makes me worry about the future of the tiny state of Israel. We live in a changing world. Nation states rise and fall, appear and disappear. I wonder if Israel will last as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)