Come, Holy Spirit!

This may not be the best time for me to write. My heart is heavy—grieving. I’m not angry; although, anger surrounds us and increasingly becomes the norm among some parts of our American population. I’m sure I’ll be angry at some point. Anger is a normal part of grief.

I find myself on the verge—and sometimes into the abyss—of tears more and more frequently. I recall that dreadful news clip of the fiery crash of the Hindenburg, and the sobbing voice of the reporter, “Oh! The humanity! The humanity!”

How calloused have we become when we so rarely are moved to tears at the sight of human suffering? What hideous kind of demon possesses one human to kneel on the neck of another human—a human who is face-down on the ground, handcuffed, with two other humans kneeling on his back—a human who is crying, “I can’t breathe! Please!”? And what kind of inhuman creature looks on, apparently more concerned about the camera that is recording it all than about the human who is gasping for his dying breath?

“Kneeling on a man’s neck is an extreme and dangerous step, well out of bounds for ordinary police procedures. The kneeling officer appears to have a long track record of complaints.”[1] I’ve seen three videos, each from a different perspective. In none of them did it appear that Floyd was resisting or uncooperative.

I know: there is a report that George Floyd had preconditions “including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease”; and the preliminary autopsy showed, “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” The report said death likely was caused by the "combined effect of Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions, and any potential intoxicants in his system.”[2]

Does such an analysis diminish the inhumanity of three humans sworn “to serve and protect?” As a medical layman I have to ask, “Would such unnecessary use of force exacerbate the preexisting factors, thereby possibly—even probably—contributing to Floyd’s death?”

But, I linger too long on one specific instance, when my grief is over the increasing commonness of justifying inhuman behavior on the basis of ideological absolutism. The controversy over where to stand in relation to George Floyd’s death appears to line up consistently with every other controversy in America: conservatives line up against liberals.

There seems little possibility that there ever will be an issue in which both liberals and conservatives agree. And there seems little possibility ever again that those disagreements will be pursued with respect and integrity. I see very little indication that anyone on either side wants to resolve any of the issues that divide them. Most just want to win the fight.

And so, I grieve. And the tears come more frequently.

We are watching something cancerous grow faster and faster each cay. It is, in my estimation, the satanic spawn of absolutized individualism run amok. Don’t misunderstand. I serve a master whose sacrificial love for individuals is unsurpassed in human history. But, Ayn Rand notwithstanding, the master I serve also called his followers to love one another sacrificially, to serve one another in humility, even to the point of washing one another’s feet, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. And he defined one’s neighbor in his Parable of the Good Samaritan—a parable, incidentally, about reaching across lines of ethnicity to serve anyone who is in need.

The individual is important, and the individual’s importance is embellished in service to other individuals. Our individual importance reaches its highest potential when we “lose ourselves”. All four gospels report Jesus saying, “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:39 NRSV). I like the way the Message Paraphrase puts it: “If your first concern is to look after yourself, you’ll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you’ll find both yourself and me.”

I write as a Christian Pastor to Christians; however, Christians are as divided and as hostile as the rest of the culture (which is a primary reason the church has been in decline for a half-century), and I struggle to find hope that peace and reconciliation can come from Christianity so divided. Therefore, my appeal is to all who are of a similar mindset, regardless of your spiritual base. I believe respect, integrity and compassion have no ideological or credal boundaries, and that people of all spiritualities can unite in the effort to be agents of healing and reconciliation.

Today is Pentecost. Christians celebrate it as the birthday of the church and recite the biblical story of the Holy Spirit of God descending upon a broken, frightened little band of Jesus’ disciples. The Spirit filled them, and they turned the world upside down. I suspect that our nation will not be healed by human effort apart from that same Spirit.

So, come Holy Spirit. Come as wind and breathe into us a passion for the humility of Jesus, who washed his disciples’ feet.

Come Holy Spirit. Come as fire and burn away all the divisive arrogance that solidifies our human understandings of your purpose.

Come Holy Spirit. Come as a dove and bring us peace.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/george-floyd-death-minneapolis-riots-justice-requires-order/. I point out that the “National Review” is a conservative source. The inherent danger of such restraint was reported in several additional sources.

[2] https://www.insider.com/george-floyd-non-responsive-before-officer-took-knee-off-neck-2020-5

II Chronicles 7:14

During the early years of my ministry, a popular text for revival preaching was II Chronicles 7:14. It called God’s people to “turn from their wicked ways.” The “wicked ways” most often addressed by those revival preachers related to personal immorality: things like drinking and smoking and illicit sex, none of which were the specific focus of this text; indeed, none of which were major emphases through most of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In real estate, it is said that the three most important factors are “location, location, location.” In that spirit, I would say that three of the most important factors in biblical studies are “context, context, context.” In this case, the text cited above is a part of the story of the dedication of Solomon’s newly built temple.

The verse does not address any specific evil or wickedness, but, rather, is a general promise from God regarding future times when the predictable consequences of Israel’s predictable behavior predictably would result in hard times and suffering. When that happens, God says, “…if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (NRSV)

In the context of the entire biblical account of God’s relationship with God’s people, the sins and wickedness most often addressed were not instances of personal immorality, but, rather, corporate sins of injustice, idolatry, cruelty, and the ill treatment of the poor and the dispossessed.

Jesus’ focus also was on the plight of the poor; indeed, he welcomed and included those whose personal morality was most questionable. Personal morality can be changed for the better when the person is addressed with compassion and dignity; in other words, when addressed with grace.

On the other hand, corporate sins, including organized greed, injustice, racism, class distinction, indifference toward the poor, are more difficult to overcome. Over and over in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was these corporate sins that most often were confronted and said to be the cause of Israel’s downfall.

In that context, I want to take a fresh look at II Chronicles 7:14.

“If my people, who are called by my name…”  In ancient cultures, a name was not simply a label for identification. One’s name was a part of one’s identity. To name a person was to call that person into presence. To call God’s name was to call God into presence. To do so frivolously (“in vain”) was considered blasphemy and invited divine wrath. The implication is that a people who identify themselves with God’s name are called to reflect the nature and will of God.

“…humble themselves…” Another of God’s pet peeves regarding God’s people was their penchant for pride. God often called them “stiff-necked.” Pride. Arrogance. Almost always it is expressed as a certitude that one’s own ways and ideologies are the only correct ones. Sound familiar? Opposing groups in our culture generally look at each other with disdain—even with hatred. Differences are not tolerated. Diversity is seen as a negative, rather than an enriching quality.

“…pray…” Not “thoughts and prayers” for victims and their families in response to tragedy. The call is to intense, regular, systematic prayer that, indeed, will “…seek (God’s) face…”; prayer that seeks to align one’s own life and will with the life and will of God; prayer that establishes a godly character; prayer that changes the one who prays. If more people prayed like that, and then lived out the identity established through that kind of prayer—lived it in the presence of all with whom they came in contact, including the depressed, the lonely, the bullied and the rejected—perhaps there would be fewer reasons to offer “thoughts and prayers.”

“…and turn from their wicked ways…” This is one of the simplest biblical descriptions of repentance. As stated above, the wickedness that most offended God, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, was arrogance, injustice, idolatry (the worship of other gods, including wealth and power), cruelty and indifference toward the poor. There’s plenty of that still going around today. Do you suppose that wickedness still offends God?

Then comes the promise: “…then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

Is it possible that the outrage against personal immorality (you fill in the blank), is at least partially a way of deflecting a sense of guilt over the corporate sins that offend God and divide us?

Is it possible that the obsession with personal responsibility, while refusing demand accountability and responsibility at the corporate level, is at least partially a causal factor in the decline of our culture?

From the other perspective, is it possible that an unbalanced emphasis on corporate, to the neglect of personal responsibility is a root cause of cultural deterioration?

Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23:23 NRSV, emphasis mine)

I passionately believe it is this imbalanced approach to morality and ethical relatioships that leads to narrow, partisan division.

What if we read this text while looking in the mirror? And what if we got together in groups and did the same?

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Joe McCarthy Lives!

For years I’ve ranted about the belligerent partisanism that’s dividing and conquering America. In a real sense I’m more afraid of that spirit of adversarialism than the threat of Islamic extremism.

Nikita Khrushchev understood it in the 1950s, and the leaders of ISIS understand it today: America can be conquered without a shot being fired. All an enemy need do is play an effective round of “let’s-you-and-him-fight,” and we Americans will destroy each other. ISIS attacks Paris, and Americans square off against each other!!! And the critical mass of Americans is oblivious—too obsessed with pointing fingers at “the other party!”

This demonic temperament is a growing cancer in the American ethos. Remember the iconic, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” from the 1976 satirical film, “Network?” The movies, “Born Loser” and “Billy Jack”, from the same era, touted the ineptitude of government and police, and flaunted an openly rebellious, vigilante type anti-hero. That genre continues to caricature one antagonist in the adversarial drama that is America.

More than one of my social media acquaintances has implied advocacy of armed rebellion as a way of “restoring our nation” to the way they want it to be. Some proudly advertise their gunslinger mentality while arming themselves against the various apocalypses they anticipate. (And that statement is not about guns or gun ownership or 2^nd amendment rights.)

Perhaps it has been present from the beginning; but I trace the current manifestation of it to the understandable fears emerging immediately prior to World War II in response to the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Gandhi said, “The enemy is fear. We think it is hate, but it is fear.” Some circles acknowledge that anger is a “secondary emotion,” triggered by embarrassment, frustration, fear or other primary perceptions. I think The Scions of Shannara series has the quote: “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate to suffering. Travel too far down that road and the way is lost.” Western culture in general, and America in particular, is nearing the infamous point of no return.

The origin is fear: understandable, credible fear. And the cause of the fear was not totally resolved with the surrender of Japan. There followed the cold war, the fear of the bomb and that American travesty called “McCarthyism.”

Whatever drove Senator Joseph McCarthy, be it fear, ambition or a hyperactive need for attention, his drunken, obsessive diatribes exploited the fears of a nation and polarized its people. Lines were drawn and sides were taken. Innocent people and careers were destroyed in the witch hunt, and a new American ethos emerged: paranoia linked to ideological paralysis.

It is the nature of paranoia that when the object of one’s fear is removed the paranoia seeks another object. Like a heat seeking missile, it is indiscriminate in its search, and will lock on to any source of heat (read: any ideology different from mine).

Once McCarthyism was embraced by an identifiable portion of the population, its undergirding ethos was validated. Lines remain in place; sides taken remain virtually inviolate. Topics change and people change, but the polarization at the root of the phenomenon has only solidified.

Take it to the next level. Ideological polarization by definition manifests an “us vs. them” mentality. “Us” is right; “them” is wrong. Period. By extension, “right” equals good, and “wrong” equals evil. The resultant moral dichotomy feeds and justifies the polarization. The assumption of moral superiority is inherently an arrogant stance, and almost always triggers hostile reciprocation. Thus, a self-perpetuating cycle of antagonism is engaged. The subject or object is secondary; it is the fight, itself, that reinforcs the dominant American ethos.

I’ve been part of the problem. I’m working on it.

It’s no secret that I hold strong ideological convictions; but, it is not my intention here to point fingers at anyone at any point along the spectrum. There’s enough ideological paralysis and arrogance to go around, although each of us probably is more acutely aware of those qualities in those who don’t share our viewpoint.

What I observe almost universally is a rigid “I’m right syndrome”. People don’t want to discuss or resolve issues; they just want to “win the fight”—and virtually everything is a fight. It’s discouraging.

Recently I’ve made an intentional effort—sometimes effectively—to question my own ideological convictions. I’m trying more often to review all the evidence I can find, and to ask, “What if I’m wrong?” It’s a hard sell to most others. If I ask, “What if you’re wrong?” the almost universal response is, “But I’m not.” Doors are locked. An impasse blocks further conversation.

Years ago in my faith struggles I discovered (perhaps by Divine intervention) a concept that has served my peace of mind. My relationship with God is not based upon the correctness of my doctrine, but upon the grace of God. My Scriptural basis is II Corinthians 5:7, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” While I believe in absolute truth, I don’t believe any human, is capable of comprehending truth absolutely. St. Paul writes, “We see dimly, as if through a flawed pane of glass” (I Corinthians 13:12, my paraphrase). The title of this blogsite comes from that verse.

When Americans come to grips with our need to be absolutely right—when we are secure enough in our own identity (both individual and national) to humble ourselves and consider the possibility that I/we may be wrong (at least partially. Nobody is totally wrong—or right—about anything.), the polarization that is weakening America may begin to be healed. It at least would be a step in the right direction.

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim