In the Middle Ages, Christian mystics sought the "beatific vision," a vision of God's glory that was pure and overwhelming. While others undertook quests for ancient relics, such as the bones of the apostles, pieces of the true cross, or even the holy grail, the mystics looked inward for their spiritual journey. Based in part on Jesus' beatitude, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," the mystics sought to purify their minds and bodies so that they might be found worthy of receiving the ultimate divine gift, a vision of God. In our reading from Exodus, Moses similarly asks God, "Show me your glory." It is a simple request, and one that Moses felt he both needed and deserved. God apparently agreed, so God placed Moses in the crevice of a great rock, shielded Moses with the divine hand so that Moses could not see God's face, and allowed Moses to see as God passed by. The warning against Moses seeing God's face contrasts with the immediately preceding story of Moses seeing God face to face in the tent of meeting, where he would speak to God "as one speaks to a friend." Apparently, then, the present passage expresses a theological development that is reflected as well in the book of Ezekiel, where the prophet only sees "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord" (Ezekiel 1:28). What is the result of Moses' vision of God? The Bible doesn't say, for the next section recounts Moses' preparations to receive the second copy of the Ten Commandments, after he had destroyed the first copy. Perhaps we are meant to think that Moses was encouraged and his resolve strengthened by his vision of God. However, there is no indication that anyone else benefited directly. In contrast, Moses makes another request in the preceding paragraph, "Show me your ways." Moses also lays out the reason for his request, "so that I may know you and find favor in your sight." He continues, "Consider too that this nation is your people." Seeing God's ways, Moses suggests, will directly benefit to whole nation, not just him. In response to this request, God promises to go with Moses (another reading tells Moses to walk in God's presence) and give him rest. Moses persists in asking that God go not just with him but with the nation, and God agrees to do so. What is the goal of our spiritual journey? Do we seek a vision of God's glory, or are we more interested in knowing the ways of God? The beatific vision may be personally satisfying, but a knowledge of God's ways is more beneficial for us and for those among whom we minister. Seeing God feeds our soul; seeing God's ways gives us guidance that we desperately need. If God grants us the grace of seeing the divine glory at some point in our lives, we can rejoice, but our prayer should be to see God's ways, so that we may walk in them along with our fellow travelers.
Sigmund Mowinckel was a twentieth-century Norwegian biblical scholar who made his mark studying the Psalms. Along with Hermann Gunkel, Mowinckel was the most important Psalms scholar of the century. In contrast to his predecessors, who mostly read the Psalms as though they were pieces of individual piety, dealing with specific historical situations, Mowinckel believed that the vast majority of the Psalms played a part in the great annual feasts that were celebrated in the temple in pre-exilic Israel. The most important of these festivals, Mowinckel suggested, was an annual New Year's festival--associated in the Bible with the Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Booths--that celebrated the enthronement of Yahweh as king. Psalm 99 is one of several Enthronement Psalms that Mowinckel identified, all of which celebrate Yahweh as the true king, and hence superior to the Davidic king who ruled Israel. Beginning with the triumphal proclamation, "Yahweh is king!" (or perhaps, "Yahweh has become king!" an accession to the throne that was reenacted at the festival), the psalm proceeds to praise God and call the nation to worship. Particularly important in demonstrating God's reign over the earth is the establishment of justice and equity. Just as kings throughout the ancient Near East were charged with promoting justice throughout their kingdoms, so God was believed to be concerned with establishing justice throughout the land. It is notable that God doesn't demonstrate the divine claim to the throne through a demonstration of might. Justice, not military prowess, is the characteristic of God's reign. Last week the U.S. Senate voted 90 to 9 to amend a military spending bill to add a provision that would explicitly prohibit the U.S. military from treating any prisoner in U.S. custody with "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." One of the amendment's cosponsors, Senator John McCain of Arizona, knows firsthand about torture, having been an inmate in the "Hanoi Hilton" POW camp during the Vietnam War. He and most of the rest of the Senate understand that two things happen when the U.S. mistreats prisoners of war or others in its custody (e.g., so-called "enemy combatants"). First, such mistreatment gives our adversaries an excuse to mistreat U.S. soldiers that have been captured. Second, and more important, such mistreatment is a violation of the ideal society that we present ourselves to world as being. When we torture prisoners, as we have done at Abu Graib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, or when we allow our allies to torture prisoners, either directly as in several incidents in Afghanistan or indirectly through "extraordinary rendition" arrangements with foreign governments, we violate the basic human rights of those prisoners, and we lose any legitimacy on the world stage to speak out against the human rights violations of others. Amazingly, President Bush is threatening to veto the bill, because he doesn't want the amendment attached to pass. The promotion of torture is a violation of the basic tenets of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all other major world religions, as well as a violation of both the U.S. Constitution (Amendment 8) and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. It is time for people of conscience to tell our elected representatives that we do not support the mistreatment of prisoners and that Congress must override Bush's pernicious veto, if necessary. It is a matter of conscience, and a matter of justice.
William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, two leaders in the Democratic Party, recently released a report called "The Politics of Polarization," in which they offer suggestions for how Democrats can regain the reigns of political power in Washington, DC. Among other things, they propose that "seizing the center remains the key to victory." The Democratic Party, they says, needs to figure out where voters are on key issues and position the party so that it agrees with the majority of Americans. In other words, instead of advocating specific positions or policies, the Democrats need to figure out what voters think and develop their platform on that basis. This approach may result in winning elections (though Jonathan Schell disagrees, and recent electoral losses also suggest that it is a losing strategy), but it is no way to decide what to believe and how to act. Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonica is probably the earliest document in our present New Testament. He writes to a church that he founded and encourages them to continue living Christian lives. The Thessalonians did not operate on the basis of opinion polls, nor did they try to discern what the theological middle in the city believed and base their own beliefs on that. Instead, they were imitators of both Paul and of Christ himself, as they understood him. Their Christian lives were not always easy, for Paul speaks of persecutions that they have had to endure. Perhaps their Jewish members were ostracized from the synagogue, or maybe their Gentile members were ridiculed or discriminated against for abandoning the traditional pagan religious practices. This ostracism, ridicule, or discrimination was immaterial to them, however. They were Christians, and they were determined to live their lives based on the model that Paul had provided, a model that was verified in their hearts as they served God and loved one another. Christians today need to be willing to live lives based on principle rather than popularity. Once we discern what the will of God is, to the best of our abilities, we need to live in accordance with our understanding. If we have to take unpopular stands, so be it. Many Democrats in Congress apparently voted for the war in Iraq because they were afraid they would look weak on defense if they didn't. Many right-wing Christians, who march in lockstep with the Republican Party, favored the war as well. In contrast, many progressive Christians, including a good number of evangelicals, joined people of other faiths in opposing the war on principle from the beginning. As Americans are turning against the occupation of Iraq in large numbers today, it's not so difficult to take a stand, but that wasn't always the case. It wasn't long ago that people were arrested at political rallies for wearing t-shirts that sported anti-war messages. People in government were fired for daring to oppose the war. Reporters who doubted the official government reasons for going to war were silenced by the big businesses that monopolize the broadcast news in the U.S. Despite all this, people were willing to take a stand, because it was the right thing to do. There are other stands that Christians must make today, regardless of the popularity of the idea. We should oppose the manipulation of science for the benefit of big business. We should oppose imperialism in all its forms. We should oppose the use of torture by governments. We should support the efforts of many people and organizations to make peace in the world's troubled regions. We should support policies that protect the environment and oppose those that don't. In short, we should take stands based on our Christian beliefs, not public opinion.
Robert Funk, one of the leading figures in biblical scholarship in the twentieth century, died last month at the age of 79. In addition to being one of the best known scholars, he was also one of the most controversial. In 1985 he convened a group of scholars called the Jesus Seminar to investigate the life and words of the historical Jesus and report their findings to the world. The Seminar met on a regular basis and, at one stage in their study, famously took votes on whether the scholars thought that Jesus actually made each of the statements attributed to him in the gospels. They decided that Jesus either certainly or probably said only 18% of the words attributed to him in the gospels, the rest being sayings that most likely originated in the early church. One of the sayings that the Seminar almost unanimously decided came from Jesus was today's gospel reading, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." One of the criteria by which the Seminar judged the sayings of Jesus was distinctiveness, and the present saying is undoubtedly distinct, unlike any known contemporary Jewish saying yet both memorable and fully consistent with the overall teaching of Jesus. It remains today one of Jesus' most memorable statements, familiar even to people who know little about the New Testament. It's familiar, yes, but what does it mean? One thing it means is that both God and the state are due a measure of allegiance, though of course our allegiance to God necessarily comes first. Nevertheless, Jesus says that if the state demands something that does not conflict with one's allegiance to God, his followers should fulfill the demand. Another corollary of this statement is that church and state should be kept separate so that people can more easily distinguish between the call of God and the call of the state. When the state begins either supporting or opposing a particular religion, or religion in general, it interferes with religion's task of serving God, and it potentially puts religious adherents at odds with both church and state. The tendency of the Rehnquist court to chip away at the wall of separation between church and state (Rehnquist himself would have liked to knock it down entirely) has led to confusion about legislation, about the freedom of people to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, and about the government's support or opposition to particular religious groups. With a new chief justice and another justice awaiting confirmation (either Harriet Miers or another, as yet unknown, nominee, if Miers is rejected), Christians need to heed Jesus' clarion call to distinguish between what we owe to Caesar and what we owe to God.