Is It Really Socialism?

The pros and cons, as well as definitions, of socialism have been circulating profusely lately. Many of those who disagree with the current crop of Democrats accuse them of promoting socialism and identify it with failed ventures such as Venezuela. Meanwhile, many of those who are critical of the Republicans argue that what they are proposing is historic American concern for the common good and not socialism, at least not like Venezuela but something more akin to the Scandinavian countries.

I will not contribute to, what seems to me a pointless, pseudo-debate on socialism vs. capitalism. But I will observe that these are only two, relatively recent, economic systems invented by humans and neither are divinely ordained in Scripture or anywhere else. Both reflect some noble ideals and some grievous flaws. I will also observe that they are not the only human inventions of economic systems. Feudalism dominated Europe for centuries. Ancient empires and colonialism fed their wealth on the resources extracted from conquered peoples and colonies. Bartering prevailed even after the human invention of money (in many forms).

Those in positions of privilege, power, and wealth in all human systems work hard not only to maintain their status but to claim divine or natural justification for the political and economic systems from which they benefit. My sense is that this is the appeal of Ayn Rand’s thinking in certain circles today. But that is not at all new. The printing of the Guttenberg Bible in 1454 fueled the translating of the Bible into English. Without rehearsing that whole history, the Geneva Bible of 1560 that challenged the divine right of kings was embraced by the Puritans, including those who settled Massachusetts and are popularly called pilgrims. So when King James I authorized the translation we know by his name (King James Version) in 1611, he insisted on translators and translations that would support his divine right as king. That, among other things, contributed to the Puritans (aka pilgrims) coming to Massachusetts in 1620 to establish a commonwealth out of the reach of King James I. That the KJV translation became the standard Bible for evangelicals in the US for many, many years is quite ironic. However, King James I probably got more than he bargained for as both the scholarly and literary work of the translators went well beyond his attempt to manipulate the Bible to keep his power.

So in the current brouhaha about “socialism,” I believe remembering that both capitalism and socialism, and all other economic systems with their attendant political systems, are human inventions. Historically, the biblical principle of justice especially for the weak, the poor, the outsiders, the widows, the orphans gets short shrift from power people in all of these systems, some far worse than others. I would like to see the current pseudo-debates move past slapping labels, such as “socialist,” on something as a kind of curse word to dismiss both ideas and people without engaging them. Rather, can we explore together how best to nourish justice and prosperity in which all can participate? I am not intending this as either advocating socialism or criticizing capitalism, but as an appeal for genuine dialog and debate.

Loyalty Enforced by Revenge

What revenge might the emperor inflict on those branded as disloyal? Will the reign be preserved by threatening revenge?

What price will be paid by those whose integrity is punished as disloyalty?

Armistice Day

What we now call Veterans Day was originally called Armistice Day recognizing the end of The Great War (we call it World War I. but they didn’t know there would be a second World War) 101 years ago today, on the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of 1918.  They also called it “the war to end all wars” because it was so terrible they thought nations would never go that way again. Of course, the real and perceived injustices of the Treaty of Versailles that specified the terms of that armistice sowed the seeds of World War II in which Germany sought to recover from its humiliation and reclaim national stature.  Besides being characterized by brutal trench warfare, World War I introduced airplanes, tanks, and poison gas as important implements of war. Obviously, World War I did not “end all wars,” so as wars recurred swelling the ranks of veterans the name and focus was changed to Veterans Day. As we honor generations of veterans today, let us also work and pray for the justice and peace for which they gave themselves.

Challenging the Results of the 2020 Election Is Already in Motion

Both President Trump’s supporters and critics believe most people agree with them. They cite or dismiss polls by comparing with their circle of acquaintances, who share their presuppositions, of course. With all of the noise about voter fraud, voter suppression, and ballot manipulation from the 2016 election, the stage is set for whoever is the loser of the 2020 election to refuse to accept the results as valid. Either way, the constitutional battle between Executive and Judicial Branches may determine a dramatically changed course for the future of the US.

Please Do Not Assume

Please do not assume that because I oppose killing, incarcerating, & making refugees of Kurdish & Latin American children I am somehow in favor of aborting US children.

Also, please do not assume that because I am not in favor of abortion that I want laws to preclude compassionate discernment for women, girls, couples, & families facing the most excruciating moral dilemmas and decisions of their lives.

So What Happens If …

I claim no prophetic gift, no access to any hidden information. What I am writing here are my personal observations of human nature and current events. I am not posting this to social media to spread any sort of opinion, but I am adding this to other things in my Writing Workshop blog as a kind of reality check as actual events unfold. I made slight modifications since though impeached, Donald Trump was not convicted. The fiasco of the April 7 Wisconsin election in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic only seems to raise the stakes on the chaos the November election could bring.

So what happens if Donald Trump is defeated in the 2020 election and refuses to leave office, citing corruption  and voter fraud? Would the courts support him? Would there be widespread protests in the streets? So what happens if citing public safety he invokes executive authority and declares a national emergency prohibiting public demonstrations and imposing strict curfews? So what happens if as Commander in Chief he orders the US military to enforce his ban on demonstrations and his curfews? So what happens if he orders the federalization of state national guards and police? So what happens if as part of the declaration of a national emergency, he dissolves Congress and suspends the courts and even the Constitution? So what happens if his loyal base supports emergency powers and turns on their neighbors who do not? So what happens if churches invoke Romans 13 to condemn individuals, pastors, and congregations who do not support the emergency powers?

Embracing Our Spiritual Kin

I can’t say that I gave it serious thought while I was growing up, but the missionary mentality of that evangelical context seemed to regard the Roman Catholics of Western Europe and Latin America and the Eastern Orthodox Christians of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa as targets for evangelism and not as our spiritual kin. They were considered to be competitors luring people away from saving faith with religious deception. Understandably, they certainly viewed evangelicals in similar ways. I really am not interested in engaging in some sort of debate about the “errors” of one tradition and the “truth” of another or the inferiority and superiority between different Christian traditions.

I can say, however, that through my high school and college years I came to an appreciation of the authentic faith of Christians of an ever widening range of traditions and was increasingly enriched by learning from them. Through my adult life as I have been involved in a variety of ecumenical groups and have drawn on many diverse sources in my contemplative journey, not only have I gained a deep admiration for those with exemplary walks with Jesus, my own faith and journey have been shaped in ways that have been nourishing. I know some of my evangelical friends question whether I have lost my way, but I can only leave that between them and God. I would add that I am sure that in every context of these Christian rivalries, there are more than enough spiritually hungry people to introduce to Jesus without really getting in each other’s way.

This is not to say that theological differences don’t matter. I know that certain approaches and doctrines inhibit and harm. While identifying them in other traditions, particularly those that are unfamiliar, may be easy. Identifying the damaging teaching and practices of one’s own tradition is much more challenging and indeed threatening. But in keeping with Jesus’ word about the log in one’s own eye (Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-42), I think each of us needs to tend to the flaws in our own context before we go pointing out the flaws in a tradition that we may not understand very well.

All of this is background to my reflections on a current issue in which the political may be more controversial and confounding than the theological. That is the urgent appeal of Kurdish and Syrian Christians in the face of Turkey’s assault with US troops standing down. This is just the latest instance in which Christian minorities in predominantly Muslim areas are being victimized by international power politics and deep ethnic divisions. To be sure this is not strictly an issue of US foreign policy but the international community and regional government have contributed to a drastic decline in the Christian presence in these areas, generally with tragic suffering. Nevertheless, as illustrated by Turkey’s attacks on Kurds since the US troop stand down, US policy has been a contributing factor.

As I have suggested in my opening paragraphs, I have come to consider these folk to be my Christian kin, even with theological and political differences of opinion. The irony here is that many in the evangelical community in the US have celebrated what they consider increased religious freedom in the last couple of years. My own perspective is that much of what has been celebrated is trivial (saying “Merry Christmas” for example) and even hurtful to people whom Christ loves (LBGTQ for example – I don’t want to be distracted by a debate of those issues here, but suggest that many attitudes and strategies have not expressed love.) My point is that while some Christians in the US are celebrating these “freedoms,” our sisters and brothers in Christ elsewhere in the world are being violently persecuted and our country’s policies have been one contributing factor.

This is not new and may well be the unintended consequences of actions taken for other political and economic reasons. Nevertheless, our Christian kin have suffered and been reduced in number, in some cases to the point of extinction. Egypt, Libya, Palestine, and perhaps most vividly Iraq. Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a vicious dictator, but his demise effectively emptied Iraq of Christians. Sadly, some who came to the US as refugees are now facing the prospect of deportation to a country where they will face extermination.

Let me be crystal clear that I do not consider my fellow Christians to be any better or more valuable than any other people. But I do find it sadly ironic that while some are championing what they perceive as increasing freedom for Christians in the US, our Christian kin elsewhere in the world are experiencing intense suffering in which US policy is complicit, though not the whole cause. Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelical Christianity in the US has also recognized the plight of Kurdish and Syrian Christians as a result of Turkey’s military action that is no longer restrained by US military presence.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/october/syrian-christians-kurds-us-withdrawal-turkey.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=11185627&utm_content=675635839&utm_campaign=email

I must also be candid and humble about my moral conundrum as one with a lifelong commitment to non-violence as essential to my aspiration to follow Jesus as his faithful disciple. I believe in protecting the weak and vulnerable from violence inflicted by nations or any other entity that has the power to deploy lethal force. However, I also believe that deploying more lethal force is inherently contradictory and contributes to escalating violence. Developing more creative and effective alternatives is hard work and demands an extraordinarily high level of bravery to face lethal force armed only with moral courage. With only a handful of exceptions, such as Gandhi’s Salt March that brought the British Empire to its knees, history suggests that non-violence has not failed but has not been fairly tried. To be sure there will be casualties and fatalities with a non-violent response to lethal force, but casualties and fatalities are also inherent in war. Somehow we need to do better than “might makes right” or “we won so we must have been right.” I also readily acknowledge that my commitment to non-violence is intrinsically tied up with following Jesus, which is impossible for nations as entities, even if many of its citizens do. I would contend that following Jesus always has been and always will be counter-cultural. I am also acutely aware that my perspective is a minority opinion not just in nations but among professing Christians. I do not intend to be judgmental, nor will I attempt to persuade those who do not accept my premise but honestly acknowledge my lament for our Christian kin.

Civil War Threat?

Whether intended as a threat or cleverly cast in words of deniability, the Jeffress/Trump “Civil War” reference forebodes a refusal to relinquish the Presidency regardless of the results of a Senate impeachment trial or the 2020 election by rejecting the legitimacy of either Congress or the election and backing up that refusal with violence.

Again, not wanting to feed fragmentation by posting this on social media, I am posting it only to my Writing Workshop blog as a way of documenting my thoughts before events play out, probably in unexpected ways, which is what should be expected.

Ukraine Fracas

Based on what is showing up on my social media, the response from “both sides” on the Ukraine fracas seems to be “I know my guy is corrupt, but your guy is even more corrupt.” My assessment is that playing this game as a means of evading accountability is a telling indicator of a society-wide loss of moral compass. I do not find either Biden or Trump trustworthy and do not want either of them in the White House or any other position of power or influence. I certainly do not want Mr. Touchyfeely or Mr. Pu**ygrabber anywhere near my wife, my daughters-in-law, my granddaughters (or any woman for that matter).

In conflicts with your siblings (or even friends) when growing up, did your parents ever tell you, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? My assessment of current politics is that playing the game of “I know my guy is corrupt, but your guy is even more corrupt” as a means of evading accountability is a telling indicator of a society-wide loss of moral compass.  Everyone needs to be accountable to someone who is independent enough to be objective and honest, especially those in positions of authority and power. Dealing with yourself as a model for encouraging others to deal with themselves. Jesus clearly knew this when he said, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” (Matthew 7, Luke 6)

Yes, I definitely think this is directly relevant to the Ukraine Fracas. If either or both Biden and Trump did something illegal and/or unethical in their dealings with Ukraine (which I suspect both did though I have neither the knowledge nor expertise to say that with certainty), I believe they should both be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions. I don’t think either should be cut any slack because of what the other did or did not do.

Having said that, I am not enthusiastic about an impeachment proceeding for Trump, believing it would distract the nation from urgent matters that desperately need attention and cloud the upcoming 2020 election process. We don’t need more incendiary tweets or tantrums. We don’t need to inflame the anger of those who have found a voice for their discontent and hostility toward those who are not like them. We don’t need to further fragment the citizenry with paralyzing polarization. Without a doubt the drive for impeachment is politically driven, but that seems to me to be irrelevant to ethical and legal culpability. 

I have no propensity for prophetic predictions, but the trajectory of the last couple of weeks suggests that if the Trump presidency collapses it will not be because of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats or “disloyalty” among Republicans or mutiny within the administration but Donald Trump will crash on his own unbridled ego and malevolent temper.   Still the core elements of his political base will not only support him but threaten violence to preserve power. _{(added October 5, 2019)}

I’m putting this in my Writing Workshop (http://nstolpewriting.blogspot.com/) because I feel a need to get my thoughts out of my system so my mind can release the tension, but I may not post the link to my social media as I don’t need to get embroiled in the public discussion. I need to focus my energy on caring for my wife and her father without distraction.

Remembering 9-11

 With the 18^th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks tomorrow, we are being urged repeatedly to remember and never forget. As I have reflected on these prompts, a couple of observations have emerged in my meditations.

First is the awareness of the effects of the normal passing of time. Those who have not yet graduated from high school were not even born at the time. Those who are now in college were preschoolers at the time. Those who are now in their mid-thirties were children and teens at the time. They probably remember the emotional trauma and the vivid images without fully grasping what had happened. This emerging generation has little or no personal, first-hand memory of those events, only what they have been told or read. For all of these the events of September 11, 2001 will be remembered as they blend into the abstracted distance of history. That is normal, and they should not be belittled because of it. This is evident as the Vietnam War generation is passing from the scene and as the World War II generation has almost completely done now. Maintaining a vivid memorial of people and events a century or more ago naturally blur together.

Second, I suggest that as we remember the attacks of September 11, 2001, we remember with love those who lost their lives. Let us remember with respect those who rallied to aid in the crisis, especially but not only those who risked and even lost their own lives to rush into danger to rescue at least some.

Third, I strongly urge that we not allow our remembering to degenerate into or nourish fear and anger. We only hurt ourselves by wallowing in vengeance. I believe Jesus was absolutely right (which the Apostle Paul affirmed) when he told us to love our enemies. (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-35; Romans 12:17-21) Jesus’ explanations not only gave this mandate an extraordinarily high profile, but he made it congruent with the character of God. If we are going to grow toward becoming like God, we must love our enemies.

Messianic Language in Political Discourse

 I will post this only to my Writing Workshop blog. I don’t need to get distracted by getting embroiled in political or apocalyptic controversies that only disrupt peace and impede enlightenment. However, for my own peace, I feel a need to articulate my reflections on the recent comments by Donald Trump in relationship to Jewish political support for him in light of his stance on the state of Israel.

He spoke of himself in apparently messianic terms such as the chosen one. I have seen several reports and comments on this but have purposely not tried to analyze his specific language. I have, however, these two thoughts.

First, if his choice of messianic language is with intentional awareness, then he is blasphemous and acting along the lines of the “man of lawlessness” described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (1-12 for context). That this language seems not to have disturbed the dispensational contingent in evangelicalism is most unsettling. For all of the “watching for the signs of the times” in those circles, politics seems to have obscured spiritual vision.

Second, if this messianic language in unintentional without awareness of its implications, then he is ignorant, not only of Scripture and the theology of a significant voting bloc in his political base, but also of the presumptuousness of his own unrestrained ego and power craving.  

Though I have any number of political disagreements with Donald Trump and serious doubts about his moral compass, I hope I am wrong about the implications of his apparent use of messianic language to describe himself. I am not one to assemble all sorts of signs that identify The Anti-Christ, and I am not at all proposing to identify Donald Trump in that way. However, as 1 John 2:18 says, there are even now many antichrists, and we who follow Jesus must be alert not to be led astray (1 John 2:26) or deceived (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Memorial Day Reflections 2019

My 92 year old father-in-law still calls this “Decoration Day.” As long as he was physically able, he made the rounds to place flowers on the family graves in the Minneapolis area, both his own Miller side and my late mother-in-law’s Ronngren side. Though none of them died in military service, it was a meaningful ritual for him. With the family scattered from coast to coast and beyond, he is aware that no one still lives in Minnesota to continue the tradition. Though I haven’t heard him say anything about it, I expect he is aware that flowers will not be regularly placed on his grave when the time comes, and I am sure that seems a loss to him.

Though there were some earlier precedents, what we now know as Memorial Day started with the decorating of the graves of soldiers from the Civil War/War Between the States. There were a variety of practices in different locations, some more legendary than historic. Though they didn’t invent the practice, on May 1, 1865, in Charleston, South Carolina, recently freed African-Americans held a parade of 10,000 people to honor 257 dead Union Soldiers, whose remains they had reburied from a mass grave in a Confederate prison camp. As the years went by, the some Union Army veterans complained more and more about the younger generation. In 1913, one veteran complained that younger people born since the war had a “tendency ... to forget the purpose of Memorial Day and make it a day for games, races and revelry, instead of a day of memory and tears.” This sounds remarkably like today’s concerns that the purpose of remembering with honor those who died in military service has become lost in the three day weekend.

“Memorial Day” was first used in 1882 and only gradually (and not completely as witness my father-in-law) replaced “Decoration Day.” The tradition of poppies was started in 1920, inspired by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae’s 1915 poem "In Flanders Fields" that reflected the poppies that grew among the soldiers' graves in Flanders. In 1967 “Memorial Day” became the official designation of the holiday on May 30. In 1968 Congress moved it to the last Monday in May to create the three-day-weekend. Which is in some tension with the somber origins of the day. As US military personnel continue to die in recent serial wars, the three-day-weekend gets considerable pushback not to forget those who have died in military service.

For some reason, this year that pushback has stirred some unconventional thoughts in my mind. If you prefer to focus on traditional Memorial Day commemoration, you may stop here. I am not trying to upset anyone’s apple cart or engage in debate. But in light of current national discussions, I do feel compelled to set these thoughts in words for my own clarity.

One reality here is that as generations rise and pass away, what was vivid those who lived the events necessarily fades into the blur of history. The sense of personal intensity about what happened to three and four preceding generations wanes. “Never forget!” is powerful for those who were affected in the moment, but memorializations become abstract artifacts. Reconstructions of what led to various armed conflicts become decreasingly convincing, not because they were not right and real at the time, but because the issues and circumstances change and are not existentially meaningful to succeeding generations.

We even begin to see previous enemies in a different light and new relationships emerge. As the end of The Great War (that we renamed World War I after we had a second world war) and the end of World War II, who would have guessed or believed the US would have such prolonged positive relationships with Germany and Japan? To be sure there were some clear villains, but most ordinary young people believed they were serving their countries honorably when they were called up. They were detached from the machinations of their leaders. They did what they had been taught and were expected to do. In US history, we see this playing out in the efforts to understand how to remember Confederate soldiers who were killed. I think a healthy Memorial Day meditation would include how we remember German and Japanese young people who died serving their countries as they were asked. I know this line of thinking is very uncomfortable and unsettling. But I think it can yield a deeper respect for those who gave their lives in the service of this country.

·         On Memorial Day we are rightly urged to remember those who died in the service of their country. May those who make decisions that send young people to war also remember with sober respect so they do not sacrifice the next generation to hubris or greed.

·         An all-volunteer military clarifies a perpetual reality. Military personnel trust their leaders - military, political, spiritual - not to send them on foolish, flawed, futile, immoral errands. What are the options when this trust is broken?

·         We lifelong peace advocates are dismissed as predictable. Has the time come for politicians (R&D) and military people (private to general) who will speak a resounding "NO!" and refuse to make war just because some political leaders rattle the sabers and beat the drums of war?

  

Another King Named Jesus

Lydia by Maria Elkins

The Lectionary suggests the account of Paul’s coming to Philippi of Macedonia from Acts 16:9-15. I was intrigued by Lydia’s invitation to host Paul and his group in her home, and that they accepted. (v. 15) Nothing is said about Lydia’s marital status. Whether she had a husband, was widowed or single, she clearly seems to have been a business woman of independent means sufficient to own a home large enough to host an itinerant group. Nothing in the text indicates any hesitation about her hosting men or concern about the reactions of her neighbors.

Apparently in places far from Israel that did not have enough Jews to form a synagogue with ten adult men, the Jews who were there would gather for Sabbath prayer by a river or other body of water. This group in Philippi was apparently all women. We can only speculate about the absence of men. Were these Jewish women all married to Gentile men? In a Roman colony, were the Jewish men required to work on Sabbath? As seems typical in some contexts, were the women the ones keeping the religious fervor alive while the men followed their own pursuits? Lydia was apparently not Jewish but had attached herself to this group as a “worshipper of God” (literally “God fearer”). This expression was used for Gentiles who did not go through formal conversion to Judaism but learned from Jews to pray to and worship the God of Abraham. Whether she had become a somewhat informal leader of this group, she did respond to the teaching about Jesus from Paul’s company and put this new faith into prompt action through her hospitality. Again with no direct indication of this in the text, Lydia may have been more receptive to the Gospel of Jesus by being somewhat of an outsider to both the Jewish group and the Roman culture, by virtue of her pursuit of the God of Israel. To me this seems consistent with the Gospel’s particular appeal to those who don’t quite fit in, which is an extension of those to whom Jesus was especially attractive. 

This set me to speculating on the size of the group and who it might have included. In Acts 15:36-41, Paul and Barnabas to their separate ways, and Silas joins Paul seemingly in Jerusalem. Timothy joins them in Lystra (16:1-3). Up to this point the movements of Paul have been described in the third person (“they”). Then in 16:9-10 Paul has his vision of the man from Macedonia urging them to come over to Macedonia. The departure from Troas for Philippi in Macedonia is described in the first person plural (“we” and “us”). This might suggest that Luke joined the party at that point. The narrative continues in the first person plural in Acts 20, 21, 27, and 28). Might Luke even have been the man from Macedonia Paul saw in his vision?

In any case, this suggests the possibility that Lydia hosted a group of at least four men in her home. The text says nothing about any women in the group, and I suppose that for women to have been traveling with Paul would have been unusual. Nevertheless, the group with Paul clearly engaged with a group of women who met by the river to pray on the Sabbath (v. 13). Without getting into a whole discursive on Pauline attitudes about women, suffice it to say that women played some important roles in his endeavors, here without any hint of scandal or offense to propriety.

As I scanned ahead in Acts to explore the shifts between third and first person in the narrative, I saw in Acts 17:7 that the powers in Thessalonica were outraged because they understood the Gospel proclaimed by Paul and Silas as "saying that there is another king named Jesus." We can blow this off by saying that they misunderstood that Jesus' kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36). Nevertheless, those of us who render supreme and sole allegiance to Jesus will always be a threat to human authorities. With their confidence of sharing in Jesus' resurrection, the Roman Empire could not control the early Christians, even with torture and death. The Romans knew that the Emperor had no power over the Christians' "king." Even modern democracies such as the US will tolerate and even welcome a generic, diluted Christianity (Judeo-Christian Civil Religion), but they will always be uncomfortable with those who follow Jesus without reservation or exception.

Indeed, the accusation of treason is only raised after the complaint about the economic loss by delivering the slave girl from the spirit of divination by which her owners made a great deal of money by her fortune-telling. Just like today, economics drives both politics and religion. Reflecting on this, thought about the parallel to the sex trafficking that has become such a high-profile blight in our time. A lot of finger pointing and tongue wagging focuses on other countries and the US border with Mexico, but plenty of it is entirely domestic in the US. Are girls lured into sex trade in the US really any different than the slave girl in Philippi? Sex trafficking persists because it is profitable, being paid for by those who have the money for such indulgences, and the means to keep it from sullying their respectability.

The text tells us nothing about what happened to the slave girl after being freed from the spirit of divination. Was she still held as a slave, now relegated to the lowest position since she was no longer a source of income? Was she set free to find her way in the hustling streets of Philippi? When the group with Paul left Lydia’s home, did Lydia, the jailer’s family, and the nascent church in Philippi take her in to support and guide her into a new life? This could be a model for today’s church in the US to challenge “king money” and proclaim another king named Jesus.

Open the Welcome Gates

Revelation 21:10, 22-22:5 is in the place of the Epistle lesson suggested by the Lectionary for next Sunday. It is from the vision of the New Heaven and New Earth and the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. Reflecting on this, I also looked at the spectacular imagery of the city walls (21:12-21). I have seen some folk suggesting these walls as a justification for boarder walls, which strikes me as tantamount to blasphemy. Then in 21:25 I read that the gates in those walls will never be shut by day – and there will be no night there, so the gates will always be open. These are gates of welcome, not exclusion. Yes, nothing unclean will enter, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood (21:27). The point is God’s home with people, and God will wipe away every tear; and death, mourning, crying, and pain will be no more. These gates welcome suffering people to God’s home of peace and healing. I will acknowledge that if the walls of the New Jerusalem are not a suitable analogy for boarder walls, neither are the gates a guide to contemporary immigration policy. Nevertheless, I do believe this whole metaphor is a glorious climax to the consistent call of the Mosaic Law and the Hebrew Prophets to welcome outsiders, the weak, the widows, the orphans, the poor with compassion and justice, with Jesus’ consistent welcome and mercy for the rejected people of his day as well as the early church’s open welcome to people regardless of status, race, ethnicity, class. Whatever the policy this or any other nation, churches can begin now to celebrate and live into the glory of welcome gates that never close.

Fragmented

I came of age in the Vietnam War/Civil Rights era. My assessment is that the US was at least as divided then as today. If you doubt that, just talk with some folk who were personally affected by either or both. I believe those wounds that never actually healed are intentionally being ripped open and inflamed today. I am also convinced that the propensity to blame those of a different political persuasion is a clear symptom that present fragmentation and polarization is an extension of not addressing the past.

I believe changing this trajectory will be radically counter-cultural. It will require relinquishing assigning blame to others and one’s self. Instead it will require a cultural consensus of community accountability. It will require relinquishing strategies that can be reduced to a series of steps or formulas, especially for someone else to take or apply. Instead it will require an unprecedented transformation of interior attitudes and relationship transactions. It will require relinquishing every evasion and avoidance of distress. Instead it will require gazing into the wounds with an unflinching gaze.

In his 1973 book The Velvet Covered Brick (Harper and Row) Howard Butt presents this eloquently. “Find the spot where life hurts you and let your weight down on it. Don’t lean away from hour pain, lean into it.” (p. 62) Every time we retreat from significant pain without dealing with it, it will cycle back with a vengeance. That is what I think US society is experiencing right now. I am sure these evaded wounds go back even farther, but we are now experiencing the consequences of not leaning into the pains of the fragmentation of the Vietnam War/Civil Rights era.

What is required is far deeper than “can’t we all just get along” or “we agree to disagree.” We must come to the place where we understand why something that seems reprehensible to us seems reasonable to someone else, and conversely why someone else regards what I see as reasonable as reprehensible. That does not mean we agree to injustice or abuse, only that we get in touch with what brings people to such sharply contrary opinions without writing them off as stupid or evil. This is hard enough between our fellow citizens who hold different political, social, and religious ideas. This power is unleashed when extended to those who consider themselves to be our sworn enemies.

The subtitle of Howard Butt’s book is “Christian Leadership in an Age of Rebellion.” I have not reread it for a very long time and am sure I would find plenty to reconsider today. However, just as Howard Butt wrote from his perspective as a Christian, I also come at this as one who trusts and aspires to seriously follow Jesus. I have no illusions of nor ambitions for the US to become a “Christian nation.” But I do come to the crisis of fragmentation and polarization in the society in which I live with my worldview as a disciple of Jesus.

As a society we are highly individualistic and are loathe to acknowledge communal and generational responsibility. Yet, that permeates the values of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as expressed in Psalm 106:6 “Both we and our ancestors have sinned.” It is the core of Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9:3-19 I which he confessed and repented of sins in which he never personally participated, though he sees himself included with all the people of Judah. I believe that if biblical people, both Jews and Christians, began to live into this principle, we could be a healing voice for our society and lead the way past the present fragmentation.

As an intentional disciple of Jesus, I recognize his journey to the cross as the quintessential leaning into the pain by which he leads us on the path of reconciliation. We, too, have been given what the Apostle Paul called “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18) that breaks down the dividing wall of hostility, not just between humans and God, but between people. (Ephesians 2:14) I yearn for Christian congregations to become living laboratories and models of the kind of reconciliation that our society so desperately needs. Such reconciliation must of necessity include race, ethnicity, class, economics, education, political and even theological differences. I would go so far as to say that we who say we follow Jesus can and should be leading the way in healthy ways to relate to people who not only don’t follow Jesus but may even oppose him.

I am not interested in a generic, cultural “Christianity” that blurs all distinctions. Rather, I am talking about a discipleship vigorous enough for authentic dialog about differences and disagreements and for leaning into the pain of addressing our present paralyzing fragmentation. I have no expectation of a sweeping cultural revival. Rather, I envision the powerful influence of a small amount of yeast leavening the entire loaf. (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:21; 1 Corinthians 5:8; Galatians 5:9)

Reflections on Rereading My Fiction

In the last couple of weeks I have reread my four unpublished novels back to back to back. I had previously read each of them at least once after completing my final revisions, but I had not taken them in together as a chronological corpus. I started writing in 2011 as I embarked on my “retirement” as pastor of Central Christian Church of Dallas, Texas. I completed them in 2017 not long after my wife Candy’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis. We had come to Milwaukee, Wisconsin to share a duplex with our son David, his wife Rachel and their children Sam and Elizabeth.

I found fiction was a helpful tool with which I could process a retrospective on my pastoral career and the forces, people, and events that shaped me over nearly a half century. I wouldn’t say that this is a closed canon, but no other urges are simmering within me pleading to take shape in narrative. Now with about two years out of my active congregational career and into the Alzheimer’s caregiver journey with Candy, I am finding a new equilibrium. As I reread my novels as a body, I found a different perspective on them and on myself has emerged in this interval of life transition.

I was actually a bit surprised to discover a certain objectivity as I read. This was not in terms of evaluating the quality of what I had written. Rather, I found my focus had shifted from the issues I was working on when I wrote them to empathy with the characters. I suppose that the writing had enabled me to get some perspective on my career and the meaning of retiring from the role that had defined me for most of my adult life. Now that I was with Candy basically around the clock those issues, while perhaps not fully resolved, were no longer tugging at me. Instead, in the role of caregiver (though Candy is doing well enough that it is not yet arduous), my attention was drawn into the experiences of these characters. Interestingly, though I knew they were fictional, and though I knew I had created them in my imagination, I found myself drawn into their joys and struggles much more intensely than when I wrote. A few times I even caught myself choking back tears.

Right now my publishing focus is on promotion of my non-fiction story collection Ripples. I suppose that if Ripples gained a suitable readership, I might consider adding from my fiction, though the novels are substantially different. Here is a brief description of each of the novels.

The first half of Sure and Certain follows a pastor’s (Ben Davis) journey with a woman of the church from hospice to funeral, along the way with some hints of his health concerns. After her funeral he gets his own pancreatic cancer terminal diagnosis and the second half follows him through his funeral. The story is told through conversations with his spiritual director (Steve) and adult skeptic son (Phil) in alternating chapters. The last 2 chapters are the reflections of the spiritual director and the son on his funeral, and the son makes an appointment to talk with the spiritual director.

What Comes After the Best Day of My Life?­ tells the story of a first year high school English teacher (Greg Lewis) through the eyes of his unintentional mentor (Dr. Robert Morgan) whose classroom is across the hall. The new teacher has been a children’s magazine editor before teaching. Besides standard English classes, he teaches journalism and is the faculty advisor to the student newspaper and yearbook. The veteran English teacher teaches literature classes and is the faculty advisor to the poetry club and the student literary magazine. Each chapter covers a month of the school year, September through June. The two teachers interact about the ambitions, failures, conflicts, loves, triumphs and tragedies of high school students, including a student death.

The Ghosts of Mystic Hills Cemetery tells the story of the once small town of Mystic Hills that is eventually surrounded by suburbs. The debate over how to balance the history and future of the cemetery mirrors the issues for the town. The story is told through ten first person narratives. Five of whom are contemporary adults living in the town, and five of whom are their grandparents who are now interred in Mystic Hills Cemetery. A Story Teller (Peter Hultgren) introduces Mystic Hills with the story of his grandparents homesteading in the Mystic Hills before the town came. In between each of the first person chapters, he tells a folk story, fairy tale, local legend to illuminate the human and generational experience with mystical connections. In the last chapter the Story Teller passes the role to his grandson and new wife who announces her pregnancy.

Standing Outside the Door is the spiritual journal entries of Steve Shepherd, spiritual director and pastor, basically from Ash Wednesday through Epiphany of the year that Lynne Carter, a woman in his congregation, comes to him to confess having had an affair with his clergy colleague and friend Ron Beckmann. Steve is on the denomination’s committee on ministry, responsible for discipline of clergy at the time, so is in the conflicted center of his relationship with a parishioner, a friend, and his official responsibility. During that same time, families from another congregation bring to the committee on ministry a complaint of sexual abuse of children to by their pastor, Henry Nelson. Steve is doing a retrospective on how this affected him as he begins his retirement a dozen years later.

Ripples, however, is readily available now. Learn about it and order at www.ripplesthroughlives.com

My Response to Mueller Report Conclusions

So the Russians may not have needed to collude with the Trump campaign to get what they were after: a Trump presidency, undermining public confidence in US elections, and paralyzed the US in two years of turmoil that is unlikely to end anytime soon. Somehow an echo of Judges 14:18, “If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.”

For all of the rhetoric attacking Mueller’s integrity, he seems to have produced a fair, objective report and not a political hatchet job. While not directly connected with collusion with the Russians, Mueller’s investigation certainly has brought to light considerable disgusting slime in the highest levels of power. How this plays out will be interesting as I speculated when the Mueller report was completed before anything was released, in the post below.

My First Reaction to the Completion of the Mueller Report

Whether the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign colluded with the Russians, or perhaps the Russians were shrewd enough to manipulate both campaigns for their own purposes, which may (or may not) have included getting Donald Trump elected, the Russians have succeeded in one thing much in their interest – effectively undermining the confidence of the US citizenry in the integrity of their elections.

Regardless of how much, if any, of the Mueller Report is released to whom and how it is redacted, we can expect a long ordeal of innuendo and denial, accusations and evasions, claims of exoneration and calls for consequences, leaks and cover-ups, from all along the political spectrum, perhaps simultaneously among political adversaries and allies alike. This is not to say the Mueller Report will be meaningless, but conflicting meanings will be assigned and debated for decades to come.

My own opinion is that these observations of mine are not causing the fragmentation and polarization of US society. They are symptoms of much deeper issues that orbit around relentless demands for “getting what I want for me and people who are like me,” and an intentional repudiation of concern for the common good and for "those who I think are not congruent with me."

Illusions of Safety and Security

On Saturday, February 16, 2019, I posted this quote from Walter Brueggemann and commented that “One of the great challenges of this perspective is that what seem to me to be harmful illusions are believed as truth by so many.” It elicited several affirmative responses on Facebook from people who I know have conflicting ideas of what is truth and what is illusion. As often seems to happen, the morning I awoke well before the chime called me to Lauds. I did review my entire Psalm index, though was interrupted several times by thoughts about illusion and truth. These interruptions were so persistent that I couldn’t discern whether this was part of my interior life or an exterior distraction. So I am writing here to get the thoughts out and relinquish them but do not at this point intend to link to Facebook or Twitter. After Vespers and during Compline ideas for another short story told by Rebekah Dahlberg Anderson began to percolate and also seemed to brew before Lauds this morning. I hope that writing this essay frees my mind to develop at least that story, and perhaps one for Daniel today and tomorrow as we have no outside activities scheduled. After another snow, we have beautiful sunshine today, which should be conducive to forming at least one story.

My observation is that some of the greatest and most common illusions that obscure truth have to do with safety and security. We humans seem irresistibly drawn to the false security that we believe we create and depend on by and for ourselves. Nothing new here. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with warnings about false security.

Between the time of settling in the Promised Land and the establishment of the monarchy, Israel did not have a standing army. In the time of the Judges, when an enemy threatened as discipline for failure of faithfulness to God, when they cried for help, God would raise up a Judge who would rally a temporary militia to address the threat. Eventually the Israelites prevailed upon Samuel to appoint a king to go before them and fight their battles (1 Samuel 8:20). Samuel warned of the great cost of a king raising a standing army (1 Samuel 8:11-12).

The Psalmists recognized that this military force was a false source of security and safety.

·         Psalm 33:16-17 A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save.

·         Psalm 44:6 Not in my bow do I trust, nor can my sword save me.

In rejecting these illusions, the Psalmists were clear that safety and security are found only in God.

·         Psalm 4:8 I will both lie down and sleep in peace; for you alone, O Lord, make me lie down in safety.

·         Psalm 20:7 Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses, but our pride is in the name of the Lord our God.

In our own time the nations, including the US, depend on the illusion that military power keeps them safe. I am convinced that military power is a great risk to safety and security. Having a standing military makes using it to respond to fear and threat an almost irresistible political and popular temptation. A standing military, especially when it’s power is invoked as a supposed deterrent, easily provokes other nations who feel threatened to mobilize their military. Slight and even accidental provocations easily launch violent conflict.

Among the classic principles of Just War Ethics are limited objectives and means, proportionality. Amassed military might makes that almost impossible. I lived through the Vietnam War era and found a visit to the Memorial Wall with our sons to be emotionally challenging. The magnitude of the nearly 60,000 names of US personnel killed in that war is visually overwhelming. What it doesn’t recognize that 3,000,000 other people were killed in that war (South and North Vietnamese, US allies, civilians, etc.). Fifty walls of the same size would be required to list all of those names. Nor does this account for drug, PTSD, or Agent Orange deaths that have persisted since the end of that war. Preventing a communist takeover was the rationale for all of this death. Ironically, after propping up corrupt regimes in South Vietnam, since the feared communists have taken over, the US exchanges remarkably free trade and tourism with Vietnam.

The popular and political reaction to the 3,000 deaths on September 11, 2001 has justified years of military action. Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, put the death toll between 480,000 and 507,000 killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Interestingly, though those attackers had Saudi ties, the US has not responded militarily to Saudi Arabia. More US personnel have been killed in these wars than the original 3,000 on September 11. I am not making any excuses for the September 11 attackers or suggesting not responding. I am questioning the nature and proportionality of the response.

I believe the same confusion between illusion and truth comes to personal pursuit of safety and security. From automobiles to firearms, we want 100% airtight security and safety. While we as a society and individually do need to be smart and prudent about safety and security, such an absolute guarantee is illusory. I am not at all suggesting a ban on all firearms or even handguns or semi-automatic weapons. My point is that thinking of personal firearms in terms of safety and security is an illusion. Statistically the truth is that a handgun in the home is more likely to wound or kill a friend or family member than an intruder or attacker, whether intentionally or accidentally. Yes, if you choose to have firearms in your home, smart and prudent training and safety procedures are essential, but thinking that they protect your safety and security is an illusion.

When Babylon invaded Judah, the people trusted that the Temple of the Lord would insure their safety and security. Though they had basically been pushed from the countryside into the environs of Jerusalem, they believed God would never let the Temple be violated or destroyed. The Temple became a religious symbol of illusory safety and security. But the prophet Jeremiah warned them. “Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’” The truth was that the Temple was destroyed, and its contents and the people were carried off to captivity in Babylon.

Symbols of security and safety are not new, and those with religious meanings are often particularly enticing. To suggest that posting The Ten Commandments in schools would deter mass shooters or bombers is just such an illusion. That is not to suggest anything wrong with The Ten Commandments, only that those bent on such violence are not paying attention to them. Seeking security and safety in such symbols too often interferes with clear thinking about how to address the things that drive some people to violence.

While not directly endowed with religious significance, the proposed wall along the US border with Mexico is just such an illusory symbol of security and safety. I know some have attempted to assign religious significance to it by comparing it to Nehemiah’s wall at the resettling of Jerusalem. Such exegesis verges on silliness and misses that the point of Nehemiah’s wall was not so much safety and security as a sign of Jerusalem’s renaissance. Nevertheless, on both popular and political levels, the proposed border wall is clearly a symbol of the craving for safety and security in a time when fear seems to abound.

The threats of drugs, crime, and human trafficking fuel the illusion of safety and security envisioned in the wall. The truth is that very little drugs and other illegal and immoral traffic come with those trekking individually or in small groups on foot through the desert regions. Tunnels already go underneath stretches where walls are in place. Much comes in through established entry points hidden in legitimate cargo. Light aircraft and drones make drops over the border, wall or no wall. Many of those who are counted as illegal immigrants entered the country with legitimate and legal visas and just stayed when those expired.

I am not suggesting open borders or even a position on building or not building the wall. What I do believe, however, is that like the Jerusalem Temple, the wall is a symbol that promises an illusion of safety and security it cannot deliver.

I know that plenty of people in my family, friends, and social circle believe that what I consider to be illusions are truth. I also know that I am neither able nor responsible to convince them otherwise. In keeping with my intention of the last several months, I have written this so that the thoughts that have been churning in me, interrupting my Psalm index this morning, and distracting me from focusing on my inner life have been set in order and can be relinquished. When disturbing input comes to me, I can let it pass, knowing that I have clarified my thoughts between me and God. If I am wrong, as I certainly may be, I do trust that the Holy Spirit with nudge me from illusion to truth through Scripture and prayer. I have decided to post this in my Writing Workshop rather than Pilgrim Path as it seems more analytical than formative. If someone stumbles on it, so be it.

I May Die but I Will Not Kill to Stop the Killing

I awoke to this rhythm between 4:00 and 5:00 am February 2, 2019

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From capital punishment

To casual abortion

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From DWI

To driving while Black

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From gang violence

To police brutality

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From ethnic hate

To religious fear

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From defeating despots

To defending democracy

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From mass shootings

To mass bombings

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From guns on the street

To guns in the home

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From stopping a crime

To defending a victim

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From street drugs

To prescription abuse

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From domestic violence

To verbal abuse

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From political power

To business profits

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From war presumed just

To war of conquest

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing

From con artists

To sexual predators

I may die

But I will not kill

To stop the killing