Religious authority and political power are a bad mix. Whether it's the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Geneva of John Calvin, the Catholic princes who burned Jan Hus at the stake, or the Crusades called by various popes in the Middle Ages, any time the dominant religion wields political power, people who disagree with the majority religion will suffer. Religious leaders throughout the centuries have often believed that if they could only attain power, they would make their country a better place. Yet without exception, suppression of religious liberty always results in injustice and repression. Nevertheless, it is often when religious minorities are under attack that they exert the most positive influence. The Jews who suffered through the Holocaust taught the world about perseverance and faith. The Tibetan Buddhists, particularly in the person of the Dalai Lama, have spread their message of peace and understanding to a far greater audience than they would have been able to apart from the persecution of the Chinese government. And the early Christians impressed their neighbors most, first among the Jews and then among the Gentiles, when they were being persecuted for their faith. The religious leaders in Jerusalem tried to stamp out the new, heretical faith by imprisoning its leaders. Peter and John responded by continuing to preach their faith, giving God credit for the miracles that were happening around them. While a few countries like Great Britain are toying with the idea of doing away with religious favoritism, either in the form of a state church or in an officially recognized state religion, other countries, including the United States, are beginning to move in the opposite direction. Some government, as well as religious, leaders are ready to destroy the wall of separation between church and state that Jefferson, Madison, and others erected more than 200 years ago. The government is advocating giving tax money to religious organizations that do not agree to follow anti-discrimination and other civil rights rules, either in the form of school vouchers or by direct grants. Some people think that bringing church (or synagogue, mosque, or temple) and state closer together will strengthen both, but both history and common sense dictate otherwise. Will Christians abandon the commitment to religious liberty that is so important when they are in the minority just because they are currently in the majority? An officially Christian America would set back the cause of religious liberty at least as much as a Shiite Islamic Republic of Iraq, a Hindu Republic of India, or even an officially atheist China. A state church tramples on minority rights, weakens the government, and perverts the church. Christians must continue to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit rather than the power of the government to spread their message of hope and love.
For another discussion of this passage, click here.
The first time I remember hearing the twenty-third psalm was at my grandfather's funeral. I was only seven years old, but even then the comforting power of the opening words, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want," impressed me. This psalm remains a favorite passage during difficult times in people's lives. At first glance, the psalm's popularity at such times might seem surprising. It ends with a picture of a person sitting at a banquet table feasting in the sight of his enemies, clearly an image of triumph. Yet the psalm seems to be most meaningful to people when they are going through hard times. The heart of the psalm is verse 4, which speaks of God's presence even in the midst of the worst crises of life. However, I think the key sentence is found at the end of verse 3: "He leads me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake." The reason that the psalmist feels God with him during the darkest times is that he has followed God's lead and walked the paths of righteousness. This is not to suggest that those who have strayed from God cannot feel his presence; on the contrary, God often seems especially close to people not accustomed to seeking God when they are troubled. However, those who have devoted their lives to following God down the paths of righteousness know that those paths are often narrow, crooked, and difficult, fraught with danger and lonely. Sometimes, like Robert Frost's road less traveled, it appears that few people have traversed the path. At other times, as "The Servant Song" says, we travel the way of God with other pilgrims, helping one another through the tough times. Maybe that's part of the secret to sensing God's presence on our journey: our fellow-travelers often serve as the hands and heart of God when we have needs, just as we also serve them. Christianity is the dominant religion in many places in the world, but those who truly seek the paths of righteousness might be surprised at how few others accompany them on their journey. Still, we are never alone, and it's better to be walking on the path of righteousness than to be sitting alongside the road with the majority of people who profess the name of Christ. It may seem lonely at times, but if you'll raise your eyes from the rough track and look just ahead of you on the trail, you'll see God striding forward, leading, protecting, and comforting you.
For other discussions of this passage, click here, here, here, or here..
I always vote for tax hikes. That may seem a strange sentiment at a time when Congress is debating whether to cut taxes by $550 billion or $350 billion (the Democrats' $150 billion cut won't be considered), down from the president's $750 billion tax cut proposal. Nevertheless, it's true, more or less. I do occasionally vote against state constitutional amendments that would raise taxes for something I consider to be unworthy of government spending, but in general, I favor tax hikes. It's not that I like giving away more of my paycheck to the government, it's just that I see all the needs around me, and I know there are people who need the money worse than I do. Tax cuts are always popular with voters. Do we have a budget surplus? Then give money back to the voters! Do we have a huge budget deficit? Then cut taxes to stimulate the economy! Cut the millionaire inheritance tax! Cut taxes on stock dividends, because they're an example of double taxation (and what about when I have to pay sales tax, after having paid income tax--twice, on a hamburger?)! Cut the marginal tax rate on the richest 1% of Americans! While all these tax cuts are happening, what happens to government spending? Well of course, our military is only as powerful as the next ten countries combined; let's increase spending so that we're more powerful than the rest of the world combined! Social security? Don't worry about it. Medicare? Let the elderly cut their pills in half. Medicaid? The poor should get jobs! Schools falling apart? Let the local school districts deal with it (oops! only the rich school districts will be able to afford to do anything, since states don't distribute financial resources equally among the children; oh well, the poor don't vote anyway). High unemployment rates, and even higher incarceration rates among ethnic minorities? We can't spend money on the problem; after all, all men are created equal, so by definition, everyone born in America has an equal chance at success! Immigrants, legal or illegal? Well, they should have had the good sense to be born on the right side of the border! When I hear these kinds of arguments--and they're really only slight caricatures--I think of this passage in 1 John: "How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?" Of course, the government can't and shouldn't do everything. The good news is, since soon we'll all have more money in our pockets (particularly if we're rich), we'll have more that we can use to help the poor and needy around us.
For another discussion of this passage, click here.
Drawing on the imagery of Psalm 23, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd. Portraying leaders as shepherd was common in the ancient Near East. The Assyrian kings, for example, called themselves shepherds of their people. There were many different kinds of rulers, of course, so how does Jesus characterize himself as a leader? First, he says that he will lay down his life for his sheep, an obvious allusion to the crucifixion. Second, he says that he will not desert his flock when they are under attack. Third, he says that he has sheep in other folds, an apparent reference to the Gentiles. Fourth, he says that after laying down his life, he will take it up again, a reference to the resurrection. While modern leaders might not be able to replicate the resurrection, and may not want to replicate the crucifixion, Jesus still offers important lessons on leadership. Perhaps the most important, and certainly one that is frequently commented on, is the contrast between the good shepherd and the hired hand. The good shepherd is committed to the welfare of the sheep, while the hired hand is committed to his or her own survival. Pastors in churches today are sometimes compared to both the good shepherd and to the hired hand, in part because the title "pastor" comes from the Latin word for shepherd. However, anyone in a leadership role can learn from Jesus' example. Good bosses know the needs of their employees and do what they can to help them do their jobs. Effective parents consider the needs of their children before their own needs. Anyone who leads others--whether on the job, in the home, or in the community--needs to learn that when the needs of the group are met, the needs of the leader will also be met. People should not take leadership positions because of a love of power, a desire for fame and fortune, or even because they have nothing better to do. Being a leader in any capacity is a high calling, one that sometimes requires sacrifice. When I was in Boy Scouts, our senior patrol leader was the kind of person who always helped the younger boys learn how to build a fire, set up a tent, or earn a merit badge. He spent so much time helping others that it took him a couple of years longer than it otherwise would have to finish the requirements for his eagle scout award. He was an early embodiment for me of what it meant to be a good leader. Whenever we have leadership roles, whether large or small, we should approach them with the attitude of Jesus, who was willing even to give up his life for his followers. Do we possess that level of commitment?
For another discussion of this passage, click here.