Translating word-plays from one language to another is notoriously difficult, and for years I've toyed around with the pun in the first two verses of Amos, trying to come up with a translation that would capture the thrust of the message. One possible translation may only work in Texas: "'What do you see, Amos?' 'A basket of figs.' Then the Lord said to me, 'I'm fixin' to make an end of my people Israel.'" For those who don't say "fixin' to," maybe this translation is better: "'What do you see, Amos?' 'A basket of ripe fruit.' Then the Lord said to me, 'The time is ripe for judgment on my people Israel.'" When translated into both a modern language and a contemporary historical setting, this prophetic passage is unbelievably timely. Consider this paraphrase of verses 4-6 in the light of the war in Iraq, revelations this week concerning Enron memos on the California energy crisis, and the ongoing problem of immoral multinational corporations (and immoral nations):
As in Amos's time, we are suffering from a famine, not of food, but of the word of God. May God raise up a people who have the courage to stand with the oppressed against the oppressors, no matter the consequences.Listen, you who trample on the needy, and crush the poor of the land, saying, "How long will we have to wait before we can cheat people by artificially raising the price of energy? How long until we can swoop in on a people devastated by war and sanctions, and make a killing there? How little can we get away with paying our employees if we move our factories overseas? Which country has the laxest environmental rules, or which government officials can we bribe to secure a favorable business environment? Where in the world are people so desperate that we can treat them like dogs without any concern of revolt? What laws can we pass, or what executive orders can we issue to protect our citizens from lawsuits when they abuse people in other countries, or fill their country with radioactive artillery shells, or pollute their environment, or corrupt their political process?
In his novel 1984, George Orwell describes a situation in which the world is in a constant state of war, not because of any actual threats, but because the leaders of the various world governments see an advantage to maintaining a state of war. Government officials offer boldfaced lies to their citizens, while at the same time they claim that everything they say is truth, regardless of whether a statement they make today explicitly contradicts a statement they made yesterday. History can be rewritten. The enemy the government is at war with today has always been our enemy, has always been evil, regardless of our alliances with him in the past. Today's world is eerily similar to that described by Orwell. Our government tells us that we're in a constant state of war, the so-called war on terrorism. It uses color-coded fear (alert levels red, orange, and yellow--we're never at blue or green) to keep us in a constant state of anxiety. When the public gets too complacent, it issues vague warnings about some indeterminate threat in order to keep people's fear level at acceptable levels. Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were our allies in the 1980s and 1990s, but now that they're our enemies, it turns out that they were always evil and we always opposed them. In short, the government lies to us. That governments lie to their own people is nothing new, as today's psalm reading demonstrates. "You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking the truth." The "mighty one" who inspired this psalm may have been the king, or some other leading government figure, or maybe it was just a rich landowner. Then, as now, however, the rich were never too far from those in power. Citizens in dictatorships have long been used to hearing lies from their rulers, and citizens in democracies have all too often been subject to the same stream of what is euphemistically called "disinformation." Is the truth dangerous? Many in power seem to think so, but I'm willing to bet that while some information probably needs to be classified, there is rarely a need to hide the truth from the people. Jesus said that the truth would make us free. To the extent that our own governments lie to us--regardless of their purported motives--we have lost our freedom.
The doctrine of the Incarnation deals with the nature of the relationship between the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ. Christians have discussed and argued about that relationship for centuries, almost from the very beginning of church history. Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and Sabellians were excluded from the church because of their views on this subject. I believe that the doctrine of the Incarnation involves more than just the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ. It speaks to the issue of the relationship of all of humanity to the divine. Today's reading from Colossians includes a hymn describing Christ as a cosmic figure who joins all of creation together, and as such it has been the focus of much discussion concerning the nature of Christ. More important, for me, is the section beginning with verse 18, which describes Jesus as the head of the church, the one in whom all the fullness of God chose to dwell, in order to reconcile all things to God, having made peace through his sacrifice on the cross. I think this passage is critical because it doesn't invite theological speculation on the Incarnation; rather, it describes the practical implications of the Incarnation. Christians spend too much time arguing over what it means to really be a Christian and whether other people are really Christians (not surprisingly, those who debate these matters always consider themselves to be true Christians). We ought to be focusing instead on the bigger question: if Christ, who joins all creation together, is the head of the church, what is the church doing to reconcile the world to God? Fighting among ourselves won't reconcile the world to God. Arguing over doctrinal niceties won't reconcile the world to God. Claiming moral superiority to others on the basis of differences of religion, belief, political party, or sexual orientation won't reconcile the world to God. Warmongering won't reconcile the world to God. Yet Christians are engaged in all of these destructive activities, and more, in the name of Christ! There are too many problems in the world to be distracted by theological "pissing contests." There are too many people hurting to take time to examine whether they are worthy of God's love (they are--just accept it). We have too many who already consider themselves enemies of Christ to make more by our arrogance, intolerance, and hate. The church should be in the business of reconciling the world to God, because Jesus has already made peace through his sacrifice on the cross. Any activities we're involved in that divide rather than unite fly in the face of the doctrine of the Incarnation. No matter how "orthodox" our beliefs, we show by our actions whether or not we accept the Incarnation of Christ.
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I've always kind of liked the story of Mary and Martha. I can identify with Mary's desire to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn rather than do actual work. For a brief time in my academic career, I was actually being paid to study. Ever since then I've looked for a job where someone would pay me to do nothing but read or study. I have yet to find it, but I'm still looking! Working is hard, so I'm happy to read that Jesus took Mary's side in this sibling quarrel. I have a feeling, though, that there's more to the story. Under different circumstances, I suspect that Jesus would have sided with Martha. If everybody spent their whole life studying, or going to church, or meditating--however we choose to translate "sitting at Jesus' feet" into today's culture--the world would quickly go to hell in a handbasket. There is a lot of important work, and it requires people to do it. Although some Christian traditions have argued that the story teaches that sacred vocations are more important that secular vocations, I don't believe it. Everyone is called on to work, whether that work is identifiably "the work of God" or not. I agree with Brother Lawrence that washing pots and pans can be as much a spiritual activity as praying and singing hymns. Similarly, "secular" jobs can be just as crucial to promoting the kingdom of God as "sacred" jobs. Why, then, did Jesus praise Mary over Martha? I think it was a question of discernment: Mary understood that at that moment, she needed to listen to the words of Jesus. Martha was doing an important work, but it didn't need to be done right then. Sometimes it's OK to let schedules slip, to let dishes sit in the sink unwashed, to put off a meeting until later, to cancel a business trip. There aren't any rules about when to do so. We just have to be as sensitive to God's leading as we can be and follow our hearts.