Saturday Night Theologian
7 November 2004

Haggai 1:15b-2:9

The defeat of Senator John Kerry at the polls this week was a bitter disappointment to many people, myself included. We imagined a U.S. government that was more sensitive to the needs of the world and less driven by corporate greed and nationalism, more concerned with cooperating with other nations than with dominating them, more understanding of the fragility of the natural world and less consumed with corporate growth. Now none of our ideals are likely to be realized, at least for the next four years. And at the end of four years, we'll have four additional years of national and global injustice to undo. It would be easy in light of the election results to slip into a deep, blue funk, but that would be a mistake. The situation in which we find ourselves is full of possibilities, if we only have the courage to look and the imagination to act creatively. The prophet Haggai accompanied the Jews from Babylonia back to the land of Judah, where they were confronted with a situation laced with chaos and despair. The city of Jerusalem was largely destroyed and the countryside was devastated. Plans to rebuild the community around a new temple were underway, but many people were discouraged because the work ahead was formidable. Haggai brought the people a message from God: "Take courage, all you people of the land, says the Lord; work, for I am with you, says the Lord of hosts, according to the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt. My spirit abides among you; do not fear." One of the signs of clinical depression is a feeling of lethargy, the lack of desire to do anything constructive. Haggai urges the people to set aside this feeling. No, the temple they were building wasn't the one they all imagined, but it was nevertheless a temple where they could worship God. It was a start. Several humorous articles have appeared in the progressive press talking about Americans giving up and moving to Canada or elsewhere, but that's not the answer. Those of us who are Americans need to stay here and save the world from the "blessings" of America, and we can probably do that best from the inside. Rather than focusing on the negative, we need to look at the bright side of this election. 48% percent of Americans voted for hope and an end to American empire-building. That's nothing to sneeze at. 56 million people voted for change. I know that only a portion of these voters would consider themselves progressive or liberal, but still, it's nice to see that we have allies! Above all, the message that Haggai brought to his people was one of hope. We hope not only in ourselves and in our friends around the country and around the world (which greatly outnumber our ideological opponents), but we hope in God as well. God might not take sides in political contests, but I believe that God does bless those who do the work of God: justice, mercy, peace, and love. "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and all the nations, so that the treasure of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts." God promises to intervene on behalf of those who do his work. I don't interpret the reference to the wealth of nations filling the house of God as a promise that God will loot the riches of other countries for our benefit. Rather, I see the wealth of nations as the people, the ideas, the cooperation that results from God's people showing the world that they are concerned about justice for all. Shake the world, God; we're ready to hold on!

Psalm 145:1-5, 17-21

At the beginning of his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer quotes the philosopher George Santayana, who said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." The psalmist says, "One generation shall laud your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts." Are we trapped in a cycle of disaster brought on by ignorance of history? What about ignorance of the present? A recent survey found that large numbers of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was partially responsible for 9/11, that al Qaeda was cooperating with Iraq prior to 9/11, and that President Bush supports the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse emissions, the International Treaty to Ban Land Mines, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the International Criminal Court. None of these things is true, and it is the duty of God's people to pass the truth on to the next generation. There is much that is negative to pass on to the younger generation, but there is much that is positive as well. In Latin America, where dictators ruled with an iron fist a generation ago, democracy is flourishing. Yes, there are problems, not least of which is the constant interference from the U.S. to try to get its preferred candidates elected, but Latin Americans are taking a stand for their right of self-determination. This week Uruguayans elected Tabare Vásquez president, the first left-leaning ruler of that country. In Europe, for the first time ever, East and West are joined together in the European Union, a supranational structure that guides economic and political policy for the continent, bringing people from many languages and from diverse backgrounds together to discuss issues of importance to all Europeans and to the world. In South Africa, the nation that only fifteen years ago was still struggling under a white minority government that advocated apartheid is now a multiracial, fully democratic society that is moving forward, with the potential to raise the standard of living for all of southern Africa. God is indeed doing great things in the world, both big and small. Despite serious problems in the Middle East and political setbacks here and there, it is not hard to see God at work, if we look. There are too many in the world today who don't know their own pasts and have a poor understanding of world history, even recent history involving their own country. At the same time, there are many who are well-versed in the subject and are perfectly capable of passing on the truth. Just as we learned the truth from others, it is our duty to pass it on to others. The world will never be a perfect place, but we can make it a better place if we will pass on our knowledge of God's mighty acts, generation to generation.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, 13-17

This passage in 2 Thessalonians is one of the more confusing in the Bible. Paul probably assumes that his readers are familiar with his own teaching about the coming eschaton and are thus knowledgeable about his oblique references to "the man of lawlessness" and "the son of destruction" (the same person), as well as to "that which restrains him" (a neuter participle) and "the one who restrains him" (a masculine participle) (could one of these be a primitive textual error?). Many ingenious interpretations of this passage have been offered over the years, and many today claim to be able to tie these obscure references to historical or eschatological persons or events. However, in the words of commentator Leon Morris, "The plain fact is that Paul and his readers knew what he was talking about, and we do not." Having admitted that, what can we say about this passage? Despite our ignorance of the specific historical references Paul was making, we can see that the antichrist character in this passage is one who is characterized by a life, or more likely a philosophy, of lawlessness, opposition to the law of Christ (as opposed to the Old Testament sacrificial law, for example). This person exalts himself and takes his seat in the temple and declares himself to be God. This statement should probably not be taken literally; instead, it refers to a person who seeks to supplant the role of God for those who follow him (as did the emperors Caligula and Nero). Paul may have had a specific historical figure in mind, or he might have been referring to a now-lost apocalyptic tradition. Either way, the message for today is clear enough, and it is supported by the overall teaching of the Bible. God opposes the proud, and he expects leaders of all kinds, whether political leaders, religious leaders, or corporate leaders, to act in accordance with divine standards. Those who arrogate to themselves the mantle of infallibility, as though they had a direct channel to God that common mortals don't possess, are in danger of being judged by God as antichrists. To clarify, although I disagree with the doctrine of papal infallibility, I'm not talking here about the pope or about that specific doctrine. I have in mind all those who assume the mantle of wisdom and expect their followers to accept what they say without dissent. David Koresh fits the bill, as does Jim Jones. Certain political leaders might also qualify, to a greater or lesser extent. Some leaders of industry might qualify as well within their own spheres of influence. All those who claim special divine insight are suspect. If they insist that others agree with them or be condemned (or be kicked out of the group), they are even more suspect. God's followers should certainly respect proper authority, but they should not kowtow to individuals. We must learn to think on our own and follow our thoughts to their logical conclusions. This is not a call for unbridled individualism, but it is a call for all of us, particularly those of us who are leaders, to admit that we don't have a corner on the truth. God just might have an insight to teach us through a most unlikely source. God might even have something to say through a person who lacks a formal education but is wise in the ways of God, a person who is poor in wealth but is rich in ideas, a person who lacks political or religious clout but who exudes the spirit of God, maybe someone a lot like a certain Jewish carpenter.

Luke 20:27-38

I recently asked the students in one of my classes about the passage in Joshua where God instructs the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho--men, women, children, and even animals. I asked, do you see an ethical problem here? Does God condone genocide? Every one of them who answered the question attempted to justify slaughter of the Canaanites by appealing to the fact that the Bible attributes the command to God. They were reading the Bible as if it were a literal record of events, including divine-human conversations, instead of an interpretation of those events. Furthermore, they failed to grasp the point that protecting the integrity of the Bible (i.e., by insisting on a literal interpretation) is less important than proclaiming the integrity of God (i.e., by acquitting God of the atrocity of genocide, shifting the blame instead to a human misunderstanding of God). If you read the Bible in an excessively literal fashion, you will frequently encounter problems like the one in Joshua. Jesus ran into the same sort of problem with the Sadducees. Since they didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, they tried to trap Jesus with a conundrum based on a literal reading of the Law of Moses. They expected Jesus to interpret the Bible the way they did, in an extremely literal manner, so they expected him to be forced to agree that they had found a logical problem with the doctrine of the resurrection (because of the problem of a woman with many husbands in heaven, as opposed to a man with many wives, which was tolerated in the Hebrew Bible). To their surprise, however, Jesus went beyond the literal meaning of the text to proclaim that in the next age marriages contracted in this age will no longer be meaningful, because the state of marriage no longer exists. Furthermore, Jesus went on to demonstrate the veracity of the resurrection by drawing on another passage, the story of the Burning Bush, and going beyond the literal meaning of the text to get at a deeper truth. Fundamentalists claim to value the Bible because they interpret it literally, but in actuality they often devalue it by reading it in such a way that it contradicts the overall message of both the Old and the New Testaments. If genocide is wrong today (and it is) then it was wrong in Joshua's day (and it was). If the Bible says that God commanded the people to kill the children of Jericho, then either the Bible is right and God advocates the slaughter of the innocent (at least on occasion) or the Bible is wrong and God is still a God who cares about people of every sort, "chosen people" or not. That's what the book of Jonah is all about. The Hebrew Bible is the sacred scripture of Jews and Christians alike, but it must be read in the context of the whole (for Christians, including the New Testament). Jesus understood that. He was not afraid to contradict a specific biblical passage directly if he thought it contradicted the overall teaching of the whole Bible or if he thought a literal interpretation missed a more fundamental truth. Fundamentalists will say, "Oh, but he could do that because he himself was God," but they don't understand that if Jesus contradicts a passage in the Old Testament, the whole concept of inerrancy goes out the door. The Bible continues to be an important, indeed an essential part of modern Christian understanding, and it continues to inform our beliefs, but we must follow the example of Jesus and seek the larger meaning inherent in the text, particularly when we run across passages that are ethically problematic. We would do well to listen to the advice of C. S. Lewis. He said, "The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible."