I have always been a little jealous, but at the same time impressed, with folks who give a lot of time and effort toward praying. I am especially impressed by those who, without any hesitation, put so much faith in the act of prayer. These “prayer warriors” model for the rest of us a relentless belief that God hears our prayers and that God answers our prayers. Indeed, these folks will not only offer continual prayers for life’s challenges, they will see the outcome of those challenges directly related to their prayers.
But I have always struggled with prayer. I know how to pray; at least when it comes to the correct structure, the right language, and the exact tone of the voice. But these are merely surface issues that do not reveal what happens in my mind and heart when I am praying. I struggle to have any sense of assurance that God actually hears my prayers. I guess I am very much like the proverbial person who says that when he prays it feels as if his prayers are not even reaching the ceiling.
It is not for a lack of trying. In fact, at some points during each day I will stop and pray. More often these are short periods when I have moments to myself, but they can also be more extended sessions of prayer when something heavy is weighing on my mind. So, I do consider myself as giving an effort toward the activity of prayer.
But I still have this problem of not really feeling, as do some, as if my prayers really matter that much, either to me or to the people for whom I pray. This is probably the reason why I rarely tell folks that I will pray for them. I am certainly not one of those who when someone requests prayer on facebook, others will post the comment “praying” as if something magical is about to happen by my praying.
For one reason, I am not sure I will remember to pray for them. For another, I’m sort of doubtful that my prayers will do them any good. I am often tempted to say to those who ask me to pray for them, “I don’t think you want me to pray for you. You might be better off asking someone else.”
I don’t mean to be flippant, or cold, or faithless by thinking such thoughts about prayer and my own effectiveness or ineffectiveness at prayer, but this is the reality that I have faced for years in my own Christian journey. I am often unsure how to pray, and I am very often unsure as to whether or not God hears my prayers, and as to whether or not my prayers are that effective.
Perhaps many other folks struggle with prayer, at least at some point in their life. And, if we do struggle with prayer, we may need to be honest with ourselves that this is not only natural, but normative. Admitting this may actually be the first step to moving toward a more authentic prayer life.
But, why, if scripture commands us to pray, do we struggle with prayer?
The obvious answer to this question is that we are human, and prayer, at least as we understand it, does not mesh with our normal way of living as humans. This may be particularly true because we rely so much on science and technology to provide answers to life’s big questions and life’s big struggles.
The problem is also compounded by the fact that in our normal ways of living, interacting, and conversing with other beings, we experience their presence through one or more of our senses. We can see them, hear them, and touch them. There is in most cases a two way conversation, and at least most of the time we are pretty sure that the person with whom we are speaking hears us.
But this does not happen with God. We cannot see God, nor touch God, and although many people claim to have heard God, most of us have not heard the voice of God, at least in ways we hear the voices of others. Our nature as finite human beings who interact with other human beings through verbal and non-verbal communication hinders us from interacting in this way with an infinite being such as God.
I also think we struggle with prayer because we do not know for what we should pray. Of course, there are needs that we and others have, some of which are so great that we cannot help but pray. But even in these situations we really do not know how to pray, and we struggle with the words we should be expressing to God.
The problem here is that the tragic situations that we and our loved ones encounter are periods in which life seems to spin out of control. These times of suffering bring to the surface our doubts about life with God. We move from periods in our life when things are going well, to periods when it seems that our world is crashing in on us.
In these moments of disorientation we really do not know how to pray. May be this is why the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans that in these times when we do not know how to pray, the spirit of God intercedes for us with sighs that are too deep for words.
What Paul is telling us is that the spirit intercedes for us because the spirit knows us and knows our life situations better than we do. The spirit is in tune with what is the heart of God for us and for our world. And, at the heart of God is the love of God that Paul so beautifully describes as never being separated from us. This means that no matter what we encounter in life, God is always on our side, even if we do not realize that God is there or that God hears our prayers.
But there is also something very important we should understand about prayer that we often do not consider. Prayer is not really about us.
Our prayers, whether we feel they are reaching God or not, have nothing to do with who we are, but have everything to do with who God is. In prayer, we are not saying to God that we are worthy of our requests. Rather, we are saying to God that we are helpless without the God who loves us and who has promised us hope and joy.
In this regard, prayer is not about what I want and need for my life; it is about where God is leading me in my life. I may struggle to believe that God hears my prayers or that God will answer my prayers, but the hope that all of us have is that God is with us, loving us, and moving us to places where God desires to use us, even if we do not understand.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
What Would Jesus Say to Our Leaders?
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.
At a time when our national leaders seem to be hesitating and playing political games over the debt ceiling, taxes, spending, and the budget 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 do many of our leaders side with big companies instead of with those who need quality and affordable health care? Why do they listen to the lunatic fringe of the right wing misinformation machine, instead of standing firmly on what is right and just for the vulnerable of our nation? Why don’t these leaders work for creative and compassionate solutions to solve this crisis?
Many of our politicians like to talk about moral values. 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. 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. This is not a political issue, and it is neither a Democratic nor Republican issue. This is a humanitarian issue, and at stake are the lives of the most vulnerable of our society, and the middle-class families tying to make ends meet.
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 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.
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.
At a time when our national leaders seem to be hesitating and playing political games over the debt ceiling, taxes, spending, and the budget 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 do many of our leaders side with big companies instead of with those who need quality and affordable health care? Why do they listen to the lunatic fringe of the right wing misinformation machine, instead of standing firmly on what is right and just for the vulnerable of our nation? Why don’t these leaders work for creative and compassionate solutions to solve this crisis?
Many of our politicians like to talk about moral values. 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. 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. This is not a political issue, and it is neither a Democratic nor Republican issue. This is a humanitarian issue, and at stake are the lives of the most vulnerable of our society, and the middle-class families tying to make ends meet.
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 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, July 14, 2011
Jesus Wthout Borders
Borders are interesting concepts that have been around since the dawn of creation. Borders are those barriers that we construct to keep those we want out, out. Nations have borders, and in our current political climate, there is much discussion about keeping our borders more secure, making sure that not just anyone comes through them.
But nations are not the only entities that create borders. We as individuals create property borders that mark what is ours and what is not. Particularly in societies, like our own, that value personal property, we often build fences around those borders to ensure our privacy and to let those around us know that what is inside the wall belongs to us and not to them.
But societies often create borders within their social structures. We create borders and barriers to prevent us from community with others who are not like us. Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, class and economics are all borders we have created that keep others at a distance from us.
Yet, perhaps the most entrenched borders that we find in human existence are the borders established by religions. These have a long history dating back to the ancient world when the sacred spaces of a temple represented the barrier between the profane and the sacred.
For example, the Jewish Temple is known for the walls that separated various courts. The court of the Gentiles, the outer most court, was designed for the Gentiles to worship Israel’s God, but they could go no further. The court of the women created places where the women could enter, but they could go no further into the temple. And those with infirmities and diseases were forbidden from any part of the temple due to their impurity.
We also know from reading the stories about Jesus’ encounter with those determined to be unclean, that he was often chastised by the religious leaders of Israel for his association with them. Whether he was in the company of a leper, a person under demonic possession, or a woman of disrepute, Jesus was always condemned by the religious leaders for crossing the religious and social borders that separated what they established as pure and impure.
Indeed, Jesus was confronted with a borders and barriers mentality wherever he went. A society structured on strict class systems, especially those based on religion, is so ingrained in keeping those barriers and restrictions that it finds troubling and threatening a person like Jesus who crosses those barriers to make contact with those on the outside.
Or to put it another way, Jesus faced a religious society in which there were insiders and outsiders, and it was those on the inside who determined not only who was inside the borders, but perhaps most tragically, who must remain outside the borders.
The Gospel of Mark picks up on this insider-outsider mentality that humans have toward others, especially when it comes to religion, and makes it an underlying theme. Mark takes this theme, however, and turns it on its head. In other words, Mark communicates through his narrative that those who think they are insiders are actually outsiders, and those who think they are only outsiders become insiders.
Of particular importance for this theme is the way the disciples are often portrayed as outsiders. These twelve men, who seem to be insiders who are privy to some private moments and private teachings of Jesus, appear, at times, not to understand Jesus fully. Though they believe they are insiders, they sometimes act more like outsiders, and at points they express attitudes or superiority and exclusion.
This attitude among the disciples is expressed by John in Mark 9, when he comes to Jesus enthusiastically telling Jesus that he has stopped a rogue exorcist from casting out demons in Jesus’ name. He tells Jesus that he stopped this person because, “He was not following us.”
However, if we read John’s statement carefully, we may determine that John’s concern seems to be whether one can be a legitimate follower of Christ without being part of the group of twelve- the insiders. In other words, John wants a Jesus that has borders; a Jesus whose name and authority is only allowed to be used by those approved by the insiders. John wants a Jesus who prevents just anyone from serving in his name.
In our own Christian pilgrimages, we have all run across this kind of attitude, and perhaps we have occasionally played the role of John in our own relationships with others. It is very easy for us to take positions of theological certitude, construct our religious fences, and designate those on the outside as outsiders in order to make sure they remain outside the borders.
The fact is, however, if we continually draw the borders in such a way as to exclude others because they are not joined to our way of thinking and believing, then we have not truly sought to follow Jesus. Rather, we are seeking to be followed. When we exclude others because they are not following us, we fail just like John. Claiming to be insiders in the Jesus movement, we expose ourselves as outsiders.
John sought to place limits on Jesus in an effort to say who could serve him. By doing so, he drew borders around the community of faith as a way of stating who is inside and who remains outside. But Jesus, by being true to his example of welcoming the young child in this same context, and by declaring that the rule of God is a movement of welcome and embrace, was breaking down the walls and borders of separation that prevented those called outsiders from a life with God.
But nations are not the only entities that create borders. We as individuals create property borders that mark what is ours and what is not. Particularly in societies, like our own, that value personal property, we often build fences around those borders to ensure our privacy and to let those around us know that what is inside the wall belongs to us and not to them.
But societies often create borders within their social structures. We create borders and barriers to prevent us from community with others who are not like us. Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, class and economics are all borders we have created that keep others at a distance from us.
Yet, perhaps the most entrenched borders that we find in human existence are the borders established by religions. These have a long history dating back to the ancient world when the sacred spaces of a temple represented the barrier between the profane and the sacred.
For example, the Jewish Temple is known for the walls that separated various courts. The court of the Gentiles, the outer most court, was designed for the Gentiles to worship Israel’s God, but they could go no further. The court of the women created places where the women could enter, but they could go no further into the temple. And those with infirmities and diseases were forbidden from any part of the temple due to their impurity.
We also know from reading the stories about Jesus’ encounter with those determined to be unclean, that he was often chastised by the religious leaders of Israel for his association with them. Whether he was in the company of a leper, a person under demonic possession, or a woman of disrepute, Jesus was always condemned by the religious leaders for crossing the religious and social borders that separated what they established as pure and impure.
Indeed, Jesus was confronted with a borders and barriers mentality wherever he went. A society structured on strict class systems, especially those based on religion, is so ingrained in keeping those barriers and restrictions that it finds troubling and threatening a person like Jesus who crosses those barriers to make contact with those on the outside.
Or to put it another way, Jesus faced a religious society in which there were insiders and outsiders, and it was those on the inside who determined not only who was inside the borders, but perhaps most tragically, who must remain outside the borders.
The Gospel of Mark picks up on this insider-outsider mentality that humans have toward others, especially when it comes to religion, and makes it an underlying theme. Mark takes this theme, however, and turns it on its head. In other words, Mark communicates through his narrative that those who think they are insiders are actually outsiders, and those who think they are only outsiders become insiders.
Of particular importance for this theme is the way the disciples are often portrayed as outsiders. These twelve men, who seem to be insiders who are privy to some private moments and private teachings of Jesus, appear, at times, not to understand Jesus fully. Though they believe they are insiders, they sometimes act more like outsiders, and at points they express attitudes or superiority and exclusion.
This attitude among the disciples is expressed by John in Mark 9, when he comes to Jesus enthusiastically telling Jesus that he has stopped a rogue exorcist from casting out demons in Jesus’ name. He tells Jesus that he stopped this person because, “He was not following us.”
However, if we read John’s statement carefully, we may determine that John’s concern seems to be whether one can be a legitimate follower of Christ without being part of the group of twelve- the insiders. In other words, John wants a Jesus that has borders; a Jesus whose name and authority is only allowed to be used by those approved by the insiders. John wants a Jesus who prevents just anyone from serving in his name.
In our own Christian pilgrimages, we have all run across this kind of attitude, and perhaps we have occasionally played the role of John in our own relationships with others. It is very easy for us to take positions of theological certitude, construct our religious fences, and designate those on the outside as outsiders in order to make sure they remain outside the borders.
The fact is, however, if we continually draw the borders in such a way as to exclude others because they are not joined to our way of thinking and believing, then we have not truly sought to follow Jesus. Rather, we are seeking to be followed. When we exclude others because they are not following us, we fail just like John. Claiming to be insiders in the Jesus movement, we expose ourselves as outsiders.
John sought to place limits on Jesus in an effort to say who could serve him. By doing so, he drew borders around the community of faith as a way of stating who is inside and who remains outside. But Jesus, by being true to his example of welcoming the young child in this same context, and by declaring that the rule of God is a movement of welcome and embrace, was breaking down the walls and borders of separation that prevented those called outsiders from a life with God.
Friday, July 1, 2011
“Patriotism is Not Enough”
Here is a piece I wrote three years ago, but still has implications for how we view patriotism.
Several years ago, while on a family trip to London, we were making our way up from Trafalgar Square to St. Martin’s Place. As we headed toward the National Portrait Gallery, I glanced at one of the many statues that surround this area of Britain’s capital. My glance at the stone monument, however, quickly turned into an intense focus and reflection on the words below the figure carved there. The words read, “Patriotism is not enough.” The woman whose representation was situated atop that citation was Edith Cavell.
I later discovered that Edith Cavell had been a nurse in Brussels during WWI, and that she had been executed by the German army in 1915 for helping Allied troops escape German occupied Belgium. But I also discovered something about her that brought a sense of meaning to the words inscribed on her monument; words she apparently spoke to a minister on the night before her death. Edith Cavell had not only assisted Allied soldiers during the First World War, she had also given aid and comfort to German troops, the very enemy of her home country of Britain. And on the eve of her death, she expressed her rationale for doing so; “Patriotism is not enough, I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone."
While reflecting on these simple words, I have often felt that Christians have become too ingrained in American patriotism that we have lost a sense of identity and mission that views God as the God of all humanity and that witnesses to Jesus’ love for all, friends and enemies. There is a great danger to the church and its bold witness of the gospel to our world if we continue to blur the lines of division between patriotic loyalty to country and faithfulness to Christ. When we do so we run the grave risk of allowing American culture to influence, weaken, and indeed, supersede the church’s prophetic witness to the state.
This is why, as I have written before, we should not have symbols of our nation, including patriotic themes and songs, incorporated into our worship or our areas of sacred space. Doing so not only profanes the sacred time and sacred space of worship, it also brings into question and confuses our loyalties. The mixture of patriotic themes with Christian worship and witness reinforces beliefs that America and Christianity are inseparable, and that America is the Christian nation.
Moreover, if we celebrate patriotism within the context of Christian worship and practice, how does such a witness affect non-Americans? A pastor once shared with me that on a Sunday before Memorial Day, at the close of the worship service, the minister of worship lead the congregation in the singing of “God Bless America.” As the congregation sang this well known song, the pastor noticed many non-Americans in the audience and he noticed that they were not singing. They were not citizens of this country and this was not their song. The worship of God in Christian unity that had characterized the service to that point, ended on a patriotic note that excluded those who were not American.
We can certainly be good citizens of both the kingdom of God and America, for Christians are called to be salt and light in the world. And in a democracy where there is the free expression of religion, the church must participate in promoting just governmental policies for all. But our ultimate loyalty must be to the life and teachings of Christ, particularly his call for justice and peace for all people, especially toward the marginalized of our society.
If we are forced, as were early Christians, and as was Edith Cavell and Dietrich Bonheoffer, to choose between loyalty to Christ or loyalty to country, will we be able to distinguish between the two?
Loyalty to Christ means always choosing peace over war, love over hatred, poverty over wealth, forgiveness over revenge, and inclusion over nationalism. True freedom is found not in preserving security through power, war, or torture, but is discovered in being bound to Christ, his cross, and his gospel that extends beyond the boundaries of nation and culture to embrace the world.
As we celebrate Independence Day, let us do so with a sense of pride in what is good and right about America. But let us also witness boldly against America when policies and practices are put in place that are unjust and that ignore the gospel’s message of peace, justice, and life for all. We should always remember Nurse Cavell’s last words, and her life should cause us to consider the dangers inherent in uncritical and xenophobic patriotism. If we are to be faithful followers of the one who came to save the world, the words of Edith Cavell must become ours. “Patriotism is not enough.”
Several years ago, while on a family trip to London, we were making our way up from Trafalgar Square to St. Martin’s Place. As we headed toward the National Portrait Gallery, I glanced at one of the many statues that surround this area of Britain’s capital. My glance at the stone monument, however, quickly turned into an intense focus and reflection on the words below the figure carved there. The words read, “Patriotism is not enough.” The woman whose representation was situated atop that citation was Edith Cavell.
I later discovered that Edith Cavell had been a nurse in Brussels during WWI, and that she had been executed by the German army in 1915 for helping Allied troops escape German occupied Belgium. But I also discovered something about her that brought a sense of meaning to the words inscribed on her monument; words she apparently spoke to a minister on the night before her death. Edith Cavell had not only assisted Allied soldiers during the First World War, she had also given aid and comfort to German troops, the very enemy of her home country of Britain. And on the eve of her death, she expressed her rationale for doing so; “Patriotism is not enough, I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone."
While reflecting on these simple words, I have often felt that Christians have become too ingrained in American patriotism that we have lost a sense of identity and mission that views God as the God of all humanity and that witnesses to Jesus’ love for all, friends and enemies. There is a great danger to the church and its bold witness of the gospel to our world if we continue to blur the lines of division between patriotic loyalty to country and faithfulness to Christ. When we do so we run the grave risk of allowing American culture to influence, weaken, and indeed, supersede the church’s prophetic witness to the state.
This is why, as I have written before, we should not have symbols of our nation, including patriotic themes and songs, incorporated into our worship or our areas of sacred space. Doing so not only profanes the sacred time and sacred space of worship, it also brings into question and confuses our loyalties. The mixture of patriotic themes with Christian worship and witness reinforces beliefs that America and Christianity are inseparable, and that America is the Christian nation.
Moreover, if we celebrate patriotism within the context of Christian worship and practice, how does such a witness affect non-Americans? A pastor once shared with me that on a Sunday before Memorial Day, at the close of the worship service, the minister of worship lead the congregation in the singing of “God Bless America.” As the congregation sang this well known song, the pastor noticed many non-Americans in the audience and he noticed that they were not singing. They were not citizens of this country and this was not their song. The worship of God in Christian unity that had characterized the service to that point, ended on a patriotic note that excluded those who were not American.
We can certainly be good citizens of both the kingdom of God and America, for Christians are called to be salt and light in the world. And in a democracy where there is the free expression of religion, the church must participate in promoting just governmental policies for all. But our ultimate loyalty must be to the life and teachings of Christ, particularly his call for justice and peace for all people, especially toward the marginalized of our society.
If we are forced, as were early Christians, and as was Edith Cavell and Dietrich Bonheoffer, to choose between loyalty to Christ or loyalty to country, will we be able to distinguish between the two?
Loyalty to Christ means always choosing peace over war, love over hatred, poverty over wealth, forgiveness over revenge, and inclusion over nationalism. True freedom is found not in preserving security through power, war, or torture, but is discovered in being bound to Christ, his cross, and his gospel that extends beyond the boundaries of nation and culture to embrace the world.
As we celebrate Independence Day, let us do so with a sense of pride in what is good and right about America. But let us also witness boldly against America when policies and practices are put in place that are unjust and that ignore the gospel’s message of peace, justice, and life for all. We should always remember Nurse Cavell’s last words, and her life should cause us to consider the dangers inherent in uncritical and xenophobic patriotism. If we are to be faithful followers of the one who came to save the world, the words of Edith Cavell must become ours. “Patriotism is not enough.”
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
God and the Problem of Suffering
There is probably no greater argument for God’s non-existence than the problem of evil. Theodicy, a term used by philosophers and theologians to define the problem of evil, is a problem for theists because if God exists as an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God, why is there evil and suffering?
The atheist would argue, for the most part, that if God did exist and was all-knowing and all-powerful, then there would not be any suffering. The problem is not a new one, and philosophers have dealt with this question throughout time. Indeed, in the Christian tradition, there have been many attempts to deal with and solve this problem, yet each solution falls short of being satisfactory.
Of course, when speaking of evil being freely done by humans, we can more easily provide a solution to the problem by arguing that humans have free will, and thus human actions to do evil are the choices of those humans. Someone chooses to hurt another human being, and thus the evil being done is by human volition.
But even in these instances, we are faced with a theological problem. For example, although it was the planning and choosing of terrorists to board planes on September 11, 2001, a plan and choice that ended the lives of thousands of innocent people, the questions is, “Why did God not stop them?”
If God is all-knowing, and thus God knows the future, why did God not stop the planes from taking off, or stop those men from boarding the planes? But, even if God may not be considered all-knowing, surely traditional concepts of God tell us that God is all-powerful. If so, why did God not use that power to stop the planes just as they were about to crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania? Are there things that God cannot know and that God cannot do?
But perhaps the most scathing question about why evil happens concerns the very character of God. If Christians believe anything about God, it is that God is love, and as a benevolent God, we would hope that God would intervene when evil is being done. And yet, there is evil. What does this say about God’s love for humanity, particularly when innocent humans suffer in multitudes? Does God truly love?
An even larger problem is that of the suffering caused by natural disasters. Though humans may have an influence on the way our environment operates, the existence of natural disasters throughout the history of the world serves very well the argument for God’s non-existence. Or, at the very least, if a being known as God does exist, that being does not exist as the God we humans have defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. In this regard, the atheist’s argument is valid.
But perhaps what troubles me the most as a theist who is riddled with doubts and questions concerns the story from Genesis 22; the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Now, I know we read this story and say “All’s well that ends well,” rushing past all that happens in the story to the happy ending, but this skirts the heart of the problem we are faced with in this text. God, according to this story, actually commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son in order to test Abraham’s loyalty.
Does God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac match anything we know of God’s character? What kind of God forces this kind of test on a person? Could God not have tested Abraham in another way? Could we say that God, for all intents and purposes, would have been the author of this evil act if Abraham would have gone through with it?
I know, I know, he did not go through with it because “God stopped him.” But what if God had not stopped him? Or, what if God had called out to Abraham to stop what he was doing, but Abraham did not hear God, or he was confused about what to do and he went forward with God’s original command? Would this make Abraham guilty of murder, or God?
All of this might be splitting hairs, but with such an important question as the problem of evil, we need to be as thorough as possible with our questions, and we ought to deal honestly with God’s explicit and active role in evil or at least in God’s complicit and inactive role in allowing evil.
Why? Because the problem of evil is not just an abstract philosophical and theological problem. It is a very personal problem, and none of us are free from suffering. And, when we do experience suffering, life becomes disoriented, and the expression “it feels like my world is falling apart” is very appropriate.
For theists, like myself, however, there is no good solution to the problem of evil, although for me it is easier to see God as not being all-knowing and all-powerful than it is to question God’s benevolence. But though each solution is inadequate, I do think we can follow the pattern of many of the psalms of lament that not only express the anguish of human suffering, but that also offer a model for protesting God’s involvement, or at least God’s neglect.
“How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?” These opening words of Psalm 13 express the honest pain the psalmist feels as he questions the love and providence of God. He takes his anger to God in a bold and honest prayer of accusation, blaming God for forgetting him, for hiding from him, for not loving him.
The reason he can call out to God with such raw and honest language is that God is the only one to whom he can bring his prayers of protest that call out to God for help, particularly when the pain, the suffering, the loss is so overwhelming. Even Jesus, in his most agonizing moments of death, screamed in protest to God, “My God, My God. Why have your abandoned me?”
Theodicy will continue to remain a conundrum. Some have been so confounded by the problem that they have abandoned a belief in God. While I have not reached the point of completely abandoning my belief in God, I am often confused by God’s justice and I can only cry out, “How long, O Lord?”
The atheist would argue, for the most part, that if God did exist and was all-knowing and all-powerful, then there would not be any suffering. The problem is not a new one, and philosophers have dealt with this question throughout time. Indeed, in the Christian tradition, there have been many attempts to deal with and solve this problem, yet each solution falls short of being satisfactory.
Of course, when speaking of evil being freely done by humans, we can more easily provide a solution to the problem by arguing that humans have free will, and thus human actions to do evil are the choices of those humans. Someone chooses to hurt another human being, and thus the evil being done is by human volition.
But even in these instances, we are faced with a theological problem. For example, although it was the planning and choosing of terrorists to board planes on September 11, 2001, a plan and choice that ended the lives of thousands of innocent people, the questions is, “Why did God not stop them?”
If God is all-knowing, and thus God knows the future, why did God not stop the planes from taking off, or stop those men from boarding the planes? But, even if God may not be considered all-knowing, surely traditional concepts of God tell us that God is all-powerful. If so, why did God not use that power to stop the planes just as they were about to crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania? Are there things that God cannot know and that God cannot do?
But perhaps the most scathing question about why evil happens concerns the very character of God. If Christians believe anything about God, it is that God is love, and as a benevolent God, we would hope that God would intervene when evil is being done. And yet, there is evil. What does this say about God’s love for humanity, particularly when innocent humans suffer in multitudes? Does God truly love?
An even larger problem is that of the suffering caused by natural disasters. Though humans may have an influence on the way our environment operates, the existence of natural disasters throughout the history of the world serves very well the argument for God’s non-existence. Or, at the very least, if a being known as God does exist, that being does not exist as the God we humans have defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. In this regard, the atheist’s argument is valid.
But perhaps what troubles me the most as a theist who is riddled with doubts and questions concerns the story from Genesis 22; the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Now, I know we read this story and say “All’s well that ends well,” rushing past all that happens in the story to the happy ending, but this skirts the heart of the problem we are faced with in this text. God, according to this story, actually commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son in order to test Abraham’s loyalty.
Does God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac match anything we know of God’s character? What kind of God forces this kind of test on a person? Could God not have tested Abraham in another way? Could we say that God, for all intents and purposes, would have been the author of this evil act if Abraham would have gone through with it?
I know, I know, he did not go through with it because “God stopped him.” But what if God had not stopped him? Or, what if God had called out to Abraham to stop what he was doing, but Abraham did not hear God, or he was confused about what to do and he went forward with God’s original command? Would this make Abraham guilty of murder, or God?
All of this might be splitting hairs, but with such an important question as the problem of evil, we need to be as thorough as possible with our questions, and we ought to deal honestly with God’s explicit and active role in evil or at least in God’s complicit and inactive role in allowing evil.
Why? Because the problem of evil is not just an abstract philosophical and theological problem. It is a very personal problem, and none of us are free from suffering. And, when we do experience suffering, life becomes disoriented, and the expression “it feels like my world is falling apart” is very appropriate.
For theists, like myself, however, there is no good solution to the problem of evil, although for me it is easier to see God as not being all-knowing and all-powerful than it is to question God’s benevolence. But though each solution is inadequate, I do think we can follow the pattern of many of the psalms of lament that not only express the anguish of human suffering, but that also offer a model for protesting God’s involvement, or at least God’s neglect.
“How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?” These opening words of Psalm 13 express the honest pain the psalmist feels as he questions the love and providence of God. He takes his anger to God in a bold and honest prayer of accusation, blaming God for forgetting him, for hiding from him, for not loving him.
The reason he can call out to God with such raw and honest language is that God is the only one to whom he can bring his prayers of protest that call out to God for help, particularly when the pain, the suffering, the loss is so overwhelming. Even Jesus, in his most agonizing moments of death, screamed in protest to God, “My God, My God. Why have your abandoned me?”
Theodicy will continue to remain a conundrum. Some have been so confounded by the problem that they have abandoned a belief in God. While I have not reached the point of completely abandoning my belief in God, I am often confused by God’s justice and I can only cry out, “How long, O Lord?”
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Inclusive Church: E Pluribus Unum
E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Although this phrase expresses a motto that has historically been tied to the United States, when I think of this saying, I cannot help but look further back in time to the Day of Pentecost narrated in Acts 2.
In fact, in reading what takes place in Acts 2 with this early group of followers of Jesus who were waiting on the promised spirit, the very meaning of the phrase E Pluribus Unum comes alive as we read about how a diverse group of people gathered together from various regional backgrounds, and although they spoke different languages, the spirit empowered those there with them to understand their words, signifying not only a reversal of the Babel incident, but more importantly, the unifying work of the spirit.
E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Out of the diversity of people with different backgrounds and different languages, come forth one people. And yet, these believers remain diverse, not giving up their individuality within the fellowship of believers. This suggests that the Day or Pentecost was not a day in which the church was established as a uniformed and static entity, but a day on which the church was created as a living body of diverse members open to the spirit’s movement.
In First Corinthians 12, Paul offers a theological argument for holding together both diversity and unity within the body of Christ. Paul is not requiring church members to abandon who they are individually in Christ. Yet, he is not promoting an irresponsible individualism in which each person seeks his or her own needs and desires above those of others. Indeed Paul seeks to persuade this congregation to embrace diversity as a part of unity and unity as the outcome of the work of the Spirit as the body of Christ works for the common good.
But although it does seem that Paul’s words to the church at Corinth are primarily concerned with the divisions within that church, and the need for them to see the spirit’s work as bringing together diverse peoples into one body, there is also a sense of mission here; mission that drives us to welcome all into the body of Christ. In other words, Paul might not be just concerned with the unity of the church as it now is. He is also concerned that the church remains open to the diverse people the spirit leads into the body of Christ.
We should recall, however, that the believers to whom Paul writes are Gentile believers, and there were no Gentiles in attendance at the Day of Pentecost. Those in the room on that day were all Jewish followers of Jesus. Yet, by the time Paul writes this letter to the Corinthians, the spirit has come upon the Gentiles. But when did the spirit come upon the Gentiles, and why was this significant for not only what Paul is doing, but more importantly for what the spirit is doing?
Although the Gentiles were not present at the Day of Pentecost about which we read in Acts 2, the coming of the spirit onto the Gentiles is also found in Acts, and it all begins with the visions experienced by two men; two very different men. In Acts 10 we read about Peter’s dream of a sheet coming from heaven on which were all sorts of unclean animals, animals he is forbidden to eat because he is a Jew. And yet, Peter is commanded by God in this dream to eat these unclean animals, as God declares to Peter that what God calls clean is indeed clean.
The point of the dream, however, is not so much about food, but about the welcoming of the Gentiles into full participation in the body of Christ. No longer are they to be excluded from the full fellowship of the faith. But Peter seems not to be convinced at first, and so in that same dream, Peter is commanded to go with the men who have been sent by Cornelius, a Gentile who fears God. Cornelius has also had a dream in which God commanded him to send for Peter.
While many have viewed this story primarily as a story about evangelism, this view misses the real crux of this encounter between these two men. Yes, the story does focus on salvation being extended to the Gentiles, as the Spirit of God is poured out on them. But the main point of the story is that God was creating a new and whole people through the welcome of both Jews and Gentiles into the new people of God.
In fact, though we treat this story as Cornelius’ conversion, it is really Peter that is converted; converted to the truth that God’s spirit is not one of division, but one that seeks unity. But perhaps more important than this is the idea that Peter understands that the spirit of God is not just seeking unity, the spirit also seeks to widen the expanse of the people of God to include even those considered unclean by Peter and his Jewish friends.
The world view that Peter had before his dream and before witnessing the spirit come upon Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles was one of exclusion. But the coming of the spirit upon him and upon Cornelius convinced Peter that God was not a God of one privileged people, which would have essentially meant that God was a God of division and not unity. Instead, Peter experienced God as the God of all people.
Again, Paul affirms this idea in 1 Corinthians 12:13 when he speaks of being baptized into one spirit, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free. Or, as he states it another way in his letter to the Church at Galatia, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
We must understand that Paul is not saying that people cease to be who they are; they do not lose their individuality in the body of Christ, and the church remains very diverse. What Paul is saying is that we cannot use labels to distance ourselves from others or exclude others from the body of Christ, no matter who they are.
What the spirit was doing at Pentecost, what the spirit was doing in the life of Peter and Cornelius, and what the spirit continues to seek to do is to bring the many into one, to break down the wall of exclusion and separation, and to unite people of all walks of life into the love of God. God is not an exclusionary God. God is a God of welcome and embrace who called Peter, Paul, and all of us to seek to welcome and affirm all in the body of Christ.
In fact, in reading what takes place in Acts 2 with this early group of followers of Jesus who were waiting on the promised spirit, the very meaning of the phrase E Pluribus Unum comes alive as we read about how a diverse group of people gathered together from various regional backgrounds, and although they spoke different languages, the spirit empowered those there with them to understand their words, signifying not only a reversal of the Babel incident, but more importantly, the unifying work of the spirit.
E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. Out of the diversity of people with different backgrounds and different languages, come forth one people. And yet, these believers remain diverse, not giving up their individuality within the fellowship of believers. This suggests that the Day or Pentecost was not a day in which the church was established as a uniformed and static entity, but a day on which the church was created as a living body of diverse members open to the spirit’s movement.
In First Corinthians 12, Paul offers a theological argument for holding together both diversity and unity within the body of Christ. Paul is not requiring church members to abandon who they are individually in Christ. Yet, he is not promoting an irresponsible individualism in which each person seeks his or her own needs and desires above those of others. Indeed Paul seeks to persuade this congregation to embrace diversity as a part of unity and unity as the outcome of the work of the Spirit as the body of Christ works for the common good.
But although it does seem that Paul’s words to the church at Corinth are primarily concerned with the divisions within that church, and the need for them to see the spirit’s work as bringing together diverse peoples into one body, there is also a sense of mission here; mission that drives us to welcome all into the body of Christ. In other words, Paul might not be just concerned with the unity of the church as it now is. He is also concerned that the church remains open to the diverse people the spirit leads into the body of Christ.
We should recall, however, that the believers to whom Paul writes are Gentile believers, and there were no Gentiles in attendance at the Day of Pentecost. Those in the room on that day were all Jewish followers of Jesus. Yet, by the time Paul writes this letter to the Corinthians, the spirit has come upon the Gentiles. But when did the spirit come upon the Gentiles, and why was this significant for not only what Paul is doing, but more importantly for what the spirit is doing?
Although the Gentiles were not present at the Day of Pentecost about which we read in Acts 2, the coming of the spirit onto the Gentiles is also found in Acts, and it all begins with the visions experienced by two men; two very different men. In Acts 10 we read about Peter’s dream of a sheet coming from heaven on which were all sorts of unclean animals, animals he is forbidden to eat because he is a Jew. And yet, Peter is commanded by God in this dream to eat these unclean animals, as God declares to Peter that what God calls clean is indeed clean.
The point of the dream, however, is not so much about food, but about the welcoming of the Gentiles into full participation in the body of Christ. No longer are they to be excluded from the full fellowship of the faith. But Peter seems not to be convinced at first, and so in that same dream, Peter is commanded to go with the men who have been sent by Cornelius, a Gentile who fears God. Cornelius has also had a dream in which God commanded him to send for Peter.
While many have viewed this story primarily as a story about evangelism, this view misses the real crux of this encounter between these two men. Yes, the story does focus on salvation being extended to the Gentiles, as the Spirit of God is poured out on them. But the main point of the story is that God was creating a new and whole people through the welcome of both Jews and Gentiles into the new people of God.
In fact, though we treat this story as Cornelius’ conversion, it is really Peter that is converted; converted to the truth that God’s spirit is not one of division, but one that seeks unity. But perhaps more important than this is the idea that Peter understands that the spirit of God is not just seeking unity, the spirit also seeks to widen the expanse of the people of God to include even those considered unclean by Peter and his Jewish friends.
The world view that Peter had before his dream and before witnessing the spirit come upon Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles was one of exclusion. But the coming of the spirit upon him and upon Cornelius convinced Peter that God was not a God of one privileged people, which would have essentially meant that God was a God of division and not unity. Instead, Peter experienced God as the God of all people.
Again, Paul affirms this idea in 1 Corinthians 12:13 when he speaks of being baptized into one spirit, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free. Or, as he states it another way in his letter to the Church at Galatia, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
We must understand that Paul is not saying that people cease to be who they are; they do not lose their individuality in the body of Christ, and the church remains very diverse. What Paul is saying is that we cannot use labels to distance ourselves from others or exclude others from the body of Christ, no matter who they are.
What the spirit was doing at Pentecost, what the spirit was doing in the life of Peter and Cornelius, and what the spirit continues to seek to do is to bring the many into one, to break down the wall of exclusion and separation, and to unite people of all walks of life into the love of God. God is not an exclusionary God. God is a God of welcome and embrace who called Peter, Paul, and all of us to seek to welcome and affirm all in the body of Christ.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Jerusalem Should be a City of Peace for People of All Faiths
On May 16, 2011, Glen Beck announced his next rally, which is to be held on August 24 in Jerusalem, calling it Restoring Courage. Beck’s announcement, which came two days after the sixty-third anniversary of Israel’s declaration of sovereignty on May 14, 1948, was in reaction to President Obama’s remarks concerning the need to create a two state solution based on the 1967 borders. Beck, like others, is angered by this decision, and sees this as a move away from U.S. support for Israel.
The creation of modern State of Israel as an independent state and a home for the Jewish people 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 confiscated 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. In fact, according to the website of the Christians United for Israel, anyone can sign up to participate in a conference call with Mr. Beck on June 16, 2011.
It does not take much reading or listening to Hagee to understand how he sees history. 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 the other 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.
In fact, many folks, including Jews, have questioned Hagee’s support for Israel as simply a means to an end. In a 2009 segment of 60 minutes called “Zion’s Christians Soldiers”, Gershom Gorenberg said, "They don't love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play, and that's not who we are, and we never auditioned for that part, and the play is not one that ends up good for us. If you listen to the drama they're describing, essentially it's a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act."
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. We must not gloss over these atrocities. 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 the likes John Hagee and Glenn Beck.
May the God of peace bring shalom, salaam, and peace to Jerusalem for people from all faiths.
The creation of modern State of Israel as an independent state and a home for the Jewish people 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 confiscated 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. In fact, according to the website of the Christians United for Israel, anyone can sign up to participate in a conference call with Mr. Beck on June 16, 2011.
It does not take much reading or listening to Hagee to understand how he sees history. 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 the other 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.
In fact, many folks, including Jews, have questioned Hagee’s support for Israel as simply a means to an end. In a 2009 segment of 60 minutes called “Zion’s Christians Soldiers”, Gershom Gorenberg said, "They don't love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play, and that's not who we are, and we never auditioned for that part, and the play is not one that ends up good for us. If you listen to the drama they're describing, essentially it's a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act."
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. We must not gloss over these atrocities. 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 the likes John Hagee and Glenn Beck.
May the God of peace bring shalom, salaam, and peace to Jerusalem for people from all faiths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)