The Life and Legend of Good King Wenceslas

Even if you don't know the words you've heard of the old Christmas Carol, Good King Wenceslas and recognize the tune. Instrumental versions are played every Christmas.

Did you ever wonder who Good King Wenceslas was and how he got into a Christmas carol that hardly anyone knows anymore? He was born in the city of Prague in what is now the Czech Republic in the year 907. The Christian faith was new in that part of Europe then, and Christians were often persecuted. Wenceslas’ father Vratislav was a Christian but his mother Drahomíra was a pagan. His Christian grandmother Ludmila raised Wenceslas and taught him about Jesus. Growing up he loved outdoor living, helping with harvests and making bread and wine for communion.

In 921, when Wenceslas was 13 years old, his father was killed in battle. His mother became the regent and set about to wipe out the Christians. She had Ludmila strangled and tried to get Wenceslas to give up his faith in Christ, which he refused to do. At 18, when Wenceslas came of age in 925, he became the ruling Duke and had his grandmother sent into exile.

Unlike most of the other princes of the time, Wenceslas did not use violence to maintain and expand his power, and he did not oppress and impoverish his subjects. The power of his piety won him the title “righteous king.” He was known to get up in the middle of the night with a single chamberlain and go barefoot to the churches in his realm. Through the churches he gave alms to widows, orphans and prisoners and was called “the father of all the wretched.”

By 935, Wenceslas had a son, and his pagan younger brother Boleslav was afraid he wouldn’t get to become ruling Duke. With the help of their mother and some pagan princes, Boleslav invited Wenceslas to a feast at the chapel in his castle. After a phony Christian worship service, Boleslav invited Wenceslas to spend the night. Even though he had been warned of a plot on his life, Wenceslas stayed. In the morning he got up and went to the chapel for early prayers. Boleslav and the pagan princes jumped out of hiding and stabbed Wenceslas to death.

These are things we know about the life of Wenceslas. But almost immediately after his death legends about him began to spread. Though he was a Duke and never a King, the Holy Roman Emperor Otto I conferred on him the title of “King” because of his holy reputation, and the Church declared him to be a martyr for the faith and a saint. A statue of Wenceslas riding a horse with a drawn sword was erected in Prague, even though he was anything but a military leader. A legend grew up that when the Czech people were in trouble the statue would come to life and thousands of ancient knights who were hiding in a mountain would follow Wenceslas into battle to save them.

In 1853 John Mason Neale was inspired to write the Christmas carol by a legend that Wenceslas and his page went out to give alms to the poor on the day after Christmas. This was called the Feast of Stephen after the first Christian martyr and was when Christians gave the leftovers from their Christmas feast to poor people. The legend is that it was cold and snowy and the page was having trouble walking through the snow to deliver the gifts. But the miraculous warmth of barefoot Wenceslas’ feet melted the snow so the page could get through.

John Mason Neale used a 13th century Latin Easter hymn tune that was published in Finnish in 1582 to tell the legend of Good King Wenceslas. It was titled Now Is the Time for Flowering, and Neale was criticized for using a spring song in winter. Even if we don’t know the words or the story of Good King Wenceslas, we only hear that tune at Christmas never at Easter. Perhaps one reason the words of the Good King Wenceslas carol are not used much at Christmas is that they say nothing about the birth of Jesus.

Only the timing of the Feast of Stephen ties them to the Christmas season. However, the tradition of giving to care for the needy at Christmas time does trace its roots to Good King Wenceslas. Also, Wenceslas is an example of how the birth of Jesus transformed the world and all the people who follow Jesus as the Prince of Peace.

Good King Wenceslas

Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even
Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight
Gath'ring winter fuel.

"Hither, page, and stand by me
If thou know'st it, telling
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?"
"Sire, he lives a good league hence
Underneath the mountain
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes' fountain."

"Bring me flesh and bring me wine
Bring me pine logs hither
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear him thither."
Page and monarch forth they went
Forth they went together
Through the rude wind's wild lament
And the bitter weather.

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how,
I can go no longer."
"Mark my footsteps, my good page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly."

In his master's steps he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing.


FLOWER CAROL
Tem­pus Adest Flor­i­dum (tune used for Good King Wenceslas)

Words: Au­thor un­known, 13th Cen­tu­ry; first ap­peared in the Swed­ish Pi­ae Can­ti­on­es, 1582; trans­lat­ed from La­tin to Eng­lish in The Ox­ford Book of Car­ols, 1928. Pi­ae Can­ti­on­es was com­piled and ed­it­ed by Jaak­ko Su­o­ma­lain­en, a Pro­test­ant, and pub­lished in Fin­land by The­o­dor­ic Pe­tri, a Ca­tho­lic; this type of in­ter­de­nom­in­a­tion­al co­op­er­a­tion was all too rare in those days of vi­o­lent sec­tar­i­an strife.

Spring has now unwrapped the flowers, day is fast reviving,
Life in all her growing powers towards the light is striving:
Gone the iron touch of cold, winter time and frost time,
Seedlings, working through the mould, now make up for lost time.

Herb and plant that, winter long, slumbered at their leisure,
Now bestirring, green and strong, find in growth their pleasure;
All the world with beauty fills, gold the green enhancing,
Flowers make glee among the hills, set the meadows dancing.

Through each wonder of fair days God Himself expresses;
Beauty follows all His ways, as the world He blesses:
So, as He renews the earth, Artist without rival,
In His grace of glad new birth we must seek revival.

Earth puts on her dress of glee; flowers and grasses hide her;
We go forth in charity—brothers all beside her;
For, as man this glory sees in th’awakening season,
Reason learns the heart’s decrees, hearts are led by reason.

Praise the Maker, all ye saints; He with glory girt you,
He Who skies and meadows paints fashioned all your virtue;
Praise Him, seers, heroes, kings, heralds of perfection;
Brothers, praise Him, for He brings all to resurrection!

Latin
Tempus adest floridum, surgent namque flores
Vernales in omnibus, imitantur mores
Hoc quod frigus laeserat, reparant calores
Cernimus hoc fieri, per multos labores.

Sunt prata plena floribus, iucunda aspectu
Ubi iuvat cernere, herbas cum delectu
Gramina et plantae hyeme quiescunt
Vernali in tempore virent et accrescunt.

Haec vobis pulchre monstrant Deum creatorem
Quem quoque nos credimus omnium factorem
O tempus ergo hilare, quo laetari libet
Renovato nam mundo, nos novari decet.

Terra ornatur floribus et multo decore
Nos honestis moribus et vero amore
Gaudeamus igitur tempore iucundo
Laudemusque Dominum pectoris ex fundo.

A Center for Me and My World

In the fall of 1992 my wife and I were living in Richmond Hill, Ontario with our then seven year old son for a four month sabbatical at L’Arche Daybreak. Our emphasis was on sharing community living with the (mentally handicapped) core members and their assistants. At that time the United States was having the presidential election in which Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush who was seeking re-election. Canada was also having a national election on a proposed Constitutional Accord that was intended to bring better balance and equity to the diversity of Canadian society, not just French speaking and English speaking but the increasing diversity, especially in western Canada. That effort was defeated, largely because the western provinces did not feel adequately represented and distinguished from English speaking Ontario. The Soviet Union had dissolved by the end of 1991. During those months I made a point of paying special attention to how these events were portrayed in the Canadian press.

The question that kept surfacing was, what does it take to hold a large, diverse society together as a cohesive whole? Without the Soviet iron fist, the Balkans degenerated into violent tribal and ethnic hostility. Similar tribal and ethnic clashes were erupting in the remnants of the colonial nation-states of Africa. As those have continued to escalate, Islam has emerged as a major global force. But Islam is far from monolithic, and sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites feed on ancient tribal and ethnic rivalries. We are in the midst of instability in the Arab dictatorships of North Africa and the Middle East with little assurance of what shape their future will take. The global economy is shaking the stability of the European Union.

While vicious politics are hardly new in the United States of America, I think most observers would agree that the rancor and divisiveness of politics has escalated dramatically in these past twenty years. A “no compromise” attitude seems to be infecting every election, every office, every debate. The vilification of one’s political opponents within and between parties seems rampant.

I have tried to think of what kind of center could hold together a large, diverse democracy. What could I endorse as a Christian living in the United States of America that I think my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, secular and atheist neighbors could also embrace? I came up with these five ideas as a place to start a conversation.

1. Respect people – the dignity and worth of every individual.

2. Respect community – the shared environment, culture and history.

3. Justice – with compassion for the weak and poor, with restorative rather than punitive purpose for those who violate others or the community as well as protection from those whose actions threaten others and the community.

4. Integrity – honest, transparent interactions.

5. Rule of law – predictability of expectations, checks and balances.

A corollary, and I think much more difficult question to answer is, what compelling national mission could be a center to hold together a large, diverse democracy? An isolationist taking care of our own is too ingrown to inspire. To be the exporter of democracy to the world or the referee/police for every tragic conflict or to be the deposer of every brutal tyrant is unsustainable, not to mention arrogantly unethical. To posit any role that depends specifically on the United States of America is doomed hubris. Is being one catalyst for dialog, negotiation, justice and democracy among the community of nations compelling enough? Can our own diversity be a model for others who want to try to find a way for vastly different people to live with harmonious respect in a dangerous world?

As a Christian I have another question as well. What is the center around which my life coheres in a centripetal world? Can the Church find a center in Jesus Christ that will hold even if the centers of our nations and communities disintegrate? I would like to think that my center is reliably represented in these scripture passages and the Heidelberg Catechism.

“I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Philippians 3:10-11

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” Hebrews 11:8-10

“My only comfort in life and in death is that I am not my own, but belong - body and soul, in life and in death - to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.” Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 1

While not framed as an answer to my questions about finding a center that can hold a large, diverse democracy together, I understand the 9-12 Project is an effort to propose a national consensus. As I have read their Principles and Values, I have asked myself how my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, secular and atheist neighbors would respond. Could they embrace this as the core of what it means to be an American? While quite a bit here could be appealing, I doubt they could claim it all or think it defined being an American.

As a Christian, I also asked myself can I embrace this as my own center, even if it was not suitable for all Americans? Again, I found much appealing but felt it fell short of the kind of vigorous Christianity to which I believe Jesus and the Bible calls not only me but the whole Church in a time of fragmentation and polarization, secularism and pluralism. I have responded in some detail to the nine principles of the 9-12 Project, not to reject or argue but to explore, maybe only in my own heart, what is the center I can count on to hold me no matter what comes.

The Nine Principles

1. America Is Good.

Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) People sometimes say to me, “you’re good” as a compliment or expression of appreciation. I may respond lightheartedly by paraphrasing Jesus, “there is only one good, and it ain’t me.” Of course, people are not thinking of divine, absolute goodness when they say, “you’re good.” When the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher” he was being polite and respectful and not attaching absolute, divine goodness to Jesus. Jesus, however, immediately sidesteps his question and takes the cursory greeting with great seriousness. Keeping this distinction in mind is important when we designate something “good.”

Thus, to speak of the United States of America (or any other country or human institution) as “good” immediately raises a dilemma. Is the intention to convey something casual, polite and respectful such as “good morning,” “that’s a good price” or “she is a good cook?” This casual use of “good” hardly seems adequate to lead a list of pivotal principles with “America is Good.” The closer the intention comes to conveying absolute, divine goodness, the closer the danger of blasphemy and idolatry.

I believe a more realistic and responsible linguistic and theological alternative is to say that the United States of America has received many good blessings. Beautiful land, abundant natural resources, prolonged prosperity, 200+ years of peaceful transition of political power, and a diverse wealth of people, many of whom have contributed their genius, creativity and hard work for the common good. I also believe we can rightly say that the United States of America has accomplished and contributed many good things for its own people and the people of the world. The reconstruction of former enemies Germany (not to mention the rest of Europe) and Japan after World War II is a monumental example of good that came from the United States of America.

However, an honest claiming of these goods requires an honest acknowledgement of evils that have been and continue to be part of the history and culture of the United States of America. Expecting people from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to have the same moral sensitivities we do in the twenty-first century is unrealistic and unfair. However, even before the American Revolution Christians of conscience such as John Woolman (1720-1772) identified and spoke out against the evils of the treatment of the native peoples of America, slavery, racial discrimination, runaway commercialism, militarism, alcohol abuse, violence, family disintegration. To acknowledge that some things have been bad does not negate what is good. Rather, it gives both an authentic perception of the good and empowers the determination to continually address and correct what is bad. To dismiss what is currently perceived as bad (recognizing that different people will have sharply contrasting views of what is good and what is bad) as un-American is disingenuous and counterproductive.

The assertion that “America is Good” as a presupposition suggests the American exceptionalism that has become a shibboleth in certain circles (Judges 12:6 – contemporary politics would probably say “litmus test”). Drawing on some Puritan writing and preaching that cast their colonial venture as a “new Israel in the wilderness” and a “shining city upon a hill,” some have argued that God intended the United States of America to be the new chosen nation after the pattern of ancient Israel.

Before responding to that concept, an honest look at ancient Israel is in order. From Joshua to Zedekiah the years of national righteousness are few. From Elijah to Malachi, the Hebrew prophets relentlessly expose the sinfulness of Israel and Judah, calling for repentance. Psalm 106 is an historical hymn of the founding of Israel starting with Moses at the Exodus through the conquest of Joshua and the days of the Judges with cry, “Both we and our ancestors have sinned.” (v. 6) If the history of the national foundations for God’s chosen people of Israel called for repentance, how much more is contemporary and historical repentance required of a nation that cannot rightfully claim God’s choosing as Israel.

Besides receiving the good blessings of God’s common grace, all nations also stand under God’s judgment. Amos 1-2 catalogues God’s judgment on the nations in a kind of spiral that narrows in on Israel and Judah. The first readers of Amos may have cheered the condemnation of their pagan neighbors until they realized that they were not exempt, and God was pronouncing judgment on them. Failure at social justice more than personal piety seems to be the basis for this judgment of the nations. This certainly fits with what Jesus said Matthew 25:31-46 (the famous “as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” passage). The separation of the sheep and goats (v. 32) seems to be separating nations based on how they treated the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick and prisoners. Jesus makes this the distinction between those who “inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world” (v. 34) and those who depart into “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41).

As the Babylonians closed in on Jerusalem, the people of Judah sought assurance that they were exempt from this judgment because they were God’s chosen people and God would not let the Temple be destroyed. But Jeremiah (7:4) warned “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’” If Judah was not exempt from God’s judgment, no other nation – not even the United States of America – dares think they are exempt.

God’s common grace for all humanity and God’s judgment on all nations does not mean that all societies are morally equivalent or interchangeable. A democracy that is seeking to address its deficiencies is certainly to be preferred to a dictatorship maintained by violent force and fear. To say that I would thankfully prefer to live in this country does not exempt the United States of America from acknowledging and addressing both past and present flaws. In fact, democratic government gives every individual not only opportunity but also responsibility for seeking improvement.

When God called Abraham, it was not to create a privileged God-club but to be the means by which God would bless all the families of the world (Genesis 12:2-3). Even in the choosing of Israel, God’s intent was for all of the people of the world, not an elite group. By reaching out to Samaritans, Gentiles and even representatives of the Roman oppression, Jesus repeatedly offended those who would have claimed a Jewish exceptionalism in his time. The centurion who came to Jesus in Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-13) dramatically illustrates what we would call Jesus’ global concern.

When Jesus sends the Apostles on the mission that has defined the Church for two millennia (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8) it is for all the peoples of the earth of every nation. And the vision of the culmination of history is of people of every tribe, language, people and nation gathered around the heavenly throne singing praises to Christ (Revelation 5:9; 7:9) There are no exceptional nations in God’s plan.

We who identify ourselves as disciples of Jesus, whether we live in the United States other remnants of Western Christendom, or in Sudan or Korea, Iraq or Palestine, share an allegiance to Christ that is of far greater power and importance than the social and political commonalities with share with our secular neighbors. From the martyrs of the New Testament and pre-Constantinian Church to the missionary martyrs who took the Gospel to northern Europe, Asia and Africa, to the heroes of the Reformation and the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany, the Church has celebrated the faith and courage of those whose loyalty to Christ could not be intimidated by government edicts and threats. Twenty-first century Christians in the United States of America will do well to be thankful for the freedom of religion that allows us to live an allegiance to Christ that supersedes the claims of any nation, even the United States of America.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

I readily confess that “Jesus is Lord” along with the Christians of the New Testament (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) and the early Christians. In the Roman Empire that insisted that Caesar was lord, making that confession was courageous and treasonous. Indeed, I desire and work toward having Jesus Christ as the center of my life. Everything else in my life not only takes second place to Jesus Christ, but finds its legitimate place under the lordship of Jesus: country, nationality, race, class, community, gender, employment.

I have had the occasion to lead prayers in public and interfaith setting where many would not acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Out of respect for that context but with some misgivings, I omitted “in Jesus’ name” at the end of those prayers. I am very uncomfortable with a generic, even if quasi-Judeo-Christian, civil religion. I am concerned that homogenizing believing in God dilutes and distorts the Gospel as though intellectually accenting to the existence of God was equivalent to trusting Jesus and following him as Lord.

While accepting a generic belief in God may be a polite way to acknowledge religious diversity without offending, I am concerned that it is also disrespectful to those who are devout practitioners of their religions that do not proclaim Jesus as Lord. While more challenging and risky, I think asking people to explain not only what they believe but how they live it in exchange for explaining why I intend to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ is more honest and profitable to all. It does not have to be with imposed persuasion but mutual learning. I believe the Holy Spirit is more than able to speak to others as I live and explain how Jesus is Lord for me.

At the founding of the United States of America, a general Protestant social assumption prevailed. Even the Deists acknowledged it as they objected to it. A great example of that is Thomas Jefferson’s “New Testament” created by actually cutting up a New Testament, discarding what he found objectionable (supernatural, redemptive grace, etc.) and pasting together his own kind of feel-good-gospel. Immigration of Roman Catholics and Jews, largely from southern and eastern Europe modified this consensus as it morphed into the generic, Judeo-Christian civil religion of the 1950s. After World War II, immigration of people with non-Judeo-Christian religions and the rise of secularism, concepts like “the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” came to seem quaint, sexist and actually offensive to some, such as Muslims who have a very different understanding of the relationship between God and humanity. To them speaking of God as a father is blasphemous.

For most of the history of the United States of America, the “free exercise” and “non-establishment” clauses of the Constitution were understood to encourage religion in general as long as no specific sect or doctrine was endorsed. An aspect of the recent culture wars revolves whether any kind of religious expression can be tolerated in the public square, not just government but also commercial (as witness the uproar over “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas” in the advertising of products that have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus). The proportion of the population of the United States of America that either claims no conventional belief in a god nor practices any religion precludes making belief in God a viable element in a social consensus for the United States in the twenty-first century.

Many authentic Christians, serious disciples of Jesus Christ grieve this loss of social support for Christian faith. I am more inclined to think this trend toward a secular public environment is actually good for the health of the Church of Jesus Christ in the United States of America and other remnants of Christendom. We Christians are facing a world much more like the Church’s first three centuries when the Roman Empire was at best indifferent to the Church and became hostile when they recognized that with Jesus as Lord, the threat of force and violence could not control or stifle this growing minority movement. I certainly am neither hoping for nor expecting official hostility and persecution. But I do believe that when acknowledging Jesus as Lord clearly distinguishes Christians from their neighbors, faith will grow stronger. We will learn and articulate the Gospel more clearly. We will have an incentive for Jesus Christ to be the center of our lives, because having him on the periphery will not make sense or be worth the effort.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Jesus said, “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’” (Matthew 5:37) Our legal system has developed a whole host of mechanisms to try to assure people’s honest: swearing oaths in court, signing and notarizing affidavits, layers of legal language in even the most basic contracts. I am not suggesting, as some do, that Christians abstain from these devices, but I would suggest that they are a sign of how lightly we treat honesty.

I think more than telling the truth is involved in being an honest person. I think Jesus calls us to a transparent consistency. That is to be externally the people we are internally. This is the basis of his relentless criticism of the hypocrites of his day. He was not talking at all about people who acknowledged their weaknesses and failures. Rather he was talking about those who tried to present a respectable exterior that covered what was actually in their hearts. Jesus said, “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart” (Matthew 15:18). As Henri Nouwen once said to me, “If you want to know what’s going on in your heart, listen to what you say when you speak before you think.”

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

While I would agree that families are a part of God’s plan that precedes and supersedes nation and government, I also know that we all need to be accountable. In a multi-generational society where households typically were made up of three generations and aunts, uncles and cousins were close if not under the same roof, just as children were accountable to their parents, the parents were accountable to the grandparents and to the extended family. In highly cohesive, homogenous communities, the families were also accountable to the larger community. Children were not strictly the domain of the parents of the nuclear family. The intervention of friends and neighbors was welcomed.

However, mobility (which is not really that new; family ties were stretched and even broken by immigration from Europe to the United States of America; by the westward emigration into the frontier; by the urbanization and sub-urbanization the followed World War II), growing emphasis on individual freedom, personal privatization and isolation, and increasing social diversity has significantly diluted this accountability to community. In fact, most parents will take offense if a neighbor or even a school teacher disciplines their children.

The more institutional, bureaucratic structures of government have taken over some of the need for accountability in extreme cases such as abuse, neglect, protection, clothing, nourishment and education. Parents are allowed to choose public or private schools or home schooling, but we expect government to require parents to see that their children are educated. Sometimes the nature of education in public schools becomes an issue when parents feel it is not supportive of their values. I’m not suggesting that government always gets this right, only that I believe these are legitimate areas for which government holds parents accountable.

Pushed to an extreme obviously not intended or anticipated in the principle that husband and wife are the ultimate authority for their family would be the claims of the right to abortion, or to deprive children of medical care or education, or to unlimited punishment of children and spouses. Yet, I think we need to be careful about ultimate and absolute statements.

When the principle specifies spouses as the ultimate authority, it may seem irrelevant to many families, especially single parent families. While the way this is worded would not preclude same-sex marriage, I suspect that was not its intent. I am not advocating that, only trying to recognize the difficulty of a true social consensus around family autonomy.

As a Christian, I do consider marriage and parenting to be sacred. I understand marriage as a covenant relationship with my wife in which we are a portrait (icon, sacrament) of Christ’s covenant relationship with the Church. As parents, we are God’s agents entrusted with the nurture of children that truly belong to God and not to us. As a family unit, we are a microcosm of the Church that only functions properly when we participate in the real life of a church community.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

I feel some degree of tension between this principle and saying that parents/spouses are the ultimate authority, not the government. Law does not exist in some abstract fashion. Other than what was delivered to Moses, the laws of any country including the United States of America are human inventions. They are made by people. Most of the time they are well intentioned; but sometimes they have unintended consequences; sometimes circumstances change and laws need to be adjusted; sometimes mistakes are made and laws need to be changed. Sometimes laws are unjust and need to be opposed and resisted.

Being a nation of laws, not subject to the arbitrary whims of despots, is a very good thing. But knowing that the laws are made and administered by fallible humans, vigilance about law is essential. Care must be taken that wealth or prominence does not give someone an advantage over those who are impoverished or insignificant. We must be careful not to overly demonize the person who robs a convenience store of a hundred dollars while excusing the account executive who defrauds the community of millions of dollars, just because one was done with a gun and the other with a computer.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

As a Christian I consider life and liberty to be gifts from God, not rights to claim. In Deuteronomy 30:19 God says to the Israelites, “Choose life.” Jesus said he came to give life and to give it abundantly (John 10:10). Israel is born as a nation when Moses liberated them from Egyptian slavery (Exodus 14). Jesus Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2). Such life and liberty are independent of whether I live in a democracy or totalitarian regime.

For a nation to secure life and liberty for its citizens through its government is fitting, falling into the basic concerns the Hebrew kings were to have for their people. Psalm 72 says it well, filling in details implied in the principles that were to guide the kings from Deuteronomy 17:14-20.

“1Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. 2May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. … 4May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.” … 12For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. 13He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. 14From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight. … 16May there be abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field.”

Psalm 146:3-9 gives an appropriate perspective to the sense of entitlement or guarantee of results. “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.” One part of this acknowledges the fallibility of all human beings, including those is positions of high responsibility and authority. It also recognizes that they are finite and limited. Some things just cannot be assured or accomplished.

The pursuit of happiness may represent Jefferson’s ideal of autonomous individual freedom. I know that the Declaration of Independence speaks of the pursuit of happiness not the possession of happiness. Nevertheless, as a Christian I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the pursuit of happiness, not just because it cannot be guaranteed but because it opens the path to destruction. While the pursuit of happiness may mean pursuing a satisfying marriage and family life, a fulfilling career, good relationships and reputation, prosperity and leisure, education and creativity, it can also lead to addiction, adultery, gambling, abortion, obesity, violence, greed, deception.

When Jesus said, “strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33), I believe he is telling us that transitory things such as happiness are not legitimate goals but are the by-products of seeking the enduring goal of the righteousness of the kingdom of God. Thus those who are blessed with authentic happiness are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and those who are persecuted for righteousness. (Matthew 5:3-10)

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

I believe this principle conflates and confuses two important Biblical principles: the voluntary, compassionate care for those who are weak and poor and the king’s (government’s) responsibility for justice for the oppressed and needy. They are not to be set in opposition to each other. It also unbiblically pits individual ownership against community well-being.

Before Israel established central government with a king God gave laws to protect and provide for the poor and strangers through the prosperity of the community: gleaning which plays a major role in the story of Ruth (Leviticus 19, 23), Sabbath years (Leviticus 26), jubilee with its provision for the cancelation of debts (Leviticus 25, 27).

In fact, the specific plots of land divided by tribes, clans and families were not thought of as private property to be dealt with as the owner wished but were held in trust for the community as a whole and for future generations. God said, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants.” (Leviticus 25:23) The violation of these laws when Ahab confiscates Naboth’s vineyard is what brings his final doom. (1 Kings 21; 2 Kings 9) Furthermore, God cautions the Israelites against thinking that by their hard work they have earned what they have. “Do not say to yourself, ‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.’” (Deuteronomy 8:17) Paul extends this principle into a New Testament understanding in 1 Corinthians 4:7 “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?”

When Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19, he sets the responsibility of the king to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and freeing the oppressed in the context of his role as the ultimate, eschatological king who will bring to joyful completion the justice with which God had charged all of Israel’s kings (Psalm 72; Deuteronomy 17:14-20, Amos). In doing so, Jesus removes this from the realm of ancient Israel and makes it a concern for his people until it is fulfilled at the consummation of the ages. So even though from the time of Jesus on, the king (government) does not have the same temporal anointing that the ancient Hebrew kings had, justice for all continues to be a concern for the followers of Jesus.

The voluntary giving of alms and charity was also an intrinsic part of the life of the ancient Hebrews. It was included in the temple sacrifices. It was a part of the devout life. (Deuteronomy 14:28-29) In the laws about tithing, God says, “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’” (Deuteronomy 15:11) Jesus quotes this in John 12:8 when Judas objects to Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus. Sometimes it is interpreted to excuse not giving to the poor, but that would be entirely contrary to both the context and Jesus’ entire life and teaching. Deuteronomy 15:4 makes it clear that such charity is not useless but seeks a community in which there is no one in need among us.

For the first three centuries of the Church’s history, Christians were on the outside of an indifferent if not hostile Roman Empire. In a setting in which the government was more hindrance than help with promoting compassion and justice, the Church went to great lengths to care not only for their own but for the poor, weak and oppressed around them. From these roots grew the many charitable Christian endeavors that have persisted through the centuries. Immediately after Pentecost they pooled their resources to distribute to those in need (Acts 2:44-45). When they had an internal conflict over the distribution of food, they appointed seven spiritual people to oversee it (Acts 6:1-6). When the Apostle Paul reports the results of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to the Galatians he writes that rather than burdening the Gentile Christians with Jewish customs, they were asked only to remember the poor, which Paul writes they were eager to do (Galatians 2:10). Also Paul’s discourse on generous giving that is often used in stewardship teaching (2 Corinthians 8-9) was occasioned by a collection for the churches in Judea who were suffering famine (Acts 11:28-30).

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

Nor is it un-American for someone to disagree with me and share their personal opinion. Such dialog is at the core of healthy democracy. To be effective, it must be done without attacking the character or motives of those with whom I disagree. Such dialog also includes differences of opinion about what might be thought of as good or bad about the United States of America, in the past and the present. It also means accepting and respecting widely differing religious opinions.

As a Christian I welcome such open conversation, believing that the Gospel has great appeal and power and doesn’t need the protection of government or community consensus. God is quite capable of protecting the veracity of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is quite capable to convicting people of their need to repent and trust Jesus, regardless of how well I make logical and persuasive arguments. I do not need to be afraid of competing philosophies or religions or try to silence their voices.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

This is pure John Locke – the social contract theory of government – the government governs with the consent of the governed. It was a powerful corrective to the abuses of the doctrine of the divine right of kings. However, it removes God from the equation entirely and makes government a totally human enterprise. At one level, recognizing that government is the work of fallible humans is essential for the discerning and evaluating, adjusting and correcting that must go on with every human endeavor.

But as a Christian I must recognize that “there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1) This is clearly not God’s endorsement of every existing government nor of any specific government. To understand it we must recognize that when Paul wrote it Nero was the Roman Emperor who would eventually execute Paul and Peter and other Christians, not to mention his cruelty to many others. Rather, Romans 13 acknowledges the importance of accountability for all people, even Christians who should want to be seeking righteousness. It also recognizes that nothing is outside of God’s purview, not even government overtly hostile to God and the Gospel.

I am uncomfortable with the implication in several of these principles that the government is separate from the country, the community and me. I am uneasy with the assumption that the government may even be hostile to the country, the community and me. I recognize that the government (local, state and national) is organized as distinct institutions that take on a kind of life of their own. I also recognize that not everyone who serves in government (elected, appointed or hired) has pure motives, but I’m inclined to believe most want to serve well. Nevertheless, I also believe that the government is an extension of me, my community and my country. The government is not some alien force imposed against the will of the people but arises from the expressed will of the people. Overtly that happens through elections, but it also happens in public dialog. I have voted for as many losers as winners in my life. I have been disappointed not only by those I did not vote for but also by those I have voted for. I accept as part of the rule of law in a democracy is respecting those who hold office even when I disagree with them vehemently. We are in the midst of a legitimate debate about the size and scope of government, but we dare not let that deteriorate to where we see the government as the opposition.

The Twelve Values

I have a much harder time responding to the Twelve Values than to the Nine Principles. They are virtues to which no one would seriously object. They reminded me of Benjamin Franklin’s catalog of virtues that he intended to cultivate one at a time. Perhaps they are also somewhat like the Boy Scout Law. From the perspective of Christian spirituality, this becomes an impossible task without the empowering of the Holy Spirit.

 Honesty

 Reverence

 Hope

 Thrift

 Humility

 Charity

 Sincerity

 Moderation

 Hard Work

 Courage

 Personal Responsibility

 Gratitude

I thought about what source I might use to come up with a list of values worthy of cultivating. The seven deadly sins are counterbalanced by seven heavenly virtues: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, humility. The New Testament also recommends some virtues.

“Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4.8)

“Make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.” (2 Peter 1:5-7)

“Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.” (Romans 12:9-13)

After considering these suitable alternatives, I think the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 may best encompass the range of virtues being considered and include the realization that they are fruits produced by the Holy Spirit, not manifest works of righteousness.

 Love

 Joy

 Peace

 Patience

 Kindness

 Generosity

 Faithfulness

 Gentleness

 Self-control

Where Is Joseph?

Not a proposal but something to ponder in the current global economy

The current readings from the Hebrew Scriptures suggested by the Revised Common Lectionary are the story of Joseph, son of Jacob, sold by his brothers into Egypt. There he interprets Pharaoh’s dreams predicting seven years of plenty to be followed by seven years of famine. If nothing else, many of us remember from our children’s Sunday school days how Pharaoh puts Joseph in charge of saving up in the years of plenty to provide during the years of famine. Two years into the years of famine his brothers come to buy grain in Egypt, and Joseph provides for his whole family in Goshen.

What we do not usually pay as much attention to are the policies Joseph instituted to accomplish this. Neither Republicans nor Democrats, not the United States nor the Euro Zone would dare propose such policies today. During the seven years of plenty, under Joseph’s administration, all production was taxed (confiscated) at 20% and stored in Pharaoh’s (government) warehouses. When the seven years of famine came, Joseph sold what had been collected by taxation back to those from whom it had come in the first place. First they paid money until it was gone; then they titled their livestock to Pharaoh until none was left in private ownership; then Joseph bought all of the private land for Pharaoh. (Genesis 47:14, 16, 20) He even enslaved the people so they, too, belonged to Pharaoh (Genesis 47:18, 21) and imposed a permanent 20% tax on all they would produce in the future, not unlike sharecropping. In essence, Joseph collectivized all of Egypt.

I am not suggesting the Joseph story as an endorsement for any of the political positions being debated in the current economic crisis. Nor am I proposing copying Joseph’s policies. Twenty-first century democracies are vastly different than Hyksos era Egypt. But I do think the Joseph story raises important issues that are relevant today. First is leadership. Who are today’s Josephs who will propose something bold if difficult that will rally people of diverse if not adverse opinions to work together? Second is community. How can those who so fiercely protect their own interests be persuaded to set them aside for the greater common good?

I cannot help but be somewhat amused at the ironic twist of a well loved biblical story, the specifics of which would be roundly shunned by those in today’s political environment who seem most likely to call for a return to Judeo-Christian values (Bible, religion, etc.). They would celebrate Joseph’s spiritual insight and systematic thrift during the years of plenty, even as they would reject a government program of taxation and reselling. They might agree with government support of religion (the land of the Egyptian priests was exempt and they were supported directly by Pharaoh – Genesis 47:22), but object to having this go to a pagan state religion. I’m sure Joseph knew that the gods of Egypt were not the God who enabled Joseph to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams (Genesis 41:16), yet he allows them a favored status.

I would welcome a spontaneous, widespread spiritual, Christian revival with real engagement with the Bible, with prayer and with corporate worship. However, I don’t see that government has any role in that, though I do believe government is responsible for just economic well-being for the whole national and even global human community. I believe that specifically Christian spiritual health is the responsibility of the churches, not a general social consensus. When claiming faith in Christ sets those who follow Jesus apart from their secular or otherwise non-Christian neighbors, that faith will be stronger. Authentic faith in Christ must be chosen not coerced or diluted by secular government or social consensus.

Wind Farm Waltz

As we drove across Iowa on June 15, the slowly turning blades in the wind farms did not make me think first of generating electricity but of eloquently synchronized dancing giants. I know some people consider them to be eyesores. Some complain that they can't produce enough electricity fast enough to make a difference in energy production. Others say that the expense and environmental impact of the necessary transmission lines divert resources from petroleum prospecting and pumping. (I can't bring myself to say petroleum production, since all an oil well does is empty a finite resource from a hole in the ground; nothing is actually produced. The production of oil happened in the prehistoric decay of dead plants and animals.) So I guess the wind farms did prompt my thoughts about energy and environment. Yet, watching the blades turn suggested grace and beauty that transcended kilowatts. The wind moves them with a zen like smoothness, unperturbed by the cars and trucks rushing by on the highway (powered by petroleum), but more in tune with the cattle grazing beneath their orbiting arms.

Power Words (01-12-11)

Even if Jared Laughner claimed his shooting rampage in Tucson was inspired by inflammatory political rhetoric (which seems less and less likely), that does not mean that vicious language or violent imagery caused his actions. Conversely, using vitriolic words and symbols is neither excused nor justified by the absence of a causal correlation. To say that something was intended as a metaphor and not intended to be taken literally is disingenuous at best since the point of using it is to intensify the message communicated.

As a pastor I rely on the power of words and images in worship, teaching and pastoral care.

In worship words are not only in the sermon, but words invoke the very presence of God as we pray, commune and baptize. From cross and flame to water, bread and cup, symbols convey the spiritual reality of God active in our midst and in our lives.

I teach people to attend carefully to the words of Scripture and use metaphor and experience to illuminate their meaning. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) In Genesis God speaks the creation into being and pronounces it good.

Jesus often spoke the transformative words in one form or another, “You faith has healed you. Your sins are forgiven. Go in peace.” Jesus often conveyed his love and power through a touch. From hospital room to prayer in crisis, the clasp of hands signals the release of God’s power.

Coming so soon in the wake of a vitriolic election cycle, the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday, January 8, 2011 has surfaced vigorous and divisive discussions of several volatile issues from gun rights and care for the mentally ill to political language and national security. These are important issues that call for serious consideration, whether they have anything to do with the Tucson tragedy or not. I for one, would welcome a toning down the intensity political discourse. I’m not one to suggest censorship, but would appeal to those aspiring to the public trust to handle their communication with respect and restraint.

But I would suggest an even deeper issue that I believe should be of concern to serious Christians. That is, that we recognize the profound power of language and metaphors. Poets and artists realize this every time they use their tools of words and images to capture and convey a reality beyond a bare description but seek to evoke emotion, insight and reality beyond the empirical.

When the Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11) says not to take the name of the Lord your God in vain (modern translations say something like "misuse") it is not talking about what we generally consider vulgar language (cussing) but recognizes there is power in speaking the name of God, and to pronounce the name of God as though it was meaningless (empty, vain) is not only an insult to God but a denial of the power of words. To invoke God's name is to expect God to be involved, to act.

Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance? (01-05-11)

Since the Philadelphia Eagles made it to the playoffs with Michael Vick at quarterback, sports and social commentators have expended a lot of energy exploring whether he deserved this second chance. A variety of arguments have been advanced and countered as to why he did or did not deserve a second chance at an NFL career.

Some have said his cruelty to animals precludes the second chance. Others have argued that if he makes the appropriate turn around it shows he deserved the second chance. Some have suggested that the NFL is about football and not personal character, so if he can help a team win without letting his off field life be a distraction, he deserves a second chance. Some have countered that sports figures are by default role models for youth, so need to be held to high personal standards, and if they cross the line don't deserve a second chance.

I suspect that Philadelphia sports fans are more likely to approve a second chance for Michael Vick than Dallas or Green Bay sports fans. As much as we want sports figures (or other celebrities) to be positive role models, just as in business and politics, in sports winning and profits rule and trump character more often than not. I'm not going to pretend to say whether Michael Vick should be playing in the NFL or not, but this discussion raises a deeper question that is wholly missed by asking whether he (or anyone else) deserved a second chance.

Theologically and biblically the whole point of God's grace is that we get a second chance exactly because we do not deserve it. While my flaws and failures may not seem as heinous as dog fighting (fill in your own alternative) and may not have take place on a public stage, I know I have had many, many more than second chances than I deserve. For these I am most thankful.

More than once I have had a driver whose car I did not see blow the horn as I was about to change lanes on the freeway right into the other car. Though knowing I would have been at fault had there been a wreck, I am thankful it didn't happen on behalf of the other driver and passengers, others on the freeway, and of course myself.

Plenty of times, I have been aware that an interruption (sent by God?) has prevented me from making an impulsive mistake, which I know I would regret and for which I would be solely responsible.

With this perspective on the grace of receiving undeserved multiple fresh chances, I also recognize that I have no claim on deserving eternal life. What I need is forgiveness specifically because I do not deserve it. Grace is excluded if I explain, justify, rationalize and excuse my bad behavior (and thoughts and attitudes). Grace is accessed only by acknowledging that I don't deserve the second chances God delights to give us in Jesus Christ.

Path to Prosperity

I must confess I grew weary of hearing the Democrats and Republicans trade the same jabs over and over again in the 2011 budget debate. I may have to go on a news fast to get through the debt limit and 2012 budget debates without cracking up. It’s not that I’m inclined to believe or at least see the logic of each argument when I hear it by itself. No! It’s that even taken on their own terms, neither seems to make sense to me. I also readily confess that I have no idea what I would suggest to either party. I don’t think I have any kind of realistic grasp of dollars measured in billions and trillions. I have a hard enough time managing my own budget and debt retirement with ordinary dollars.

I have no intention of entering the partisan fray. As a pastor, that is not my job, nor am I up for it. However, my pastoral vocation does mean calling attention to God in the midst of ordinary life. With the 2011 budget debate still reverberating in the news in anticipation of the debt limit and 2012 budget debates, on Tuesday, April 12 as I was praying through the Psalms (5 a day to get through each month as I have done for over 40 years – that day 12, 42, 72, 102, 132), I was stopped short by Psalm 72. Please read the whole Psalm for yourself, but these verses gave me pause.

“(1)Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. (2)May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.”

“(4)May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.”

“(12)For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. (13)He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. (14)From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.”

“(16)May there be abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field.”

I certainly recognize that the ancient, theocratic kingdom of Israel is not equivalent to the contemporary secular, pluralistic democracy of the United States. While different ways of bringing justice to the poor, weak and needy may be legitimately debated, to suggest that caring for the weakest in a society is not the role of government in a biblical or Judeo-Christian worldview is disingenuous at best.

For the first three centuries of the Church’s history, Christians were on the outside of an indifferent if not hostile Roman Empire. The Mosaic Law provided and even mandated many social mechanisms for caring for the poor. Though they were not always followed, they did mean that the Jewish community often provided for poor people better than some of their pagan neighbors, even when under Roman domination in Jesus’ time. Caring for the poor was a high priority in the practical ethic of the early Church. From these roots grew the many charitable Christian endeavors that have persisted through the centuries.

Immediately after Pentecost they pooled their resources to distribute to those in need (Acts 2:44-45). When they had an internal conflict over the distribution of food, they appointed seven spiritual people to oversee it (Acts 6:1-6) When the Apostle Paul reports the results of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) to the Galatians he writes that rather than burdening the Gentile Christians with Jewish customs, they were asked only to remember the poor, which Paul writes they were eager to do (Galatians 2:10) Also Paul’s discourse on generous giving that is often used in stewardship teaching (2 Corinthians 8-9) was occasioned by a collection for the churches in Judea who were suffering famine (Acts 11:28-30).

I understand that generosity to the poor in the New Testament was voluntary in the sense that it was not a government tax. However, the early Church clearly considered caring for the poor to be an intrinsic part of Christian discipleship. Paul uses powerful words to motivate the Corinthians to give to the poor Christians in Judea. “I do not say this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love against the earnestness of others. For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:8-9)

Perhaps a healthy way for Christians to approach care for the poor in the United States in the twenty-first century would be to think the way Christians thought about the Roman Empire in the first three centuries of the Church’s history. Since we don’t expect government to make caring for the poor its job, we Christians must work together with massive, aggressive ministries to the all of the weakest of our society. But to suggest that wealthy people have a right to expand, keep and enjoy their resources without concern for those who are in need and suffering is contrary to both the social ethic of the Hebrew Scripture and the clear teaching of Jesus and the New Testament.

In all the current debates about the national deficit and debt of the United States, I have heard little if any coming to terms with what has brought us to this place. Democrats and Republicans blame each other, but I am not hearing anything that would approximate repentance. It is a spiritual axiom that renewal and transformation (conversion of life) begins with repentance that goes much deeper than being sorry we got caught or that our national values and habits have caught up with us. Perhaps a secular democracy cannot have a spiritual repentance, but I would like to hear a spiritual repentance from politicians on both sides of the political aisle, especially those who have made their Christian faith public. Perhaps that is asking for political suicide. It certainly is difficult if not impossible without a profound work of the Holy Spirit. But I would support a politician from either party who would embrace James 5:1-6 as refreshing repentance.

“Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you.”

Psalm 72 connects just care for the poor with prosperity for the whole community. That connection is explicitly expanded in Isaiah 58:6-12. Repentance and justice for the poor is not a message of gloom but of glory and hope. I am not suggesting any kind of political agenda here but a call for a spiritual transformation among the people of God. I invite you to participate in the conversation.

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

“Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday. The LORD will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail. Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.”

Book Burning

The violent reaction to the burning of the Koran by Florida “pastor” Terry Jones has prompted a whole host of responses. Many U.S. Muslims have publicly condemned the violence, particularly as it is directed against those who were not only not involved but even tried to stop Terry Jones from burning the Koran. Many Christians have publicly condemned not only his intolerance and disrespectful act and attitude, but also the insensitivity to appeals from fellow Americans and Christians. I have nothing to add to that discussion that has not already been said, and I have neither a reputation nor a following that would suggest my comments would be influential anyway. But I do have a couple of observations that I at least want to express, and if it prompts some conversation, so much the better.

We associate book burning with intolerant totalitarianism as a way to squelch ideas they find threatening. Sometimes vigilante groups have sought to burn or ban books they find offensive in schools, libraries and bookshops. Sometimes churches have held book burnings for materials they believed were theologically or ethically dangerous. No particular time or place, nation or religion has a monopoly or is exempt from the impetus to burn or ban books (or artwork or music or drama or film) in the name of protecting the community.

Through the ages some Christians have found a precedent for book burning Acts 19:19 when the converts from occult arts to Jesus Christ in Ephesus burned their magic books. I think it is important to note that this was not an act of political protest or an attempt to offend or humiliate their still pagan neighbors. They had no illusions about making such books unavailable, nor were they trying to protect the community from an invasion of foreign ideas. Rather, this book burning was an expression of a personal change of life direction. People were leaving behind their old lives to begin new lives as disciples of Jesus Christ.

Even so, with the totally different social climate today, I would not suggest that those who convert from Islam to follow Jesus should burn their Korans. In fact, I think Christians today should read the Koran for themselves to see how Jesus (and other biblical characters and ideas) are portrayed differently than in the Bible and to understand the points at which Islam challenges Christianity and explore how to prayerfully and respectfully respond to those differences. I have written elsewhere about how I as a Christian pastor seek to understand and respond to Islam (http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2008/04/pastoral-response-norman-stolpe-may-27.html), so I will not repeat that here. Certainly, burning Korans and insulting Muhammad does not encourage spiritually hungry Muslims to consider trusting Jesus.

The book burning issue is far broader than the distinctions between Christianity and Islam. That is just what has attracted way too much public attention recently. From my days in youth ministry I well remember some churches asking teenagers to bring their records and tapes of rock-n-roll music to be burned at rather odd youth rallies. Some made a point of burning recordings of Christian artists who were thought to have compromised with the world. With current technology I have heard of a few mp3 and i-pod rock music erasing or deleting parties, but they certainly lack the dramatic impact of burning all that plastic.

Though taking things in a little different direction, I feel I must add a bit of information that contrasts the way Muslims view the Koran and the way Christians view the Bible in order to understand the vehemence of some Muslims’ reaction to Terry Jones’ Koran burning.

First, though both Christians and Muslims speak of their Scriptures as the word of God. Christians recognize the Bible as an accumulation of conversations between God and people (especially but not exclusively the Hebrew and Church communities of faith) that came together over many centuries with many writers, reporting both righteousness and disobedience in the community of faith. Muslims believe the Koran is the actual words of God dictated to one person – Muhammad – in a single lifetime devoted to total submission to God.

Second, Christians emphasize that the Bible is the inspired, reliable, authoritative word of God for the community of faith in all times and places, including ours. Thus, translating the Bible into the languages people can understand has always been important. At Jesus’ time the Hebrew Scriptures had been translated into Greek since educated people in the whole Mediterranean Basin spoke Greek. That is also why the New Testament was written in Greek, even though most of its writers spoke Aramaic as their first language. By the fourth century the Bible was translated into Latin, which was the language people were reading throughout the Roman Empire. Since at least the thirteenth century, there has been an accelerating movement to translate the Bible into as many languages read by people as possible.

Islam views the Koran in a sort of a reverse of this pattern. That is, since they understand it as the actual words of God dictated to Muhammad in Arabic, the Koran is for them only the word of God when it is read, especially read aloud, in Arabic. Translations have to be clearly identified as such and not presented as though they were the authentic Koran. Thus, rather than translating the Koran into as many languages as possible, the missionary task (to apply term usually thought of as Christian) of Islam is to teach as many people as possible how to read (aloud) and understand Arabic.

Thus, though Christians might well be offended at someone burning a Bible, they generally do not regard the physical object in and of itself as sacred and would not consider burning it a blasphemous threat to God’s holiness. We would think of it more as a symptom of that person’s deficient faith and character. But for Muslims, since the Koran (especially in Arabic) is regarded as the actual words of God, to burn a Koran is direct blasphemy against God.

The ultimate value of Islam is the total submission of everything in a person’s life to God, including the community and country in which one lives. Thus, everyone in a community is tainted by a blasphemous act on the part of one person. For those of us in western democracies that put a high value on individual freedom, this is very difficult to understand and accept. Nevertheless, this is why some Muslims blame the entire United States for the irreverent act of one person whom most of us consider aberrant.

One final thought that I believe is very important. I make a significant distinction between what I believe and how I act as a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, and what I expect of the United States as a nation, as a society and of its people. While I expect and advocate for religious freedom to practice and proclaim faith in Christ in the United States, I also expect and advocate for the same freedom for all other religions, regardless of how much I may disagree with their teaching or beliefs. That freedom is not without limits, however. It does not tolerate things like cruelty, violence, oppression, slander, deception or coercion by any religion, including those who claim the name of Christian.

Conversely, I do not expect the United States to promote or give favorable status to any religion over any other, including any legal preference to Christianity. As a Christian pastor I must live and articulate my own faith and discipleship with confidence that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of protecting and promoting the Gospel in a neutral and even a hostile environment, and I must lead and teach the people of the congregations I serve to follow Jesus and proclaim the Gospel with similar confidence.

The Idolatry of Pursuing Risk-free Living

In no way to minimize the magnitude of the recent disaster in Japan (earthquake, tsunami, radiation from nuclear reactors, frigid weather), nor to suggest that people do not need to be accountable for their work and everything possible should be done to be as safe and prepared as possible, but removing all risk from life is impossible. I do not mean to suggest a policy for future nuclear electric plants or a solution to the tension between economy and environment, but every human endeavor comes with costs and dangers.

Responding and planning from fear will almost always head in the wrong direction. Pursuing short term gains almost always produces unforeseen and unintended consequences. Responsible dialog and problem solving are impossible in an adversarial political environment. Christians who are serious disciples of Jesus do not agree on how best to approach the challenges of our 21^st century world, sometimes this may be because we too easily let our social/political presuppositions trump faith and theology. But maybe as much as the brokenness of our world is not amenable to solutions short of the fullness of the Kingdom of God. To expect those who are in positions of public power and influence who are not serious disciples of Jesus to make decisions as though they were is unfair and unrealistic.

From the natural disaster in Japan (even in an earthquake prone region, no one could have predicted or prepared for something of this magnitude) to the violence of Libya, we feel distant and helpless. We anguish over the human cost of delayed difficult decisions, yet know that hasty decisions reap disaster. Rather than a “Christian” solution to these human tragedies, I suggest that the best contribution those of us who aspire to be total disciples of Jesus can make to our world is to demonstrate how to live by faith in the face of risk and danger – how to depend on God when the best human efforts fail.

Psalm 146:3-9 gives an appropriate perspective. “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish. Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps faith forever; who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free; the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.”

Les Miserables and the Kingdom of God

I recently caught part of the Les Miserables 25th anniversary concert on Public Television. Yes, it took me back to having seen the stage musical live in Philadelphia and having enjoyed the 10th anniversary concert more than once. It also took me to Libya where this week people are dying in hopes of ushering in a better world. It took me to Egypt where people are asking, where is the new world for which we fought? It took me back to the anti-war and civil rights movements of the sixties in this country.

I could go on and on remembering those who have died some with courage, some in desperation, seeking a new and better world. With its marvelous music, Les Miserables has captured not only a specific moment in French history, it has captured a deep longing in human hearts in all times and all places. The Israelites enslaved in Egypt cried out to God, and God sent them Moses. The Jews captive in Babylon and Persia cried out to God, and God sent them Nehemiah. Humanity cries out to God, and God sent us Jesus.

But Jesus does not lead us to the successful but temporary overthrow of tyrants. Jesus calls us to a truly new world, a world we can begin to live in even as we hope for it’s ultimate and eternal triumph. I ache with those who die for their efforts to bring the new world. I just about lost it emotionally watching the Les Miserables 25th anniversary concert. I believe this longing is the hunger deep in the human heart for the Kingdom of God announced by Jesus.

Celebrating the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible 1611-2011

A Bible to Read Aloud in Worship

“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties speciall Comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches.”

Many editions of the King James Version of the Bible still include this inscription, sometimes with the peculiar spellings though in modern typography (ſ=s and u=v). In order to understand and appreciate the King James Bible, we must start by recognizing that it was “Appointed to be read in Churches.”

King James and the Bishops of the Church of England wanted to unify the Church by mandating the reading of a single Bible in public worship. The Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible were all in use at the time, but none of them totally satisfactory. So in 1604 the Hampton Court Conference on the future of the church (does this sound contemporary?) commissioned a new translation that would be acceptable to everyone.

The translators were specifically instructed to give priority to how each passage would sound when read aloud in worship. Thus, the King James Bible preserved the use of “thee” and “thou” that the Great Bible (1538) had drawn from William Tyndale’s translation (1526), even though they were no longer in common usage. As English translations multiplied in the 20^th century, some argued that “thee” and “thou” should be preserved as more formal, respectful language for God, forgetting that these were originally the familiar form for close friends and family, similar to the German “du” and Spanish “tu.” Tyndale used them to convey God’s approachability.

The King James Bible translators purposely used other language that was already antiquated at the time to create sounds and rhythms for reading aloud in public worship. After the scholarship was done and alternative translations presented, they were read aloud and selected on the basis of listening.

The first editions of the King James Bible were printed in blackletter (similar to Gothic) in large folio format suitable for public reading by trained lectors, not the portable, personal books we are used to today.

The History and Impact of the English Bible

The history of translating the Bible into English is about much more than making the Bible available in a language we read. The procession of English Bible translations has driven and been shaped by forces far beyond English speakers, challenging and influencing the entire Church and cultures worldwide.

The first English translation to make an impact was stimulated and done by John Wycliffe from 1382 to 1395. This inspired the pre-Reformation Lollard movement that rejected Medieval Roman Catholic theology and authority. With the goal of a translation into common language he said, “I will cause that every plowboy in the fields shall be able to read it [Scripture].” This concept threatened the authority of the Medieval Church’s hierarchy far more than the content of the translation, which was directly from the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Wycliffe was sowing the seeds of the priesthood of all believers and the respect for individual Christian conscience that were so important in the Reformation and cherished by the Disciples of Christ. From these seeds, also grew English and American democracy.

William Tyndale’s translation (1526) launched the next wave of English Bible translation. The Great Bible (1538) had been commissioned by King Henry VIII was still translated from the Latin Vulgate. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek and reinforced the authority of the bishops of the Church of England. The Geneva Bible (1599) was also translated from the original language but was done in Geneva, Switzerland under the protection of John Calvin. It emphasized Presbyterian polity and was the Bible of the Puritans who were on the rise in England. These translations were competing at the time the Hampton Court Conference was convened in 1604 to make a new translation to unify the Church of England.

Not only was the King James Bible based on the original Hebrew and Greek languages, but textual and linguistic scholarship was making great advances at that time. It set the standard for biblical scholarship that shaped modern Biblical studies. Publishing practices kept the King James Bible text, spelling and punctuation quite fluid until the Oxford University text (1769) standardized not only English usage for the Bible but for all of us who write in English today.

Scholarship of Text and Language

The conquests of Alexander the Great (356 – 323 BCE) spread Greek culture and language through the Mediterranean Basin. Subsequently the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the second and third centuries BCE. It is known as the Septuagint. Since Greek had become the language of both trade and culture, the New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek of the New Testament is the language of everyday life, not the classical Greek of literature and government.

When Constantine adopted (and corrupted) Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire (346 AD) Latin became the predominant language. Jerome (347-420 AD) was the major contributor to translating the whole Bible into Latin. This became known as the Vulgate because it put the words of Scripture into the “vulgar tongue,” not at all meaning crude or profane but into the common language so ordinary people could read it.

While biblical scholarship survived in monasteries, little of it made it to people or priests in parish churches. The approach of the sixteenth century brought an awakening of scholarship, including biblical studies that nourished both the Reformation and Renaissance. In 1512 Dutch scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus began working on an updated Latin Translation which led him to a thorough study of the underlying Greek text of the New Testament, which he began in 1516. He gathered all the manuscripts he could and used the best and newest insights into language of that time to publish a parallel column New Testament in Greek and Latin. He included the Greek to show that his Latin was superior to the Vulgate, and in the process produced what came to be called Textus Receptus (received text), which was what the King James Bible translators used and was the standard until the twentieth century.

The twentieth century also brought a blossoming of biblical scholarship that brought not only better linguistic understanding but the discovery of thousands of manuscripts centuries older than Textus Receptus. A science of textual criticism also brought better ways to evaluate which were probably closer to the original. While most twentieth century Bible translations are based on these scholarly advances, they have challenged some cherished traditions. Some groups have insisted that Textus Receptus is preferred and thus insist that the King James Bible is superior or even the only “Authorized Version.”

Influences on Literature, Art and Culture

In recent years Richard Dawkins has gotten a lot of attention for his advocacy of atheism with his writings and public appearances. As unlikely as it may seem, in a video from the King James Bible Trust, he said, “You can’t appreciate English literature unless you are to some extend steeped in the King James Bible. There are phrases that come from it – people don’t realize they come from it – proverbial phrases, phrases that make echoes in people’s minds. Not to know the King James Bible is to be, in some small way, barbarian.”

Some of these phrases are: “my brother’s keeper,” “salt of the earth,” “give up the ghost,” “scapegoats,” “any eye for an eye,” “casting your pearls before swine,” “scarlet woman,” “writing on the wall,” “the blind leading the blind.”

In American history one of the most influential quotes from the King James Bible came from Abraham Lincoln’s speech accepting the Republican nomination for Senator from Illinois in 1858, in which he said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Though one who kept his faith totally private and was not a church member, Lincoln’s speeches are filled with references and paraphrases from the King James Bible. In his Second Inaugural Address he said “The Almighty has his own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

The art of poets from John Donne (1572 –1631) to T. S. Elliot (1888 – 1965) is inscrutable without familiarity with the King James Bible. Voices as varied as Alexander Scourby and Johnny Cash have recorded spoken versions. Pete Seeger quoted from Ecclesiastes 3 for his 1959 song “Turn, Turn, Turn” that became the Byrds’ number one hit in 1965. In that same year Simon and Garfunkel recorded their take on the Beatitudes with “Blessed.”

The Politics of Bible Translation

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Since Constantine appropriated Christianity for his political purposes in the Roman Empire (346 AD), government and church, culture and faith have jockeyed for position and power. When King Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church (1536), he declared himself “Supreme Head of the Church of England” and kept the ascription “Defender of the Faith” with which he had been recognized by the Roman Catholic Church for his attacks on Luther and the Reformation. King James appropriated both of these titles for himself as affirming his authority to commission the translation of the Bible that came to bear his name (which are still inscribed on the flyleaf of many modern editions of the King James Bible). Thus, political as well as scholarly and religious motives inspired the King James Bible. Nevertheless, popular acceptance took until the late 1640s and scholarly acceptance into the eighteenth century.

The growing Puritan movement in the Church of England identified with the Reformation and was the source of the Geneva Bible. To minimize their threat, King James instructed the six teams of translators who gathered in 1604 to guarantee that they would confirm to the episcopal structure and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy of the Church of England (e.g. using “church” not “congregation” and “bishop” not “elder”). He also instructed that certain passages be handled so as not to justify disobedience to the king. For example, the midwives in Egypt who defied Pharaoh by not killing the baby boys at the time of Moses’ birth (Exodus 1:17) and the criticism of King Asa for not executing his idolatrous grandmother (2 Chronicles 15:16). The feared Puritan revolt did come in 1649 when Oliver Cromwell executed King Charles I and established the Commonwealth of England, which lasted until the monarchy was reestablished and Charles II made King in 1661.

The Puritans (Pilgrims) who settled in Massachusetts in 1620 were not seeking what we would think of as religious freedom but wanted to escape the control of the King and the Church of England to practice their Reformed Christianity in congregational churches. Ironically, they brought the King James Bible with them as their standard Scripture. With similar irony, today’s most vigorous proponents of the King James Bible are decidedly congregational, opposed to hierarchal church structure and are advocates of traditional American democracy.

To learn more go to www.kingjamesbibletrust.org