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?