Acts 4:5-12 (first published 7 May 2006)
Shortly before the war in Iraq broke out, an organization called "Not
in Our Name" was formed. This group solicited the signatures of thousands
of people, and it proclaimed that the proposed Iraq War was unjust, and
even if the Bush administration went ahead and prosecuted the war on
behalf of all Americans, those who signed the document proclaimed that the
war would not be waged in their name. The name or names associated with
actions, both great and dastardly, are important, for the deeds reflect on
the character of those names. When Peter and the other disciples were
arrested and brought before the religious leaders, they were asked in
whose name they acted. Peter didn't hesitate to give an answer. The man
who had been healed had been healed in the name of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, he said, all of them intended to continue preaching and
acting in the name of Jesus, for "there is no other name under heaven
given among mortals by which we must be saved." Peter was proud to be
associated with the name of Jesus, and he was likewise proud to connect
Jesus' name with the miraculous healing of a man who had been born lame.
Over the centuries the name of Jesus has been associated with many such
acts of mercy. Hospitals, soup kitchens, clothing closets, and refugee
resettlement programs, just to name a few, have all been started in the
name of Christ. Unfortunately, many atrocities have also been committed
in Jesus' name: pogroms against the Jews, the Crusades, innumerable
internecine wars, and even the extermination of the native inhabitants of
the Americas and Australia, again, just to name a few. Events like these
tarnish the name of Christ, at the same time as acts of mercy and charity
burnish his name. No one can undo the past, but Christians need to be
aware of the past as we move forward in this still new millennium. We
must support causes that we think reflect the ideals of Jesus, and must
vigorously oppose those that do not. A great Christian leader, William
Sloane Coffin, who died a couple of weeks ago, was a good example of a
Christian who was not afraid to take unpopular stances in favor of or
against certain movements in society, based on his understanding of the
example of Jesus. He supported the Civil Rights Movement at a time when
few other white religious leaders did. He opposed the Vietnam War, again
when few other Christian leaders were doing so. We need to learn to
follow his example in supporting proposals and deeds that reflect well on
the name of Christ and opposing those who don't. And when other
Christians support positions that seem completely contrary to the example
of Christ, we can't be afraid to stand up and say vociferously, "Not in my
name!"
Psalm 23 (first published 7 May 2006)
I am a sheep; I have short legs, and I don't run very fast.
I am a sheep; I usually follow the other sheep, but every now and then I see something that interests me, and I pursue it, sometimes to my own harm.
I am a sheep; some think I'm cute and cuddly, but others think I'm just a tasty snack.
I am a sheep; I have lots of fur, which makes me kind of valuable, but if someone wants to take it, there's nothing I can do to stop them.
I am a sheep; I don't have sharp teeth or a mean bite, so I'm at the mercy of wolves.
I am a sheep; I'm frightened easily by storms at night.
I am a sheep; I'm not the wiliest animal around.
I am a sheep; if I run out of food, who will feed me?
I am a sheep; my parents were sheep, and my grandparents before them, so there's little hope I'll ever be anything else.
I am a sheep; I can't make it on my own.
I am a sheep; I need a shepherd.
The budget passed a few weeks ago by the U.S. House of
Representatives has been called into question recently by the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops. Despite budget author Paul Ryan's
claims that his Catholic faith was the basis for his budget ideas, the
bishops stated unequivocally that the budget was not informed by and was
in fact inimical to Catholic social teachings. Another group of
Catholic social justice leaders released a statement that "this budget
is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity,
just taxation and a commitment to the common good." The problem, say
the budget's detractors, is that it unfairly shifts the burden of
combating the nation's economic woes from the rich to the middle class
and especially the poor. One critic said the budget seemed to reflect
the principles of objectivist philosopher and author Ayn Rand rather
than those of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Speaker of the House John
Boehner defended the budget from episcopal attack, saying that the
bishops were missing the "big picture," and that if the cuts to social
programs that help the poor were not made, the entire social safety net
would fall apart. Such attempts to defend the budget are unpersuasive
to most people who actually support the idea of a social safety net,
however. Today's reading from 1 John has this to say about the
allocation of resources: "How does God's love abide in anyone who has
the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses
help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth
and action." In other words, talk is cheap. For years those on the
ideological right in the U.S. have claimed the moral high ground of
family values, respect for life, and even adherence to traditional
Judeo-Christian teachings, and the left has been unable or unwilling to
dispute such claims, often because those on the left worry that their
message will offend independents and people in the center. I don't
believe this is true. People in the center--in reality, often people
who don't pay a lot of attention to such matters--need to hear strong
voices supporting progressive values with rational arguments, with
emotional appeals, and, when appropriate and applicable, with sound
biblical and theological arguments for those to whom such arguments
appeal. We shouldn't be afraid to say, for example, that the social
safety net is essential to the economic and political wellbeing of the
nation, that caring for our brothers and sisters is a biblical and
theological mandate, and that the safety net can easily be shored up
with tax hikes for the rich, elimination of the regressive social
security taxable earnings cap, and reduction of the military budget by
50% or more (90%?). We shouldn't be cowed by those who call it
socialism to care for the poor, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless,
and treat the sick. We shouldn't be intimidated by the inherent logic
of the extreme libertarian position; we can admit that it's an
internally and philosophically logical system: it's just morally
bankrupt. People of faith have no need to fear verbal attacks by those
who claim to love their fellow man (yes, "man," since they're not so
crazy about women, at least when it comes to equal treatment), because
their actions betray their lack of empathy for their fellow travelers.
And we can gain courage from the knowledge that "all who obey his
commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know
that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us," the spirit of
love and compassion.
John 10:11-18 (first published 7 May 2006)
On 28 October 1965, the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church issued a startling, amazing document. Nostra Aetate, also known as the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, shocked many believers by its positive attitude and sense of respect that it showed toward people of other faith traditions. Here are some sample statements from this remarkable document. "Men look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence." "Other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in their own ways to calm the hearts of men by outlining a program of life covering doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites." "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions." "The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussions and collaborations with members of other religions." Noting the history of rivalry, persecution, and mutual animosity that Christianity has had with other religions, "The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values." Finally, "We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than brotherly fashion, for all men are created in God's image." Leaving aside the non-inclusive language, these statements indicated that the Catholic Church was ready to take a giant step forward in interfaith relations, a step that some Protestant denominations have also taken but that many more have yet to take. Jesus tells his disciples, "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." In its original context these comments referred to the Gentiles, who were to be incorporated into the believing community, which at that point was entirely Jewish. In our day, when the church is almost entirely Gentile, is it possible that Jesus' message to his followers should be interpreted as reaching out to people of other faiths, not in an effort to convert them (though we should always offer the option of joining the Christian fold to those who feel led) but in an attempt to find common ground, to foster respect, and to work together on common goals? I think the answer is clearly yes. As Nostra Aetate proclaims, based on scripture, all people are created in God's image, so we are all brothers and sisters in God. It is time we started acting like it.