We knew not whether we were in heaven or earth, for on earth there is no such vision or beauty, and we do not know how to describe it; we know only that there God dwells among men. - Envoys of Prince Vladimir of Kiev, upon seeing Constantinople for the first time, 987 C.E.An early Slavic chronicle says that Prince Vladimir, a descendant of the Viking rulers of Rus (Russia), decided it was time to abandon the paganism of his ancestors and adopt the religion of one of his powerful neighbors: Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, or Islam. He sent envoys to the surrounding territories, and the emissaries who returned with the most glowing report were the ones sent to the city of Constantinople, the home of Orthodoxy. In contrast to the cities of the western Christians and the Slavic Muslims, Constantinople glistened with gold and silver, had architectural marvels like the church of Hagia Sophia, and exuded both wealth and power. Vladimir's conversion, it seems, was based more on an impression of what the Christian God (as worshiped in the East) promised to bring to himself and his kingdom than on his being convinced of the truth of the religion. The prophet who composed the lines preserved in today's reading from Isaiah lived in Jerusalem during the time of Persian hegemony over Israel. The Jews who had returned with such high hopes from Babylonian exile had expected a quick restoration of their fortunes, but even though they had rebuilt the temple and begun work on restoring Jerusalem, the city was still a mere shadow of its former greatness. In contrast to the general malaise that permeated most of the populace, the prophet looked forward to a time when the fortunes of Jerusalem would be so great that people of other nations would be attracted to its splendor, as the Russian envoys were impressed by the glory of Constantinople. Wealth begets wealth, the prophet suggests, and foreign dignitaries would shower the already rich city with gifts such as gold and frankincense (cf. Matthew's narrative of the birth of Jesus). This prophetic vision of a glorious future was intended to encourage the faithful of Jerusalem and its surrounding towns and villages. Although Jerusalem never again became a city characterized by great wealth, it did become a city considered holy by the three Abrahamic faiths, and thus a destiny for pilgrims of those faiths from many nations. When the British colonized the east coast of the North American continent, the new colonies were sometimes compared with Jerusalem, a city set on a hill that shines its light to all nations. After the American Revolution, citizens of the new nation called the United States often saw themselves as especially blessed by God, perhaps more so than their ancestors in Europe. For proof, they pointed to the wealth in natural resources, in land, in agricultural products, and in commercial enterprises that characterized the country. After its successful forays into war--such as the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the two World Wars--from which the nation emerged wealthier and militarily more powerful than other nations, many people began to think that America must be the recipient of God's favor in a unique way, and the notion of American exceptionalism was born. Failure in Vietnam, successively deeper economic recessions, plummeting achievement in education, and rising infant mortality rates notwithstanding, many still hold fast to the idea that America is God's special nation, the lone superpower, the world's indispensable nation. Hogwash! America is certainly rich and powerful, and it has the potential to be a force for tremendous good in the world, but it does not always make good on its potential. It continues to be the destiny of choice for many immigrants, but it has also borne the brunt of much criticism over its imperialist policies worldwide and its failure to care for its own citizens at home. No nation is perfect, but nations that want to see themselves as great must do a better job than the U.S. is currently doing in many areas: health care for all citizens (including mental health care), alleviation of poverty, elimination of discrimination of any sort, free or low cost education from pre-K through grad school, reduction of violence, substantially full employment, increased collaboration and decreased bellicosity in foreign policy, redirection of funding away from military programs and toward social programs, serious attention to environmental and climate issues, increased engagement in empowering ways with poor nations, and increased spending on science, technology, health, and the arts, just to name a few things. If we truly care about being a nation that others praise as a light to the world, a focus on peace, justice, compassion, and innovation will be far more effective than our current emphasis on militarism, political control, and economic hegemony. Then we will truly be able to say that the glory of the Lord has risen upon us.
Psalm 72:1-7, 10-14 (first published 5 December 2004)
George Washington's likeness appears on our dollar bills and our quarters, and he is revered as the Father of Our Country. George Washington owned slaves. Andrew Jackson was one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history. Andrew Jackson promised the Choctaw and Cherokee peoples, "they shall possess [their land] as long as Grass grows or water runs"; when gold was discovered on their lands, his forgot his promises and drove them from their lands so that the white people could prosper. Theodore Roosevelt was a man with a reputation larger than life, and his face is carved on Mt. Rushmore. Theodore Roosevelt pushed the notorious Platt Amendment into the Cuban constitution, thereby stealing a measure of Cuba's sovereignty under the pretense of caring about the Cuban people. Great leaders sometimes have great faults. Poor leaders sometimes have even greater faults. Jim Hightower quips, "If God had meant for people to vote, he would have given us candidates." Too often it seems that voters in the U.S., and in other democracies around the world, have poor choices at the polls. In the last U.S. presidential election, for example, we had a choice between a white male patrician graduate of Yale (and member of the secret Skull and Bones society) and another white male patrician graduate of Yale (and member of the secret Skull and Bones society). What's wrong with this picture? Regardless of how good a leader a candidate might be and what kind of ideas he or she might have, the two most important qualifications are money and connections. The talk about moral values that has arisen since the election is largely a smokescreen, for candidates with poor overall morals are often elected, in part because they have enough money to convince unwitting (or uncaring) voters that they really do have high moral values. Today's reading from the Psalms comes from an ancient Israelite royal installation ceremony, and it describes clearly the characteristics that God desires in a leader. The leader will be personally righteous and at the same time work to bring about justice. The scope of the justice this leader will have is specified in verse 2: the leader is one who will render just decisions for the poor. Yes, the economy will flourish under the ideal ruler, but the riches will be "for the people," not just those who already have money. A huge reserve of oil was discovered in Equatorial Guinea a few years ago, and a giant influx of wealth poured into the country. Well, actually the oil revenues went to the president and his closest friends. The psalmist is clear on the subject: "May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." Too many political leaders today are on the side of the oppressors (or may even be the oppressors themselves) rather than on the side of the oppressed. The reign of a good ruler will be characterized by an abundance of righteousness and peace. These are both in short supply today worldwide, but there is a great need for both. How does a passage like this one apply to the vast majority of us who are not political leaders, nor do we have the aspiration to become political leaders? If we're fortunate to live in countries with a democratic tradition, we must support candidates whose platforms reflect the values described in Psalm 72. Above all we must recognize that poverty, justice, and human rights are moral, even religious issues. If we want to be on God's side, we will stand with the poor, for economic justice, and for basic human rights.
The openness of many in the early church, which at the beginning was exclusively Jewish, to reach out to Gentiles was a move that was monumental in a way that few today grasp. Judaism in the first century C.E. was a minority religion everywhere outside Judea, and it had developed into a faith that was almost exclusively associated with people lineally descended from other Jews. There were mechanisms in place to handle proselytes to the faith, but aside from the conversions of those who married into Jewish families, the acceptance of a Gentile into the faith was rare. Furthermore, acceptance of Judaism at the time always included the rite of circumcision for males and the observance of kosher dietary laws for all. So when one group of first-century Jewish Christians advocated accepting Gentiles into the faith without requiring them to be circumcised or to follow traditional Jewish dietary practices, other Jewish Christians were scandalized. How could Christians accept those whom God has so obviously rejected, in violation of numerous explicit Old Testament laws? In today's reading from Ephesians, Paul is presented as a passionate advocate for the acceptance of Gentiles as Christians, as a direct result of God's commission. In stark contrast to the notion of many Jews that they were a chosen people to the exclusion of others, God, acting on "the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things," has now revealed that welcoming Gentiles into the fold of faith is "in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord." God's acceptance of Gentiles, just as they were created, into the family of God provides an important precedent for the acceptance of gays and lesbians into the family of God today. Although a few denominations, such as the United Church of Christ and Metropolitan Community Churches, promote themselves as accepting the LGBT community as completely equal to heterosexuals, as do many, many individual congregations of various denominations, opposition to full equality before God is still a hallmark of many denominations and individual churches. Most notably, as far as U.S. churches are concerned, the two largest denominations--the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention--both explicitly deny homosexuals the right to church or denominational leadership of any sort. (Perhaps not coincidentally, both these denominations also preclude women from serving in most leadership positions.) The situation is improving, however. Several mainstream Protestant denominations have already changed their policies regarding LGBT leadership and same sex marriages, and significant groups within both the Roman Catholic Church and several Evangelical and Pentecostal churches have also moved in the direction of becoming full-fledged welcoming and affirming churches. The "conversion" of the first-century church into one that routinely accepted Gentiles as equal members without requiring their acceptance of traditional Jewish customs took about a century or so, probably a few decades less. Will today's church become as accepting of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in as short a period of time, if we start the clock arbitrarily with the Stonewall Riots in 1969, which launched the modern Gay Liberation Movement? No one can say for sure, but those of us committed to justice and love as manifestations of God's work in the world hope it will happen even more quickly.
I just got through teaching a series of four lessons called "The Birth of the Messiah" (a title I shamelessly borrowed from Raymond Brown's tremendous book), and one of the most interesting parts of the study for me was the observation once again of the different ways in which Matthew and Luke present the narrative of Jesus' birth. Matthew, no doubt influenced in part by today's reading from Isaiah 60, presents a group of magi--Persian astrologers and dignitaries--seeking the birthplace of "the child who has been born king of the Jews." One of Matthew's concerns throughout his gospel is the presentation of Jesus as messiah and legitimate king. This concern begins with Jesus' genealogy, which Matthew traces through the entire line of Davidic kings (contrast Luke's genealogy, which traces Jesus' lineage through the non-ruling branch of the Davidic line and is more concerned to identify Jesus with the poor and outcast). The magi bring Jesus incredible gifts, fit for a king: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew identifies Jesus from birth as the legitimate heir of David, the one who will "save his people from their sins." As king of the Jews, a title which Caesar Augustus had bestowed upon Herod the Great, the infant Jesus was a threat to Herod and his dynasty, and in the next section of the text beyond today's reading, Herod will address that threat in a dramatic and brutal fashion, slaughtering the male children of the region in a manner reminiscent of Pharaoh's slaughter of the Israelite male children in Moses' day. Is Jesus still a threat to the rulers of our modern world? I believe that he is, even for those rulers who claim to follow the Christian faith or at least the principles developed over centuries of lip service to Christianity. Jesus is a threat to today's rulers in several ways. First, Jesus' association with Jewish royalty reminds us that the divine mandate on Jewish kings included the requirement to rule justly and not favor the poor over the rich (see the comments on Psalm 72, above). Second, a traditional royal title Christians have always associated with Jesus is "Prince of Peace," a challenge to modern rulers who are frequently tempted--and often succumb to the temptation--to resort to war and violence to solve the nation's problems. Third, kings in Israel were commanded by the Jewish law to provide a safety net for the poor, a mandate too often treated as a bargaining chip in negotiations rather than an absolute necessity that cannot be traded away for concessions in other areas. Fourth, seeing Jesus as a king reminds Christians that their ultimate loyalty is not to one's nation but to one's God and the principles that God stands for, a sentiment not always appreciated by modern rulers, who seek to substitute nationalism for religious devotion. And fifth, acknowledging Jesus as king suggests to modern rulers that they are not the final arbiters of right and wrong and that their decisions are subject to the scrutiny of a power higher than their own.