December Ritual

This story tells of an important part of my spiritual formation. It will appear in a book I hope to see in print one day.

As I look back over all my Christmas seasons, my ninth grade holiday is one of my favorite memories. My grandmother handed me some money and asked, “Would you please take the bus downtown and put this money in a Salvation Army kettle and bring back a copy of the War Cry Magazine. I’m not up to going myself this year. You went with me last year, so you know what to do.”

Family stories take on a life and significance of their own. They grow out of real events that are shaped in the retelling to define identity and meaning. Each year as I got older, my grandmother increasingly included me in her December Salvation Army ritual and told me more and more of the story of my grandfather’s life and how they married. I treasure this story, and now that I am a grandfather, I pass it to those who come after me. I have assembled the pieces my grandmother passed to me, knowing full well that she shaped them and that I have shaped them further.

My grandfather, Gustav Ragnar Erikson, grew up in a small fishing village on Marstrand, a Swedish island between the North Sea and the Baltic. Hjaylmar Nimrod Stenberg was his younger friend in the same village. In those days, life on Marstrand did not hold much future for these boys. At 16, Gustav got a job on a sailing ship and never returned to Sweden. A few years later, when Hjaylmar turned 16 he also went to sea and never returned to Sweden.

I was five years old when my grandfather died, but I distinctly remember the nautical tattoos on his forearms. Though she wouldn’t and maybe couldn’t tell me specific stories about my grandfather’s seafaring days, my grandmother definitely gave me the impression that he fit the stereotype of the hard-living, hard-drinking, hard-fighting sailors who manned sailing vessels. His adventures were not limited to the Atlantic, but included sailing around Cape Horn and plying the trade routes between California and Asia.

Once when his ship was in port in Oakland, California, my grandfather decided to stay. What he did and for how long, is a blank in the story until he and some of his friends decided to attend a Salvation Army tent meeting to heckle. They fortified themselves with a visit to a bar first, which apparently left their heckling ineffective.

When the Salvation Army people were cleaning up after the tent meeting, they found a young man sleeping off his drunk. The Salvation Army people took my grandfather under their wing and cared for him. One of them was a young woman. I don’t know who pursued whom or how their relationship developed, but they married. My grandmother never indicated that my grandfather walked the sawdust trail at one of those Salvation Army revivals, but he did become a new man. Drinking and fighting adventures were behind him.

This young couple had a son, and they settled in Oakland. Both wife and son died in the 1918 flu epidemic. Alone again, my grandfather sought companionship at the First Swedish Baptist Church of Oakland. There he met Annette Josephine Olson, Nettie to her friends and family, my grandmother. Some of her friends said to her, “Nettie, did you see that young widower in church? Now that your mother is gone, maybe you could marry him.”

My grandmother was the oldest of four sisters. After their father died, their sickly mother required continual care. As the oldest sister, that responsibility fell to my grandmother. Her younger sisters all left home and married. After her mother died, Nettie was available to marry but thought she was probably too old for that to be likely. I never heard much about my grandparents’ courtship, but I do have a single studio photograph of a very simple wedding.

After my grandparents married, they connected with one of my grandmother’s younger sisters Helen Amelia who had married a Swedish immigrant, Hjaylmar Stenberg. My sister and I knew him as Uncle Nick. My mother was born in 1920 and was the only child of either marriage. These two couples either lived together or within a short walk of each other the rest of their lives. They had a couple of stints in Fort Bragg, California, where Uncle Nick had a brother. Most of the time, they lived in Oakland. My mother did not think of herself so much as an only child, but as having four loving parents.

My grandfather died the year I started kindergarten, and my grandmother moved in with us. I’m sure she began her annual pilgrimages to a Salvation Army kettle the first December after my grandfather’s death. I remember my Dad offering to drive her downtown, but she refused and said she wanted to do this herself. I know I was less than 10 the first time she asked me to accompany her for this December ritual. As we rode the bus each year, this story unfolded in bits and pieces, not as a complete narrative.

Occasionally, I would ride the bus with my grandmother to visit the Chapel of the Chimes where my grandfather is interred. In the same side of the chapel are two niches each with a pair of bronze urns that look like antique books. One pair for my grandparents and the other for Aunt Helen and Uncle Nick. At the time, only the urn for my grandfather was occupied. On one of those visits, my grandmother walked with me to the adjacent Mountain View Cemetery. In one of the older sections that no longer received the same level of perpetual care as the active areas, she found the graves of my grandfather’s first wife and son. I was touched by the love and respect my grandmother had for her husband’s first wife and child.

Of course, my grandmother never knew them. As she passed the pieces of this story to me while riding the bus, she explained that making a donation at a Salvation Army kettle every December was her way of thanking this woman she never knew for her husband. When my grandmother was no longer able to ride the bus, even accompanied by a high school grandson, she sent me with bus fare and her donation to find a Salvation Army kettle downtown and bring her a War Cry Magazine. Even after I had my driver’s license I was expected to take the bus and not to include any other errands on this excursion.

In the half-century that has passed since those December bus rides with my grandmother, I have continued to find a Salvation Army kettle and make a donation every year. But there are changes. I no longer ride the bus downtown nor do I restrict the trip to that one purpose. I’ve lived in five different states since then. The function of downtown has been taken over by shopping centers. But Salvation Army kettles are easily accessible, and if the person ringing the bell at the kettle has time and is inclined to chat, I tell my grandparents’ story.

I appreciate the difference the Salvation Army makes in the lives of people who are facing disaster, struggling with homelessness and poverty, and recovering from addictions. Some like my grandfather who may not even be looking for help when they are out of control, but are surprised by a new life because of the Salvation Army. For several years when I was serving a church in New Jersey, I was the volunteer Salvation Army Human Services Secretary for our five townships.

 But for me, the December ritual at a Salvation Army kettle is personal. Like my grandmother, I pause to pay respect to a woman and a little boy who, in dying, led to the marriage of my grandfather and grandmother and the birth of my mother.

Words Are Windows to the Heart

Twenty plus years ago I was privileged to have an extended conversation with Henri Nouwen about Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:34. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” As I was wrestling with speaking to my then seven year old son, Henri said, “If you want to know what is going on in your heart, listen to what you say when you speak before you think.” This line has become a powerful touchstone for my personal spiritual journey and for my pastoral ministry. I have added: and what you stop yourself from saying if you catch yourself in time.

In the turmoil and exchanged accusations of the past presidential campaign and the aftermath of the election, I have said and heard others say things such as, “I don’t know what is in that person’s heart, but I hear them say …” I would suggest that Jesus’ words do give us a window into the hearts of politicians in the unplanned, spontaneous words they use (say or post on the internet). Often they backtrack on or try to hide these revelations with carefully prepared statements, but I suggest paying attention to the words that come out without much forethought as clues to what is happening in their hearts.

Racism Is Us, Not Them!

I do hope that my intentionally provocative title will compel you to read my entire essay before reacting. The essay itself is also intentionally provocative, so I hope you will keep reading past your emotional stop signs. Now that political correctness is being dismissed in popular culture and replaced by disrespect, certainly a serious consideration of race can be undertaken even if it is uncomfortable.

I doubt anyone would question that the people of the US are more aware of racial tensions now than they have been for a long time, perhaps even more than at the height of the civil rights movement. Accusations of promoting race tensions have been hurled at President Obama throughout his eight year administration. Race tensions have become increasingly volatile through this presidential campaign, much of which has been attributed to President-elect Trump. I don’t know how this could be quantified or documented, but I suggest that neither of them is to blame for creating the acute racial hostility currently surging in the country. Rather, I believe they have exposed deeply embedded racism that has been undercover to some degree for some time.

President Obama is, to me, a fascinating case study in how race is perceived. His mother was white, so he is as much white as Black. His father was from Africa and not a descendant of US slaves, so President Obama is not a natural inheritor of African-American culture. Perhaps through Michelle, he was adopted by the African-American community for whom he embodied some of their hopes for equality. I know the claim that opposition to him was about policy and not race, but the racial overtones were inescapable among both white and Black folk, and occasionally overt references slipped out in both directions.

Whatever he intended, many of President-elect Trump’s comments during the campaign were taken by many as permission to express overtly racist sentiments, not directed only at African-Americans, but at Latinos, Middle Easterners, Native Americans, Asians, and Jews. Whether President-elect Trump wanted it or not, his candidacy attracted support from some white supremacist groups. These days since the election have seen a distressing burst of blatant racism, some incidents seeming to attack President-elect Trump’s supporters, and many making direct threats and even physical attacks on African-Americans, Latinos, Jews, and Muslims (or those presumed to be Muslim such as Sikhs and even Middle Eastern Christians). The threatened and enacted violence evokes fear, some even fear for life and limb.

  While only a small portion of the US population may espouse the most virulent expressions of racism that have been in the public eye recently, I do believe that racism is present in all of us and woven deeply into the fabric of the society in which we live. No ethnic or social group has a monopoly on racism, nor is any ethnic or social group immune to or exempt from racism. I also am convinced that comparative racism, scoring some groups worse as or better than others only exacerbates that problem. This is because that usually is a device for shifting responsibility away from one’s self and one’s own group onto “the other,” onto someone else. I strongly believe that volatile issues such as racism can only be addressed effectively by taking responsibility for one’s self and allowing others to take responsibility for themselves. Thus, as a 70 year old white man, I need to deal with my own racist attitudes and those in my social circles and allow Black folk, Latino folk, and others deal with their attitudes. Critiquing ourselves creates a safe space in which others can critique themselves. Racism in another group in no way justifies or excuses racism among white folk!

Locating a problem as outside of ourselves only aggravates the problem and interferes with the possibility of progress toward harmony. Thus I am convinced that we inflame racial tensions when:

·         We believe racism is worse in another group or groups, so I (we) don’t have to do anything about my racism or the racism of my social circle.

·         When we defend those with whom we most easily identify and critique those with whom we have a hard time identifying.

·         We protest that we are not racist or prejudiced or proclaim we have friends who are: Black, white, Latino, Asian (or you fill in the blank).

·         We believe the other side must make the first move toward reconciliation. I believe the first one to recognize the problem is responsible to be the first one to begin solving the problem.

·         We use misconduct by some on the other side to discredit all we see as part of that group.

·         We hold up token members of the other side who express opinions we are comfortable with to discount those with whom we are uncomfortable.

·         We distance ourselves from racist attitudes of people of our group by saying, “But that’s not what I think,” without challenging the reality and power of such attitudes in our own social circles.

While am appalled at the overt, virulent racism being expressed so freely in recent days (perhaps being rationalized by the lifting of the presumed expectation of political correctness), I do see a positive possibility. That is, if a veneer of courtesy has kept racist reality pretty much under cover for a generation without dealing with it, perhaps by bringing it out in the open we have an opportunity to make real personal and social changes. With the integration of public schools that followed Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the civil rights movement that produced the Civil Rights Act (1964), I remember people objecting to these legal measures by saying that law can’t change people’s hearts. My sense is that they were right and that race tensions are as bad or worse in 2016 as they were 50-60 years ago, even though considerable progress has been made on the legal front. We are in danger of becoming like the Balkans who descended into ethnic violence when the oppression of totalitarian government was removed. So perhaps we have come to a crossroad at which individually and together we can change our hearts. Theologically, perhaps we can think of the surfacing of rampant racism in our time as a sort of confession, but to bring changes in hearts, and if you will the collective soul of our society, requires going from confession to repentance. I cannot repent for someone else, only for myself. Though I suppose this essay could be thought of as an invitation to repentance.

I have been enriched and privileged to live and serve in multi-ethnic, urban communities most of my life. Growing up in Oakland, CA, a trip to the grocery store meant hearing 3-5 languages most of the time, always Chinese and Spanish. Especially in junior high and high school, the mix of Anglo, Asian, Latino, and African-American students and teachers meant no one was a “majority.” As a college freshman, I had an after school job tutoring algebra for about 20 students at McClymonds High School, with an almost totally Black student body. I rode the bus to and from this job, coming home in the dark as the only white person on the bus. As a pastor, the gracious hospitality of many African-American and Latino colleagues has given me opportunities to serve, fellowship and worship with their congregations, building cherished friendships.

As wonderful as all of that has been for me, it does not exempt me from my own racism. As a junior high and high school student, in my college prep track classes I felt a kinship with the African-American and Latino students as we lagged behind in competing with the Asian and Jewish students whose families vigorously promoted academic performance. In my general classes, I felt intimidated by a few African-American students who seemed belligerent to me, and I am still on guard for these attitudes when I meet an African-American person for the first time. I must admit to an involuntary tightening of my shoulders when I am walking alone and approached by an African-American person. These are just surface symptoms of my own racism that I know has tentacles that reach into the dark recesses of my heart.

I have already indicated that as evil as this current upsurge of expressed racism is, if it prompts honest conversation about race in the US, it could end up having a beneficial effect. I have also already written that this does not come by telling those we perceive as “the other” that they have the problem or must take the initiative. It comes from an honest confrontation with my own racism. We who aspire to trust and follow Jesus may be in a unique position to lead in this effort, as our theology and spiritual experience is predicated on confession and repentance, grace and love. Watered down, generic Judeo-Christian civil religion that is reduced to believing God exists and being good citizens will not cut it. It takes the kind of radical discipleship that transformed Mary Magdalene and Saul of Tarsus.

I don’t expect such discipleship in the halls of government or other corridors of power. These voices seem to come from the edge much of the time. One of my spiritual heroes is John Woolman (1720-1772). If you want to learn about that kind of discipleship, I highly recommend reading his Journal. I’ve cited him a number of times in my writing. I learned about him and read his Journal several years before I even imagined living in his home town, Mt. Holly, NJ. In the 17 years I lived and served there I walked by the Friends Meeting House where he worshipped at least once a week. With an apparent gentle fortitude he vigorously opposed slavery and racial injustice. He supported the rights and dignity of the Native People. He advocated economic justice for the poor. He sought to nourish marriage and family life and limit the damage of alcohol abuse. He opposed all violence and war. He is treated as something of an historical celebrity in Mt. Holly today, but during his life he was an annoying thorn in the flesh to people of power, prestige, position and wealth.

However, John Woolman’s Journal is not a self-congratulatory inventory of his accomplishments or exposition of his advocacy of personal and social righteousness. Rather, he wrote of his deep introspection and conversation with God through Scripture and Jesus Christ. Not expecting publication, he bared his soul and gives those who take the trouble to read real insight into his own journey of confession and repentance, grace and love. He explored how God kept revealing to him his inadequacies and gave him grace as he acknowledged them. His journal does not read like the manifesto of a social justice firebrand, but as a humble disciple of Jesus stumbling along his journey depending on God.

I suggest to you that just as John Woolman was a model for addressing the racism of his day, his example would serve us well in our day. When we honestly acknowledge our own culpability, we become available for God to use as an instrument of reconciliation, healing, and harmony. However, if we persist in putting the burden of racial reconciliation on “the others” instead of ourselves, we only fuel the perverse desires for race war such as Dylann Roof and Micah Johnson espoused. To draw on one of my favorite lines from Shakespeare (Julius Caesar), “The fault, dear Brutus, in not in our stars but in ourselves.” Racism is us, not them!

https://vimeo.com/147760743 

Not Leaving the Country

People say a lot of silly things during political campaigns, including threatening to leave the country if their candidate doesn't win. Some made such statements about both Clinton and Trump, but now we are hearing cries for those who said they'd leave if Trump won to leave. Of course, that misses the point that such statements are really expressions of strong emotion rather than literal intention. Having said that, I believe God has sent me as a citizen of Christ's Kingdom/Reign to be a resident alien in the US. Therefore, I'm not going anywhere regardless of who wins or loses, but I will continue to live here with my total priority on following Jesus, encouraging others on the journey with him, and inviting others to join us. I know that the US (and every human entity) is temporal while Christ's Kingdom/Reign is eternal, and will be there long after the US has passed from human history. Before the election I wrote this about that perspective.

Election Day Communion Service

I am not posting this to promote Northway Christian Church (with whom Candy and I have been members since retiring as pastor of Central Christian Church), though any who would like to participate are welcome. Rather, I am posting this as an important reminder of the centrality of Jesus despite our other differences. If you have such a service to participate in, wonderful! If not I suggest a half hour of meditating on Philippians 2:1-11 before turning on the TV to get election results. You might even call or visit a Christian friend who you know voted differently than you did and pray together for the unity of Christ's people and the future of the country before turning on the TV.

Vote Without Fear

I learned that anger is a secondary emotion (thanks to training for pastoral counseling, and parent and marriage communication). Anger is preceded and triggered by another emotion, which must be addressed in order to deal with the anger. As I have observed the extraordinary anger in this election cycle, I have pondered what emotions might be triggering it and have concluded that very often it is fear (from both left and right).

In my pastoral career I have often passed on as a life axiom that when we make decisions based on fear, we almost always make the wrong choice. 1 John 4:18 says, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear,” which suggests to me that the opposite of fear is not courage but love. A mother does not run into traffic to snatch her child from in front of a speeding car because she is brave but because she loves the child. So to keep from making a bad decision based on fear, I have long suggested to people they consider how to decide based on love.

Through this election season, I have purposely refrained from indicating for whom I am voting or recommending any candidate. Rather, I have tried to wrestle with how what I have gained from Scripture over the years informs the way I do my thinking and pass that on with a hope it will help others think more biblically and deeply. So I’m still not going to endorse a candidate, but I will suggest that when you sense fear in the choices you must make, consider how love can supplant fear as you decide how you will vote.

Watching our Culture Die

My friend Randy Breen asked me to respond to this article, so I offer these thoughts. https://thegospelside.com/2016/10/03/watching-our-culture-die-where-the-secular-culture-went-wrong-and-what-christians-can-do-to-help/

Since Randy specifically included me in his request for responding to this article, I’ll give it a shot, even though a few days late. As I suspect he guessed, I’d present something of an alternate perspective, without actually arguing with the piece itself. My sense is that in an effort to make a single point, the article is just too brief to deal with the many nuances that surround the questions to which it speaks.

I would suggest that western civilization is not based on a single narrative but on a rich blend of narratives, not all of which have Christian or even biblical roots. For example, without a  doubt, Greek/Roman and Nordic mythologies inform much of the self-understanding of western civilization. Rather than seeing the Christ narrative as the defining story of western civilization, I see it as the defining narrative of the Church which has had a significant impact on western civilization. Part of understanding what is happening with western civilization in our time requires recognizing that for a host of reasons the Christ narrative is so radically countercultural that even at the height of Christendom and the appeal of the US as a “Christian nation” (which really took the form we recognize today in the Cold War to distinguish the US from godless communism) its broad acceptance was in a version watered down to be more polite and less threatening.

Just within the last few days I wrote about how we who seriously want to follow Jesus are, always have been and always will be exiles. Jeremiah 29:4-7 gives some guidance about how to live as exiles. http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2016/10/sent-into-exile.html Last year I wrote about why I am more concerned about the spiritual health of the Church than the religious landscape of the country. http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2015/05/i-am-more-concerned-about-spiritual.html I hope that by juxtaposing some of this sort of thinking with the article Randy posted with prompt deep and prayerful thought. I’ve written about these sort of things quite a bit and posted at http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/ . Norman Stolpe

An additional thought in a somewhat different direction. Cultures and civilizations are always fluid and in transition. There is no “normal” state to “go back to.” We cannot find an ideal moment and freeze it in perpetuity. I just turned 70 and my wife, Candy, was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. We are in the process of discovering and living this next transition of our lives, and though we have some guidance, the path is not totally clear. I have been aware for several years, and the recent musical “Hamilton” brought it up again, that Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had radically conflicting visions of what this then new nation was to become. Jefferson saw an agrarian society with wide open spaces, and for all of his words about “all men being created equal,” the pragmatics were based on a landed aristocracy who defined what happened for everyone else. Hamilton saw an industrial society full of inventive people creating new ways to build a shared economy. Though Jefferson prevailed at the time, Hamilton’s dream came closer to the reality. As Jefferson saw that happening, he wrote of his fear that such a country would not survive long but collapse and the dreams of liberty be lost. Such tensions and transitions occur at every juncture of history, including our own. The 1950s were not utopia, especially for those who were left out of the post-war suburban boom.

From a theological perspective, I see our human insistence on seeking an idealized stable state is a built in longing for the Kingdom of God that comes by being made in the image of God. However, I see our efforts to create that stable state ourselves as a doomed idolatry akin to the Tower of Babel. Faith calls us to supreme and sole loyalty as citizens of the Kingdom of God who aspire to be God’s agents of peace and justice, righteousness and mercy in every human society, civilization and culture until the King himself comes.

Sent Into Exile

You may be one of the many who do not believe you have a viable vote for US President in 2016. You cannot enthusiastically vote for either of the major party candidates but are reluctant to vote for a third party candidate lest the candidate you hate or fear the most gets elected. I am not going to tell you how to vote, but I think the reading from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) for this coming Sunday (Revised Common Lectionary - October 9, 2016) in Jeremiah 29:4-7 suggests a constructive way of thinking about this for those of us who aspire to be serious disciples of Jesus Christ.

The Babylonian Empire had invaded Judah around 586 BCE and were taking captives into exile. The prophet Jeremiah who was still in Judah wrote a letter to those who had already been carried off to Babylon. Some with a false hope of a quick return to a liberated Judah and others in resistance to their captors were refusing to go on with life. Though not especially welcome, Jeremiah’s eloquent letter on God’s behalf echoes with wisdom through the centuries right to our own time.

He wrote: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”

I suggest that the ambivalence many Christians feel about this election is a symptom of not recognizing that by following Jesus we are ipso facto in exile. I further suggest that this is not new at all but has always been the status of authentic disciples of Jesus, who had nowhere to lay his head, whose lordship was an intolerable threat to the Roman Empire. Until the Roman Emperor Constantine usurped his own distorted version of Christianity the official religion of the realm as a tool of military conquest, neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the early Church could ever have imagined Christianity as a national religion.

Many of the documents quoted in support of the idea of the United States as a “Christian nation” come from the New England Puritans of the colonial era. They left Europe, not for religious freedom as we would understand it, but to found a new Israel in the wilderness that would be a city set on a hill to enlighten the rest of the world (or at least Europe which they saw as still bound by the “rags of Popery” (Roman Catholicism). In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, only male landowners who were members of the Congregational Church in good standing could vote or hold public office. Within a generation this seemingly noble aspiration collapsed, and they instituted what was called the “halfway covenant.” That allowed for perfunctory church membership without participation or discipline. All such efforts to have established churches were abandoned with the adoption of the US Constitution which makes no mention of God and forbids established religion and religious tests for public office. (Among the Thirteen Colonies, only the Baptists of Rhode Island and the Quakers of Pennsylvania insisted on freedom of religion without an official church.)

I have included this very brief historical note, not to explore why I am convinced the idea of a “Christian nation” is detrimental to authentic Christian discipleship (I’ve done that elsewhere), but because I believe it gives some context to how understanding that those who follow Jesus are exiles is liberating and empowering as we face the sorts of challenges and conundrums of which the current presidential election is but one example. By relinquishing a fear-driven pursuit of the unrealistic, and I believe unbiblical, hope of a “Christian nation” and accepting that we who aspire to seriously follow Jesus are, always have been, and always will be exiles.

Though two and a half millennia after Jeremiah, his letter to Judah’s exiles in Babylon can stimulate us to be positive and constructive even when we live in a culture that wants to dilute discipleship by making Christianity a cultural artifact, or pretends to ignore the challenge the lordship of Jesus is to all human authority, or even sometimes opposes those who seriously aspire to follow Jesus.

Though I would hardly claim to be the exemplary disciple of Jesus I aspire to be, I do see my personal identity totally tied up with Jesus’ identity. My roles as husband, father, grandfather and even pastor are all expressions of my identification with Jesus. Jeremiah wrote to the exiles that God had sent them to Babylon. By virtue of my birth and the path of my life I believe God has sent me to the United States. God might well have sent me elsewhere, and God has certainly sent most of Jesus’ people to countries other than the United States. I am first and foremost a citizen of the Kingdom of God and called to live that way as a citizen of the United States, just as most other disciples of Jesus are called to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God in whatever country to which God has sent them.

Jeremiah’s letter tells those of us who follow Jesus how to practice good citizenship in our human countries as those whose sole loyalty is as citizens of the Kingdom of God. Live your life with gusto! Get married; raise families; participate in the economy. Your presence will light a path for others who seek something more satisfying, more enduring than our daily human pursuits. Your allegiance to Jesus points people who are disillusioned with fallible even corrupt political leadership to someone they can trust with enthusiastic confidence. Seek the welfare of the city where God has sent us. Contribute to the common good, even the good of those who mock or oppose your faith. As the community prospers, we prosper too, and all will have the opportunity to know the God who sends his rain on the just and the unjust. This is the beginning of experiencing God’s grace which is predicated on loving those who don’t deserve love. And perhaps most of all, pray for the city in which God has sent you to exile. Yes, pray for the presidential candidate you hate and fear the most. Pray that peace and justice, righteousness and mercy may flourish for those among whom you are in exile.

I believe Jeremiah’s letter precludes living in fear that national foundations are being destroyed. When the psalmist pondered that question (Psalm 11:3), the answer is immediate, “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” (Psalm 11:4) As exiles we who follow Jesus are harbingers of hope and joy even in the midst of chaos and confusion. I know we will disagree with each other about exactly how best to seek the welfare of the city to which we have been sent in exile, but I do believe we should pursue that goal positively, full of faith, hope and love. As far as deciding how your vote this election as a disciple of Jesus can make that contribution, I’ve suggested the prayer for the king in Psalm 72 as a template for voting, and you can read that at http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2016/06/principles-for-deciding-for-whom-i-will.html .

I’m not looking for arguments but hoping to stimulate thinking and discussion among those who follow Jesus as how best we can seek the welfare of the United States in this present moment. 

Taking a Cue from Jesus for Listening to Presidential Debates

In Matthew 12:34 Jesus said, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” About 24 years ago I was exploring this with Henri Nouwen on my own spiritual journey, and he said, “If you want to know what is in your heart, listen to what you say when you speak before you think.” I have added for myself: or what I stop myself from saying when thought catches up to speech. In the upcoming presidential debates I suggest that we listen for what the candidates say when they speak spontaneously to get an insight into their hearts. While their prepared comments may be sincere, they may also cover up or distract from what is in their hearts. The debate format allows more opportunities for such spontaneity than do orchestrated campaign events, thus may give more opportunities for insights into the candidates’ hearts.

The National Hubris of "American Exceptionalism" in an Election Year

This is an excerpt of a longer essay that I wrote October 6, 2011 which you can read in its entirety at http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/2011/10/center-for-me-and-my-world.html. I am re-posting this section as an attempt at a biblical response to the nationalistic hubris almost all candidates of all political parties and philosophies bring to the fore in every national election season. I suppose that is to be expected, but as disciples of Jesus with our supreme loyalty to Christ and His Kingdom (Wheaton College's motto), we need to think carefully and significantly differently than our fellow citizens. If you go to the trouble of reading this, I hope you will read to the end and keep in mind that I wrote it almost five years ago.

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.

Lean Into the Pain

We, all of us who live in the US, have serious unresolved issues with race, violence and law enforcement. To ignore or deny them is to perpetuate them. To fix blame outside of ourselves as though someone else has a problem while we don’t only aggravates and inflames them. I am reminded of a vivid image from Howard E. Butt’s book on spiritual leadership The Velvet Covered Brick, which I have frequently used for pastoral and personal guidance. If when confronted by pain we pull back, we will not avoid it but only have to face it with greater intensity later. However, if we “lean into the pain,” we will resolve issues, grow, and be able to live with strength and joy. The events of the last couple of weeks confront us with the reality of the pain of the unresolved issues of race, violence, and law enforcement. We have a choice. Will we pull back with denial and blame, only to face the pain in greater intensity later, or will we “lean into the pain” by listening to those who see things very differently than we do with a view to understanding why reality looks so different to them than it does to us? As an older, white man, first of all, I must listen carefully to young Black folk with empathy, not criticism. Only then can I expect those who are dramatically different than I am to listen empathetically to me. I will acknowledge that my experience has brought into my life many people of diverse ethnic, cultural, religious and political perspectives. They have enriched and instructed me. I would like to hope many of them would believe I have listened to them empathetically. However, I do not hold myself up as an example for how to do this, only as one who aspires to continue to grow in my old age.

Hungry for Strong Leaders

History is clear that nothing happens in a vacuum. Every crisis and challenge was set in motion by preceding actions and outcomes. The Hebrew Prophet Habakkuk spells that out in unsettling clarity. The remaking of Europe after World War I and the Great Depression set in motion a disequilibrium that precipitated World War II. In that fear-filled chaos, people around the world clamored for strong leaders to guide them into stability. This brought together Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, and Joseph Stalin as well as Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Showa Hirohito, Francisco Franco, and Haile Selassie. Understanding this era requires remembering that Stalin was an ally of Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle before the Cold War shuffled the deck.

The “great recession” of 2007-09 disrupted the global economy with deep uncertainties for the future. The rise of Islamist terrorism, especially with the form it has taken with the Islamic State displacing huge numbers of refugees into Europe and around the world has upset perceived international stability and the cherished identities of nations. The chaos that has so quickly ensued since the Brexit vote for Great Britain to withdraw from the European Union is disrupting international relationships in unpredictable ways. British leadership is floundering rather than leading.

As much as the west derides Vladimir Putin as a totalitarian autocrat, he is popular in Russia as the one who offers stability and the promise of restored Russian glory. The whole U.S. Presidential election process we are in (from the large number of primary candidates to the identity of the presumptive nominees) suggests the people of the United States are also longing for a strong leader to guide them through the chaos to stability and greatness.

I certainly would not suggest that the current world climate is the same as the time between the World Wars, nor would I make casual comparisons between any of the candidates and dictators from history, I do suspect that we are in a time of uncertainty in which people are hungry for strong leaders they believe they can trust to protect them against what they see as an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. Without a doubt leadership counts and is essential.

In the World War II era some of those strong leaders brought much good to the people of their own countries and the world, while others of them were evil perpetrators of unimaginable suffering. The shifting perception of Stalin from World War II to the Cold War is a cautionary tale that reminds us that danger lurks in even the most seemingly benign of human endeavors. When we humans make our decisions based on fear, we almost always make the wrong choice and pay a painful price in the long run. I’m not suggesting we reject all strong leaders. Nor am I suggesting pure goodness is even possible. But I do believe affirmative motives are more likely to help us choose the most constructive leaders in times of uncertain crisis.

Principles for Deciding for Whom I Will Vote

As best I can remember every election in which I have listened to conversations about the candidates, I have heard people make some variant of the “lesser of two evils” rationale to explain their vote, especially when others expressed divergent opinions. Though I must admit to having fallen prey to this myself to avoid being drawn into a contentious debate, I have come to reject its validity.

For one thing, it evades taking responsibility for doing the thinking required to take an informed position. Second, it feeds doubts that undermine the democratic process that is central to the life of the United States and much of the world. Such disillusionment with democracy opens the door to demagoguery.  While all candidates and elected officials are fallible, finite human beings, some who were enthusiastically embraced and effective in office have had significant personal character flaws. And some of high character and integrity have been dismissed as weak and ineffective.  I will leave it to the reader to identify examples from their own time and from history. Third, it compromises the support and respect of the offices these folk hold in trust for the whole community.

As a pastor, I make a point of not articulating preferences for political candidates. I know some might think this is also an evasion of responsibility. At one level for me to support specific candidates could have jeopardized the tax exempt status of the congregations I served, if such support was somehow understood as representing or instructing the congregation. Whether churches should have tax exempt status and under what conditions is worthy of examination, but for me to deprive a congregation I serve of their tax exempt status by my individual action would be abuse of my authority. But far and away the most important reason I keep my political opinions to myself is that I don’t want anything to distract from my calling to introduce people to Jesus and encourage their faith journeys with him. I don’t want people tuning out what I say about Jesus because they associate it with a political stance, whether they agree with the politics or not.

Having said this, as a pastor I do believe I have a responsibility to teach people how to think biblically and let that shape their political opinions. When I was serving a congregation as their pastor, I believe I had both church and divine authority for such teaching. So I will not tell you whom I think you should vote for or whom I will be voting for, but I will try to explore a biblical way of thinking about how to decide for whom I will cast my vote with the intent of being a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ.

Stereotypically conservative Christians have emphasized personal righteousness and liberal Christians have emphasized social righteousness. Biblically this is a false dichotomy, and they should not be played against each other. Both personal and social righteousness are essential to life as faithful disciples of Jesus. In fact, they are indistinguishable in the Mosaic Law, the Hebrew prophets, Jesus in the Gospels and the New Testament Epistles. Even the idea of “both-and” and “balance” as though these are somehow competing ideas is totally foreign to the biblical writers. The personal and social are not aspects of righteousness; they are righteousness. In the necessarily adversarial dynamic of democratic politics that recently seems to have become particularly destructively polarized and divisive, this way of thinking is challenging and often rejected by those without adequate biblical foundations. So advocating holistic biblical righteousness will necessarily be embraced and rejected by both political liberals and political conservatives.

I had intended to post this essay after the political conventions in July, but since it appears likely that the 2016 race for the US Presidency will be between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, and the contentious debates are already at full-tilt, I decided to post it now. Whether character becomes part of the political dynamic of this election, it is a concern to me, and as a pastor I think it should be a concern to all Christians. Accusations of serious character flaws have been hurled at Hilary Clinton, especially but not exclusively from the conservative far right. Many who would be her natural political allies have at least hinted that trust will be an important issue in the election, but she has pretty consistently defended her integrity while acknowledging some level of fallibility. Donald Trump seems to parade his character flaws without shame in public as though they were somehow strengths that recommend him to the voters. No one needs to accuse Donald Trump of a defective character; he wears it as a badge of honor demonstrating that he gets things accomplished no matter who or what stands in his way.

I expect to hear a lot of voting for the “lesser of two evils” talk as the campaign moves toward November. I have no illusions that I can write an essay that is sufficiently compelling and widely read enough to head it off. Nevertheless, I believe that is the wrong approach for the reasons with which I began. I also do not recommend abstaining or voting for a protest candidate with no chance of winning. Those options seem to me to abandon the election to base instincts.

As a pastor and as one who aspires to follow Jesus faithfully, I am exploring how to vote when the candidates in question seem to have significant character flaws that are at odds with Christian discipleship without succumbing to a “lesser of two evils” mentality. To do that, I am making two presuppositions. First, I make a distinction between those who intentionally build their lives around being the most faithful disciple of Jesus possible and those who have adopted or assumed a generic, cultural Christian identity. Second, I believe nurturing Christian discipleship is the responsibility of the Church, not the nation. Government supported religion is detrimental to authentic Christian discipleship. The US Constitution, which makes no mention of God, guarantees that the country will not have an established religion nor have a religious test for public service.

I have no way of knowing what is in the hearts of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, nor what may have transpired in their relationship with God. Mrs. Clinton has identified herself as a United Methodist, and some observers have traced her political philosophy to these Methodist roots. She has not given high public profile to her faith or church participation. Mr. Trump declared himself a Christian and campaigned in some evangelical venues, perhaps prompted by the overt evangelical Christian identification of his primary opponents. Yet, he seemed unfamiliar and ill at ease in those settings and has not identified a Christian body with which he participates. I certainly cannot say whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump would be better classified as cultural Christians than intentional disciples of Jesus. I would suggest, however, that such a distinction offers little guidance in deciding how to vote.

There is a certain validity to the apocryphal quote attributed to Martin Luther (though without documentation). “I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian.” Someone may well be a devout disciple of Jesus who is competent in one area of expertise and incompetent in others. None of us would want a Christian accountant to rewire our house. We’d hire a certified electrician for that without regard to religious conviction. When it comes to public office, integrity and values count as much as skill and knowledge. I would hope that I could count on the integrity and values of a self-identified Christian, but we know both that Christians are as vulnerable as any other humans and that values constellations are expansive and complex. Thus two highly committed and well informed Christians might very well start from a solidly shared biblical base and diverge in significantly different directions in living that out. Just look at the widely varied views Christians have of something as basic to all of them as the sacraments.

So how do I as a disciple of Jesus in a pluralistic, secular democracy decide how to vote when all of the candidates seem to be at best cultural “Christians?” Or when a devout Christian’s competence seems inadequate or political philosophy diverges from mine? Can I do this with confidence and not succumb to the “lesser or two evils” rationalization?

I know plenty of well-meaning Christians urge prayer and the application of biblical texts to specific issues. I don’t want to discount that as a pious formality, but I do know how easy it is to manipulate biblical proof-texts and intense emotions in prayer. So yes, pray and explore the Bible, but I want to recommend a large biblical lens that draws together the Mosaic Law, the Hebrew prophets, Jesus in the Gospels and the New Testament Epistles with some measure of consistency that applies as much in a social and political context that is indifferent or even hostile to Jesus as one in which he is respected and honored.

Applying principles from the Hebrew Scriptures that were given to a theocratic society with prophets, priests and kings in our modern democracies is hazardous at best. Perhaps the experience of the Church’s first three centuries (from the Acts of the Apostles until Constantine’s disastrous coopting of a distorted Christianity for the purpose of military conquest) when the Roman Empire treated Christians as sometimes dangerous outsiders is more relevant. However, Rome had some rudiments of a republic, our society in which all citizens may vote and participate in public life is vastly different. Understandably, well informed, serious Christians have taken many different approaches to this question. I will not attempt to sort them all out nor exhaustively explore the relevant biblical material.

I suggest Psalm 72 as a suitable starting point for such explorations. It is a prayer for God to guide and bless the king. Notably, it says nothing about the king’s personal spiritual life, but it asks God to bring justice and righteousness through the king. It appeals to God to bless not just the king but the whole nation with prosperity so that those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder enjoy prosperous lives. It asks God for the king to give special attention to the needs of the weak, the poor and the needy. It asks God that the king will limit violence. It also asks God to bring the respect and honor of other nations to the king and the nation. It asks God that the people of the nation will be enthusiastically delighted in their king.

Yes, the Psalm reflects a longing for a noble ideal that ancient Israel (and Judah after the divided kingdom) never realized. Nevertheless, I think it does identify qualities of good government that apply regardless of the political system. Yes, it comes from a specific moment in Israel’s monarchy but the themes are consistent with the Mosaic Law and the prophets. In the New Testament Jesus and the Apostles relate to their very different societies with the same sensitivities.

I encourage all who are concerned about how to vote in the current polarized environment to do their own explorations of scripture beyond Psalm 72. I do recommend using Psalm 72 as a template for deciding how to vote when feeling drawn to having to choose between the “lesser of two evils.” Which candidate will best foster justice and righteousness? Which candidate will best promote prosperity that will enable those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder to prosper? Which candidate will most effectively address the needs of the weak and poor? Which candidate will engender the most respectful international relationships? Which candidate will win the respect and honor of the people of the country?

Yes, I believe character counts! Public leaders with serious character flaws damage the nation and hurt people. As a pastor, I am acutely aware of how deeply broken trust by spiritual leaders wound and scar people and communities of faith. I believe we who are entrusted with the care of souls are and should be held to an even higher standard than public officials. Moral failure, usually in the areas of sex, money and power can permanently disqualify someone from spiritual leadership. That is not a denial of grace and redemption but a recognition of the consequences for those who place their trust in us. In the public arena where religion is constitutionally (and I believe correctly) not a criteria for holding public office, we must expect wider variation in standards. That does not excuse misconduct. Those who break the law must be prosecuted. Voters have every right to vote out those who have violated that trust even if it was in the bounds of legality. The spiritual realm is not a question of competition or comparison but of objective righteousness. In the political realm, we are comparing competitors to determine who has the greater likelihood of bringing the kind of righteousness, justice, prosperity, compassion, and respect to the community as a whole.

"Politically Correct" or Polite?

Now that rejecting language that has been branded “politically correct” seems to have become politically expedient, I am wondering if calling people derogatory names will become socially acceptable. My anxious suspicion is that even if the vocabulary doesn’t make it into polite conversation, the attitudes behind the language is getting more open. By the way, my personal take is that those who reject “politically correct” are merely giving themselves permission to be impolite. Are we headed for a society in which these words and the attitudes behind them are coming into common usage? Wop, dego, kraut, chink, kike, hun, gook, nigger, jap, bitch, honkey, faggot, darkie, ho, coon, wetback, coolie, oreo, cracker, goy, hillbilly, spook, yid,  hymie, jungle bunny, poncho, sambo, raghead, spic, wasp, white trash, broad, pimp. I’m sure I have missed one you find particularly offensive or favored. 

Do We Want Ahab or Jezebel for President?

1Kings 21:1-21, the story of Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard, is the Hebrew Scripture from the Lectionary for this coming Sunday, June 12. As I have been reflecting on this, I thought that it spoke to political leadership and campaigns. To appreciate the power of this story requires some familiarity with conditions in during the Divided Kingdom Ahab’s reign in the Northern Kingdom of Israel where foreign, pagan influences identified with the Phoenician Baal worship of Jezebel.

The Hebrew kings had their power and wealth specifically circumscribed in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. So when Jezebel chides Ahab, “Do you now govern Israel?” (v. 7) she is thinking in terms of the absolute despots who were above the law and common among pagans. She mocks Ahab as too weak a king.

Though pagan influences in the Northern Kingdom of Israel had diluted the force of Mosaic Law, some such as Naboth still adhered to it. Thus he would neither sell nor trade for the land designated as his ancestral inheritance. Whether a clear line of succession from the time of Joshua could be documented does not diminish Naboth’s appeal to this principle.

Interestingly, when Ahab first approached Naboth (v. 2) he first offers a trade and gives Naboth the option of selling it for money.  But when Ahab is explaining it to Jezebel (v. 6), he first mentions buying the vineyard for money and second said he offered to trade. I suspect the shift in order suggests that Ahab was hoping to appeal to a certain Hebrew mentality when talking to Naboth and reveals more pagan priorities when talking to Jezebel.

Ironically, Jezebel does have enough of an understanding of Hebrew law to manipulate it to accomplish her nefarious purposes. She arranges for two false witnesses to testify that Naboth had cursed God and the king so the city elders will condemn him to death by stoning. So rather than just a royal decree (such as when Herod had John the Baptist beheaded) as would be typical for a pagan despot, she arranged for the appearance of a Hebrew trial and execution.

With our modern, casual  interchange of God and Lord, as though they were equivalent, we also miss an important distinction in the text. They translators do try to clarify for us if we will pay attention. Naboth answered Ahab (v. 3) “The Lord forbid that I should give you my ancestral inheritance.” The use of “Lord” is translators’ code that the Hebrew word is YHWH, the personal proper name for the God of Israel. Whereas Jezebel has the false witnesses say that Naboth has cursed God. This is translators’ code that the Hebrew word is ELOHIM, which might be understood more generally as “the deity.” To me this suggests Naboth believed he had a personal relationship with the God of Israel, while Jezebel (and presumably Ahab) were thinking more generically, lumping the God of Israel together with the pagan gods.

Perhaps those who read this far are bored with what I find fascinating in the passage but have kept reading to find out what I think it has to do with political leadership and campaigns.

Through its history the US has had both strong and weak Presidents. Sometimes the strong ones are politically able to expand the power of the office because of responding to a time of crisis such as war or economic decline. But these strong Presidents have always had their critics and detractors who complain that they are overreaching the authority granted to them by the US Constitution.

To be sure, Franklin Roosevelt has been both lauded as a strong President who led the country in the crises of both the Great Depression and World War II. He has also been vilified as an autocrat who manipulated and cajoled to wield his power. I well remember the accusations of the “imperial presidencies” of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. In the political paralysis of the impasse between the US Congress and President Obama, he has been accused of abusing the authority of the office of the President. In the current political campaign, Donald Trump has spoken of the power of the President in terms similar to his power over his businesses. Hilary Clinton has been criticized for her unilateral actions as Secretary of State and at least tacit support of President Obama’s executive orders.  

My  point is not to endorse or even condemn a candidate. Rather, as I reflected on Ahab and Naboth, I was taken back to the Hebrew understanding of a righteous king. Such a position is not primarily about power. The king could not do whatever he wanted (though some, even the best did try). The king was subject to the same legal code of justice as all the other people of the country. And the king was not to accumulate great wealth. In fact, wealth and power were regarded as highly dangerous for the king and for the people. In Psalm 72 the king is specifically charged with insuring justice and prosperity for the weak, the poor, the widows, the orphans, the foreigners.

As a Christian in a pluralistic, secular democracy, I do not expect the President to share my theological perspective or religious identity. I would like to think that if the President was also a disciple of Jesus that President would be an advocate for justice for those who struggle most and would be extraordinarily cautious about the accumulation of wealth and power. And actually, that is what I would welcome in any President or presidential candidate, regardless of their religious affiliation or convictions. I lament that should such a person run for office, that one would be roundly rejected by the voters. And should such a person somehow become president, that one would be vilified as weak. 

The Original Gender Neutral Restroom

For a couple of minutes, I’d like to set aside all of the politics, crusading and fear that are clouding and confusing the debates about so called bathroom bills to come at it from very basic daily pragmatics. I want to suggest four scenarios involving transgender people to elicit responses to each.

First, imagine a transgender person who identifies as male, dresses as male and would be visually recognized as a male. This person enters a men’s restroom and uses a stall for personal privacy while caring for their needs. How are people who see this person entering and leaving the public restroom likely to respond?

Second, imagine a transgender person who identifies as male, dresses as male and would be visually recognized as a male. This person enters a women’s restroom and uses a stall for personal privacy while caring for their needs. How are people who see this person entering and leaving the public restroom likely to respond?

Third, imagine a transgender person who identifies as female, dresses as female and would be visually recognized as a female. This person enters a women’s restroom and uses a stall for personal privacy while caring for their needs. How are people who see this person entering and leaving the public restroom likely to respond?

Fourth, imagine a transgender person who identifies as female, dresses as female and would be visually recognized as a female. This person enters a men’s restroom and uses a stall for personal privacy while caring for their needs. How are people who see this person entering and leaving the public restroom likely to respond?

The current bathroom bills would make only options two and four legal. The options I would expect to evoke the most reaction from neutral observers. Options one and three become illegal, though they might well go unnoticed.

This little exercise says nothing at all one way or another about what religious or moral principles might guide transgender persons to do about their gender identity. It says nothing at all one way or another about gender-neutral restrooms that seem to be advocated or opposed around the fringes of this debate. I am aware that for decades women in business environments have objected to male executives using men’s restrooms as strategy centers for corporate decision making that excludes women. I am also aware that many businesses that can manage with single use facilities are eliminating the gender designations in the interest of more rapid access and shorter waits. Retail establishments often have a family restroom as well as women’s and men’s rooms as a courtesy to parents who must assist an opposite sex child. Of course, the family restroom is gender neutral.

All of this being said, I do want to be clear that I believe sexual predation and voyeurism are serious issues that need to be addressed in serious ways, and I’m afraid the debates over the bathroom bills are interfering with that. We do know that sexual predators and voyeurs have been sneaking into public restrooms to find their victims for many years, probably as long as there have been public restrooms. Modern technology seems to have taken this to a new level but the impetus is the same. Typically we think of sexual predators as heterosexual men, and we know that they are often married. While we don’t usually think of women as sexual predators in the same way as men, there have been too many cases of female school teachers having sex with their students to dismiss this as a male problem. However, hanging out in restrooms doesn’t seem to be their usual mode of operating. These concerns require much more than the current bathroom bills.