The tenth commandment differs from the other nine in that it is the
only one whose breach does not require an overt act. Worshiping a false
god, fashioning an idol, swearing falsely in God's name, breaking
Sabbath regulations, dishonoring a parent, killing a person, cheating on
a spouse, stealing someone's belongings, bearing false testimony--these
are all acts that could be caught by a hidden camera and presented as
evidence in court. Wanting something that belongs to another person,
however, cannot be directly observed by another individual. At most it
can be inferred from a person's statements or actions. For this reason,
the tenth commandment is quite likely the commandment that is most often
violated by people whose intent is to live by the Ten Commandments.
It's part of human nature to desire things we don't have.
Advertisements constantly bombard us with images of items they want to
sell us, and they present their merchandise to us in ways that make them
particularly appealing. Desire in and of itself is not a bad thing, nor
is the desire for things we don't have necessarily wrong. Everyone
needs food, clothing, and shelter, and in today's world an education, a
car, a computer, a phone, and other things are practically necessities
for many people. But where do we draw the line between what we need and
what we want? And among the things we want but really don't need, how
much is too much? There are no hard and fast rules. We live in a
society that is characterized by conspicuous consumption, where "keeping
up with the Joneses" is considered acceptable behavior. Capitalism in
its simplest form is based on the drive for profit and the survival of
the fittest, economically speaking, but isn't this motivation a
violation of the spirit of the tenth commandment? It may be in many
cases, but on the other hand, the tenth commandment itself may be a way
in which those with wealth and power strive to keep their neighbors from
noticing the inequalities in the society. This might be described as
the flip side of covetousness, where people desire to hang onto
their own possessions and deny their neighbors the right to share in
their good fortune. The rhetoric of the Occupy movement points out the
unequal distribution of resources and the unfairness of the tax codes,
among other things, and its opponents say that proponents of Occupy are
invoking class warfare. Both rich and poor often accuse those on the
other side of the issue of resorting to class warfare, but underlying
all these claims is the common acknowledgement that easily recognizable
socio-economic classes actually exist. There will always be
inequalities in society, but how much is too much inequality? People
will disagree on the answer to this question, but I think it's clear
that (1) the level of inequality that exists in the U.S. today, not to
mention the world as a whole, is both seriously unjust and potentially
dangerous, and (2) people of goodwill ought to be able to agree to
strive for equality of opportunities, while not requiring equality of
outcomes. At the moment we are very far from that goal, and
greed--including the reticence to share one's wealth with those who have
less--runs rampant in the modern world. What can we do to observe the
tenth commandment? First, work on curbing our desire for things we
really don't need. Second, share in whatever ways we can with those who
are less fortunate. Third, work to lessen the huge class disparities in
our society by advocating more progressive tax schemes, among other
things. Fourth, work to create a society in which the basic needs of
every person are met and in which every person has substantially equal
opportunities to succeed in life.
Psalm 19 (first published 15 March 2009)
Earlier this week President Obama gave a speech in which he pledged
both the federal government's support of science and the freedom of
science from political oversight. Unlike the previous administration,
which opposed even acknowledging global warming for ideological reasons,
which minimized the dangers in EPA reports for the sake of protecting
favored businesses, and which promoted outmoded scientific models of the
age of the earth in order to woo support from the religious right, the
current administration says it will support the work of scientists and
will promote the dissemination of teaching about the scientific
consensus. Some Christians seem to think that science and religion are
incompatible and that religion should trump science. The psalmist of
Psalm 19 would disagree. The psalm begins, "The heavens are telling the
glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day
pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no
speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice
goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world." It is the universe that proclaims God's glory, the psalmist
says, not ignorant theologians or uninformed political activists. Our
understanding of the universe has changed over time, for example from an
earth-centered to a sun-centered model of the solar system. Some things
that scientists believe today will undoubtedly be challenged and even
overturned by future discoveries and new understandings. However,
scientific revolution will be spurred by scientists themselves, not by
reactionary purveyors of bygone religious dogma whose ideas are no
longer relevant in the modern world. Not that religion itself is
irrelevant--far from it! In fact, much work is currently being done by
both scientists and religion scholars as they investigate the connection
between religion and science. Some scientists believe that religion
today is irrelevant, just as some religious people believe that science
is a great deception. More and more people, though, find themselves
somewhere in the middle, committed to integrity in both the scientific
study of the universe and in the religious pursuit of knowledge about
both the mundane and the supramundane.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (first published 15 March 2009)
As the U.S. marched toward war with Iraq six years ago this week, the
majority of Christians around the world, if not in the U.S. itself,
stood in strong opposition to launching the war. Some noted that the
traditional Just War criteria for going to war had not been met. Others
criticized the very notion of a Just War, stating that all war is
unjust, including the one being contemplated by the Bush administration.
Still others pointed out that Jesus' command to love one's enemies was a
central tenet of Christianity, so supporting war was, in effect,
opposing the teachings of Christ. Supporters of the war responded by
claiming that the war was in fact just (what war was ever launched whose
leaders did not claim the same?) and that Jesus' call to love one's
enemies was in any case an unworkable paradigm in the modern world.
Paul, writing to the church at Corinth, said this: "The message about
the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are
being saved it is the power of God." Purveyors of war might imagine
that if Jesus' disciples had only been properly trained and armed, they
could have prevented his crucifixion. They might be right, but that was
not the path that Jesus himself chose. He entered Jerusalem as the
prince of peace, and he went to his death forgiving his enemies. It was
a stupid way to go, by human standards, but God's standards aren't the
same as ours. Most humans throughout history have thought that the
solution to violence was more violence. Consequently, the world has
been in a constant state of war in one place or another ever since the
inventions of weapons. Now that weapons are deadlier than ever, what's
to stop us from destroying ourselves? Nothing, other than the teachings
and example of Jesus and others who preach a message of nonviolence.
Look what Gandhi and Martin Luther King were able to accomplish through
nonviolence. Similarly, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu brought about
change in South Africa largely through nonviolence means. Peace came to
Northern Ireland only when opposing sides chose to lay down their
weapons and make peace. Aung San Suu Kyi continues to resist her
Burmese opponents with nonviolence, as does the Dalai Lama. In the eyes
of many, nonviolence is foolish, weak, and ineffective. But how often
has it really been given a chance to work? Those of us who approach
life from a Christian perspective must be guided in our thoughts by the
person whose name we claim. Peace may be foolish to the world, just as
the primal Christian proclamation of the cross was foolish, but in both
is the hidden power of God to effect real, meaningful change in the
world.
John 2:13-22 (first published 15 March 2009)
The Jewish law said that three times a year every Jewish man was supposed to appear before the Lord in Jerusalem with a sacrifice. Because taking an animal tens or hundreds of miles to Jerusalem was unworkable for many people, the law allowed them to sell the animal at home, then travel to Jerusalem with the money and buy a sacrificial animal there. Over time, the selling of sacrificial animals became a profitable business for many people. It was good for the merchants, and it was good for many travelers as well. When Jesus saw what was going on in the temple, however, he was not amused. The Gospel of John reports that Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers and drove those selling animals out of the temple. What was the reason for his fury? "Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!" he shouted. The reason for Jesus' fierce opposition was not that he was opposed to commerce in general. If merchants were taking advantage of the poor in their transactions, Jesus would certainly have opposed their methods, as Amos and earlier prophets had done, but that doesn't seem to have been the main problem. Rather, the problem Jesus had was that commerce had apparently usurped the proper business of the temple: the worship of God. Churches today are involved in many worthwhile activities: fundraising for new buildings, wholesome entertainment, financial management seminars, family enrichment activities, etc. The problem that some modern churches face is not the activities they are doing but the activities they are neglecting. Every church should be centered on two activities: loving God and loving people. A new building might be important, but so is rebuilding broken lives of people in the community. A mission trip to an exotic locale might be important, but so is sharing God's love with people living in the shadow of the church or across town. A musical extravaganza might be important, but so is helping poor kids buy musical instruments so that they can be involved in activities that will keep them off the streets. In short, there are many good things that churches can do. Jesus' actions in the temple remind all of us that we should not do what's good and neglect doing what's best.