Uhhhh... Why Are We Here?

             In the destructive partisan chaos that defines our national identity, the principles and values in our Constitution have long been forgotten. Differences and disagreements, if approached with maturity, can be resolved, but only if both sides elect to work for reconciliation instead of just wanting to “win the fight.” When adversaries truly listen to each other, they almost always discover that they have more in common that in opposition.

But we’ve fought for so long that we’ve forgotten why we’re fighting--what's at stake. Causes and ideals have been discarded and now the only important thing is to destroy the “other side,” and the bloodier the better.

In the 19^th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament there’s an interesting story. Paul and the missionaries were successful at Ephesus, and many Ephesians believed. Consequently, the economy took a dip.

The economy centered on the Temple of Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It stood 60 feet tall, was octagon shaped, 340 feet by 160 feet with 127 pillars, and was the largest stone building in the world at that time. Legend has it that gold was used to bond the marble blocks, one to another.

The temple supported many businesses—booths and kiosks with T-Shirts and postcards. The main business was the marketing of silver trinkets—phallic symbols and fertility charms—representing Diana and her shrine. Childless couples who rocked an empty cradle for years came to buy the amulets to hang on the bedpost, and to pray to Diana.

Paul preached that gods made with hands are not gods at all; and he was so convincing that the Ephesians, by the droves, gave up idolatry—and the silversmith trade became depressed.

A man named Demetrius was “Shop Steward” for the silversmiths, and he called a meeting. When self-interest is at stake and you want to stir people up and get them on your side (even if your methods are questionable), there are two basic ways of doing it: you can wave the flag or you can beat the religious drum. You’ll almost always get a following.

Demetrius employed both. He said, “People from all over the civilized world come to worship, and these people are reducing this great Temple to insignificance!” Soon he had a crowd chanting, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” And they got all worked up and stormed City Hall, where the city council was in session.

The council was caught totally by surprise. Luke says, “…everybody was shouting different things till the council itself had no idea what was going on; most of them did not even know why they were meeting.” [Have you ever been to a small-town City Council meeting? I won’t go there.]

The Jewish community became concerned. After all, they’d always been open in their opposition to idolatry. What if these people blamed them for their economic problems? It had happened before.

So, they chose Alexander and coached him to say, “It’s Paul’s fault. It’s the Christians!” But when the mob saw he was a Jew, they started chanting again: “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”

This went on for a couple of hours, until the city clerk was able to quiet the crowd. Then he said, “These men are no threat to us. The whole world knows the greatness of Diana and this Temple. If you have a problem, take it to court; but if we keep this up, we’re going to have Roman soldiers all over the place. Go home!”

And the crowd broke up. That’s it.

Why does Luke include this story in Acts? What is there of value in it for us? There’s no clear message or moral; no bad guys. Demetrius and the silversmiths are simply businessmen fighting for what’s theirs. They’ve worked hard for what they have.

The Jews aren’t bad guys, either. They’re scared for their children. They’re an occupied people; they have to “get along.”

In the story immediately previous, there are bad guys: evil spirits, books of magic, practitioners of magic, false exorcists, demons… There are no bad guys in this story. They’re businessmen; family people—like you and me.

Still, damage was done. This incident ended Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. He had to leave town and was never able to go back.

Maybe the key to this story is in verse 32: “The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there.” Everybody had his own agenda; and nobody was listening to anyone.

When partisanism and divisiveness rage, eventually “Most of the people didn’t even know why they were there.” But the church at Ephesus remained focused faithful to God’s calling to follow Jesus and be his disciples.

As a result, years later a man received a vision from God about end times. He committed that vision to writing, and that writing is now a part of Holy Scripture. And in that writing are these words:

"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lamp stands: I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name and have not grown weary…. (Revelation 2:1-3 NIV)

It is possible to live in a world gone crazy—to live as people of faith—and not be swayed by the partisanism and divisiveness all around. It is possible to live in the midst of partisan chaos and hold to the principles and values that hold the only hope for humanity: integrity, dignity, and love.

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

Together in the Walk

Jim

Musings of an Anxious Patriot

This weekend is the annual celebration of the day the American colonists' Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence—July 4, 1776.

We’ll fly our flag proudly at home. Actually, we’ll fly three flags: one will fly on a staff over our curbside mailbox, and two smaller ones will be on display in the flower beds. We’ll grill hot dogs and possibly watch the movie version of the Broadway show, “1776.” We missed the show last year, but it’s become something of a 4^th of July tradition at our house since we first watched it with part of our extended family when we were vacationing in Fairbanks, Alaska eight years ago.

I am a veteran. I’m no hero. I was in the Marine Band at Quantico, Virginia until August, 1967, when I left for Vietnam. Before the Tet Operation in early 1968 I was primarily a trombone player in the 3^rd Marine Division Band in Phu Bai (about 14 miles south of the ancient citadel of Hue). When the Tet Operation erupted, the division moved to Quang Tri (just south of the DMZ), where we put our instruments away and served in various combat operations until I rotated out and came home. We rarely engaged the enemy.

I stand for the National Anthem. I place my right hand over my heart and frequently get misty; although, I bear no disrespect or ill will toward those who exercise their first amendment rights to kneel in protest of injustices that scarcely can be denied.

Occasionally I go online and watch a video of some Marine band on parade, and I get teary-eyed and experience a thrill when they hit those opening notes of the Marine Hymn.

I vote in every election, and frequently contact the legislators who represent my area. And I have served in public office.

So, I consider myself a patriot, and will celebrate the birth of our nation on Saturday.

But on Sunday, I will be in church to worship God and to give thanks for God’s grace. And in God’s sanctuary my patriotism will not express itself in celebration, but in repentance and prayers for forgiveness and healing. As the hymn says, “America! America! God mend thine every flaw.” And flaws abound. Nothing positive or constructive ever has emerged in the history of humanity from any mixture of patriotism and religion.

On Sunday I will pray that God will forgive the divisive, intolerant hatred that has infected the country I am proud to have served, and I will pray that God will heal our land. And no matter how passionately it is denied, hatred—some directed at specific people and some just ambiguous and generalized—is the root sin of our nation. It manifests itself most destructively in what has been called religious nationalism.

So, I’ll fly the flag on Saturday, and celebrate the nation that was “…conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”[1] I’ll celebrate the great vision that propelled our forebears: the vision articulated on our Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But on Sunday I’ll pray for forgiveness for what America instead has become and for the people destroyed in process of becoming what we are. And I will pray for reconciliation among the diverse peoples still at enmity within our borders, so that the vision in which America was conceived actually might be realized someday.

“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.” (2 Chronicles 7:14 NRSV)

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] From Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Naming the Demon

I just read a post on Facebook, supposedly (and I have no reason to doubt it) written by a young Latino woman whose mother was a legal immigrant, but her father was not. She made it clear that her father wasn’t a burden on society, but rather was a hard worker and contributor. Well and good. It’s a point we can and should applaud.

Then she launched into another strain that I think may cut to the core of the undeniable divisiveness in America [“A house divided cannot stand.” ~ Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 12:25; Mark 3:5; Luke 11:17 ~ also, Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858, in a speech accepting the Illinois Republican Party's nomination as that state's US senator (a campaign which he lost)]. She wrote:

“I was raised in Oregon, and started learning about politics in my private middle school. I remember that we were encouraged to write about America’s problems and that I was brainwashed to think that America was some unfair country. When I started high school, more and more people started hating America because it was the cool and hip thing to do. Then I thought to myself, “why do I hate America?” And I couldn’t find a reason to hate it.” (italics mine)

The implication is clear, and I have no reason to doubt that she validly perceives some effort to “brainwash” her. I have no doubt that there are schools, churches, clubs, and other social groups that indoctrinate their constituents in virtually any kind of ideology from religious doctrine to socio/economic castes to politics to issues of science vs. creationism ad infinitum.

While her implication is clear, and quite possible accurate, she continues to generalize from her statement that she was brainwashed, and the implication grows into an indictment that all liberals hate America and believe America is bad and unfair.

I’m sorry she had a bad experience while growing up—an experience that skewed her thinking into a divisive us vs. them (us =  good/them = bad) mentality. 

There is a world of difference between hating (or loving) America and demonstrating an integrity of honest self-evaluation. The patriotic hymn, “America the Beautiful” has these words in its second refrain: “God mend thine every flaw.” To deny or ignore our flaws and to make no effort to correct them is, in my opinion, an unpatriotic act of abuse and neglect. On the other hand, the effort to correct our flaws is an expression of patriotic love.

In my limited observation, I see conservatives (Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, Alt-Right, et al) finding fault with America every bit as much as I see liberals doing so. The two polarities simply point to different faults, based upon their different ideologies. 

The partisan antagonism that divides America is a self-feeding demon that has become an end in itself. It focuses on symptoms, while ignoring (or denying) causes. And it justifies a growing refusal to consider any possibility that the “other party” may have something of value to offer.

Divisiveness is not the result of our different ideologies. It is the creator and sustainer of them. 

And we continue to feed the demon.

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

To Consider Unity

Are you sick of the belligerence that increasingly characterizes our culture and our way of living and relating? I am. Sadly, there are some who seem to relish the antagonism, and actually to delight in provoking it (“Let’s you and him fight!”).

Sometimes I lose hope of seeing humanity united and cooperating; of seeing people of different persuasions coming together to glean the best from each of their different outlooks, and creating a new reality better than their previously held dogmas.

In recent efforts to understand the roots of the current animosity, I looked to my own discipline: Christian theology and church history. Beginning with Augustine in the 4^th century, mainstream Christianity took a discernable turn toward law over grace.

That happens in virtually every movement, religious or otherwise. As entrepreneurial founders begin to age, they tend to become caretakers and defenders of their accomplishments. Thus, begins the paradigm shift from movement to institution.

Each succeeding generation adds to the growing set of rules and procedural codes (as in the Constitution of the United States with its amendments and expanding volumes of interpretive laws and codices).

In the Judaism described in the Bible, the trend reached its zenith in the pharisaism Jesus confronted. In Christian history the penchant for rules over grace maxed out under John Calvin and, later in England, the Puritans.

Oppressed in Europe, the Puritans came to America, and were the dominant socio/religious force in colonial America. Most Christian sects in America reflected the harshness of Puritanism, well into the middle of the twentieth century. During the infamously rebellious 1960s, a secularized[1][1] form of Christianity emerged. It rejected the harsh, judgmental, punitive images of God, in favor of a more Christ-like image.

That “more secularized” movement culminated in the last couple of decades into what some have called the “Emerging Church.” In response, the Calvinist/Puritan-oriented bodies doubled down own their insistence that their image of God, and only their image, was the truth, declaring open season on any who disagreed.

The trouble was, each denomination and sect claimed its own set of rules that defined truth; so, everybody was fighting with everybody, and the “spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public”[2] was leaving the church. In the panic over the loss of members (and offerings), the institutional church ramped up its condemnatory rhetoric, which, in turn, drove still more members and offerings into the streets.

Essentially, the Calvinist/Puritan inflexibility was less about seeking truth, and more about proving that I/We already have the truth. The church generally was seen as issuing an ultimatum; and people (particularly those in the millennial generations) stereotyped all churches as judgmental and unforgiving, and they fled en masse from the model in which they were unable to sense the presence of Jesus.

I developed an hypothesis: Given that through the middle of the twentieth century, American culture generally was molded by some expression of Christianity, and given the generally judgmental and hostile stereotype into which all churches were lumped, it seemed reasonable that the current cultural and political fractiousness were in that mix, somewhere. I still believe there is a level in which that hypothesis is valid.

But the pre-Augustinian church already was divided. Paul’s epistles often address congregational division. Some creeds (the Apostles’ Creed and the Creed of Nicaea) emerged prior to the time of Augustine.

In colonial America the political divisiveness already was so bitter that duels to the death were fought.

So, the search for the origins of our current socio/political enmity is like peeling an onion. For the present, I lean toward considering it to be the nature of broken humanity. Maybe it’s not only what we have become. Maybe humans always have been like this; and we are living out our brokenness, rather than living out Jesus' prayer that his followers would become one, as he and his heavenly father were one (John 17:20-21).

Hard sins linked to sexual immorality or religious heresy notwithstanding, could it be that our primary need for repentance is from the primordial state of human brokenness out of which all other brokenness arises? Are we tinkering with symptoms and ignoring the cause?

Repentance does not require regret or remorse; nor does it necessarily involve penitence or penance. The word means, simply, to turn; essentially, to turn from one way of doing and being to another.

I try to not obsess over things I cannot control. Occasionally I even succeed! I don’t know how to influence the general turn of ideologies toward “us all becoming one.” But I can control how I respond; and I perhaps can influence one or a few persons to consider unity over division. That outlook forms the basis of my own repentance in regard to the focus of this writing.

How about this: evil always needs to be confronted; but, before we mount our white horse and charge into the fray, could we take a bit of time, first, to set aside the temptation to blame everyone but ourselves for the way things are, and to engage, instead, in some tangible act intended to make the world better, if only for a moment; if only for one other person?

If we could start each day planning to act or participate proactively in some constructive activity, before turning to the headlines or (worse) Facebook tirades or Twitter harangues, would a constructive outlook lead to a more effective way of responding to those who disagree with us? It’s at least an attempt to be a part of the solution, rather than the problem.

What is there to lose? Is our current culture of denunciation and vilification leading toward a better world?

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

Together in the walk,

Jim

---

[1] Secular, not in rejection of God, Scripture or Christianity, but rather, in rejection of what was deemed a distortion of God, Scripture and Christianity. In other words, a rejection of the institutionalization of Christianity.

[2] A description coined by Thomas G. Bandy in Christian Chaos and other of his writings.

March 15, 2016 ~ Day 35

My 2016 Lenten Journey: Exploring the Gospels to discover what following Jesus and becoming more like him would look like? ‘And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32 NRSV).

Matthew 10:16-42 ~ The Commissioning of the Twelve Continues

There’s a lot of content here: realistic warnings about what kind of reception the disciples can expect; encouragement in anticipation of persecution and instructions on how to respond (“flee to the next town.”)

There are some unclear comments about rewards for hospitality: welcoming the prophet; welcoming a righteous person, giving a cup of cold water. There’s no explanation of those rewards; but the suggestion is that the reward is consistent with the hospitality.

My eye is drawn, however, to a troubling section; what appears to contain a poem or a hymn: ³⁴“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

³⁵ “For I have come to set a man against his father,
    and a daughter against her mother,
    and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
³⁶ and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household

At first glance it seems to say the purpose of Jesus’ presence is to create havoc and division in human relationships. I am at a loss to understand that consistent translation from one English version to another.

When I read the text in its original language, the prepositions can validly be understood to reflect “result” as much as “intention”, e.g. “The result of my coming will be a sword…” Such an interpretation is more consistent with the overall teaching and ministry of Jesus.

Jesus did come to confront the misdirected orthodoxy of his own faith. And in this election year we all know that the natural consequence of ideological confrontation is to divide of people against one another. Jesus’ witness is clear, and those who follow him will be opposed—even from within their own families.

Ideologies, whether religious or political, become divisive when they become ends in themselves. I have been critical of those who prioritize ideology over people; and yet, If I am to follow Jesus I will advocate and live a consistent ideology. As a result, I can expect opposition from many directions, including those closest to me. But, of course, Jesus’ ideology is all about people: loving them (even one’s enemies), serving them (the cup of cold water), inviting them into the kingdom and giving oneself up on their behalf.

Whoever has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9 NRSV)

‘And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32 NRSV).

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

On Choosing to Be a Part of the Solution

It’s time for confession and repentance. I am under conviction from a new reading of Ephesians 4:29 (RSV) “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.”

I enjoy my Facebook friends; but I am perhaps too vulnerable to being drawn into the negativity to which a few of them seem passionately committed.

While I still refuse to “unfriend” anyone on Facebook (anti-censorship is a personal core value), I have started blocking (hiding) all websites that promote negative, blaming or scapegoating messages emerging from either side of the conservative/liberal spectrum.

I further have decided (and I hope I can stick with the decision) not to respond to posts from any Facebook friend that promotes negative, blaming or scapegoating messages or perspectives on any subject.

One reason for my decision is that posts on Facebook, if intended to persuade or change anybody's mind on controversial political, moral or religious topics, are exercises in futility and are totally ineffectual. For the most part they do nothing but drive the wedge of division deeper, precisely at a time when our nation needs healing.

But a more important motivation is my recognition that, to the extent that I have not contributed to the solutions, I have been part of the problem; therefore, the conversations I enter in the future regarding any of the controversial issues will be restricted (1) to responding affirmatively to any effort to promote healing, restoration and respectful collaboration toward a solution, or (2) making statements that hopefully will lead to healing, restoration and respectful collaboration toward a solution.

I pray that my Facebook friends and blog readers will affirm and support my pledge to try to become a positive influence, and that my words will be “good for edifying, as fits the occasion, (and) may impart grace to those who hear.” And I pray for endurance, so that I may not “backslide” once again into the negativity that overwhelms our nation.

Together in the Walk,

Jim