Today's reading from Isaiah is one of the Old Testament passages that we delight in reading around Christmas, because we see in it a portrait of the Messiah. The word "branch" in the first verse is picked up as a messianic term by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:14) and Zechariah (Zechariah 3:8; 6:12), and Matthew seems to allude to it when he notes that it was foretold of the Messiah, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23). Jesus does fit the description pretty well, for he was one on whom the spirit of the Lord rested, who was full of wisdom and understanding, and so forth. What we often fail to see, however, is that this passage not only describes an ideal future king, it also describes the kind of king that the prophet expected every king to be. A ruler of the people should certainly be a person anointed by God's spirit, a wise and understanding leader. A godly ruler is one who makes decisions with the best interests of the poor, not the rich, in mind. This ruler will stand firm against wickedness, while at the same time demonstrating justice and faithfulness. Finally, the reign of the ideal ruler will be characterized by peace. The prophet idealizes the messiah's rule as a return to Eden, when even carnivorous animals ingest plants, and all creation is again in harmony. Eden may be an unrealistic goal, but are the others that farfetched? Why can't today's world leaders bring us a world of peace? Why can't the leaders of the world's richest nations decide to spend their surplus on feeding and clothing the poor instead of enriching the arms merchants (and themselves along the way)? Why can't our leaders not only take God on their lips but also in their actions? Isaiah imagined that the ideal ruler would be so blessed by God, and be such a blessing to others, that all the nations of the earth would seek the ruler's wisdom and favor. Who are the people alive today who stand as signals of righteousness to the nations? They are certainly not the leaders of the world's most powerful nations, whose nations are constantly involved in intrigues to overthrow their enemies and install their friends in power, both within their own borders and throughout the world. Those who serve as signals of righteousness are leaders of some of the world's poorer countries, people like Brazilian president Ignacio Lula da Silva or South African president Thabo Mbeki. They are religious leaders who stand for peace and for the poor, like Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama. They are ordinary citizens of various countries who stand for human rights, like Aung San Suu Kyi and Jimmy Carter. They are theologians and pastors who see the truth of God's concern for the poor and oppressed, like Gustavo Gutierrez and Desmond Tutu. For Christians, Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 11, but that doesn't mean that other people are not also God's anointed, carrying God's blessings to thousands or millions of people. If the passage really does point beyond the ideal messiah and establish principles for other anointed servants of God, where does that leave us? If we have been anointed by God, it leaves us in a single place: serving others in Jesus' name.
George Washington's likeness appears on our dollar bills and our quarters, and he is revered as the Father of Our Country. George Washington owned slaves. Andrew Jackson was one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history. Andrew Jackson promised the Choctaw and Cherokee peoples, "they shall possess [their land] as long as Grass grows or water runs"; when gold was discovered on their lands, his forgot his promises and drove them from their lands so that the white people could prosper. Theodore Roosevelt was a man with a reputation larger than life, and his face is carved on Mt. Rushmore. Theodore Roosevelt pushed the notorious Platt Amendment into the Cuban constitution, thereby stealing a measure of Cuba's sovereignty under the pretense of caring about the Cuban people. Great leaders sometimes have great faults. Poor leaders sometimes have even greater faults. Jim Hightower quips, "If God had meant for people to vote, he would have given us candidates." Too often it seems that voters in the U.S., and in other democracies around the world, have poor choices at the polls. In the last U.S. presidential election, for example, we had a choice between a white male patrician graduate of Yale (and member of the secret Skull and Bones society) and another white male patrician graduate of Yale (and member of the secret Skull and Bones society). What's wrong with this picture? Regardless of how good a leader a candidate might be and what kind of ideas he or she might have, the two most important qualifications are money and connections. The talk about moral values that has arisen since the election is largely a smokescreen, for candidates with poor overall morals are often elected, in part because they have enough money to convince unwitting (or uncaring) voters that they really do have high moral values. Today's reading from the Psalms comes from an ancient Israelite royal installation ceremony, and it describes clearly the characteristics that God desires in a leader. The leader will be personally righteous and at the same time work to bring about justice. The scope of the justice this leader will have is specified in verse 2: the leader is one who will render just decisions for the poor. Yes, the economy will flourish under the ideal ruler, but the riches will be "for the people," not just those who already have money. A huge reserve of oil was discovered in Equatorial Guinea a few years ago, and a giant influx of wealth poured into the country. Well, actually the oil revenues went to the president and his closest friends. The psalmist is clear on the subject: "May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." Too many political leaders today are on the side of the oppressors (or may even be the oppressors themselves) rather than on the side of the oppressed. The reign of a good ruler will be characterized by an abundance of righteousness and peace. These are both in short supply today worldwide, but there is a great need for both. How does a passage like this one apply to the vast majority of us who are not political leaders, nor do we have the aspiration to become political leaders? If we're fortunate to live in countries with a democratic tradition, we must support candidates whose platforms reflect the values described in Psalm 72. Above all we must recognize that poverty, justice, and human rights are moral, even religious issues. If we want to be on God's side, we will stand with the poor, for economic justice, and for basic human rights.
The United Church of Christ has produced a television commercial in which it promotes the denomination as group that accepts people that some other churches reject. Two television networks, NBC and CBS, have so far refused to air the commercials, saying that they deal with controversial social issues. The problem they have is that one of the groups that the UCC portrays as welcome in their churches is homosexuals. Apparently NBC and CBS don't want to offend their less welcoming sponsors, or perhaps they're just wary of the Federal Communications Commission, which is controlled by conservatives. On the flip side, I got a newsletter in the mail this week from the Southern Baptist Convention. In one of the articles, a professor at Southwestern Seminary tells of a recent joint appearance with other Baptist groups at a local church and the discussion that arose over the issue of accepting donations from churches that were open in some way to homosexual members. He denigrated the wishy-washiness of the other groups' representatives, who addressed the homosexuality issue in "a nuanced way" (nuance, of course, being a negative word, since it implies something other than absolute black and white on every issue). He proudly proclaimed that the SBC not only wouldn't take money from churches that showed any support whatsoever for homosexuals, they also wouldn't associate with other Baptist groups who accepted such donations. He went on to use the other groups' welcoming (perhaps tolerance would be a better word) of homosexuals as "proof" of the SBC's refusal to ordain women, using a slippery slope kind of argument. (He didn't take the next logical step of using the Bible to justify slavery, for some reason.) Taxonomists are divided into two groups, lumpers and splitters: those who lump divergent groups together into as few species as possible and those who recognize every little difference as characteristic of a distinct species. Christians can be lumpers or splitters as well, depending on how we define Christianity. If we accept all those who love God and believe that Jesus is Lord, we are lumpers. If we require conformity to a set of doctrinal and social standards, rejecting all those with whom we disagree as being inauthentic Christians, then we are splitters. Paul prays for the Roman Christians, "May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another, in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God." Was Paul a lumper or a splitter? He certainly had strong opinions on theological matters, but he also called for harmony within the body of Christ. Accepting other people as brothers or sisters in Christ doesn't mean that we fully agree with every aspect of their theology or with every aspect of their understanding of morality. It does mean that we don't look down our noses at those with whom we disagree on issues. The main difference between lumpers and splitters is not theology but willingness to accept those with whom we disagree. Another way to say it is that lumpers see the bonds that join us as more important than the issues that separate us, whereas splitters focus on the differences (maybe that's why there are at least 30 different Baptist denominations in the U.S.!). I believe that today's reading from Romans, and the message of the New Testament in general, calls us to focus on what we share as Christians: love of God, recognition of the lordship of Christ, and love for all the rest of God's children. Let us be lumpers, not splitters!
The hot topic in U.S. politics over the past few weeks has been moral values. Many who supported President Bush for reelection believed that their opponents had poor moral values. Those who supported Senator Kerry protested that they too had strong moral values, though they were not identical in all cases with those of their political rivals. John the Baptist was a strong proponent of morality. His preaching in the wilderness was famous far and wide for its main theme: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" Loose morality is indeed a serious problem in today's world, as it always has been in every age. We delude ourselves if we think that the 1950s were a better time, morally speaking, or the 19th century, or the period of the American Revolution in the late 18th century. People then, as now, could be found with strong moral fiber, while others exhibited little awareness of a moral compass. More interesting than the two extremes, however (uh oh, nuance warning!), are those people, probably the vast majority in any age, who see themselves as moral people but who have a blind spot, at least from the perspective of people who live in more recent times. Take a man like General Robert E. Lee. A recent textbook that claims to offer a Christian perspective on education describes Lee as "A Christian General," and this is the perspective that is taught to the children following this particular curriculum. In his day, Lee may well have exhibited many of the Christian virtues that were accepted and valued: courtesy, chivalry, courage, and even kindness. However, from a modern perspective--in fact, from the perspective of a large number of his contemporaries--he had a huge blind spot: he fought to uphold the institution of slavery (revisionist Civil War historians, please note: I am aware that the war involved other issues, but slavery was the most important, both morally and historically). It's hard for me as a modern Christian to put Robert E. Lee on a pedestal as a prime example of a Christian gentleman, despite the fact that I grew up in a former Confederate state, less than 100 miles from Lee County and about 250 miles from the town of Robert Lee. It is interesting to note that many who are considered prime examples of Christianity to their contemporaries often fail to maintain their elevated status as examples for future generations. There are exceptions, however. Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, and St. Francis are people whose status as Christian examples continues to be accepted by large numbers of contemporary Christians. I fully expect Mother Theresa to remain an example for centuries to come. What separates these people from others whose lives are not so readily called to mind as examples for the present? I think the primary characteristic is their actions. These people were not just great thinkers, they were great doers. John the Baptist put it well: "Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Holding this or that moral position in the present may get you notice, and if you're a politician, it may even get you votes. Over the long haul, however, putting your morality into practice, showing your values by showing whom you value, will have a much greater effect.