Consider the Symbols of December!

December is a time when we can experience a real conflict between faith and culture. The alarming fact is how few actually recognize the tug-of-war for our hearts and minds.

There have been some who go to battle over the protection of the name of the season. Beginning soon after Thanksgiving, arguments in defense of “the Christmas Season” can be heard. These come in the form of attacks against friends and family who wish each other “Happy Holidays”. Practicing Christians can take on the challenge as a righteous cause; not realizing the error of their ways. Truth is, these defenders of the faith turn their backs on the Church’s Advent Season. On December 24^th the challenge really comes to a climax, when the secular holiday season comes to an end, and the Church’s Christmas Season is only beginning.

Then, consider the symbols of the season. For over 45 years the U.S. Post Office has distinguished between the religious and the secular symbols of December. There are stamps that yearly picture the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus. These stamps are produced for those who wish to display a symbol of faith on their correspondence. There are also secular options which have pictured the evergreen tree, the poinsettia, the reindeer, the toy train, and the list goes on.

Sad to say, when entering a Christian Church during the month of December, one is more likely to find the pagan symbol (the evergreen tree) circled with poinsettias than a scene depicting the birth of the Christ Child.

And if asked to name the tree found there, most would call it a Christmas Tree; although it has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus; and everything to do with the pagan observance of the winter solstice.

So, my fellow Christians, do not be offended if I make reference to the Holiday Tree, rather than the Christmas tree. It is just one way I attempt to attribute to Jesus, what belongs to Jesus.

Follow Me!

After the killing at Fort Hood in Texas, many have asked if it is possible for a Muslim to serve faithfully in the United States Military. In answer, one young solder defended his service saying he is "first an American, and secondly a Muslim". This statement was given as an assurance to the public. When hearing him on the radio, I was led to understand how so many Christians are just as comfortably serving in the military.

Most Muslims believe it is against Islam to take up arms against fellow Muslims. In order to fight in Afganistan and Iraq they must, to a certain extent, put their faith aside.
Followers of Jesus, (he who extends the Jewish law "You shall not kill" to include "You shall not hate"), must also shelf their Christianity in order to take up arms. Only in placing ones national loyalty first and ones discipleship second is the door open to the obedience without question demanded in today's military subscription.

I do not find any qualifications in the call "follow me!" Placing discipleship second to anything means we have made provision for idolatry.

Sacrifical trust: taking the risk!

Having served on the Board of Directors of both public and private not-for-profit organizations, some certainly work better than others. All must be incorporated by the state; and must therefore have elected officers and a constitution. I have learned that organizations that make the least references to their legal documents are probably the most healthy.

When a School Board of Directors or a congregational council begin to pull out their copies of the constitution, you can bet there is trouble. And that trouble is an unhealthy lack of trust.

In our public discussions, some Americans, regularly refer to The Constitution of the United States.
And what is often heard next is: "That is unconstitutional!" As the U.S. document begins with the powers and responsibilities of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; it should be easy to see the assumption is that no one (or two) were to be trusted. "That is unconstitutional" is the cry of mistrust. Some Christians, who have a tendency to be legalistic, will be heard quoting form various constitutions. Others who focus more on the Gospel (as taught and lived by Jesus) are led by His Spirit to sacrificial trust. Not blind trust, but a trust that is beyond the comprehension of those who are not disciples.

This weekend, the Christian historian Martin Marty was in town. In a lecture given at a local Lutheran congregation, Marty mentioned that great leaders are those who are able to elicit sacrificial trust. Great leaders are open to taking a risk and trust in what can be.
In recent times, people like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, and Susan B. Anthony are examples of trusting sacrificially.

Two phrases of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution challenge us to trust in what can be.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice....promote the general welfare." Justice is a moving target. What was accepted as justice in 1787 had changed by 1887 and even more-so by 1987. (an example being our voting rights legislation). So is the promotion of the general Welfare a never ending and changing task. Both call for leaders who are able to take us beyond our fears to trust in what can be. A more perfect union. And that isn't unconstitutional!

HATE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN VALUE!

This past weekend was an eight year anniversary of 9-11. After all the memorials, there was a demonstration in Washington D.C.. Those who came answered the call to regain the unity the country felt on the days after that tragic event in 2001. There have been many comments about this 9-12 gathering. Many criticized those participating for a divisive voice rather than a uniting voice. I, however, believe the organizers succeed in taping the feeling that unified the majority of Americans in 2001.

After 9-11, you may remember President Bush going to ground-zero. There he made a promise to the American people. It was in the form of a warning to the (yet unnamed) source of the violence.
Bush said: "The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." What we heard was our leader saying that we would hunt down the responsible parties, and get them. The feeling that he taped was a hatred that lasted through the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

This weekend, that same emotion was tapped by organizers of the 9-12 event. From those who arrived in Washington D.C. came fourth a hatred of the Congress, a black President, and any who disagree with them and support social programs to feed the hungry, to offer health care to the sick, to provide affordable housing etc.. The signs they carried, like: "We come unarmed (this time)", and a black-faced image of the President with a swastika reading "Change we don't need"
conveyed the hate that united them. I can only imagine that some consider themselves Christian. Yet, the Jesus I find in the Bible would not display such degrading and threatening images. The Jesus of the New Testament would unite us in love and compassion. Hate is not a Christian value!

Where Jesus Promises We Will Find The Holy

In his book, "The Politics of Jesus", Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. speaks of the needs of people as being "holy". Many Christians find "the holy" in places, words and actions. A worship space can be a holy place. The Bible is a holy book. And the sacramental events of Baptism and Holy Communion are holy actions. we call them holy because we know the promise of God's presence in The gathering of the church, in the WORD, and in the Sacramants.

Dr. Hendricks points us to Matthew 25 where Jesus says: "whatever you do for the least of these...you do for me". There he would have us realize that Jesus promises his presence in the needs of the poor, the naked, the sick. And therefore, "peoples needs are holy"!

On the question of Jesus' politics, Hendricks writes:

The principles of Jesus’ politics are rooted in the most fundamental ethics of the Bible…..

The first is mishpat, “justice”, the establishment or restoration of fair, equitable, and harmonious relationships in society. In its purest form this ethic holds that everyone has the same inalienable right as anyone else to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and wholeness; the same right of freedom from exploitation and oppression and every form of victimization. Mishpat also means” judgment” in the sense of setting in balance—that is, resolving—conflicts in a just and equitable fashion with full rights of all in mind, be they social, economic, political, or religious.

Then there is saduqah, “righteousness”, behavior that faithfully fulfills the responsibilities of relationship, both with God and with humanity. Or to put it another way, sadiqah / righteousness is the loving and just fulfillment of our responsibilities to others as the ultimate fulfillment of our responsibility to God.

A third foundational ethic of Jesus’ politics is hesed, “steadfast love”, which underlies his rearticulation of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 in his seminal pronouncement of Matthew 22:37-40: “You shall love your lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind…And…You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. Jesus considered these the greatest of all God’s commandments and the epitome of “all the law and prophets”. Nesed, mishpat, and sadiqah are all implied and reflected in these commandments.

These are the base ethics of the politics of Jesus. However, they can be encapsulated in this one animating principle: Treat the people and their needs as holy.

"Justice and Liberality"

Have you ever realized how liberal a document is our Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." This same spirit of liberalism was expressed in the personal statement of the first President George Washington: "As mankind become more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of the civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality."

O course, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were originally only granted to white male landowners. But, over the years, our liberality has been extended to include more of our citizens.

As we are now engaged in a conversation as to whether health care should, or should not, be extended to all our citizens, the liberal foundation on which this nation was built is being challenged. That first unalienable right of "life" is being threatened, as millions of our citizens have no health insurance. At present we see the classical struggle between the interests of business (insurance companies, health care industry, Pharmaceuticals), and those who fear the loss of a privileged position as the insured majority, against those whose lives are in jeopardy.
Consider that the signers of the Declaration of Independence did not list as an unalienable right, wealth, privilege, or dominance.

The wealthy, the privileged, and those who are in position to dominate our social order are not likely to be counted as the liberators among us. Such as these will have a great investment in the status quo. "Justice and liberality" will not be high on their agenda. So if America is to be "among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality", (as George Washington hoped), we must actively encourage expanding the protections of our civil government in ways like universal health care.

Ask A Care Giver?

In recent days there has been a vocal reaction to one aspect of one proposal by the United States House of Representatives. Found in the work toward Health Care Reform is the idea of covering "end of life" counseling.

Those with such a negative reaction, have seemed to think that this provision would lead to a sooner death for our weak and aged citizens. Some have even called this concept a license to kill.

For a valuable perspective on end of life counseling, I would encourage anyone to contact a physician, a nurse, or a hospital chaplin. These people have all dealt with the dying and have experience and knowledge of those who were prepared and who had prepared their families.The foresight to choose someone to make our decisions when we are no longer able brings a substantial peace at the time of death. To know your expressed wishes will be carried out is comforting. And the ability to deny extreme measures in advance can be a freeing gift to our families.

A provision that would cover the cost of a physicians consultation with the dying could extend this peace and comfort to many more families. Christian congregations are frequently offering classes for preparing an "advance directive". A full and honest discussion, now, can relieve the fear any of us may feel at the time of our death.

What has happened to civil discourse?

At present we are engaged in a public discussion of health care in the United States. Under our current situation, most who have health insurance, have it provided through their employment. The result is that the unemployed and under employed are likely to have no coverage. This is a population that exceeds 40 million people. The spectrum of suggested solutions is numerous.

Those who are comfortably covered may defend the status quo; (since it is working for them). Although securely insured, some may feel the present system is unjust, since so many others are living at risk. Those without insurance, of course, would appreciate the comfort and security of knowing an illness would not automatically bankrupt them and their families.

As various possibilities are being discussed the language used has included slanderous accusations, deceptive characterizations of others positions, shout-downs, and other rude behaviors. These actions mostly likely grow out of fear. A fear of loosing ones privileged position under the status quo. A fear of having the current inequalities exposed as unjust.
A fear that someone might get something for nothing.

The only answer I would offer is allowing fear to be replaced by faith. Faith that believes a civil and honest discussion can lead to a God pleasing justice. Faith that trust if my position is honorable and true, I need not slander and miss-represent a differing viewpoint. Faith that risks “Someone getting something for nothing” might actually be God’s will. After all, isn’t that a pretty good definition of divine grace? Which begs the question: What would Jesus have me do?

NO GREATER LOVE

Behind the Veteran’s Administration building, in Salem, Oregon, you can find what has become know as "memorial walkway". This is a pathway among memorials to various wars and military actions of the United States. The World War I memorial has a statue of a foot solder with rifle and bayonet. The inscription on the marble base reads: “ there is no greater love than to lay down ones life.” John 15:13

While walking past, I was challenged to wonder if this is what Jesus really had in mind? Is Jesus saying that as he died we shall die also? Is taking a gun into war, to kill and be killed, the greatest expression of God’s love?

The quote “no greater love” is found in the Gospel of John chapter 15. This is where we find Jesus using the image of the grape vine and branches. “I am the vine, you are the branches,” he says. “Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit.” (John 15:5), and
“I appoint you to go and bear much fruit” (John 15:16), then finally: “I am giving you these commandments so that you may love one another (John 15:17). It is in the middle of his discourse on the vine and branches that Jesus says: “This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down ones life for one’s friends”. (John 15:12+13)

Because Jesus is impressing upon his disciples that they are to be continually connected to him for life; and that life is validated in the production of fruit – it follows that he would want them to have long and productive lives. In fact, Jesus only speaks of death when he says that the non-productive branches (those that do not bear fruit) will be cut off all together.

When Jesus says: “Love one another as I have loved you”, it runs counter to logic that he is meaning, “go die for one another.” For one reason, he is speaking well before his own crucifixion. For another reason, the word for love does not imply a one-time event. Rather, the idea Jesus is expressing is a life of love. Jesus intends theirs to be a continual life of loving as he had loved them, connected to him and bearing much fruit.

In this context, “laying down ones life for others” would most likely mean to put aside ones personal interests; in order to take up someone else’s. Here I find a theme also present in statements like, “those who loose their lives will find them”. (Mark 16:25)
We are called to put aside our lives of self-service and live as a servant to others. In self-giving service we find the life Jesus intends for us to have. After all, as Paul writes: “Jesus emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7)

Think on these things!

The first words Jesus speaks to his disciples in the new testament are "follow me".
The last words recorded by Matthew begin "Go and make disciples"(or followers).
How nice to have this short, clear, and practical directive from Jesus.

And yet there are so many of us who seem to listen other voices. So many times when we are following other footsteps.

Paul attempts to encourage our discipleship. One of my favorite of Paul's attempts is found in his letter to the Christians at Phillipi.
"Beloved,
whatever is true,
whatever is honorable,
whatever is just,
whatever is pure,
whatever is pleasing,
whatever is commendable,
if there is any excellence, and
if there is anything worthy of praise,
think about these things
(Phil 4:8)

How often is our attention directed at earthly ways and interests!
Paul does not say:
whatever will impress others,
whatever can be successfully promoted,
whatever will produce a profit,
whatever advances our interests,
whatever is Republican (or Democratic),
whatever is constitutional,
whatever a majority will support,
think on these things.

When Jesus says "Follow me", it is in direct challenge to the agendas, the ideologies, the corporate interests and the political aspirations of this world.
Where are your thoughts?

Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven!

Richard Stearns, in his new book “The Hole In Our Gospel” writes about the Kingdom on earth. This is what Jesus meant when he prayed. Charity, equity, and mercy are the marks of the kingdom of the Messiah, and Jesus wanted it to begin on earth. Those who are called to follow Jesus are called to be transforming agents in the world. With the Spirit leading Disciples are part of the kingdom coming; transforming agents of compassion mercy, justice and love.

With this vision of being a transforming force for the kingdom of God, I was struck when reading the beatitudes.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

If the poor in spirit are ever to know that the kingdom is there’s, then it will be the disciples of Jesus that share that good news with them.

“Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.”

If those who mourn are to be comforted, then again, it will be the disciple of Jesus who has the good news to share. But even more than words alone, the disciple of Jesus is called to be his presence. With a hug, a willingness to listen, an intercession on their behalf.

The idea that the kingdom is in our midst is straight from Jesus. His first proclamation is that the Kingdom of God has come near. And then Jesus says: “The Kingdom of God is among you.” (Luke 17:21) Wherever hungry people are being fed, in the name of Jesus. Wherever sick are being healed. Wherever justice is being established. Wherever peacemakers are at work; there is the Kingdom!

And as for the peacemakers, it is the follower of Jesus who is must bless them, by announcing them to be “the children of God.”

Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision U.S.

Church and State

The majority of people do not find any conflict between being a patriotic American and a faithful Christian. There are, however, two groups who do. Their reasons are as different as night and day.

One group, which I will call “secular-progressives”, see a long history of too close a relationship between the
Federal Government and the Christian Faith. They have been among those offended by outward signs of religion in government-supported institutions; such as public schools, the congress and the military. An example is their opposition to prayers in the official acts of these institutions. The “secular-progressive is offended by the imposition of a faith based reasoning in the discussion of same-sex marriage; life issues like abortion and physician assisted suicide; and in the demand that creationism be taught in the public schools. For the secular- progressive the separation of church and state is near absolute. The wall is wide and high.

The other group having a conflict between being a Christian and a flag-waving American are some who see a need to choose. Either you place the United States Constitution above everything else; or you accept unconditional discipleship to the Jesus of the Bible. This group can also be offended as outward signs of the Christian faith are used by government institutions.
Prayers and benedictions, would be reserved for the Church to use within the community of faith alone. Not assuming, for a moment, that God will is being done in and through the government. For these disciples of Jesus, the separation of Church and state protects the people of God. Allowing them to challenge the policies of the state. And not assuming that any action or policy for children, the poor, the ill and the elderly among us is automatically in accordance to discipleship to Jesus.

Both of these groups support a strong wall between the Church and state. One wants to protect the state from the Church. The other wants to protect the Church from the state.

Question: Where should an individual disciple of Jesus position him or herself?

What should be the ultimate truth for my life; the constitution of the United States, or the words and deeds of the Jesus found in the Scriptures? When it comes to the expending of our common wealth (for instruments of war, for feeding hungry people, for offering health care, for educating our youth) what will guide our dicisions?