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.

Speaking of Military Parades . . .

In their book, The Last Week, authors Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan tell the story of when Jesus entered Jerusalem to begin what Christians know as “Holy Week.” 

That entrance into the City of David has come to be known as “Palm Sunday” and is often referred to as “Jesus Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem.

When I first read this wonderful little book I was stunned by the revelation that at the same time Jesus made his way into the city another procession (parade) was entering into Jerusalem from the opposite side of the city—from the West.

Now I, like so many other Christians today, was not aware of this other parade, for indeed it was a parade designed to let the Jews in Jerusalem know who had all the power and might.

Historically Holy Week must be understood within the context of Passover. 

Passover was the time when thousands of Jews ascended upon Jerusalem to celebrate the holiest time of the year for Jews. The population of Jerusalem swelled to capacity.

I should also point out that Rome was the occupying force in Israel whose appointed governor, Pontus Pilate, was responsible for maintaining order and peace among the Jews. Passover was fraught with danger for Pilate because the Jews were celebrating their liberation from Egypt (the Exodus) and Jewish emotions normally were on edge during Passover.

So Jesus peacefully makes his way down from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem riding on a lowly donkey (a humble beast of burden). Folks were waving palm branches and singing praises to the Messiah as he made his way into the city of David. 

At about the same time, on the other side of the city enters Pontus Pilate leading his imperial army, a military parade of sorts. Enters the cavalry riding upon large war horses and infantry who were attired in full battle gear. It was a threatening show of force! It was designed to strike fear into the hearts of anyone attempting to challenge Rome’s occupying authority during this Passover week.  

Now history reminds us that Empires don’t care for any type of protest. Empires do not take too kindly to political protests of any kind and this is why Pontus Pilate led this military parade into Jerusalem to send the message that all protests will be thwarted by the use of military force and power.

Now Jesus certainly knew how all this worked. It wasn’t his first rodeo as they say. It wasn’t his first Passover in Jerusalem. He knew there would be a military parade, a show of force. He knew Pilate would lead his imperial forces into Jerusalem—he did so each year it seems. 

So the question is: Did Jesus stage his entry into Jerusalem from the East as a form of political protest? 

It’s quite possible.

Contrast the two parades or processions. Jesus came to usher in the peaceful non-violent reign of God on earth. But it would be presented in non-threatening, humble, and peaceful ways. His riding on a donkey exhibited the very nature of God’s kingdom: A non-violent reign that invites any and all to embrace the humble way of Christ in the world. 

The military parade of Pilate was designed to send another message to anyone who would dare challenge the Empire’s authority or protest the dominant symbols of Roman rule (you kneel in this Empire and you will pay the price).

This event known as Palm Sunday offers Christians a stunning example of an alternative way to be in the world. It demonstrates that all Empires are designed for one thing: The survival of the Empire and the elimination of anyone who challenges the authority of Cesar will pay a stiff price—crucifixion was the main item on the executioner’s menu.

Palm Sunday (March 25 this year) reminds us that as Christians we are sometimes called to be voices of protest in order to reflect the values of God’s peaceful kingdom here on earth. We are citizens of a non-violent kingdom whose power derives from the love of God towards the whole world. This kingdom’s power does not originate in military hardware but rather from the heart of God.

Jesus understood the political realities of his day. He understood that the religious/political temple elites in Jerusalem were living off the backs of the peasant class to which he himself belonged. He also understood that these religious elites had become Rome’s puppets who supported the Empire.

Military parades are designed to demonstrate threatening force and power.

Christ’s peaceful procession was designed to subvert the claims of the Empire.

The two cannot be any different from one another, just as they were on this first Palm Sunday.