Sacrilegious, Blasphemous, Idolatrous?

I believe I had occasionally seen this sort of thing but passed over it as a naïve mishmash of piety and patriotism. This Memorial Day weekend I saw many, many posts and memes to the effect of saying “US military personnel gave their lives/shed their blood for your freedom. Jesus Christ died/shed his blood for your salvation/forgiveness.” I mean no disrespect to US military personnel who died in service or any from the past or present. I am not interested in provoking any kind of argument or giving any kind of offense. So I am only posting this in my Writing Workshop blog to get it out of my system. To me connecting US military personnel and Jesus Christ with the parallel of giving their lives for others, while having a certain superficial logic, strikes me as sacrilegious or blasphemous or even idolatrous. It also smacks of malignant “American Exceptionalism” as though the military personnel of other countries don’t deserve the same patriotic respect. I recognize that as a lifelong Christian pacifist, I have a unique perspective which certainly colors my responses. Nevertheless, I would think that any serious follower of Jesus, even the most patriotic, would cringe at the implications of this parallel.

Opening Churches in Pandemic

So here is another thing that I will put in my blog but not post to social media until we see how this plays out. So I've got it out of my head onto paper in hopes of letting it go.

So President Trump has called for all houses of worship (including churches) to reopen this weekend as providers of essential services. Apparently without getting into the CDC guidelines for reopening churches, that they were holding until they thought appropriate but he insisted they be published, his language seems to throw the doors wide open. He apparently said that if the governors of the states don’t abide by his request, he would override them. I really don’t know the legal ins and outs of the balance of state and federal authority in such situations. Ironically, the Republicans have traditionally been the advocates of states’ rights.

One piece of that is what opening means. If the CDC guidelines call for certain measures (limited capacity, masks, no eating or drinking [communion?], social distancing, no group singing) would those guidelines be inforce? Would governors have the right to specific guidelines for their states?

So if the governors comply or the President requires states to allow churches to open for worship, does that become a mandate that ecclesiastical bodies (church boards, sessions, vestries, presbyteries, synods, dioceses, etc.) or church leaders (pastors, bishops, superintendents, etc.) are required to follow? So if some churches open and others don’t, some with no restrictions and others with cautious procedures, do we have a deepening of the schism that already seems to be infecting the Church in the US?

At a very pragmatic level, to make an announcement on Friday that is expected to be followed on Sunday would be a logistical nightmare. I hate to be so cynical, but to me it suggests total unfamiliarity with what goes into having public worship in even the most optimal times.

I don’t have an answer, only a question about the theological implications of insisting that gathering for worship in a building is intrinsic to church or religious freedom. I do believe in the gathering of the community of faith. But I’m not sure that implies the institutional trappings that have become so culturally expected. Many congregations have found creative ways to use today’s media to provide their people with essential services. Some of that may and should persist as the new normal emerges ahead of us. That is not so say that these are equivalent to the person to person engagement of authentic community life. Sadly, a lot of what happens in church buildings is as isolating (if not more) that what has happened in recent weeks.

I expect that many people will avoid the large gatherings for some time and that churches will do well to accommodate them with modern media (if that’s the right word). Especially those in high risk groups (like me) should not be shamed for being reluctant to increase the likelihood of exposure to coronavirus.

One more, very cynical thought, that I am including just because it came to mind, not because I have any reason to think it is real. But, what if all of this push to open up is a sinister plot to shrink the population of church people (and the most vigorous Trump supporters) by encouraging them to get together and spread the virus?

Gentleness and Reverence

I know that some have questioned Paul’s approach with his “unknown god” sermon in Athens (Acts 17). As I have been reflecting on this alongside of the admonition to make our defense of our hope in Christ “with gentleness and reverence,” (1 Peter 3:16), I am inclined to think that was exactly what Paul was trying to do. When he came to Athens, Paul was “deeply distressed that the city was full of idols.” (Acts 17:16) When his teaching evoked an invitation to speak in the Areopagus, Paul did not castigate them for the idolatry he found so distressing, but sought to engage them by starting in their context with a “gentle and reverent” approach. It was the proclamation of the resurrection (vv. 18, 32) that became the watershed.

What if we who follow Jesus chose to articulate our opinions in this volatile, divisive time with “gentleness and reverence”? I know politics and the Gospel are different, but it seems to me that when we who identify with Jesus express vitriolic political opinions, that undermines opportunity to proclaim the hope of the Gospel with “gentleness and reverence.” I do believe we who follow Jesus can and should speak to the issues of justice and peace, compassion and mercy in our violent, angry world. But if we let our “deep distress” at current issues overshadow “gentleness and reverence,” we undermine the credibility of our witness to the hope of the Gospel.

Voting for Your Favorite Sexual Predator

To say, “Your guy does/did it too/worse,” is not justification for or dismissal of sexual harassment on the part of anyone aspiring to any position of public leadership (or in private life for that matter). That the US has come to a place where this can even be said in the context of a Presidential election is more of an indictment of our society than either of the candidates. I wish both parties would choose different candidates, but the realpolitik of our time makes that unlikely. So we will have to choose which sexual predator we will vote for, but I say, “Keep both of them away from my wife, my daughters-in-law, my granddaughters, my sister, my nieces.”

Freedom and Liberty Apostle Paul and Thomas Jefferson

Freedom and liberty are very American (specifically US) values enshrined in Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Though not having the force of law that the US Constitution does, for nearly two and a half centuries (2026 will be that celebration), what they mean and how they are lived has been explored and played out in many different ways through US history.

The current coronavirus pandemic is putting that exploration to new tests. What happens when one person’s liberty may jeopardize another person’s life or happiness? What is the balance between individual freedom and the common good? What happens when some are allowed freedoms that are defacto denied to others?

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul affirms a spiritual freedom for those who trust and follow Jesus. He is primarily addressing freedom from “The Law” as understood in the Jewish context of the first century. In every generation, humans are prone to use external codes rather than intrinsic character to distinguish not only acceptable from unacceptable behavior, but also to define who is welcome and who is unwelcome. Paul’s understanding of freedom from “The Law” is worthy of considerable theological exploration, but it is clearly different than Jeffersonian liberty. Paul did not address the tyranny of the Roman Empire of that time. Those who followed Jesus were outside of the corridors of power but were seeking to be light in that darkness. The freedom of which Paul wrote is not equivalent to the American ideals of liberty.

·         2 Corinthians 3.17: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

·         Galatians 5.1: For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Paul (and Peter) even put some limits on the exercise of this freedom. Thus, asserting individual freedom is at odds with Jeffersonian freedom. Freedom in Christ is not to be used for ourselves but as a way of expressing love for others, even surrendering to becoming slaves to each other.

·         1 Corinthians 8.9: But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

·         Galatians 5.13: For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another.

·         1 Peter 2.16: As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil.

As the tensions over American freedom play out in the coming weeks and months, I suggest that we who follow Jesus have an opportunity to offer an alternative understanding of freedom. For me, that means opting out of the debates on individual freedom from government or social interference in our personal preferences. Instead, we have the opportunity to proclaim a freedom to love, even at cost to ourselves.

To be sure, biblical allusions to freedom and liberty have been invoked on behalf of American freedom through US history. Perhaps most notable is the inscription on The Liberty Bell from Leviticus 25:10 (echoed powerfully in Jeremiah 34). “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.” That is the liberty of the Year of Jubilee (every 50 years) when debts were cancelled, property returned to heirs of the original owners, slaves (those who sold themselves to pay debts) were set free, farm land laid fallow. Again, how that actually worked and how its principles might be applied in our time are worthy pursuits, but clearly the liberty proclaimed in Leviticus 25:10 is not personal freedom but liberty in the community so none are permanently excluded. As People of the Book (both Jews and Christians) I suggest that the current crisis is our opportunity to proclaim and practice a better, more powerful liberty and freedom.