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.

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.