Thursday, June 23, 2016

A Tower, A Terrorist,and a Thoughtless Theology

Window scene, Washington's HQ, Brandywine

Thinking Jesusly about the Tragedies of Orlando

Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
German dramatist, novelist, poet, & scientist (1749-1832)

The stories coming out of Orlando over the last weeks have been heart rending.  Fifty people brutally and senselessly murdered for reason(s) we’ve yet to fathom.  That they were gunned down in an establishment that catered to a gay clientele does not make the news any more or less tragic.  It is what it is.  But how do we make sense of this kind of tragedy?  As details continue to surface regarding the shooter, motive, affiliations, etc., there is a possibility that we may know more but never know why.

At a venue not far away, we also learned of the tragic death of  two-year-old Lane Graves who, while vacationing with his family at a Disney resort, was snatched by an alligator in the shallows of the resort lagoon just steps away from the hotel.  Despite his injured and anguished father’s best efforts to rescue him from the beast’s jaws, the boy was taken below. The boy’s body was recovered from the waters hours later.  This incident also begs the question why.  However there is little we can gain from an investigation except perhaps what the corporate giant will do to protect itself and how the family will respond in their grief.  An alligator is what it is; ferocious, unpredictable and living in a habitat long extant before Mickey Mouse was even a budding idea in the mind of his creator.

Yet this will not stop people from making guesses and stating opinions.  Why would Omar Mateen go to a club that he had frequented, and gun down 49 others?  Why would an alligator, that could have had his fill of other more familiar prey, go out of his way to attack and kill a young child?  Yet in the case of the terrorist killings, there are some who see things quite differently.  As a follower of Jesus Christ, it was with dismay that I read of a pastor in California who, smiling and stating quite matter of factly, that he saw nothing but “good news” in the attack on the Pulse nightclub. I will not dignify the statements made to the Verity Baptist Church congregation by this person in this post.  You, the reader, doubtless have the capacity to find them on your own or, with news feed alerts being what they are, they have probably already found you.

Yet how could someone see the sudden, capricious and vicious deaths of 49 individuals as being good, or even welcome news?  How could a person who claims to serve God, calmly rejoice in the demise of people he’d never really met or known?  How could a minister of the good news of Jesus Christ go so far afield of the teachings of the one he claims to follow?

A (not so) New Double Standard

There was a time not so long ago that when the phrase “double standard” was used, it spoke of the expectations for men and women in their respective spheres.  The “glass ceiling” that continues to thwart women from earnings equality is a classic example.  At one time it was allowable to pay women less because men had families and thus needed the pay “more”.  Archaic though it may sound, it was acceptable until legislation made it illegal and newer, less visible ways were attained to continue that status quo.

In a similar way, some believers use their own double standard by which they live out their faith, if one can call it that.  I am reminded of the conservative party of Jesus’ day, known as the Pharisees, which had the double standard technique down to an art. Turning a deft hand at “end run” philosophy, they would set aside those portions of the law and the prophets that they wanted to be able to say they kept but in their own fashion.  They could be severe in their adherence to selected portions of scripture, condemning others and worse for not following their example, while paying lip service to the other, more “inconvenient” truths of God’s word.

I tend to feel that today believers too have difficulty with certain passages of scripture and allow them the luxury of adopting a regressive revelation. In the opening verses of the book of Hebrews, a statement is made regarding revelation of which all believers ought to take to heart; “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son….” (Hebrews 1:1-2a).  The writer is stating that God’s revelation of himself has been made at many times and in various ways but the culmination of this is found in Jesus.  He is the most perfect reflection of God’s revelation to us that we should not seek to return to those times prior to his coming.

Jesus came bringing a message of reconciliation and grace.  But there were those who had long nursed hopes their Messiah would finally get around to beating up on the Romans and restore rule to the house of Israel.  This obsessive preoccupation with end times events and minutiae can turn into a full time job as so many Christian broadcasters can attest.  However, despite Jesus’ detailed descriptions of end time happenings, his focus was clearly elsewhere.  His parting words to his followers in Matthew 28:18-20 & Acts 1:7-8 reminded them of their task; Take his message of grace and reconciliation wherever they went, make, and baptize disciples.  Even with his mandate clearly stated, their desire to recast His vision led them to once again press the question regarding the restoration of Israel’s national sovereignty.

This propensity to yearn for the good old days when foes were completely vanquished and their enemy’s children were dashed against the rocks (Psalm 137:8-9) seemed so reasonable.  Why hadn’t Jesus seen things their way? Why didn’t he just come as the conquering leader like they were always told?  The answer of course is that Jesus came to recast the narrative based on grace and reconciliation.  This take us back to the double standard mentioned earlier.

My contention is that there has been a reshaping of the Jesus narrative in the church where we are able to see the error of untruth but for some reason are blinded to the error of “ungrace”.  Using this narrative, it becomes easier and more “biblical” to laugh at the deaths of 50 people (including the Muslim shooter who, along with gays, is on a “people okay to hate” list).  With this narrative, it is okay to love Jesus and hate those who don’t agree with him.  Now we come to Jesus’ words about the Tower of Siloam.

What?  What does this obscure conversation of Jesus have to do with the shootings in Orlando?  I believe that the concept shared during that conversation has EVERYTHING to do with it.  Consider the following account found in Luke 13:1-5;

“There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish’.”

Two recent events were referenced in this passage.  Both involved the violent deaths of persons, one group murdered and the other died as a result of a freak accident.

Though unasked, it appears that Jesus knew that a question was on the minds of those who had raised the issue.  Perhaps it was stated more clearly in an incident recorded in John 9:2;

“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’” (emphasis added mine)

Along with wanting to organize and systematize a belief system, there is the need to determine and affix blame.  Jesus sensed this in crafting his response regarding Pilate’s slaughter of Galileans and the deaths in Siloam.  What he gave them is classic atypical, asymmetrical response as he has so often given before. In doing so Jesus helps us to work through tragedies like those in Orlando.

1.  For those looking to vilify perpetrators, they will have plenty of company, especially if the person is from a group that has already been declared “okay to hate.” Yet we do not hear Jesus lambasting Pilate, the soldiers or even Rome.

2.  For those looking to vilify the victims, as some have done in the Orlando massacre, Jesus did not comment on the culpability of the victims either, as this was not at issue either.

3.  The issue, Jesus declared, is that we must look to ourselves to prepare for our own lives and deaths.  It was from this perspective that Jesus asked some questions that none could and/or dared answer;

“…do you think that they (victims of Pilate’s action) were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?”  The fact was AND is that we cannot begin to guess the reason why these things happen.  A gun in the wrong hands - most definitely; a hate crime against gays - without doubt.  But, and THIS is the point, the victims of Pilate’s cruelty were no worse sinners that those to whom Jesus was then speaking.  The fact that they were in the right place at the wrong time was not an indication of guilt; just that they were there.  The blood of these victims was on Pilate’s hands.

“….Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?”  Like Lane Graves, the 2 year old who was killed by an alligator, these victims too were in the wrong place at the wrong time but the result was still the same.  Some would want to blame God for the Siloam tower incident but we don’t even know enough about the situation to even make a judgment. Was the tower under construction or being repaired?  Had the best or inferior materials been used; was the workmanship superior or shoddy?  When these cannot be determined, some then start blaming the victims.  The recent event where a boy fell into a compound with some of the great apes quickly turned from relief for rescue to outrage; who was to blame?  Some wanted the mother prosecuted for the death of the gorilla.  This and other events like it were what insurance companies call an “act of god” which translated from ‘insurerspeak’ means “we don’t know”.

I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish’.” The answer Jesus gives to both events are that knowledge of the other’s condition is not paramount when considering these tragedies.  The action Jesus calls for is that of self-examination; knowing that a similar catastrophe could occur and we could be caught up in it.  We need not know the why or the when.  We must consider the condition of our own souls.

Jesus saw the propensity in us to make senseless snap judgments to conform reality so that is will fit within our little system of checks and balances.  Jesus saw our propensity to adopt an “older revelation” in order that we might excoriate our enemies while at the same time being able to claim we follow Him.  The pastor, whose remarks were so offensive to so many is only the latest example of this kind of thinking.  It was out in the open, it was honest but it was totally non-Christian. We must not delude ourselves into adopting a thoughtless theology that those we disagree with are inhuman fodder to be jeered and disposed of happily.  To do so is to disregard God’s message of grace and reconciliation. To do so is to disregard Jesus.

NEXT POST – Oaths; “If you have to Swear on a Stack of Bibles….Don’t Bother; Odds are you are Untrustworthy!”


Tuesday, June 14, 2016

JESUS ON THE MOUNT – An Inconvenient Truth

Me-ow and my Shadow











The Commandments of Jesus - 101

Is it really wise to speak about issues that have become so entrenched in the woof and warp of the societal fabric that to even do so would brand one quite out of the mainstream?  Just attempting to initiate a conversation regarding any of the “debate is over” subjects of our culture can certainly turn ugly in a heartbeat.  Yet Jesus did just this when he spoke of on topics like loving your neighbor, loving your enemy and, in this passage, the sanctity of marriage.

Shammai & Hillel:  Conservatism & Progressivism  1st Century Style

It may be hard to conceive but there was a debate raging over divorce in the first century.  This wasn’t among the gentiles though; it was between two schools of Jewish philosophy.  The schools of rabbis Shammai and Hillel both had their own views on this subject and just about every other for that matter.  For example, a scenario was suggested to determine if lying is ever right.  The question was this; should a person tell an ugly bride that she is beautiful on her wedding day?  Shammai said it is wrong to lie.  Hillel said that ALL brides are beautiful on their wedding day.  Concerning admission to study the Torah; Shammai only accepted worthy students while Hillel held to open enrollment (I wonder if J.K. Rowling took a page out of their playbooks? ;-).

This difference of interpretation carried over into the way divorce was viewed by the two schools.  Shammai allowed divorce only for severe transgressions; Hillel said if she burned a meal, a wife could be given her walking papers.  Yet into this fray came a new voice but what he had to say was probably viewed as passé by some of his hearers.  Here is what Jesus told his mountainside congregation in Matthew 5:31-32

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Marriage – Pre-Moses Style

Just prior to these words, this young Rabbi had expanded the definition of what it was to murder and commit adultery.  Here however the positions of Shammai and Hillel are contrasted to one that is pre-Mosaic.  Jesus, in his discussion with the Pharisees (Matthew 19:1-10) regarding the validity of divorce, said that Moses was put in a position to institute divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of the people who wanted it; hardly a glowing endorsement as to its value to society.  Yet Jesus did not ignore this on-going cultural discussion but met it head on, asking his hearers to reconsider the scriptural basis and constancy of marriage.

The Bible says what it says.  We can believe it, ignore it or discount it but we cannot say we are followers of Jesus without taking into consideration what he has to say.  Thus, I write this, not to offend or bash those of my readers who happen to be divorced.   It is a reminder to us all that if we are to think Jesusly, it means that there will be times that our own views must be challenged and often they will run counter to popular culture.  If we are to succeed as Jesus-followers, it requires that we listen to and reflect on his words so that we may attempt to follow in his steps.

May He grant us the grace to do it well.

NEXT POST - Towers, Terror and a Thoughtless Theology: Thinking Jesusly About Orlando

SUBSEQUENT POST (Matthew 5) – Oaths; “If you have to Swear on a Stack of Bibles….Don’t Bother; Odds are you are Untrustworthy!”