The Rapture Trap

I became a serious Christian at the age of twenty-two. I had been baptized at the age of ten and always considered myself a Christian, even if in name only. But once I was married and started a family the importance of my own personal faith became critically important to me.

My pastor, during these early formative years of my adult Christian experience, had a significant impact and influence on my life. I still hold a warm spot in my heart for this man (now deceased) and for all the support he provided for me when I first entered the pastoral ministry. 

The congregation that also supported, nurtured, and ordained me during this time in my life was steeped in ultra-conservative Evangelical theology that bordered along the lines of a soft Fundamentalism. 

More importantly, both the pastor and the congregation were deeply committed to a theological system known as Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism focuses on the so-called “End Times” with the Rapture being the next anticipated event in eschatological history. The Rapture is believed to be a secret snatching away from this world of all true believers, leaving all others to fend for themselves (especially those who are Christian in name only). 

Following the Rapture, there will be a dark and destructive period of time lasting for seven years, known as the Tribulation. During this awful time, the world will be brought to the very brink of total destruction (nuclear holocaust?) at which time  Jesus will return visibly and bring a halt to all this madness. He will then usher in a literal one thousand year kingdom here on earth, a kingdom in which God’s people will live in perfect harmony with nature and with one another (known as millennialism).

Following this literal one thousand year kingdom Christ will deliver the world up to the Father in heaven, at which time eternity will begin in earnest (e.g., eternal life in heaven).

What I have just described is a brief and inadequate summary of eschatology (the study of the end times) that seems to be contributing to much of the Evangelical fear today. I have long since abandoned Dispensationalism and its variations and am now able to see some of the inherent traps well-meaning Christians can fall into with this particular view of the world. 

It’s a system of belief that is very difficult to walk away from without feeling one is betraying one’s Christian faith altogether. I know, I’ve walked that path and struggled with the crisis of faith that accompanies such a journey.

So allow me to share with you three of the most common traps and why it is important to recognize them, especially if you favor such a Christian worldview as Dispensationalism.

First, it is tempting to view the world as a dark and gloomy place from which Jesus will someday secretly and personally rescue you. In other words, I have observed that Christians who hold to a Dispensational view of the Bible often exhibit a dark and dystopian view of life in general. Not all mind you, but enough to cause some concern. When one’s focus is on the End Times (eschatology), then what transpires in this life (present time) is of minimal importance. For example, concern for the health and well-being of the earth and the environment takes a backseat to one’s anticipation of the so-called Rapture into heaven. 

This form of escapism is perhaps why so many Evangelicals today have accepted the political Far Right’s disavowal of climate and environmental concerns. Dispensationalism, because of it focus on the End Times, seems to have a very weak theology of Creation and forgets that God declared his creation “good” in spite of all its inherent problems.

Second, the modern State of Israel plays a critical role in the Dispensational scheme of the End Times. In fact, it has been my observation (and personal past experience as well) that as one embraces the Dispensational worldview one also embraces uncritical support of modern-day Israel (which is not the same as Biblical Israel). It’s one thing to be an ally of another nation and quite another to lend that ally uncritical and unquestioning support, especially a support based on a theological view of the End Times—a view, mind you, that is not shared by all Christian, myself included. 

This is a dangerous position to take, regardless of one’s theology, considering the powder keg the Middle East seems to be today. To give Israel a free pass when she acts badly based on one’s theological worldview is highly inadvisable. To privilege Israel over all other nations in that region, based on one’s eschatology, can be very dangerous in the long term.  This is indeed a dangerous trap.

Additionally, being a friend to Israel does not necessarily correlate to being an enemy to the Palestinians or to the rest of the Muslim world. The treatment of the Palestinians by the modern State of Israel is atrocious at best and Christians must call out such unjust treatment.

Third, such a theological worldview of the End Times may lead one into the trap of fear and paranoia. Look, I am well aware of the dangers of making unfounded correlations between certain causes and effects. But when a Christian embraces such a dystopian view of the world based on one’s eschatology, then the lens through which they look at the world is already tinted with a dark hue.

Therefore, when a politician paints a dark and threatening picture of our world it becomes too easy to fall into the trap of fear and paranoia. I don’t believe this assumption is too farfetched if one is predisposed to fear and paranoia created by a particular theological worldview, such as Dispensationalism. In other words, it is quite possible that such a theological system as Dispensationalism conditions its proponents to be more susceptible to threats, both imagined and real. This is indeed a dangerous trap.

It would be unwise for me to lump all Evangelical Dispensationalists into one camp. There are some who embrace such an End Times theology while avoiding the inherent traps we have been discussing. But the traps are real and recognizing them is becoming more and more important for Christians of all stripes today. 

Perhaps the Christianity of the 21st Century will learn to hold in tension the already with the not yet! This present life indeed matters. God’s ultimate purpose matters as well. We can live without fear and paranoia because we know to Whom we belong. We can honor this present life as if we were honoring God’s good creation even as we strain forward towards God’s ultimate purpose for his creation.  

A Christmas Eve Story

We all have important stories we love to tell about our lives and there are certain details we would never leave out—the power of such stories is in the details.

For example, Marise and I once were foster parents of two little girls who were about the same age as our two sons. It was the 4th of July weekend and we got word that one of Marise’s uncles in Canada had passed away.

So we packed up the Ford Station Wagon with all four kids and headed to Canada. Have you ever taken an unexpected trip on a holiday weekend? This trip began on the 4th of July!

Well, we drove all the way from central North Carolina to Pennsylvania in the Pocono Mountains before we saw a “Vacancy” sign on a hotel. It was about 1 am in the morning. I pulled in and made my way to the registration desk, which by the way, was located in the bar. I told the man behind the bar that I wanted a room and he replied: “For how many?”

When I told him it was for my wife and me and four children he replied with a smirk on his face: “Sorry, the only thing left is the honeymoon suite and I can’t rent that to you.” Was he being truthful are just sarcastic. Regardless we plowed on towards Canada in desperate need of some rest. 

Well, Joseph and Mary had to make an unexpected trip south from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to register in a government census. Obviously, they didn’t have online services back then so they had to appear in person.

Well, wouldn’t you know it: The unexpected always seems to happen when you are traveling. Mary was going into labor so Joseph needed a room at the inn right now! But there was no room—or at least this is what they were told:

“No room for you!”

What happens next in this story we are all quite familiar with: Jesus is born, placed in a manger, is visited by shepherds and wise men under the illumination of a guiding star. God becomes human in Jesus and makes his entrance into our world in order to bring salvation, peace, and joy into our lives.

What a nice compact and neat story. Well, the Bible has a different version.

But let’s not forget that good stories, even our Christmas story, have details we cannot leave out or the story loses its power. It’s like the small detail I emphasized in my opening story of traveling on the 4th of July weekend and being refused a room. 

So Jesus was born nonetheless and was placed in a “manger.” Now a manger is a feeding trough out of which animals ate. You can bet that this manger was not a comfortable baby crib with a mobile hanging overhead with dangling little birds to occupy the newborn child.

Oh, such humble beginnings into which God’s only Son was born—into which God entered into our life experience. 

But there is one little detail in this story that is crying out for our attention. It is the one detail that gives this story power even now, even two-thousand years later.

“There was no room at the Inn!”

Have you ever wondered if the Innkeeper was being truthful with Mary and Joseph? I’ve often wondered if the man in the hotel whose name I cannot remember was being truthful with me when we were unceremoniously turned away on that 4th of July night!

Maybe there was room for Joseph and Mary but when the Innkeeper saw this wayward couple he didn’t like what he saw and reckoned it would be best to send them on their way.

He didn’t like what he saw!

If this were the case, then the nameless Innkeeper of the nameless Inn (was it the Holiday Inn of Bethlehem or the Comfort Suites of Judea?) just unknowingly turned away God in the flesh! 

Perhaps the Innkeeper really had no way of knowing who he was turning away and this is probably closer to the truth than we think.

But when God in Christ comes knocking at the door of our Inn (heart) are we going to turn him away because we may not like what we see? When he comes knocking asking for our hearts are we going to be willing to invite him in so he may abide with us? Are we going to look past what we see and get over our apprehension, even our fear, and say: “Yes Lord, come on in!”

In this little detail, we discover the real power of the Christmas story. 

God wants a room in your Inn tonight—in your heart that is. He wants to reside within you at the very core of your being in order to become the Ground of your being.

Will you let him in? Will you give him residence in your heat?

Mary's Advent Song of Dissent!

And Mary said:

“My soul glorifies the Lord
     and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

for he has been mindful
    of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,

    for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
    holy is his name.

His mercy extends to those who fear him,
    from generation to generation.

He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
    he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

He has brought down rulers from their thrones
    but has lifted up the humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things
    but has sent the rich away empty.

He has helped his servant Israel,
    remembering to be merciful 
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
    just as he promised our ancestors” (Luke 1:46-55).
_________________________________

“The arch of a moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” —Martin Luther King, Jr.

Voices of dissent have never pleased the dominant powers. Mary's was no exception. 

Yet, the Gospel has always been a voice of dissent in an unjust world.

Now the examples that follow were all movements created originally by dissenting voices against the dominant status quo. It should be clear, however, that we are not obliged to give our full-throated support to any one or all of these movements since no one movement is perfect. But we should at least try to recognize the original dissenting voices behinds the movements.

—When the Black Lives Matter movement found its voice the reaction of the status quo was quick and severe, labeling those who spoke up as the voices of black rabble-rousers.

—When the Me Too movement found its voice and was launched the male status quo set out to discredit the voices within this movement as simply angry females. 

—When black athletes found their voice and began taking a knee in protest of police brutality against young black men, their voices were met with the counter-narrative of their being unpatriotic and disrespectful to the American flag, which actually had nothing to do with the original protests.

—When young Parkland school children here in Florida found their voices and spoke up against gun violence the response of the powerful gun lobbying status quo was immediate and unrelenting, even accusing these children of being paid protestors of the liberal establishment. 

—When minority political candidates of late found their voices and spoke up against voter suppression the status quo immediately discredited them as being left-wingers and Socialist liberals.

—When compassionate folks find their voices and protest the incarceration of hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrant children and teenagers as the result of misguided immigration policy, the powers immediately responded by instilling fear into the hearts of the American people of caravan invasions coming from the south. 

Yes, there is also a long history of ordinary folks finding their voices in America and being met with angry and sometimes violent status quo resistance. For example:

—When minority voices of Blacks spoke up against unjust segregational policies in the 1960s they were met with fire hoses and police billy clubs. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others like him were labeled as troublemakers and often jailed simply because he found his voice.

—When American females finally found their voices in the 1970s and spoke up against unjust male domination they were immediately attacked and labeled as malcontents and man-haters whose objective was to ruin the American family. 

Remember the Helen Reddy song, “I Am Woman”?

Look, Mary found her voice and it pushed the arc of history towards a more just world. It is a voice I suggest that we the church must find in the midst of our present day silence. 

Mary’s voice was so disturbing, so radical, so subversive that it has been banned by governments of injustice from being spoken in public places and even in churches.

In fact, in British ruled India Mary’s words were forbidden to be sung in churches and in Argentina during the “Dirty War” the military junta banned it from all public readings—banned because it instilled hope in the people.  Yes, too much hope can lead to people finding their own dissenting voices.

I love the way the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer describes the Advent Song of Mary:

"It is at once the most passionate, the wildest, one might even say the most revolutionary Advent hymn ever sung. This is not the gentle, tender, dreamy Mary whom we sometimes see in paintings. . . This song has none of the sweet, nostalgic, or even playful tones of some of our Christmas carols. It is instead a hard, strong, inexorable song about the power of God and the powerlessness of humankind.”

Mary’s Advent Song reminds us that God has acted once and for all in the birth of his only Son and his lowly birth contains the potential to create a world that is more loving, more just, and more peaceful. 

Why is it that a Middle Eastern teenager, pregnant and unmarried, had the insight to perceive God’s movement within her own womb when so many today have yet to recognize that movement?  

Why is it that in all our modern sophistication we continue to miss the point of Christmas by turning it into a once-a-year overly commercialized consumer binge that has absolutely nothing to do with God establishing his reign on earth?

If there is such a thing as a “War on Christmas” this is it!

Why is it, in a world being torn apart by dangerous and toxic political agendas, that we humans have such difficulty hearing this young teenager’s dissenting voice from the past?

Why is the church silent today I ask?

It seems that Jesus had good genes, inheriting his mother’s propensity (DNA) for finding his own voice at just the right time:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
    to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19).

I call upon the church in America to find her unified voice in these troubling days. I call upon her to sing the words of both Mary and Jesus to a world order that seems disinterested in the moral arc of justice that Jesus inaugurated at his birth. 

I call upon the church to speak prophetically to both the political Right and the political Left, to those who would implement unjust policies driven by the need for power, greed, and self-interests.

I call upon the church to stand apart from such injustices and speak truth to power!

I call upon the church to find her voice and sing loudly that God has acted once and for all in the birth of his Son Jesus to push the arc of history towards a more just world. 

I pray that Advent this year might be the tipping point for members of all of my fellow Christians to find their voices, as did both Mary and Jesus, and thus courageously speak out against the injustices of our world. 

But a word of warning: 

Jesus inherited his mother’s voice and those in power murdered him—as is often the case when voices dissent from the dominant status quo. Speaking truth to power, as did Jesus, can be hazardous to your health, if not your reputation. Let’s not forget that Mary and her young family became undocumented refugees in Egypt because Jesus posed a threat to the ruling authority of his day.

I pray for courage, for myself and for all those who claim to follow the Lord of lords and the King of kings. I pray for courage for those who have thrown their hat in the Jesus ring for better or for worse. 

Speak up church! Speak out! Proclaim boldly the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, the true Son of God, the one and only Savior whose own life and death ensured that the moral arc of the universe will bend towards justice for everyone.

Remember, the Gospel has always been a voice of dissent in an unjust world!

The Christmas Story Remixed

In a recent New York Times article, entitled “The Hypocrisy of Hanukkah” (Dec 1, 2018) Michael David Lucas uncomfortably confronts the original meaning behind the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah. Lucas begins his article recounting a conversation he had with his 3-year-old daughter. Here is his opening account verbatim:

It’s the question that Jewish parents instinctively dread.

A few months ago, I was sitting on the couch with my 3-year-old daughter, watching YouTube videos about animals in space, when out of nowhere she looked up at me and asked:

“Dada, can we celebrate Christmas?”

“We don’t celebrate Christmas,” I told her, putting on my serious voice. “We celebrate Hanukkah.”

Like generations of Jewish parents before me, I did my best to sell her on the relative merits of Hanukkah. True, Christmas might have those sparkly trees, ornaments and fruitcake. But we have latkes, jelly doughnuts and eight nights of presents.

“Do we have Santa?” she asked, hopefully.

“No,” I said, and her face dropped. “They do.”

I tried to reiterate the part about the jelly doughnuts and the eight nights of presents. But she wasn’t having any of it.

Okay, allow me to briefly summarize what I think is the point of Lucas’s article about the modern-day American version of Hanukkah: Hanukkah for many American Jews has become (pardon the analogy) the Jewish version of the American Christmas—at least culturally speaking that is. 

But Lucas later admits how uncomfortably surprised he was to learn the actual historical background behind this minor annual Jewish holiday. Lucas learned that Hanukkah has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas (not that it ever did) but was instead an 8-day long celebration of the victory of religious fundamentalism and violence. 

Writes Lucas:

"More recently, as Jews have become assimilated into American society, the holiday has evolved into a kind of Semitic sidekick for Christmas, a minor festival pumped up into something it was never meant to be so that Jewish kids won’t feel bad about not having a tree."

Indeed the rediscovery of Hanukkah’s original meaning has the potential to shed new light on this minor Jewish holiday.

But what if we Christians, like Lucas, took a deeper look into our own foundational Christmas story, particularly the birth stories found in Matthew and Luke. What if we were to challenge the modern -day perception that these stories were all about humble beginnings and strained hospitality portrayed on glossy Hallmark cards; stories acted out in children’s plays in church. 

This is exactly what author Tricia Gates Brown has done in her excellent *essay (“The Subversive, Confrontational, & Emboldening Stories of Christmas”) on the original meaning of the Christmas stories, as found in Matthew and Luke. Brown’s discovery is shocking to most modern-day American Christians—shocking because most of us have never heard this version of the Christmas story before (I had not until my mid-fifties). 

Matthew and Luke are the only two Gospel writers that begin with a birth narrative of Jesus. This is not a coincidence nor is it an accident. They were designed, each in their own way, to let the first century Christians know that God has acted in Jesus’s birth to establish his eternal reign (Empire) on earth. 

A new government has been established. A new Ruler has been installed. A new King has been coronated. A new way of life has appeared that stands in stark contrast to the ways of Empire (Rome or the United States).

In other words, both Matthew and Luke use the birth story of Jesus (as a prelude) to set up their Gospels in order to critique and challenge the pagan Empire of Rome (or any Empire for that matter). It was their way of subverting the prideful claims of both the Empire and Cesar. 

As Tricia Gates Brown reminds us: “These [birth] narratives offer a scathing critique of imperial methods of controlling people, holding onto power, conquering territory, and advancing/protecting the empire’s survival.” In other words, the non-violent kingdom of Christ stands opposed to the violent nature of worldly Empires—including our own nation.

The stories of Jesus’s birth demonstrate to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that lasting peace is brought about by the non-violent ways of Christ as opposed to the violent ways of the Empire. It is with great intent that the Gospel writers refer to Jesus as "The Prince of Peace" and not Cesar.

Read in such a manner, these birth stories of Jesus, the stories that have been overly sentimentalized by the Hallmark industry, remind us all of who our true Lord is. Read in this way we are reminded of the real significance of our baptismal confession: 

“Jesus is Lord!”

And because Jesus is Lord it only stands to reason that Cesar isn’t—nor any other worldly ruler who desires to lay claim on Christian lives.

It is time for American Christians, as well as American Jews for that matter, to hear our annual holiday stories as they were told in their original context. I believe if we make such an effort we will experience a deeper and richer Christmas and Hanukkah and the annual mantra will take on new meaning:

“Peace on earth and goodwill to all!”

*https://triciagatesbrown.net/2018/11/15/the-subversive-confrontational-emboldening-stories-of-christmas-2/

Where is heaven?

The idea that heaven is "up there" somewhere waiting to be populated by deceased humans is becoming more and more difficult for Christians today to embrace. Given our knowledge that we are living in an expanding universe the notion of heaven as a specific location is becoming too much of a challenge for Christians to uncritically accept as truth. What follows is a brief meditation [edited] written by my friend Pastor Leon Bloder. Leon offers one of the best explanation of where heaven might be that I have thus far encountered. I thought it would be nice to share this little gem with you.

"God Isn't Somewhere Else"

"He who longs the most lives the longest." - Khalil Gibran

One of my favorite television shows of all time was the short-lived science-fiction series Fringe, which ran for five seasons and 100 episodes.

The plot centered around the conflict created by an opening to another dimension that revealed a parallel universe and alternate realities.

After watching Fringe for a while, I got to thinking about dimensions, realities, heaven, and God--because that's naturally what you do when you're a pastor and you watch shows like Fringe.  Sue me, I'm weird.

At any rate, after a lot of reading studying and pondering I came to believe that, since the idea of a heaven somewhere "up above" just doesn't make any sense, the idea of realities on the other side of our reality is the best way to think about such things.

In other words, "where God is," most likely is just on the other side of what I can perceive--right here, right now.  So God isn't somewhere else, God is right here (everywhere, in fact) on the other side of what I can see and experience with my limited abilities.

C.S. Lewis once wrote:  "There is no neutral ground in the universe.  Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God..."

And this thought created a longing in me that I haven't been able to shake.  It's a longing to experience that reality--God's reality.  To search for thin places in the world where I can see "heaven here on earth," so speak.

At first, I felt awkward about this longing.  I wondered if it was the kind of thing that daydreamers or people who are "losing it" might spend too much time thinking about.  But then I began to understand that there is something deep inside all of us that is constantly yearning for God's reality.

Richard Rohr puts it like this:

The deepest human need and longing is to overcome the separateness the distance from what always seems "over there" and "beyond me"...
Beloved, your longings for connection with the Divine... your longings for a world made better through God's loving, generative spirit... your longing to know and be known...  let yourself feel them, let yourself be guided by them.

And may the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you now and always. Amen.

Gender Equality: A Value of the Gospel

Modern Biblical scholarship has produced an abundance of fruit for our collective benefit—if we would only pay attention to what we are being taught by credible mainstream scholars. The same may also be said for modern historical research.

For example, there is a major consensus among Biblical scholars today that the Apostle Paul wrote at least seven New Testament letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Also, they are now fairly confident that Paul wrote these letters well before the four Gospels were written.

Why is this important?

It is important because we are able to detect a dramatic shift away from Paul’s original thinking regarding the equality of women in the church (and in society-at-large). In fact, it has been pointed out that Paul was one of the most egalitarian thinkers of the early Christian period, especially regarding women (Galatians 3:28).

But as one reads the rest of the New Testament, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the remaining New Testament letters not believed to have been written by Paul, one may detect a definite shift away from Paul’s egalitarian view of women.

A good example of this is found in John’s Gospel (7:53–8:11), written a few decades after Paul was executed. Now given the suspicion that this text was not originally part of John’s Gospel, it nonetheless reflects a shift away from Paul’s egalitarian view on women.

It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to see that only the woman is brought to Jesus for punishment (stoning) for her sin of adultery. Her male accomplice is mentioned by implication only. He was not subjected to the public humiliation and shame that only the poor woman experienced. 

Why is this?

In this case, however, I believe Jesus ruled correctly although I have always been disappointed that he didn’t at least ask where her male sex partner was? 

There is also evidence that women enjoyed a much more egalitarian relationship with men during the historical period prior to the Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE, after which male dominance and inequality between the sexes diminished, thus producing patriarchal societies with which we are all familiar  today (see, Diarmaid O’Murchu, Incarnation: A New Evolutionary Threshold and Catching Up With Jesus). 

This is a very little known part of human history that remains out of view of most people today. But it is worth looking into just to see how we humans once got it right it seems but for whatever reasons dropped the equality ball when it came to the sexes.

So what does all this tell us today? Is such a view of history even relevant in today's world? Did Jesus have such an effect on Paul’s worldview that it transformed his thinking on the relationship between men and women in terms of equality? Additionally, can we trust the painstaking work of anthropologists regarding the rise of patriarchal dominance following the emergence of the Agricultural Revolution?

Well, I believe the way we answer these important questions will help determine how we as a civilization can successfully recapture the egalitarian spirit demonstrated by both Paul and Jesus as well as our ancient ancestors.

Unless we take the cues of credible scholars, both Biblical and historical, we males will never treat women as our equals. We will never see women wearing the clerical collar in faith traditions that only ordained men. We will never be blessed by female pastors in Fundamentalist churches. We will never benefit from the unique female perspective on both theology and politics. Women will be treated in the workplace as equals to men.

To be blunt, we males will never trust women to be our equal partners in life.

The Apostle Paul was an equalitarian champion of women. The Gospel of Jesus Christ transformed his thinking and elevated his once male opinion of women—as it should have. Paul took his cue from Jesus, yet over time there was pushback by the male powers in the church, reflected in letters written after Paul.

Yes, there are some mainline denominations that acknowledge the equal place of women in both the congregation and among the clergy. Good for them. But it is not enough for us to recapture the spirit of equality that permeated both Jesus’s and Paul’s worldview. 

Until such time that women gain equal footing with men, both in the church and in society-at-large, then I am afraid their place in society will continue to reflect the patriarchal dominance that has ruled for much too long now and women will be less likely to be trusted as equals by dominant males who are intent on holding onto their male power. 

Christians should always bear witness to gender equality taught by both Paul and Christ. 

There is simply no other option for us today.

Resisting the Demons of Fear

“Millions of people in the contemporary world hunger for spiritual meaning but predominantly through compensatory behaviors. Religiosity itself remains a major delusionary outlet. Others, more widely recognized, include hedonism (addictive pleasure), power seeking, recreational drugs, gambling, and economic consumerism (shopping). We use these escapist behaviors to cover over an inner angst, an alienation that frightens and dislocates our otherwise noble aspirations.”

The above observation was made by the social psychologist and priest Diarmuid O’Murchu. O’Murchu’s point is that we humans suffer from a condition that seems to be as old as humanity itself: Alienation!

We can’t seem to help ourselves in this regard. There is something deep within each one of us that repeatedly reminds us that we are alone, disconnected, and our lives are out of synch with any ultimate meaning. It is in our search for connectedness and meaningfulness that we act out in compensatory ways mentioned above.

Perhaps this sense of alienation is graphically depicted in our own Christian story of origin found in Genesis. According to the story (myth), our original parents fled from God because of their own willful disobedience. 

They hid from their Good Creator, separating themselves from his loving embrace and purpose for their lives. They hid within the garden prepared for them. In the midst of God’s creative abundance and goodness, they fearfully squatted in the dense foliage as a means to separate themselves from their Creator.

This alienation was, of course, the result of their own doing, yet the fear that it produced in their hearts and minds continue to haunt us to this day.

We are living in a world today that finds itself deeply alienated from all that is supposed to be good. Like little children trembling in a dark room, afraid of the infamous boogeyman, we humans are seeking compensatory ways to assuage our fears created by our own sense of alienation.

It is no wonder that the single most repeated admonition in the Bible is “fear not!” 

Truth is, we humans are not as alienated as we think we are. We are more connected to meaningfulness than we ever thought possible. 

As we head into the election season there will be political adds infinitum using fear as their strategy for success. The suggested narrative is really quite simple:

“If enough folks can be convinced and made fearful that their way of life is  being seriously threatened then  winning their hearts and minds (and votes) will have been a success.”

Spoiler Alert: Every generation believes their's to be the worst; to be on the verge of destruction; to be on the edge of the so-called “Eve of Destruction!” 

And don’t think for a moment that political strategists of all stripes don’t know this about us.

So political election campaigns focus on our fears that are borne out of our own sense of alienation. We are told that if we vote for this candidate or that candidate then the world as we know it will become immeasurably better or worse depending on who we vote for. 

Hint: Fear is the bait to catch a vote.

Well, don’t fall for this strategy. We are not living on the Eve of Destruction. I for one cannot and will not accept such a dark narrative repeated by the political spin masters of our time.

We should not ignore the pressing issues of our time, nor should we too easily dismiss the human capacity for destructive behaviors. We humans have a lot of work to do in order to access our better angels. But life is not yet hopeless.

For me, the Biblical injunction, “Fear not” is a constant reminder that we all live in a world that certainly offers us opportunities to fear, but also a world we believe has meaning, purpose, and a hopeful future. We only need to discover such purpose and such meaning outside the magnetic pull of imagined fear.

In the words of Jesus: 

“And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

I don’t know about you, but these words help cure my own sense of alienation (separation) and gives me hope that no matter how dark the skies are, or how tough life becomes, or how confusing my world seems to be, I am not alone in this huge expanding universe—and neither are you.

Don’t allow political fear mongers to own your heart and mind. We are never alienated from a life of meaning and purpose, if so then we have succumbed to the voices crying “fire, fire” when there really is no fire. 

More importantly, we are never alienated from the One who loves us in ways we just cannot fully imagine.

Fear not!

For What It's Worth : Submit to the Governing Authorities?

For What It's Worth : Submit to the Governing Authorities?: Leslie Weatherhead famously said: “The trouble with some of us is that we have been inoculated with small doses of Christianity which ke...

Submit to the Governing Authorities?

Leslie Weatherhead famously said: “The trouble with some of us is that we have been inoculated with small doses of Christianity which keep us from catching the real thing.”

It appears that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been thus inoculated by quoting (out of context) Romonas 13:1 in defense of unsettling border practices by the current Administration. The Administration’s Press Secretary has also made similar Biblical claims justifying current policies. 

Sadly these policies have led to the separation of children from their parents who are being held in detention centers. Most of these parents are not economic illegals but rather foreign nationals seeking asylum in the United States—but regardless . . .

As an American, a parent and a pastor these border practices break my heart on several different levels. But what really disturbs me is the use of Christian Scriptures by government officials (Sessions and Sanders) to justify this incredibly inhumane policy. 

Scripture scholar John Dominique Crossan once told me that when one takes verses of Scripture out of context one ends up with pretext. In other words, when we carelessly rip parts of the Bible out of their historical context we most often end up with erroneous and careless interpretations.

Romans 13:1 reads as follows: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.”

In a recent blog author Kurt Willems writes that Romans 13:1 is not a verse of Scripture that can “be used to give government structures a blank ethical check.” 

This verse of Scripture has a long and repeated history of being used to do justify unethical and immoral government policies—so not much has changed over the years. 

Allow me to make a few brief observations relative to this oft misunderstood verse written by the Apostle Paul: 

First, Romans 13 must be read and interpreted through the lens of Romans 12 (which Sessions apparently has not done). Romans 12 actually describes what being a follower of Jesus actually looks like, as one faithfully lives within a non-christian environment such as the Roman Empire of Paul’s day. 

Second, the Christians to whom Paul was writing lived under the constant threat of government persecution (Nero) and being a Christian during that time meant risking personal harm or even death by an unsympathetic government. So Paul understood the practicality of being an obedient citizen, if for no other reason than not to arouse the ire of the government officials. 

Third, there did come a time in Paul’s life when he was compelled to be faithful to his convictions and was thus executed by the same government he earlier suggested that Christians obey. Those quick to quote Romans 13:1 in order to justify the government’s unethical and immoral policies rarely consider this historical fact. 

  

Finally, I object to the way some Evangelical interpreters use Romans 13 to justify their personal support of any political party or administration policy: 

Romans 13 does not teach total Christian compliance to unethical or immoral government behaviors.

Neither does it teach blind compliance to any secular government. 

Christian pastors have an obligation to teach their congregations the contextual truth about Romans 13:1. Regardless of the pastor’s political leanings it is incumbent upon him or her to call out government officials who continue to misuse our Scriptures in order to advance a political agenda—especially one as immoral as the current immigration policy seems to be.

In fact, Attorney General Jeff Session’s own church (the United Methodist Church) issued a statement in quick response to his improper use Romans 13:1 to justify separating children from their parents:

Jesus is our way, our truth, our life. The Christ we follow would have no part in ripping children from their mothers' arms or shunning those fleeing violence. It is unimaginable that faith leaders even have to say that these policies are antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

Christian sacred texts should never be used to justify policies that oppress or harm children and families (The United Methodist Church). 

Children should never to be used as political pawns—for any reason. It’s unethical and immoral and such policy is antithetical to the heart of the Christian Gospel. 

Period!

Let us pray that our government will immediately cease separating these children from their parents, while reuniting those who have already been separated. 

Nothing less is acceptable.

Ghosting!

The term “Ghosting” was an unfamiliar term to me for a long time, although I have experienced it many times during the course of my pastoral ministry.

Ghosting is defined as follows: 

“The practice of ending a personal relationship with someone by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” 

From a Christian perspective ghosting does great harm to the Body of Christ. Therefore, in the context of a given congregation the act of ghosting can be incredibly hurtful and troubling—and it doesn’t need to be. 

Additionally, from a clergy perspective the act of ghosting can be intensely painful.

Most clergy I know have ghosting stories to tell. I have heard numerous stories of how church members suddenly disappear (as if raptured) without one word of explanation. One day they are active in the congregation then the next day they vanish into thin air without one word of explanation.

When ghosting occurs clergy are prone to ask of themselves:

“Was I personally responsible for so and so’s disappearance?”

The pain of not knowing can be overwhelming for one whose life is committed to serving and caring for others.

I once had a young couple in my church who appeared to be deeply committed to our congregation. They were, for the most part, active members and regular worshipers on Sunday. On a personal level I thought I had a great relationship with this young family. 

But suddenly they disappeared without any explanation. They simply severed all communications with both the congregation and me as if we never existed.

Of course my initial assumption was that somehow I was the blame or personally responsible for their sudden departure. To this day I don’t know why they left and probably never will know. 

I wish I could report that this was an unusual occurrence during my career as a pastor but I would be less than truthful if I did. I have experienced ghosting in all four of the churches I have served. I don’t recall ever being given an explanation in advance for the sudden disappearance of those who ghosted their church. 

In fact I cannot recall one church member ever coming to me and offering an honest explanation for their forthcoming departure—not once!

Therefore clergy are left playing mental gymnastics with their own emotions and thoughts as to why they were ghosted. Yet my sense is that I was far less responsible for these acts of ghosting than I initially imagined. 

The fact is that people leave churches for a variety of reasons: theological differences of opinion, or geographical reasons (church too far from home), or disagreement over how the church’s money is being spent, or personal conflict with another church member, or no youth or children’s ministry, or conflict within the family unit itself; the reasons are many.

But here’s the point: Ghosting in the church is a cruel and cowardly act. It’s not a charitable act based on the love of Christ we share with one another. Jesus would prefer that we treat each other with loving honesty and wise transparency. 

Finally, from a clergy perspective ghosting can be both disruptive and harmful. This is especially true of pastors who have been clear with their congregations that they are open to the honesty and transparency of all church members. 

For example, how many of clergy have lovingly told their congregations from the pulpit or at least frequently communicated this invitation in written form in newsletters or correspondence to church members: 

“If you have an issue with the church or me personally please come talk to me about it in private; let’ work it out together.”

Ghosting a friend, a family member, or a pastor is cruel and unkind. Ghosting violates the spirit of Christian love as an act of kindness. It should be avoided no matter how difficult the challenges of honesty and transparency are. Don’t you think?  

A Man for His Time

The news of Billy Graham dying saddened me.

Known among his admirers as “America’s pastor” Billy Graham was a once-in-a-lifetime phenom. I remember the day when young pastors, like myself, aspired to be the next Billy Graham.

Of course I never became the next Billy Graham but it sure was fun dreaming big dreams for both myself and my ministry.

Billy Graham allowed God to use him in ways that inspired countless millions of people throughout the world. Even folks who do not practice the Christian faith admire this man. He was indeed a global personality worth noting.

Will there ever be another Billy Graham in our lifetime?

That’s a question I saw posted in a recent online article. Of course we cannot say with certainty, but we can only hope another man of God such as Dr. Graham will appear on the American landscape before we tear ourselves apart with rancorous division and strife.

In the New Testament epistle to the Ephesians the following words stand out as an excellent description of Dr. Graham’s life and ministry on this earth:

“For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us."

Of course the “he” in this verse refers to Jesus Christ. The two groups refer to the Jews and the Gentiles. Two groups that couldn’t be any different from one another; two groups that were separated by both religious and cultural differences. This situation was the Hatfields and the McCoys on steroids.

Yet these two groups once separated by hostility from one another became one body known as the ecclesia (Church).

Well Jesus broke down that wall of hostility. That is to say, he removed the embittered barriers that often lead to walls that divide people of differences.

Yes, Billy Graham did more to break down these kinds of walls than anyone I can recall in recent memory. He was Christ’s ambassador to the whole world.

Yet the one thing I have come to admire about Billy Graham was his non-partisan stance in the world of politics. I don’t ever recall hearing him publicly supporting one political party over against another. I don’t recall hearing him endorse any one political candidate. I am sure he had his personal preferences but he never revealed, as far as I know, who they were.

Billy Graham was a bridge builder. He was not a divider nor did he erect walls of hostility. He was often criticized by more conservative Christians for being too open to all people, but isn’t that what any good evangelist is supposed to be?

I remember one Christian complaining to me that Dr. Graham had a Catholic priest on stage with him during one of his crusades, as if the priest's presence some how made Dr. Graham less of a Christian.

We need more Billy Grahams today. We need more bridge builders whose faith in Christ animates their relationships with people of all stripes. We need that Christian voice in Washington that helps build effective bridges rather than erect partisan walls that divide us further.

Billy Graham evolved so I am told. His views on certain doctrinal issues changed over time. Of course this happens to anyone who is sensitive to the Spirit within—and Billy Graham was indeed sensitive to the Spirit of God in his life.

But he never lost his capacity for building bridges as an ambassador for Christ. He comfortably met with presidents, popes, and other world leaders. He had that gift of extending God’s grace to anyone within his presence.

My condolences go out to Billy Graham’s family. He will be missed by them for sure. America will miss this wonderful man of God. I know I will.

My prayer is that in his death his life will become motivation for us all to become bridge builders like Billy Graham. May we all attempt to tear down the walls of hostility by loving others as Christ loved us—no exceptions.

May we also pray that God will raise up another Billy Graham, to inspire us all to build walls of generosity and hospitality rather than dividing walls of hostility and exclusion.

American Christianity in Crisis?

In his masterful book, The Prophetic Imagination, Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann suggests that there are three noticeable characteristics of King Solomon’s Empire, namely: Affluence, Oppressive Social Policy, and Static Religion.

Regarding affluence Brueggemann suggests that when the royal elites are satiated (full bellies) the plight of the rural subjects becomes less and less of a concern for them. In other words, as extreme wealth flows upwards to the top those on the bottom become the invisible subjects of the Empire.

This, according to Brueggemann, is exactly what occurred during Solomon’s reign as King of Israel and he suggests that we see this pattern recurring in our own time.

Insofar as oppressive social policy is concerned, the few lived quite well as the result of the labors of the many. In other words, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer—the economic system was rigged back then as well (labor and taxes). The many made it possible for those on top of the food chain to live very well.

But here is the genius of Brueggemann’s insight:

None of the above would have been made possible had not Solomon co-opted the religion of Israel and her God (Yahweh) into the royal landscape.

In other words, Solomon built a magnificent temple in which the God of Israel resided as the royal or imperial deity of the kingdom. This was pure genius!

You see, if you are the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President and you desire to legitimate the political and social policies of your kingdom or nation then the best way to do that is to provide divine sanction or legitimization for all your policies—economic, political, social and military.

In other words, to say it bluntly:

Your god must assume your own national identity for this to work.

Solomon was crafty to be sure. He knew that if he could harness God in the national temple in Jerusalem then perhaps God’s sovereignty would be limited to the whims of the king.

We mustn’t think that this kind of royal strategy was impossible for such a prominent Biblical character as Solomon. Not only was it possible it became reality and it serves to warn us in our own times against such a dangerous strategy of mixing the goals of the king with religious faith.

In such a context God became beholding to the whims and wishes of the royal house of Israel. As Brueggemann further suggests: “Now there is no notion that God is free and that he may act apart from and even against the regime.”

Now all of this says more about Solomon and his royal subjects than it says about God. Surely we know that God would never allow himself to be contained in a nationalistic temple religion whereby he can only act in accordance with the permission of the king. I realize that all this sounds absurd, but it was indeed Solomon’s strategy in building his empire—and it worked!

But perhaps it isn’t as far fetched an idea as it first appears.

Haven’t we in America co-opted God into our own nationalistic vision of what we want America to look like (mostly like ourselves I would argue)? When we enter our own temples of worship (sanctuaries) are we not confronted with the symbols of both the nation and our Christian faith standing side by side (the American Flag and the Cross)?

Do we think nothing of printing “In God We Trust” on our currency or evoke God’s name in our nationalistic Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Most do not in fact, it’s what good Americans do, right?

Is this not a blending together of Solomon’s kingdom and Israelite temple religion for the purpose of legitimating our national identity, not to mention our domestic and foreign policies?

Does not such a religious-political arrangement help justify our wars (aren’t all American wars just?) and legitimate our economic policies that favor those at the top while not addressing the real issues of those on the bottom (therefore we can legitimately claim that the poor are poor because they are lazy, or choose to be and refuse to work)?

Does not such an arrangement legitimate our willful rejection of the Biblical (I say “Biblical”) injunction to welcome the immigrant and the stranger? I mean certainly God, being the good American deity that he is, does not find favor in those who are uncredentialed tribal members.

I realize these issues are complex and difficult to resolve. I am not suggesting that there are clear simplistic solutions to the many problems facing our nation today in a rapidly changing world.

But I am suggesting that God cannot and must not be co-opted into the great American experiment in ways that engender American exceptionalism at the expense of other nations nor to extend special favor to the ruling class.

The separation of Church and State was a grand Jeffersonian ideal that we cannot sweep under the rug of history. We should not hope nor aspire to turn America into a Christian theocracy. I refuse to embrace such an idea.

Moreover we mustn’t support our government leaders in their attempt to co-op our Christian faith into their political agendas and strategies.

Once we do I suggest that we will see a remix of Solomon’s Empire!

Our Great Big American God!

In his masterful book, The Prophetic Imagination, Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann suggests that there are three noticeable characteristics of King Solomon’s Empire, namely: Affluence, Oppressive Social Policy, and Static Religion.

Regarding affluence Brueggemann suggests that when the royal elites are satiated (full bellies) the plight of the rural subjects becomes less and less of a concern for them. In other words, as extreme wealth flows upwards to the top those on the bottom become the invisible subjects of the Empire.

This, according to Brueggemann, is exactly what occurred during Solomon’s reign as King of Israel and he suggests that we see this pattern recurring in our own time.

Insofar as oppressive social policy is concerned, the few lived quite well as the result of the labors of the many. In other words, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer—the economic system was rigged back then as well (labor and taxes). The many made it possible for those on top of the food chain to live very well.

But here is the genius of Brueggemann’s insight: 

None of the above would have been made possible had not Solomon co-opted the religion of Israel and her God (Yahweh) into the royal landscape.

In other words, Solomon built a magnificent temple in which the God of Israel resided as the royal or imperial deity of the kingdom. This was pure genius!

You see, if you are the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President and you desire to legitimate the political and social policies of your kingdom or nation then the best way to do that is to provide divine sanction or legitimization for all your policies—economic, political, social and military.

In other words, to say it bluntly: 

Your god must assume your own national identity for this to work.

Solomon was crafty to be sure. He knew that if he could harness God in the national temple in Jerusalem then perhaps God’s sovereignty would be limited to the whims of the king.

We mustn’t think that this kind of royal strategy was impossible for such a prominent Biblical character as Solomon. Not only was it possible it became reality and it serves to warn us in our own times against such a dangerous strategy of mixing the goals of the king with religious faith.

In such a context God became beholding to the whims and wishes of the royal house of Israel. As Brueggemann further suggests: “Now there is no notion that God is free and that he may act apart from and even against the regime.”

Now all of this says more about Solomon and his royal subjects than it says about God. Surely we know that God would never allow himself to be contained in a nationalistic temple religion whereby he can only act in accordance with the permission of the king. I realize that all this sounds absurd, but it was indeed Solomon’s strategy in building his empire—and it worked!

But perhaps it isn’t as far fetched an idea as it first appears.

Haven’t we in America co-opted God into our own nationalistic vision of what we want America to look like (mostly like ourselves I would argue)? When we enter our own temples of worship (sanctuaries) are we not confronted with the symbols of both the nation and our Christian faith standing side by side (the American Flag and the Cross)?

Do we think nothing of printing “In God We Trust” on our currency or evoke God’s name in our nationalistic Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Most do not in fact, it’s what good Americans do, right?

Is this not a blending together of Solomon’s kingdom and Israelite temple religion for the purpose of legitimating our national identity, not to mention our domestic and foreign policies?

Does not such a religious-political arrangement help justify our wars (aren’t all American wars just?) and legitimate our economic policies that favor those at the top while not addressing the real issues of those on the bottom (therefore we can legitimately claim that the poor are poor because they are lazy, or choose to be and refuse to work)?

Does not such an arrangement legitimate our willful rejection of the Biblical (I say “Biblical”) injunction to welcome the immigrant and the stranger? I mean certainly God, being the good American deity that he is, does not find favor in those who are uncredentialed tribal members.

I realize these issues are complex and difficult to resolve. I am not suggesting that there are clear simplistic solutions to the many problems facing our nation today in a rapidly changing world.

But I am suggesting that God cannot and must not be co-opted into the great American experiment in ways that engender American exceptionalism at the expense of other nations nor to extend special favor to the ruling class.

The separation of Church and State was a grand Jeffersonian ideal that we cannot sweep under the rug of history. We should not hope nor aspire to turn America into a Christian theocracy. I refuse to embrace such an idea.

Moreover we mustn’t support our government leaders in their attempt to co-op our Christian faith into their political agendas and strategies.

Once we do I suggest that we will see a remix of Solomon’s Empire!

Note: The title of this essay was borrowed from Matthew Paul Turner's excellent book by the same title.