When I was in high school I had a friend whose parents had a very
strange idea of hospitality. We could go to her house, but only when it
was perfectly clean. Otherwise, we weren't allowed to go in. One day two
of my friends and I went by to pick her up to go somewhere. We had some
car trouble (another story entirely!), so we had to wait at her house for
about an hour before we could leave. Since they hadn't been expecting
company, we weren't allowed to go inside the house. Instead, we all sat
on the curb in front of the house in the sweltering summer weather. As
I've thought back on that incident many years ago, one thought keeps
coming to mind: modern people sure have a different understanding of
hospitality than ancient people did! In today's reading from Genesis,
three men come to Abraham's camp to speak to him. The reader knows that
one of them is God, but Abraham doesn't yet know it. Abraham begs the men
to rest and accept his hospitality for awhile. When they accept, he has a
feast prepared for them, and they eat like kings. After they have eaten,
one of them promises Abraham a son by his wife Sarah. The narrative does
not say that the promise is given because of Abraham's hospitality, but
the fact that Abraham is hospitable indicates the kind of person that he
is, one who pleases God. People of faith today have many opportunities to
show hospitality to others. In addition to family and friends, we can
show hospitality to strangers in a variety of ways: serving them homeless
food, inviting our neighbors to a barbecue, hosting a gathering of parents
whose children participate in the same activities ours do, and so forth.
One of the greatest needs for hospitality in the present involves our
attitudes toward undocumented immigrants. It has become fashionable over
the past few years--and particularly recently--to bash the undocumented;
to advocate harsh jail terms, fines, or deportation; and to make their
lives as miserable as possible. Some groups want to enable border guards
to shoot suspected illegals, whether they are armed or not. Quite
naturally, this anti-illegal-immigrant furor is often transmuted into
anti-legal-immigrant furor, and those whose ancestors arrived in this
country a few generations earlier than others turn on those whose accent
is a little different, whose skin is a little darker, whose religion is a
little less familiar. As a society, we are guilty of gross inhospitality,
but as people of faith, we can act in a different, more positive way. We
can welcome recent arrivals to our land and show them the love that they
deserve. If we do, God will be please with us as well.
Psalm
52 (first published 18 July 2004)
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.
Colossians 1:15-28 (first published 18
July 2004)
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.
Luke 10:38-42 (first published 18 July
2004)
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.