Isaiah 50:4-9a (first published 13 April 2003)
Passion week reminds us that Jesus' message was not always popular.
Should Christians today be surprised if our message is not always
well-received by the masses? An editorial in the local newspaper today
said that those who had opposed the war on Iraq owe the nation an apology.
And what was the justification for the apology? Because the U.S. and
Britain had subdued Iraqi resistance and apparently overthrown the
government. Did anyone doubt that the U.S. and Britain would prevail
militarily? Does victory in war imply God's blessing on the enterprise?
It's said that history is always written by the victors, but there are
some victories that today are viewed as great injustices. Perhaps the
most familiar to Americans is the slaughter of the Native Americans who
inhabited the land before Columbus. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee
is an example of a book written from the victims' perspective, and it
reminds us that victors may write the books, but victims have to live with
the consequences of the victors' actions. "The Lord God has given me the
tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a
word," the prophet says. Many people, Christians included, are always
available to sing the praises of victorious warriors, but who will have a
word of encouragement for those who are suffering the most, civilian and
soldier alike? The prophet speaks of enduring insults and abuse. If
prophets had to endure hardship for speaking unpopular messages, why would
Christians who see themselves as spiritual descendants of the prophets
expect anything less? In the days to come, I think it is likely that we
will see attempted political retribution against those who opposed the war
because of their beliefs. In the light of the apparent successes in Iraq,
there will be calls in the U.S. to use arms in other countries in the
region--Syria, Iran, Lybia--as well as in North Korea. Because the U.S.
has flaunted the international community, countries such as India, Israel,
Turkey, Russia, and China may be emboldened to war against their enemies,
internal or external, on the grounds of opposing terrorism. Iraq and
Afghanistan may prove more difficult to govern than they were to conquer,
and the U.S.-supported leaders may feel a backlash of animosity from their
own people. Time will tell what the long-term effects of the war will be,
and there will probably be good as well as bad results. Nevertheless, if
the world becomes more dangerous, as seems likely, it will be more
important than ever for Christians who believe that Jesus' role as Prince
of Peace is more relevant in today's world than his portrayal as
Christus victor to continue to search for ways to speak to our
neighbors and to the world in love, humility, and faithfulness.
Psalm 31:9-16 (first published 13 April 2003)
Everybody loves a winner. When a football team wins the Super Bowl,
sales of the team's hats and jerseys increase overnight. When a figure
skater wins a gold medal, sponsors line up to offer endorsement contracts
for their products. When a political party takes control of the
government, big businesses support that party's candidates in the next
election at a higher rate than before they took the reins of power. Who
remembers the losers? Jerry Seinfeld has a routine in which he compares
the gold medal winner of the 100-meter dash to the silver and bronze
medalists. The gold medalist crosses the finish line maybe a foot ahead
of the silver medalist. The gold medalist receives all kinds of
accolades. The silver medalist is just some guy who ran in the race.
The psalmist complains that he is a scorn to his adversaries, a horror to
his neighbors, an object of dread to his acquaintances. He is, in other
words, a loser. No one wants to associate with him. Peter was gung-ho to
stand with Jesus when he thought he was popular, but after Jesus was
arrested, it was easier to disassociate himself from his master. All too
often Christians, too, find it more convenient, or more acceptable, to
stand with those who are popular, or to stand for causes that have
widespread support. There is certainly no virtue in being contrary just
for the sake of being different, but we need to base our decisions on
what's right, not what's popular. Karl Marx called religion the opiate of
the people, because he believed that it was used by those in power to
solidify their social positions by causing the believing masses to look
for justice in heaven rather than on earth. Many African Americans
rejected Christianity and turned to Islam during the civil rights
movement, in part because too many Christians were siding with racists and
bigots against them. Christians throughout Latin America adopted the
teachings of liberation theology, because they thought that their leaders
in the church favored the wealthy and ignored their plight. Jesus was
never one to base his positions on opinion polls. Ministering to lepers
was unpopular, but Jesus did it. Cleansing the temple was unpopular, but
Jesus did it. Associating with tax collectors was unpopular, but Jesus
did it. Standing up for the civil rights of foreigners in the U.S. is
unpopular--will we do it? Championing internationalism over nationalism
is unpopular--will we do it? Saying no to elective wars is
unpopular--will we do it? We are called to a life of principle, not
popularity. Are we up to the challenge?
Philippians 2:5-11 (first published 9 April 2006)
Prior to about thirty years ago, politicians for high office in the United States said little or nothing about their religious beliefs. Politicians would occasionally allude obliquely to God or providence in a generic sort of way, but one's personal religious beliefs were not considered a subject for political discussion. The situation changed in 1976, when Jimmy Carter ran for president as a self-identified, "born again" Christian. In 1980 Ronald Reagan made much of his Christian beliefs (ironically, since he was not a regular church-goer) and drew widespread conservative Christian support at the polls. After Reagan, it seemed that everyone seeking high elected office was either asked about his or her beliefs, or else they volunteered the information. Although his father always seemed uncomfortable speaking in public about his religious beliefs, George W. Bush has made much of his Christian belief system, even naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher in a televised debate in 2000. It is almost unthinkable now that people running for president or any other high office could avoid questions about their religious beliefs, or that they would even want to avoid the questions. On the contrary, many politicians play up their faith, because they know that doing so will translate into a certain number of votes in the election. In our reading from Philippians, Paul says that Jesus "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited." In other words, even though Jesus had a special, even unique, relationship with God, he did not take advantage of that relationship to avoid tough situations in his life. Wouldn't it be refreshing if people today who have or seek higher public office would follow Jesus' example and not use their relationship with God as something to be exploited? Too many candidates cynically pander to their religious constituents on the basis of their own personal religious beliefs, real or invented. Rather than emphasize their views on achieving peaceful international cooperation, they tell people about their conversion experience. Instead of giving the electorate their ideas about addressing poverty, they share their ideas about intelligent design. When confronted with questions about their practical experience, they fall back on their reliance in God's guidance. It's not that a strongly felt, personal faith is detrimental to a politician's ability to govern. On the contrary, deeply held religious convictions can provide a compassionate worldview and a strong moral compass for decisions that must be made. The problem comes when a politician uses his or her religious beliefs to win votes. Doing this constitutes a clear case of exploiting one's supposed relationship with God. To my mind, though, the fault that lies in the politician who uses religion as a campaign tool is not nearly so great as the fault in the voters who fall for this nonsense. I know many very good Christian people who have no business being in public office, because they are unqualified for the job. Voters should choose wise leaders who understand the intricacies of international diplomacy, who know history and economics, who are adept at dealing with a wide variety of people, and who can handle both the stress and temptations of public office. Their relationship with God should be something that provides them with inner strength, not something that they exploit to get votes.
The U.S. House of Representatives this week passed the Paul Ryan budget proposal 228 to 191, pretty much along party lines. Among other things, the budget, if passed, would reduce the top marginal tax rate on wealthy individuals and couples and would gut programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and Pell grants (financial aid for college students) that provide benefits for the poor. Those who oppose the bill point out that its primary beneficiaries are the rich, while the middle class and especially the poor would be hurt by such a budget if it were to become law. It is commonplace among conservative Christians who oppose government support for the poor to point to Jesus' comment in today's reading from Mark--"The poor you always have with you"--as though this was a prediction or even an affirmation of the permanence of poverty in the world. The argument goes something like this: "Jesus said that there would always be poor people around, so it's sacrilegious and presumptuous to imagine that we can do anything to eliminate it. And besides, it's not the government's job to help the poor, it's the job of individuals and churches." This argument, however, though ubiquitous in certain circles (I resist the urge to refer to Dante's Circles of Hell) is both specious and antibiblical. It's specious because, although it sounds pious to say that Christians ought to care for the poor in their communities, the fact of the matter is that they don't even come close to addressing even the most basic needs of the vast majority of the poor. The problem of poverty is intractable on the level of individual people of faith, churches, or even denominations. Only an institution with the means and authority to address the issue has any chance to do so effectively, and in our world, only national governments fit the bill. Furthermore, the argument is antibiblical because it misrepresents the intent of the passage. In Mark--as in Matthew and John--this saying is embedded in a story that is set during the last week of Jesus' life on earth, and the anointing with nard is a symbolic preparation for Jesus' burial, and thus a prediction of his imminent death. Of the three gospels that place the story during Passion Week, only Mark has Jesus augment the saying with a further clarification: "The poor you always have with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them." Jesus' expectation is that the church will continue to meet the needs of the poor as they are able for as long as the poor exist in the land. By adding this stipulation, Jesus is simply enunciating the intent of many of the laws found in the Hebrew Bible that are designed to care for the poor: the laws of gleaning, for example, or the provision for the poor in the sacrificial system, or the laws of the Sabbath year and the Year of Jubilee. He is most definitely not saying that the continued existence of poverty is perfectly acceptable in a world where God's reign is present. Poverty is an affront to God, and both the prophets and many of the psalmists plant God squarely on the side of the poor in their struggles for survival and dignity. The flippant dismissal of the poor as though they were of little consequence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the overall message of the biblical text. Christianity--like Judaism, Islam, and other world religions--has traditionally viewed care for the poor as a central tenet in its system of belief and practice. Two of the most important strides toward reducing the effects of poverty in the U.S. were the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, which produced Social Security and jobs programs, as well as protections for workers, and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, which brought about Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Food Stamps, the Job Corps, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, among others. All these programs were widely supported by the majority of Christian denominations, with regional exceptions in the case of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. That so many Christians so grossly misunderstand their own religious tradition that they support rolling back many of these laws today is a tragedy, but with the aid of Christians and other people of faith and goodwill who understand the importance of "doing good" to the poor, hopefully it is a tragedy that will be averted.