One of the sad facts about American Christianity is that many Christians are ignorant of the political nature of Jesus’ message. Preferring to see Jesus in only spiritual terms, and his message as only about salvation and heaven, we often miss the significance of Jesus as a political figure. I don’t mean to suggest that we should see Jesus like we see politicians today. Rather, we should gain a better understanding of the historical reality that Jesus preached a political and prophetic message that constantly challenged the political leaders of his day.
In being a prophetic and political voice, Jesus was carrying forth the traditions of Israel’s prophets, who were called by God to confront the leaders of Israel with their injustices. These leaders, who were to be the shepherds and caretakers of God’s people, were charged by God to govern people with justice, to strengthen the weak, to feed the hungry, and to shelter the displaced and homeless. These leaders were charged by God to be generous in their leadership, and they were judged by God when they kept their positions through political compromises with the rich and powerful. When Israel’s leaders failed in their God ordained responsibilities, the prophets served as the voice of God’s judgment.
It is this same prophetic and political message that must continually challenge the politicians of our day. In many respects, our government leaders have failed in their faithful roles as shepherds of the people, for they have failed to feed the sheep, to strengthen the weak, and failed to heal the sick. Like the political leaders judged by Jesus, they have cared for themselves and their political agendas and friends.
In a year in which we have a serious choice to make concerning the political direction of our nation, we should be asking our leaders some very serious questions about their leadership. Why can’t the richest country in the world provide health care for all? Why can’t we provide sustainable jobs that pay salaries to help people provide for their families? Why are we giving more and more money to military spending and less to social programs? Why do our leaders side with corporations and abandon the people who elected them to office? Why don’t these leaders work for creative solutions to solve our more basic and needful problems?
Many of our politicians like to talk about moral values, especially around election time. Abortion, gay marriage, and other issues are usually those that are at the forefront of the debate. While these are moral issues, the greatest moral crisis facing our nation is not abortion, and it is certainly not gay marriage. The greatest moral issue that faces us today, and one about which Jesus spoke the most, is poverty. Consider the following statistics related to the issue of poverty.
One in every six children in America lives in poverty; that’s 13 million children. Thirty-six million people live below the poverty line. About 4 million families exist in a chronic state of hunger. Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance coverage; 8.4 million of these are children. These are tragic statistics, but they do not even scratch the surface for they do not reveal the desperate problem of inadequate housing and a substandard education.
The scandal in all of this is that our political leaders are not solving these real problems because they spend their time blaming each other instead of working together to provide real leadership and permanent solutions to the problem of poverty.
We have the power to change things, if we only will. Like Jesus, we need to have a sincere consciousness about the plight of people in our country, especially the poor. In developing such a consciousness, we must hold our leaders accountable until they make real progress in solving the poverty of this nation, and indeed, our world.
Poverty is not just a political issue. It is not just an economic issue. It is a moral and spiritual issue; the one about which Jesus and the prophets were most concerned. We have a moral and godly responsibility to care about this issue and especially the people caught in the seemingly inescapable web of poverty. To do so is to live the real political message of Jesus.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
A Candidate’s Religion Should be Personal, not Political
As I sat drinking my coffee one morning, I watched the early news broadcast on a cable news station where they were interviewing everyday folk in a local diner on the day of one of the recent presidential primaries. The interviewer was asking patrons of the restaurant about who they would choose as their candidate for President and why they were choosing that particular contender. Most were concerned about the economy, or about immigration, or about the war in Iraq. Yet the response of one woman caught my attention and almost caused me to spill my morning cup.
When asked for whom she would vote, this particular voter responded with the name of the candidate of her choice, and when asked why, she simply replied that he would be the right person to turn America back to religion. I thought I had actually misheard what she had said, but I was wrong. She had said what I thought she said and she was sincere. Yet, what concerned me most, and ought to concern all of us, is that this is a sentiment that seems to be growing among more conservative evangelical Christians.
I have been forthright in stating very clearly that religious people are free, and should remain free, to vote their religious consciences, as I assume this woman will do. And, there is certainly nothing wrong with voting for a person because that candidate is religious. The problem is when we confuse the personal faith of a public official, especially one who may hold the highest office in our democracy, with the idea that he or she should be the religious leader of our republic. In other words, while a President’s personal faith may be important to a block of voters, this does not mean that the President should be the one who leads America back to religion, as if religion has somehow vacated our country.
There are some very important reasons that such a distinction must be kept. First, America, as I have written in the past, was founded on the principle of the separation of Church and State. Learning from the long history of religious violence and oppression in Europe, the founders of this nation, while affirming the importance of religion, drew a clear line between the roles of the Church and the State. That line is always hard to keep clear, but it becomes very blurry when political candidates are valued foremost for their religious views.
Second, the Constitution gives many roles and authorities to the President of the United States, but nowhere in this founding document is the President given authority to serve as a religious leader of the nation. There are certainly times in the life and struggle of a nation where the President symbolically serves a quasi-pastoral function, giving comfort to those who have suffered. Moreover, the President, by virtue of the power of the office, must act justly and make just legislation, which can have religious correlations. But in no way does the President serve as the religious leader of America.
Third, and perhaps most important for the modern era of American life, the multicultural fabric of our society has also produced a multi-religious civilization in which all should have freedom of religion and equal rights under the law. While the personal religious choice of a President is his or hers to make, and he or she may find strength in that faith in carrying out the role of President, the President cannot become the promoter of religion, for inevitably this will lead to the endorsement of one religion over others. In a democracy of religious diversity, to promote one religious perspective over others would result in the suppression, and perhaps oppression, of other religious views.
The opinion this woman shared may be innocent and well-meaning. Yet her outlook has recently become a political reality when one presidential candidate made the bold statement that the Constitution should be amended to reflect the Bible. Such a statement presents real problems for a democratic nation where religious faith and government authority are to remain separate. This may be a statement that a pastor is free to make from a pulpit, but it is not a declaration a candidate for President should make.
In a democracy, where the power over government rests with the vote of each citizen, the fundamental belief is that people can make reasonable and moral choices. Thus, while history demonstrates that humans will always search for God through religion, moral choices are not solely dependent on religion or on a person who is a religious leader. The key to a just and moral society is finding the common moral ground on which just legislation is made to achieve the common good, religious or not.
When asked for whom she would vote, this particular voter responded with the name of the candidate of her choice, and when asked why, she simply replied that he would be the right person to turn America back to religion. I thought I had actually misheard what she had said, but I was wrong. She had said what I thought she said and she was sincere. Yet, what concerned me most, and ought to concern all of us, is that this is a sentiment that seems to be growing among more conservative evangelical Christians.
I have been forthright in stating very clearly that religious people are free, and should remain free, to vote their religious consciences, as I assume this woman will do. And, there is certainly nothing wrong with voting for a person because that candidate is religious. The problem is when we confuse the personal faith of a public official, especially one who may hold the highest office in our democracy, with the idea that he or she should be the religious leader of our republic. In other words, while a President’s personal faith may be important to a block of voters, this does not mean that the President should be the one who leads America back to religion, as if religion has somehow vacated our country.
There are some very important reasons that such a distinction must be kept. First, America, as I have written in the past, was founded on the principle of the separation of Church and State. Learning from the long history of religious violence and oppression in Europe, the founders of this nation, while affirming the importance of religion, drew a clear line between the roles of the Church and the State. That line is always hard to keep clear, but it becomes very blurry when political candidates are valued foremost for their religious views.
Second, the Constitution gives many roles and authorities to the President of the United States, but nowhere in this founding document is the President given authority to serve as a religious leader of the nation. There are certainly times in the life and struggle of a nation where the President symbolically serves a quasi-pastoral function, giving comfort to those who have suffered. Moreover, the President, by virtue of the power of the office, must act justly and make just legislation, which can have religious correlations. But in no way does the President serve as the religious leader of America.
Third, and perhaps most important for the modern era of American life, the multicultural fabric of our society has also produced a multi-religious civilization in which all should have freedom of religion and equal rights under the law. While the personal religious choice of a President is his or hers to make, and he or she may find strength in that faith in carrying out the role of President, the President cannot become the promoter of religion, for inevitably this will lead to the endorsement of one religion over others. In a democracy of religious diversity, to promote one religious perspective over others would result in the suppression, and perhaps oppression, of other religious views.
The opinion this woman shared may be innocent and well-meaning. Yet her outlook has recently become a political reality when one presidential candidate made the bold statement that the Constitution should be amended to reflect the Bible. Such a statement presents real problems for a democratic nation where religious faith and government authority are to remain separate. This may be a statement that a pastor is free to make from a pulpit, but it is not a declaration a candidate for President should make.
In a democracy, where the power over government rests with the vote of each citizen, the fundamental belief is that people can make reasonable and moral choices. Thus, while history demonstrates that humans will always search for God through religion, moral choices are not solely dependent on religion or on a person who is a religious leader. The key to a just and moral society is finding the common moral ground on which just legislation is made to achieve the common good, religious or not.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Martin Luther King Jr. was Prophetic Voice for Peace
This past Tuesday, January 15, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have been 79 years of age if he had not been tragically gunned down on April 4, 1968. Dr. King’s legacy is large, and much of the progress we have made in race relations, although still inadequate, is due to his unwavering belief and commitment to justice, freedom, and equality for all.
Yet, while we look back on his life and work with great admiration, many people, and mostly young people, are unaware of his greatness as an orator. Dr. King was perhaps the greatest speech giver of the past century. The depth of his thought, the poetry of his words and phrases, and the cadence of his speech captivated and motivated audiences who listened to his powerful messages.
I have recently been re-reading through and listening to some of these speeches. Of course, we think primarily of his speech at the March on Washington in 1963, where he laid out his dream for an equal America. But perhaps as powerful, but much shorter, was the last speech he gave the night before his death in Memphis. The emotion he must have felt as he talked about seeing the Promised Land of equality, even though he would not get there. More than a public speaker, Dr. King was a Biblical Prophet, whose prophetic voice and message exposed the oppression of governmental policies and practices that failed to secure equality and justice for all.
Yet, while the above mentioned speeches may be commonly known by many people, most would be surprised to know that one of his most memorable speeches was given at historic Riverside Church in New York on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his death. The speech was entitled, “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam.”
I had read the text of this sermon many years ago, but I recently listened to a recording of Dr. King delivering this address. In that speech, Dr. King called for a break in the silence that loudly refused to challenge the American government’s policy in Vietnam through a voice of dissent. He also drew attention to the reality that the war had many more victims than the soldiers killed on both sides, as innocent citizens of Vietnam suffered because of American military strikes and innocent Americans suffered under the economic weight of waging a costly war. Moreover, he accused the U.S. government of maintaining an air of arrogance, believing that it had everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it.
As I listened to some of the poetic statements come from the mouth of this 20th century Prophet, I could not help but hear him delivering this speech today, as if he were still alive. I was taken with how relevant this speech is to the current context of the War in Iraq, calling for an end to the silence, an end to American arrogance, and an end to the war.
But what is so prophetic about Dr. King’s speech about American arrogance and the war in Vietnam, is not only that it foreshadows America’s continued arrogance in how it still relates to the rest of the world, but that it echoes some of the same sentiments that Jesus spoke as he proclaimed a kingdom of alternative values in the face of Roman Imperial power and arrogance. As Jesus called for a reordering of values in his own context, so Dr. King called on America to embrace the values of peace, justice, and humility.
In that sermon at Riverside Church, Dr. King called for “A true revolution of values” that would “lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." He continued by proclaiming that, “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” “There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.”
As we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, may we not only remember his legacy of speaking prophetically the biblical message against prejudice, injustice, and war, but may we also find our prophetic voices that echo his message from a sermon he delivered against the war on February 25, 1967 that called America to execute “another kind of power”; “a moral power… harnessed to the service of peace.”
Yet, while we look back on his life and work with great admiration, many people, and mostly young people, are unaware of his greatness as an orator. Dr. King was perhaps the greatest speech giver of the past century. The depth of his thought, the poetry of his words and phrases, and the cadence of his speech captivated and motivated audiences who listened to his powerful messages.
I have recently been re-reading through and listening to some of these speeches. Of course, we think primarily of his speech at the March on Washington in 1963, where he laid out his dream for an equal America. But perhaps as powerful, but much shorter, was the last speech he gave the night before his death in Memphis. The emotion he must have felt as he talked about seeing the Promised Land of equality, even though he would not get there. More than a public speaker, Dr. King was a Biblical Prophet, whose prophetic voice and message exposed the oppression of governmental policies and practices that failed to secure equality and justice for all.
Yet, while the above mentioned speeches may be commonly known by many people, most would be surprised to know that one of his most memorable speeches was given at historic Riverside Church in New York on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his death. The speech was entitled, “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam.”
I had read the text of this sermon many years ago, but I recently listened to a recording of Dr. King delivering this address. In that speech, Dr. King called for a break in the silence that loudly refused to challenge the American government’s policy in Vietnam through a voice of dissent. He also drew attention to the reality that the war had many more victims than the soldiers killed on both sides, as innocent citizens of Vietnam suffered because of American military strikes and innocent Americans suffered under the economic weight of waging a costly war. Moreover, he accused the U.S. government of maintaining an air of arrogance, believing that it had everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it.
As I listened to some of the poetic statements come from the mouth of this 20th century Prophet, I could not help but hear him delivering this speech today, as if he were still alive. I was taken with how relevant this speech is to the current context of the War in Iraq, calling for an end to the silence, an end to American arrogance, and an end to the war.
But what is so prophetic about Dr. King’s speech about American arrogance and the war in Vietnam, is not only that it foreshadows America’s continued arrogance in how it still relates to the rest of the world, but that it echoes some of the same sentiments that Jesus spoke as he proclaimed a kingdom of alternative values in the face of Roman Imperial power and arrogance. As Jesus called for a reordering of values in his own context, so Dr. King called on America to embrace the values of peace, justice, and humility.
In that sermon at Riverside Church, Dr. King called for “A true revolution of values” that would “lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." He continued by proclaiming that, “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” “There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.”
As we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, may we not only remember his legacy of speaking prophetically the biblical message against prejudice, injustice, and war, but may we also find our prophetic voices that echo his message from a sermon he delivered against the war on February 25, 1967 that called America to execute “another kind of power”; “a moral power… harnessed to the service of peace.”
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Christians Should Respond to the Immigration Debate with the Compassion of Christ
The Christmas Season has once again come and gone. Presents have been opened and exchanged, decorations have been stored for another year, and resolutions have been made to start the New Year. The ever familiar Christmas story lives on in our hearts and minds, narrating for us the incarnation of God into the world in the person of Jesus. Yet, while we celebrate and retell the story with feelings of warmth and comfort, from its beginning to its end the story is a narrative about the rejection of Jesus as a stranger and alien in a foreign land.
Luke tells us that when Jesus was born Mary laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for him in the inn. Matthew narrates a story about a young family having to live a nomadic life because of the threat of governing authorities. Both birth narratives reflect what Jesus knew to be true about his own life, “The Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). Throughout his life, while Jesus gathered a small following, in most cases, he was rejected. The story of the incarnation, then, is a story about how the God of creation had entered into that creation as a rejected alien and stranger.
As the political season heats up, one of the most vital debates raging among the candidates for President is the issue of immigration. I am ill-equipped to answer questions about immigration from a legal stand point, and I see the strengths and weaknesses of various positions on the issue. But as Christians who follow a Savior who himself lived as an alien rejected by his own, I am troubled that many folks are not concerned about developing a compassionate response to the immigration issue.
Since the horror of 9/11, xenophobia has once again raised its ugly head in our country. This fear of foreigners has grown out of a return to a deep-seated and zealous patriotism that has gone too far in its understanding of America as the only culturally pure society. Yet, some blame must also be placed on our fear of not feeling secure and the perception that American culture is under threat. Such xenophobic tendencies may overtly or implicitly influence our feelings about immigrants and our political positions on the issue of immigration.
How might Scripture inform us as we struggle to formulate common sense and faithful Christian responses to the issue of immigration? First, we need to recall God’s commands to Israel regarding aliens in their midst. The Mosaic Law states that God is one “who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.” Moses goes on to command Israel to “love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:17-19).
When we turn to the New Testament, we find that followers of Christ are called citizens of the Kingdom of God, and alien and strangers to the world. The Christian movement negated ethnic differences and crossed boundaries of ethnic separation to welcome all into the Kingdom of God. Jesus consistently reaches out to the outcasts of society, even the Gentiles, who were viewed as ethnically inferior by the religious leaders. Paul reaffirms the breaking down of ethnic divisions by stating that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, as both have been joined together into one new humanity (see Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-22).
One thing we must keep in mind is that most immigrants we see and meet in our communities are not illegal immigrants. They are law abiding people who desire a better economic and political life for themselves and their families. We should remember that at some point in history our ancestors were immigrants to this country pursuing exactly what immigrants to the U.S. seek today. Moreover, we cannot simply blame immigrants for problems such as crime, loss of jobs, or other social problems. These problems would exist even if there were no immigrants.
As people of faith, we should be informed about this important issue and vote what we believe to be our religious conscience. But if we claim to follow Jesus, we need to make sure our views are more informed by the compassion of our faith than the fear our culture feeds us. Our positions on the issues surrounding immigration must not only model the teachings of Jesus on welcoming the strangers and outcasts, they should also be views that see the person of Jesus in every human being. If they do not, we may find ourselves asking Jesus, “when did we see you as a stranger?’ only to hear, “just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:31-46).
(This article also appeared on EthicsDaily.com at http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9925 and on Faith in Public Life at http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/news/2008/01/christians_should_respond_to_t.html)
Luke tells us that when Jesus was born Mary laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for him in the inn. Matthew narrates a story about a young family having to live a nomadic life because of the threat of governing authorities. Both birth narratives reflect what Jesus knew to be true about his own life, “The Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). Throughout his life, while Jesus gathered a small following, in most cases, he was rejected. The story of the incarnation, then, is a story about how the God of creation had entered into that creation as a rejected alien and stranger.
As the political season heats up, one of the most vital debates raging among the candidates for President is the issue of immigration. I am ill-equipped to answer questions about immigration from a legal stand point, and I see the strengths and weaknesses of various positions on the issue. But as Christians who follow a Savior who himself lived as an alien rejected by his own, I am troubled that many folks are not concerned about developing a compassionate response to the immigration issue.
Since the horror of 9/11, xenophobia has once again raised its ugly head in our country. This fear of foreigners has grown out of a return to a deep-seated and zealous patriotism that has gone too far in its understanding of America as the only culturally pure society. Yet, some blame must also be placed on our fear of not feeling secure and the perception that American culture is under threat. Such xenophobic tendencies may overtly or implicitly influence our feelings about immigrants and our political positions on the issue of immigration.
How might Scripture inform us as we struggle to formulate common sense and faithful Christian responses to the issue of immigration? First, we need to recall God’s commands to Israel regarding aliens in their midst. The Mosaic Law states that God is one “who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.” Moses goes on to command Israel to “love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:17-19).
When we turn to the New Testament, we find that followers of Christ are called citizens of the Kingdom of God, and alien and strangers to the world. The Christian movement negated ethnic differences and crossed boundaries of ethnic separation to welcome all into the Kingdom of God. Jesus consistently reaches out to the outcasts of society, even the Gentiles, who were viewed as ethnically inferior by the religious leaders. Paul reaffirms the breaking down of ethnic divisions by stating that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, as both have been joined together into one new humanity (see Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-22).
One thing we must keep in mind is that most immigrants we see and meet in our communities are not illegal immigrants. They are law abiding people who desire a better economic and political life for themselves and their families. We should remember that at some point in history our ancestors were immigrants to this country pursuing exactly what immigrants to the U.S. seek today. Moreover, we cannot simply blame immigrants for problems such as crime, loss of jobs, or other social problems. These problems would exist even if there were no immigrants.
As people of faith, we should be informed about this important issue and vote what we believe to be our religious conscience. But if we claim to follow Jesus, we need to make sure our views are more informed by the compassion of our faith than the fear our culture feeds us. Our positions on the issues surrounding immigration must not only model the teachings of Jesus on welcoming the strangers and outcasts, they should also be views that see the person of Jesus in every human being. If they do not, we may find ourselves asking Jesus, “when did we see you as a stranger?’ only to hear, “just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:31-46).
(This article also appeared on EthicsDaily.com at http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9925 and on Faith in Public Life at http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/news/2008/01/christians_should_respond_to_t.html)
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Incarnation of God Redefines Human Existence
Historians of Christianity are well aware of the fact that as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, the nature of Christ was always at the heart of any theological debates that developed. Yet, you may be surprised to know that in the early days after Jesus departed this earth, and after his first followers died, that the acceptance of Jesus as divine was not a significant problem. Yes, there were some groups, like the Ebionites, who did not accept the divinity of Jesus. But for the most part, Christians believed Jesus to be divine.
The problem for many of these early Christians was accepting that he was human. Such ideas that God could take on human form were deemed by many to be impossible, for how could a god become corporal, incased in a physical body? Moreover, how could a god, believed to be all powerful and all good, take on the flesh of a limited and defiled body?
It is certainly without debate that the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus as human. And yet, despite all of the evidence of his being flesh and blood, we also struggle to see Jesus as a human. Perhaps it is not that we struggle to accept that Jesus was human. The problem is whether we accept his humanity. In other words, while we embrace the fact that Jesus did all the activities that humans do, we may find it very hard to accept Jesus in his humanity, as someone who, at some level, was exactly like us.
There are two obstacles to our accepting Jesus in his humanity. One obstacle is that we somehow think we must see Jesus first as God and second as a human. When we think of Jesus, we automatically think first of his divinity. We may more readily gravitate toward the divine side of Jesus because not to do so may make us seem irreverent and unbelieving.
The second obstacle to our accepting Jesus in his humanity is because we cannot see humanity as good, but only as sinful, weak, and evil. After all, the evidence we see around us proves to us that humanity can be weak, sinful, and evil. This view clouds our understanding of Jesus as a human and can prevent us from seeing Jesus’ humanity.
The key to solving this, I think, is not to look at humanity and then say that Jesus could not have been human like us. The solution is to look at Jesus in his humanity and allow his humanity to show us what it really means to be human. If Jesus was truly human, then we ought to try and understand what it means to be human as he was human.
If Jesus was human, then he had a body. This is an obvious point to make, but making it demonstrates an important truth for us. If Jesus took on human flesh in the incarnation, then we must affirm that human flesh, our bodies are good. This was the problem with many Christians in the early church beginning in the second and third centuries. They could not accept that Jesus was both divine and human, for perfect transcendent divinity cannot take on imperfect and defiled flesh. Yet, this seems to be exactly what the New Testament teaches us about the incarnation. The human body became the home of God.
This has major consequences for how we see ourselves. First, rather than seeing ourselves as souls trapped in worthless bodies waiting to escape, we must affirm that our bodies are good. We have somehow been convinced that our bodies are not good, that they are defiled, and that our goodness as humans is only found in our souls that will eventually escape our evil bodies. But the incarnation of God in Jesus loudly proclaims that human bodily existence is good. This has many implications for how we treat our bodies and how we see life.
But to affirm the humanity of Jesus is also to affirm that Jesus faced the reality of being human. At every twist and turn in his earthly life, Jesus faced the temptation for power, security, and giving up on God’s will for him. And in each temptation there was always the possibility of his failure, and thus the failure of God’s plan for humanity.
But in loving us, God chose to face life as we face life. In the incarnation, God became not only human flesh; God also chose to face human vulnerability. While the mighty acts of God show us a God who is powerful, the greatest power of God is seen in God’s vulnerability, in God’s weakness, in God facing our human struggle. Indeed, without this vulnerability, God cannot truly love us, for to love another is always to become vulnerable.
If God has truly loved the world, then God has become vulnerable to the struggles of this world. God, in the incarnation of Jesus, has become vulnerable to the pain, suffering, weakness, and rejection that humanity faces. And in doing so, God has redefined what it means to be human.
The problem for many of these early Christians was accepting that he was human. Such ideas that God could take on human form were deemed by many to be impossible, for how could a god become corporal, incased in a physical body? Moreover, how could a god, believed to be all powerful and all good, take on the flesh of a limited and defiled body?
It is certainly without debate that the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus as human. And yet, despite all of the evidence of his being flesh and blood, we also struggle to see Jesus as a human. Perhaps it is not that we struggle to accept that Jesus was human. The problem is whether we accept his humanity. In other words, while we embrace the fact that Jesus did all the activities that humans do, we may find it very hard to accept Jesus in his humanity, as someone who, at some level, was exactly like us.
There are two obstacles to our accepting Jesus in his humanity. One obstacle is that we somehow think we must see Jesus first as God and second as a human. When we think of Jesus, we automatically think first of his divinity. We may more readily gravitate toward the divine side of Jesus because not to do so may make us seem irreverent and unbelieving.
The second obstacle to our accepting Jesus in his humanity is because we cannot see humanity as good, but only as sinful, weak, and evil. After all, the evidence we see around us proves to us that humanity can be weak, sinful, and evil. This view clouds our understanding of Jesus as a human and can prevent us from seeing Jesus’ humanity.
The key to solving this, I think, is not to look at humanity and then say that Jesus could not have been human like us. The solution is to look at Jesus in his humanity and allow his humanity to show us what it really means to be human. If Jesus was truly human, then we ought to try and understand what it means to be human as he was human.
If Jesus was human, then he had a body. This is an obvious point to make, but making it demonstrates an important truth for us. If Jesus took on human flesh in the incarnation, then we must affirm that human flesh, our bodies are good. This was the problem with many Christians in the early church beginning in the second and third centuries. They could not accept that Jesus was both divine and human, for perfect transcendent divinity cannot take on imperfect and defiled flesh. Yet, this seems to be exactly what the New Testament teaches us about the incarnation. The human body became the home of God.
This has major consequences for how we see ourselves. First, rather than seeing ourselves as souls trapped in worthless bodies waiting to escape, we must affirm that our bodies are good. We have somehow been convinced that our bodies are not good, that they are defiled, and that our goodness as humans is only found in our souls that will eventually escape our evil bodies. But the incarnation of God in Jesus loudly proclaims that human bodily existence is good. This has many implications for how we treat our bodies and how we see life.
But to affirm the humanity of Jesus is also to affirm that Jesus faced the reality of being human. At every twist and turn in his earthly life, Jesus faced the temptation for power, security, and giving up on God’s will for him. And in each temptation there was always the possibility of his failure, and thus the failure of God’s plan for humanity.
But in loving us, God chose to face life as we face life. In the incarnation, God became not only human flesh; God also chose to face human vulnerability. While the mighty acts of God show us a God who is powerful, the greatest power of God is seen in God’s vulnerability, in God’s weakness, in God facing our human struggle. Indeed, without this vulnerability, God cannot truly love us, for to love another is always to become vulnerable.
If God has truly loved the world, then God has become vulnerable to the struggles of this world. God, in the incarnation of Jesus, has become vulnerable to the pain, suffering, weakness, and rejection that humanity faces. And in doing so, God has redefined what it means to be human.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Jerusalem Should be a City of Peace for People of All Faiths
On May 14, 1948, the modern State of Israel declared its sovereignty as an independent state and a home for the Jewish people. That action opened a flood gate of violence that continues to this day, and it created a human catastrophe as nearly a million Palestinians were forced from their homes and became refugees; a number that, according to the United Nations, has increased exponentially. While attempts at establishing lasting peace have been made on several occasions, none have been successful. What is an authentic Christian response to the Middle East question?
Psalm 122:6 commands us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and clearly peace is at the heart of Jesus’ message that the rule of God has come into the world. Yet, it seems that obstacles to peace for all inhabitants of the land called holy by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have prevented such long term steps toward peace and harmony in the region. Nothing continues to threaten such hopes of peace like religious extremism.
There has been a longtime extremist movement in an American version of Christianity that has played a key role in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, and particularly over the thorny issue of the historic Land of Palestine. While many conservative and fundamentalist Christians hold stringently to the belief that God has ordained the existence of the modern State of Israel, and that Israel should hold onto land at any cost without regard for the humanity of the Palestinians, none is more vocal than the Reverend John Hagee and his movement, Christians United for Israel.
Hagee sees history from only one perspective. His view, which is thoroughly apocalyptic and eschatological, sees human history as moving toward a predestined end, and he argues that the modern State of Israel will play a key role in the apocalyptic end of the world. While he seeks to support his view from the Book of Revelation, and from various texts from the Hebrew Bible, he is very selective in his readings, and he reads only from his own apocalyptic position, placing his narrow theological ideas on the text as a systematic grid through which all of Scripture should be read.
Hagee’s interpretations of Scripture, however, are misguided, and his sermons, accompanied by the colorful, dramatic, and neatly organized charts that disguise his irrational position, are only fictitious expectations about the end times. More tragically, however, he sees apocalyptic war as the inevitable end, and seeks to push the region to that end as quickly as possible.
In spewing his religious extremist rhetoric, Hagee differs little from other religious extremists, who base their understanding of the Middle East conflict solely on religious terms, and who believe the only solution to be a great apocalyptic war in which the followers of God will be victorious over those who are evil. The problem with these positions is that each claims to speak for God and each despises others as evildoers.
While many Christians, and others, have rightly voiced disgust at the hateful rhetoric of extremists from other faiths, rarely have we heard criticism about Hagee’s rhetoric. Even some conservative politicians have attended and have spoken at his rallies. Yet, Hagee fits the description of a false prophet whose intentions are not for peace in Israel, but for annihilation of an oppressed race, the Palestinians. He is about as far away from the teachings of Jesus as one could possibility get on this issue.
The fact of the matter is that since the founding of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the Palestinians, who had peacefully resided there for generations, have been oppressed, ghettoized, and killed by state sponsored acts of terror. Certainly, extremist Palestinian terrorist groups who have acted in horrible violence against innocent Israeli civilians must be held accountable for their horrendous acts. But Israel must also be held responsible for the illegal confiscation of land, the oppression of millions of Palestinians who have been forced from their homes, and the killing of many innocent Palestinians by Israeli armed forces.
I am afraid that our religious, political, and media driven culture has so clouded our understanding of the complex issues surrounding the Middle East conflict that we have gravitated to fanciful beliefs and explanations about the region that have no real grounding in Scripture, and that completely ignore the teachings of Jesus that call us to be peacemakers. Christians who are concerned about the peace of Jerusalem would do much better by being more broadly informed about the complex issues from experts who have studied the history of the conflict, rather than getting their information from someone like John Hagee.
May the God of peace bring shalom, salaam, and peace to Jerusalem for people from all faiths.
(This article also appeared on EthicsDaily.com at http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9965)
Psalm 122:6 commands us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and clearly peace is at the heart of Jesus’ message that the rule of God has come into the world. Yet, it seems that obstacles to peace for all inhabitants of the land called holy by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have prevented such long term steps toward peace and harmony in the region. Nothing continues to threaten such hopes of peace like religious extremism.
There has been a longtime extremist movement in an American version of Christianity that has played a key role in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, and particularly over the thorny issue of the historic Land of Palestine. While many conservative and fundamentalist Christians hold stringently to the belief that God has ordained the existence of the modern State of Israel, and that Israel should hold onto land at any cost without regard for the humanity of the Palestinians, none is more vocal than the Reverend John Hagee and his movement, Christians United for Israel.
Hagee sees history from only one perspective. His view, which is thoroughly apocalyptic and eschatological, sees human history as moving toward a predestined end, and he argues that the modern State of Israel will play a key role in the apocalyptic end of the world. While he seeks to support his view from the Book of Revelation, and from various texts from the Hebrew Bible, he is very selective in his readings, and he reads only from his own apocalyptic position, placing his narrow theological ideas on the text as a systematic grid through which all of Scripture should be read.
Hagee’s interpretations of Scripture, however, are misguided, and his sermons, accompanied by the colorful, dramatic, and neatly organized charts that disguise his irrational position, are only fictitious expectations about the end times. More tragically, however, he sees apocalyptic war as the inevitable end, and seeks to push the region to that end as quickly as possible.
In spewing his religious extremist rhetoric, Hagee differs little from other religious extremists, who base their understanding of the Middle East conflict solely on religious terms, and who believe the only solution to be a great apocalyptic war in which the followers of God will be victorious over those who are evil. The problem with these positions is that each claims to speak for God and each despises others as evildoers.
While many Christians, and others, have rightly voiced disgust at the hateful rhetoric of extremists from other faiths, rarely have we heard criticism about Hagee’s rhetoric. Even some conservative politicians have attended and have spoken at his rallies. Yet, Hagee fits the description of a false prophet whose intentions are not for peace in Israel, but for annihilation of an oppressed race, the Palestinians. He is about as far away from the teachings of Jesus as one could possibility get on this issue.
The fact of the matter is that since the founding of the modern State of Israel in 1948, the Palestinians, who had peacefully resided there for generations, have been oppressed, ghettoized, and killed by state sponsored acts of terror. Certainly, extremist Palestinian terrorist groups who have acted in horrible violence against innocent Israeli civilians must be held accountable for their horrendous acts. But Israel must also be held responsible for the illegal confiscation of land, the oppression of millions of Palestinians who have been forced from their homes, and the killing of many innocent Palestinians by Israeli armed forces.
I am afraid that our religious, political, and media driven culture has so clouded our understanding of the complex issues surrounding the Middle East conflict that we have gravitated to fanciful beliefs and explanations about the region that have no real grounding in Scripture, and that completely ignore the teachings of Jesus that call us to be peacemakers. Christians who are concerned about the peace of Jerusalem would do much better by being more broadly informed about the complex issues from experts who have studied the history of the conflict, rather than getting their information from someone like John Hagee.
May the God of peace bring shalom, salaam, and peace to Jerusalem for people from all faiths.
(This article also appeared on EthicsDaily.com at http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9965)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A Position Opposing Abortion Does Not Make One Pro-Life
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of its most memorable decisions in the Roe v. Wade case. That decision viewed laws that banned abortion as violations of constitutional rights to privacy and gave women the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Since that decision, the issue of abortion has been center stage in each election campaign for President, and the debates that have raged have divided the United States along entrenched partisan lines to the point where both sides feel so passionate about their views that they have misrepresented the other side’s position.
On the one hand, those who hold to a pro-choice stance are often viewed as pro-abortion. While I have never met anyone who feels that abortion is a good thing, I do know many civil minded and deeply faithful people who believe that in a free society where rights are protected, women should be given reproductive choices. I am not saying that I completely agree with them, but I find it improbable that this will ever change. Indeed, while it may be possible that the Roe v. Wade decision will be overturned someday, it is not very probable as this is a well-established law.
But is it necessary to focus on overturning this decision in order to be considered pro-life? In other words, does a position against abortion really make a person pro-life? To be sure, one cannot logically be pro-life and also be for abortion on demand. However, in my mind, a person’s claim to be against abortion does not by definition make that person pro-life. To be pro-life means that a person must be consistently pro-life and not just on the issue of abortion.
Certainly such a position would mean that a person would be against the death penalty, war, and other forms of taking human life. However, in terms of the abortion issue itself, one is not pro-life simply because they are against abortion. Indeed, anyone who wants to decrease the number of abortions in the U.S. each year may be surprised to find out that this may not happen when one votes for a candidate who declares that he or she is against abortion.
While many factors can and do contribute to a woman choosing to have an abortion, economic factors surely play a key role in that decision. In fact, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that three-fourths of the women who have abortions say they cannot support a child. In a 2002 study, AGI also reports that the abortion rate among women who lived below the poverty line was considerably higher than those above the poverty level, and abortion rates decreased as income rates went up. The study states that the abortion rate among poor women was 44 out of every 1,000; while among women in the highest income bracket the abortion rate was 10 out of every 1,000. The report does state that the higher rate was due in part to a higher rate of pregnancies among poorer women, but the data does suggest something about the correlation between economic conditions and abortion rates.
What these figures imply is that women who feel they cannot financially support a child, who are unemployed, or who have no health insurance, would be less likely to abort a child if they had steady livable income and health care. These women may look at the future of their unborn child and see a bleak picture of a child caught in a web of poverty, with little chance of being successful. However, in a stable economic environment, the future for the unborn child might look brighter.
If economic factors play a major role in a woman’s decision to have an abortion, would it not be wise for those who oppose abortion to fight for a culture that promotes the value of the life not only of the unborn child, but also for the one that is born? In other words, should we not force our government officials to be consistent on their pro-life stances by supporting economic policies that are more just toward those caught in poverty? Yet, many of those same politicians who are adamantly against abortion also stand for cuts in taxes for those of higher income and cuts in government programs that might indeed assist a pregnant woman who, without the aid of such programs, would otherwise terminate her pregnancy.
Jesus embraced the children around him declaring that “such is the kingdom of God.” It seems to me that people of faith ought to take a careful look at how a candidate views all issues related to life, especially those issues that affect children, unborn and born. In doing this, we should be careful to look beyond the rhetoric of a candidate who claims to be against abortion to determine if he or she is truly pro-life.
On the one hand, those who hold to a pro-choice stance are often viewed as pro-abortion. While I have never met anyone who feels that abortion is a good thing, I do know many civil minded and deeply faithful people who believe that in a free society where rights are protected, women should be given reproductive choices. I am not saying that I completely agree with them, but I find it improbable that this will ever change. Indeed, while it may be possible that the Roe v. Wade decision will be overturned someday, it is not very probable as this is a well-established law.
But is it necessary to focus on overturning this decision in order to be considered pro-life? In other words, does a position against abortion really make a person pro-life? To be sure, one cannot logically be pro-life and also be for abortion on demand. However, in my mind, a person’s claim to be against abortion does not by definition make that person pro-life. To be pro-life means that a person must be consistently pro-life and not just on the issue of abortion.
Certainly such a position would mean that a person would be against the death penalty, war, and other forms of taking human life. However, in terms of the abortion issue itself, one is not pro-life simply because they are against abortion. Indeed, anyone who wants to decrease the number of abortions in the U.S. each year may be surprised to find out that this may not happen when one votes for a candidate who declares that he or she is against abortion.
While many factors can and do contribute to a woman choosing to have an abortion, economic factors surely play a key role in that decision. In fact, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that three-fourths of the women who have abortions say they cannot support a child. In a 2002 study, AGI also reports that the abortion rate among women who lived below the poverty line was considerably higher than those above the poverty level, and abortion rates decreased as income rates went up. The study states that the abortion rate among poor women was 44 out of every 1,000; while among women in the highest income bracket the abortion rate was 10 out of every 1,000. The report does state that the higher rate was due in part to a higher rate of pregnancies among poorer women, but the data does suggest something about the correlation between economic conditions and abortion rates.
What these figures imply is that women who feel they cannot financially support a child, who are unemployed, or who have no health insurance, would be less likely to abort a child if they had steady livable income and health care. These women may look at the future of their unborn child and see a bleak picture of a child caught in a web of poverty, with little chance of being successful. However, in a stable economic environment, the future for the unborn child might look brighter.
If economic factors play a major role in a woman’s decision to have an abortion, would it not be wise for those who oppose abortion to fight for a culture that promotes the value of the life not only of the unborn child, but also for the one that is born? In other words, should we not force our government officials to be consistent on their pro-life stances by supporting economic policies that are more just toward those caught in poverty? Yet, many of those same politicians who are adamantly against abortion also stand for cuts in taxes for those of higher income and cuts in government programs that might indeed assist a pregnant woman who, without the aid of such programs, would otherwise terminate her pregnancy.
Jesus embraced the children around him declaring that “such is the kingdom of God.” It seems to me that people of faith ought to take a careful look at how a candidate views all issues related to life, especially those issues that affect children, unborn and born. In doing this, we should be careful to look beyond the rhetoric of a candidate who claims to be against abortion to determine if he or she is truly pro-life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)