Jesus Occupying Wall Street? Not Likely

The question on everybody’s lips is…? Well, perhaps not on everybody’s lips, but certainly rattling in a few minds in West Michigan. “Would Jesus join the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ crowd?” I’m not sure, but I’m thinking that he probably wouldn’t.  My assumption is that, if Jesus were walking amongst us in the flesh, he would not be anywhere in the United States, save perhaps Detroit or Flint. More likely, the Messiah would be in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Gaza and the West Bank. But, just for the moment, let’s consider what the Bible has to say about Jesus, the early church, and Rome – and – even Wall Street.

I’m not sure that Jesus or the Apostles would be camping for weeks in one place to protest unequal distribution of wealth. My understanding of Scripture is that the first-century “Jesus Movement” was too busy healing, feeding, and preaching repentance  in preparation for the oncoming Reign of God. There might be groups of folks in the Bronx that needed to be fed and healed of AIDS. There might be groups of revolutionary groups at Columbia that were preparing to make trouble on Wall Street. The Beloved Disciple would see students arranged in groups of action, and write that Jesus, above all, would preach about the oncoming realm of God, and then insist that he would not  be the kind of leader that would want him to be.

Perhaps Jesus might have gone to Bank of America for a moment. He might challenge the consumer choices that Americans (rich and poor) make, and the choices we often make when it comes to exhibiting faithfulness to the market economy instead of the economics of God. He might go into a Wall Street brokerage and overturn a table in condemnation of how people’s lives are manipulated by unethical market practices. He might

However, let’s again consider John’s Gospel and the feeding of the 5000.   Folks preparing for the trip to Jerusalem for Passover came to Tiberias to hear him preach. John said they these folks were prepared to  “make him king.” Now, a gathering of 5000, in the first-century, was equal to that of a Roman Legion. Jesus refused to lead such a group. Yet, because Jesus refused to lead Galilean peasants into Jerusalem like a Roman Legion, it does not mean he didn’t offer liberation from the reality of unjust economic systems.

John remembers that the disciples, when finding that this Passover “army” was in need of feeding, were looking to spend some of the money they had to feed them. They did not have enough to feed everyone, but that was their first thought. There they were, a people ready to be lead to salvation, they didn’t have enough to eat! Actually, in the first-century, hunger was a fairly common experience. Lot’s of Galilean food went to feed the Romans. Two hundred denarii would not feed a legion.

Jesus knew this, of course, but John says he was “testing the disciples.“ Instead of participating in the economy of Rome, Jesus used the meager resources of the community and miraculously fed the “legion” of Tiberias. There was no need to occupy Jerusalem during Passover making demands on the Temple elites. Perhaps Jesus knew that, what was needed was a community of disciples who took care of one another. Whether rich or poor, pure or impure, sane or crazy, Jesus invited all and sundry to repent and  receive salvation from an economy that lured people into financial realities that did not reflect God’s will. Like Wall Street, the economy of Jerusalem and Rome necessarily marginalized the importance of community. Jesus called all folks, not just rich folks to repent of the sin that prioritizes the struggle for financial and political power over faithfulness to God. Perhaps, those who occupy Wall Street are looking for a more just economic system. The question is, does the concept of human rights guarantee that all will be able to live an economically stable life, or that everyone should get a piece of the consumer pie. Another question is, whether the Bible, or Jesus, was concerned about human rights. I believe that Jesus was concerned with justice.

However justice, whether it be economic or social, often calls for those who are well within their rights to move on up the economic ladder to forego those rights. Often, justice calls for prioritizing community over individual rights, and I’m not sure the Wall Street protesters are any more willing to eschew individual privilege any more than Wall Street brokers are. Funny thing is, they all say that what they are doing is for the benefit of the human condition. The problem might be, however, that they are more invested in beating the other side than in forging new relationships. There seems to be a concept that someone must lose before justice is achieved. It is Jesus and the prioritizing of reconciliation that will liberate them from the need to dominate over one another. For Christians, the assumption of privilege comes with the duty to pay Caesar what belongs to him. Caesar gets his percentage of the cut. Disciples get the bread and fish dinner. At that point, it’s simply a question of where God wants the church to be.

Media driven memories

This week at staff meeting, we were discussing prayer requests and I invited others to distance themselves from media for the rest of the week. But don’t assume that the media, and the vast number of ways in which humans now communicate electronically with one another, is something that necessitates value judgment. Very often, we hear criticisms of mass media, or of artistic representation, that place a negative or positive moral value upon the representation, and the means through which it is disseminated. Quite often, we get angry with the way an event or data are presented, and jump immediately to quarrel with the assumptions that we perceive are underwriting a potentially flawed, if not outright fabricated, presentation.

 

My prescribed distancing from mass media this week, as far as I have been able to maintain that distance, was motivated by just such a concern. I remember exactly where I was onSeptember 11, 2001. I was a student atKuyperCollege, and in between classes talking with others. A student approached us, and suggested we go into the lounge to look at the television, as something was happening that we should be troubled with. It was at that time that I saw the pillars of black smoke, seemingly being sucked out of the two buildings in a manner that seemed as though God was trying to reverse the damage, but was not up to the task. I won’t forget that image, and the confusion that lasted through the rest of that day.

 

That evening, my daughter and I walked up to the store in Cannonsburg to get some things for dinner, and the line of cars waiting to buy gas at that same store was nearly a mile long. That is another image.

 

The third image (an audio type) that has stuck with me, was listening to WOOD radio over the next few weeks (we didn’t have a television then or now), and how public service announcements were exhorting me to make purchases to help keep the American economy strong.

 

As limited as it seems, those are the images, or types, that remain in my mind. Without television, and without having a computer or internet access in my house until about three years ago, I have not really been exposed to further 9/11 imagery. Whatever existed in my memory, as related to that event, has passed by, leaving only certain images to inform my present reflection.

 

Yet, despite the lack of imagery, I have heard – I’ve listened – to many conversations, and expressions of sadness, mourning, anger, and rage associated with the terror attacks. I’m not sure if it was Bill, or someone else, that remembered how unified everybody seemed for a while after the attack, until it all fell apart at some unidentified point in time, when the urge to vindicate our sense of honor overtook the need to heal and move forward – somehow more self-aware of our new place in the world. Quite often, the 9/11 attacks have become ammunition, just as the Bible is often used as ammunition, to gain political points or hurl socio-religious darts at those daring to compete for souls that should rightly fall to our God (or nation, or us). And I want to make this clear, the co-opting of 9/11 imagery is not limited, or even used more unashamedly, by one political side or the other.

 

From Michael Moore movies to conspiracy theorists and public opinion letter writers, the 9/11 tragedy has been used shamelessly to manipulate others in attempts to garner political support, maintain power, or shame the behaviors of our perceived enemies. The imagery of 9/11 has been used to manipulate every one of us to support one way of thinking, or degrade another. Far more importantly, however, is the way we have allowed media imagery to stand firmly in the way of our ability as Christians to reflect together on the event, and listen to one another, to our neighbors, and to the world, in a manner that gives meaning to the destruction of so many. Indeed, the destruction has carried far beyond the skyline of world’s greatest city, it’s most powerful military structure, and it’s most pastoral fields of green.

 

Repeated imagery of destruction and murder fuels anger, rage, or depression in those who view it. When we learn to associate those images with, not only sadness or anger, but with our personal sense of strict justice, political power, and all that is wrong with our neighbors, we lose sight of how God has called us through Christ to respond to evil. I’m not sure there is any way to properly describe the events of September 11 other than evil. However, the matter of evil has never been limited to attacks on ourselves, or our representative strength. And the way that our God chose to incarnationally respond to evil had very little to do with justice, political power, or identifying all that is wrong with our neighbors. God’s action against evil is shown to us in the cross. And the problematic process of introspect is made clear in the actions of Jesus, who prayed that he might be released from traveling the “moral” high road. All the while Jesus was mocked and hung on the cross, his enemies stood in ridicule, and arrogantly demanded that Jesus, or the his God, rescue him from such a humiliating end.

 

Interestingly enough, the gospels are filled mainly with stories about Jesus’ life, and how he responded to evil, or corrupted souls, or the poor and marginalized. Just think of Samaritans. And if you think Jesus was perfect, and didn’t understand rage or anger against enemies, think again. He called a foreign woman who begged him for healing a dog. He then repents, and heals. The story does not indicate whether the woman from Syrophoenicia felt called to forgive him, or rage against him. She simply reminded Jesus of her own humanity. Normative humanity is what we find in the gospels, and we find how hard it is to maintain such grace as normative.

 

I believe the key to being fully human is to listen, and reflect, if we are to make the biblical life normative for ourselves as believers. We all deserve to be listened to. Like many others, though, I am best at making my feelings and opinions known to others. It takes much more to listen, and then reflect upon the experiences of others, as we respond to the events of life that indicate to us in every way that evil exists. Quite often, my first response to matters of justice is that I want justice met on my end, and in a manner that fulfills my construct of justice. Yet, if I read the Bible, I realize that God has different ideas about justice than I do, and ultimately, so do others around the world who have not shared my experiences.

 

However, it is impossible to listen, or properly reflect upon God’s love and grace, if we are consistently allowing ourselves to be bombarded with media imagery from 9/11 for weeks at a time, or see it otherwise associated with political and policy battles. This is not a call for all imagery of 9/11 to be forever erased. That misconstrues the point. My intended point is, if we are to put the events of terror into perspective ten years after the event, we must find a way to properly experience a range of emotions, but also, the feelings of others. Hyperbole informs anxiety, and in the case of terror, our anxiety is always related to the “other.”  It seems to me that such anxiety is a fairly normal, indeed healthy, response to terror. Yet, after ten years, it may be time for our anxiety to be directed toward our failure to be reconciled as a nation a decade later, and our seeming failure to navigate through the process of Christian and biblical response to the reality of evil in our midst. How do Christians come to the realization that much of our anxiety might be related to our concern that God might expect us to sacrifice or suffer in the same manner that our neighbors do?

 

I have the memories of 9/11, as I mentioned above. I also have a singular image that I keep so that I don’t forget what evil once looked like. It is a front page of the Detroit Free Press, with the image of the collapsed towers. You see, It’s not that I ever intend to forget tragedy, or ask others to. My fear is that I forget that God commands reconciliation. Forgiveness, contrary to the old adage, does not include forgetting. It means faithfulness. And, quite honestly, I’ve got no call or business to forgive anyone. However, it is my call or business to reconcile, and it takes a nation to accomplish such a task.

A few thoughts on the impracticality of faith

There is nothing worse than being “proof-texted” by someone who wants to challenge your opinion. There is a popular refrain in our house, during a meal that occurs during hunting, butchering or other occasions when fire-arms are in use. “No guns at the dinner table!” Of course, this kind of humor is not so funny to those who don’t like guns, and it implies some sort of dangerous behavior may occur due to our carelessness.

However, the quote comes from a scene in the movie “Matewan.” There is a very tense moment between a young union coal miner and a company gun. When the young miner is offended by the degrading tone of the company agent, he rises to strike his persecutor. Immediately, the persecutor draws his pistol, and aims it directly at the youth’s forehead. Grandma is sitting at the table, and when she sees what occurs, she states, in a matter-of-fact tone, “Ain’t no guns allowed at the dinner table mister.” Of course, as we might assume from various Thanksgiving holiday stereotypes, the fact may very well be that not bringing guns to the dinner table may be a wise decision with attention to extended- family preservation.

So, when my family was sharing hospitality with a friend from seminary, we were bantering back and forth about life and my daughter Emma said something that was quite “challenging.” After some back and forth, I recited the commandment concerning the honoring of parents, and Julie from the seminary said “Oh, no! You can’t proof-text at the dinner table.” We shared a laugh, and to this day, when we are talking around the dinner table and someone uses a Bible quote to make a point, even a light-hearted one, someone will quote Julie about dinner-table Bible references.

Yet, there is among Christians, especially in the United States, a tendency to resort to guns and proof-texts to resolve conflict. While the above story exhibits an example of my family’s perhaps limited sense of humor, it also represents the nature of how we view the Bible and the potential for violence to deal with conflict, especially within the confines of our families and faith communities. This spills over into our relationships with others.

Few proof-texts, which quite often take a specific text out of context to support an argument of some sort, are able to resolve any king of disagreement, yet our use of them as supports for our own thinking means we view the Bible as a tool to support our beliefs about God, and not necessarily vice-versa. Quite honestly, there are few things less credible than a pacifist saying that there is never any legitimate use of violence, and quoting Jesus’ exhortation to love one’s enemies. Simply because Christians may be called to non-violence does not mean that others should be somehow coerced to assimilate to such an ethic. Followers of Jesus have been chosen to follow a specific ethic that is worked out within the context of a faith community, and the community’s reflection on the words of God might be quite different than the reflection of another. Proof-texts, like gunshots, are not proof of truth. They only serve to end a conflict until another family member comes along.

Yet, as far as religion and truth goes, we are still levied with the burden of how human beings access God’s truth. We have the stories of Jesus, and how he lived his life of total faithfulness, even though such faithfulness ended in his execution. It is fairly obvious from the life of Jesus that self-sacrifice is a foundational aspect of God’s desire for those who confess that Jesus is blessed over all. However, when we discuss the nature of Christian decision making and perspective in regard to disagreement within our congregations and faith communities, one can hardly prove a point by saying that Jesus told us to “take up our own cross.” Quite honestly, telling another person how they should bear a cross individually generally implies that it’s your own cross you expect them to bear. Proof-texts are not proof of anything other than, perhaps, self-absorption.

That being said, the fact remains that there are aspect of the Bible, in both Testaments, that make us a little uncomfortable with the expectations of humanity that the text attributes to the Creator God. The fact remains that Jesus does ask us to pick up our cross, and turn the other cheek, and love our enemies. In light of this fact, Christians have had to do some theological and spiritual gymnastics to live with the book that is the primary informant of our faith perspectives. In light of this uncomfortable truth, the gymnastics often reflect the following thinking:

Jesus lived a perfect life, and we cannot be perfect.

Jesus lived in a rural and agricultural community and economy. We are not peasants of the first century, so the ethic does not apply to us.

Jesus had no political or spiritual authority, therefore he could not direct or coerce justice from a position of power. We have a different obligation in regard to maintaining justice.

And for some, the perspective is such: Jesus’ life, as recorded in the Greek Testament, is God’s representation of “normative” humanity. Thus, when a Christian community is confronted with threat, brokenness, or injustice, it is the life and ministry of Jesus that represents God’s response. Of course, believing that Jesus has as much to say about living and being in relationship to one another is as important as believing that his death has significance. There would be no record of Jesus’ ethic if they were not important to the reasons for which he was executed, and then, resurrected. Of course, we all know that the teaching of Jesus cannot be reduced to proof-texts. It takes some investigation and some interpretation to reach an understanding of God’s desire as we experience the risen Christ.

Many folks will use the easiest proof-text of all, “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Such a statement is not only a limited and unhelpful response now, but it was in the first-century as well. The person that Jesus was discussing those words with needed an interpretation. “Who is my neighbor?” In the 21st-century, we have the advantages of historical criticism and place-in-time expertise to make better sense of this. The parable indicates that even Israel’s biggest enemies, the Samaritans, were neighbors. This, of course, is like saying that Americans might view Al-Quaida as our neighbors, and that such folks cannot be immediately rejected from relationship. In fact, the stories of Samaritans, tax-collectors, Roman soldiers, leperers, prodigal sons, and prostitutes are all intended to show that those who we feel are representative of the worst sorts of folks are welcome in our midst. Perhaps Jesus is telling us that stretching boundaries and bridging borders make it easier for others to feel like they are in a safe place.

Welcoming enemies, and acutely broken, or, evil persons, is not an easy task. A church certainly should not decide that all behavior is appropriate for a community and that all boundaries should be eliminated. Identity is important. So is accountability. The church requests, and even demands, specific behaviors that indicate an ethic reflective of Jesus’ life. Yet, the fact that we feel more comfortable with certain boundaries does not mean we can disregard the biblical text as it relates to identity, boundaries, and sin or evil. And, when confronted with parts of the Bible that disagrees with our sense of justice or propriety, we say it is an unachievable ethic, or that Jesus really understood what the 21st century was like, and we can re-interpret in a way that makes it meaningless to our own time. We can easily do this with proof-texts. After all, God does a lot of smiting here and there.

I think the story of Jonah indicates the real problem for modern day Christians. It is not so much that we run away from God. I believe we all do that at one time or another, and God’s faithfulness can bring us back into perspective when we are right to receive grace. Remember, Jonah’s biggest concern was why he ran from God’s righteousness. God wanted the prophet to preach salvation to Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire that totally destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and initiated the Diaspora status of the Israelites. Indeed, Jonah in the 21st-Century is akin to Elie Weisel, the Nobel Laureate who wrote Night, preaching to the Nazi’s about the grace and mercy of YHWH to all who repent. Weisel himself was a Holocaust survivor.

The real reason Jonah ran from God, which is indicated by his acute anger after Nineveh repents and is speared by God, is that Jonah hates Nineveh, because it destroyed his home, and scattered his people. Genocide and murder occurred, and God tells this prophet to go preach repentance that the evil of the empire might be saved. “That is why I fled to Tarshish,” said Jonah to God. “For I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing.” As such, not only is Jonah mad that God forgives evil after repentance occurs, but that God sends a humiliated and victimized prophet to lead the murderers to saving repentance and mercy. If we ever feel like Jonah, we know the feeling of a divine knife in the back.

Of course, you know the end of the story, and it does not end well for Jonah, because it appears as though he rejects out a stubbornness God’s faithful forgiveness, mercy and grace. God tries to teach Jonah a lesson by growing a comforting shade while Jonah sits in the heat and hopes against hope that Nineveh will somehow turn into the salt pillars of Sodom. The shade is killed of, and Jonah is terribly angry, for not only is Nineveh saved, but his only comfort is gone, that of material comfort. Jonah can take no comfort in the presence of God, he simply wants to die. When God asked why Jonah would not anticipate God’s love for a part of creation, which God labored to create and was home to life which God values, Jonah refuses to understand. “Yes, I am angry enough to die,” he says, and leaves it at that. Jonah, just as Wesley states is possible, rejects God’s grace out of hand.

So, when we are confronted with the call to love our enemies, we tend to either excuse away the matter of the stories, or simply find proof-texts to dismiss the importance of reconciling with enemies. We will find as many proof-texts that allow us to continue on mired in anger and resentment, and reject those that indicate otherwise as being inapplicable. What might be worse, however, are those Christians who preach reconciliation, and simply use proof-texts to exhort others to change their behaviors, why not working to provide any example of what it looks like to be a peacemaker, or love one’s enemies.

What proof-texters don’t realize is that brokenness and angers is not a simply sinful behavior, but a state of being that has roots in significant issues related to evil, voicelessness, marginalization and personal or family trauma and injury. Christians cannot expect others, even other Christians, to just assume everything they feel is wrong, sinful, and should rejected as illegitimate. The Bible can only be made true by living it out. The words are never enough.

The choice remains, however, when the texts are pointed out and we are confronted together with the realization that God asks us to renew our hearts, that this is what God intends for all who claim Jesus as Messiah. While we know this, we suddenly have choices. We should not expect an immediate change in our hearts, but simply recognize that Jesus has been given to us so that we may access truth. Jesus shows us that we must also sacrifice our assumptions and feelings of comfortable chaos if we are to fully understand what God’s forgiveness and grace me to each of us as individuals. Because we do not want to change, however, does not indicate that we should not identify the life and ministry of Jesus as fully representative of God’s truth for us. Ww simply must work together to find ways to support one another and live this truth the best we can, and when we fail, admit to ourselves that it is our sin, and not that of our enemies.

Our choices are very difficult, and one of those choices are to reject God’s mercy and grace out of spite. But it is not us who God sent Jesus to vindicate, for many of us already claim faith. It is us that God is sending, that enemies may know divine grace and mercy. Our choice is to burn with rage, rage at our enemies and God, and then we may choose to wither on our spiritual vine. God will reign sovereign at any length, and God’s purposes will be accomplished. It may only be a question of whether or not we want to do the work.

July 3 message, or, how to make people angry in Church

Well, the Sunday July 3 sermon was not without glitches. The message was a little garbled, as I had failed to set up the appropriate slides for the planned sermon. So, I winged it, and it probable sounded like that. There is one aspect of the service, however, that I’d like to discuss, and hopefully, there might be some dialogue that results from my reaching out and offering an explanation.
Rev. Bills forwarded me a very respectfully written communication from a person that responded with a significant amount of concern (perhaps anger) pertaining to the performance of “America the Beautiful” that coincided with a video of building in the City of Detroit that had been, in the language of many Detroiters, “Demolished by Neglect.” The primary concern was, not only that the presentation was disrespectful to the song, and offended a sense of patriotism on a day set aside for celebration of the emergence of an independent American nation. Also, a concern was expressed that the video, in combination with the song, was politically motivated, and therefore had no place in a church service. If one person was offended by this presentation, than I assume that others were offended, if not the very least uncomfortable with the perceived message of the performance. As such, I’d like to share how my point of view as a Detroiter, and a Bible-centered Christian, informed this presentation. I am not sure if the reader will view this as a lesson in biblical interpretations that are driven by life experience (hermeneutics), or perhaps a treatise on diversity, or an obvious “apologetic” (defense) of a political agenda. As recent philosophical thinking suggests, the writer or speaker immediately loses the ability to dictate the meaning of the words once another reads or hears them. At any rate, I am providing you all with the text of my response to the thoughtful concerns expressed by an individual, who, had the presence of mind to wait a few days to express feelings so as to be clear and concise about how I had negatively affected their worship experience That Sunday.

I am sorry that I have not been able to know you. I hope to soon, perhaps over lunch with Bill, as he suggested. I am grateful for a few aspects of your correspondence with Bill. First, you obviously spent some time thinking about the video presentation, as the email was not sent to Thursday evening. That means to me that you seriously considered your feelings before reacting. Indeed, such reflection indicates that you did not “react, but responded with concern. Anger often prompts honest responses, and reacting often indicates rage. If you were feeling rage about the video, I am grateful that you were able to respond as you did. As Bill indicated, I am from Detroit, and lived in the poorest zip code in Michigan, and then the third poorest zip code in Michigan. Lake County is sandwiched in between. My experience of the human condition is greatly informed by my experiences of the inner-city, and the view of the world that is prevalent in such communities. I certainly chose the video, and when it was suggested to me that America the Beautiful was a fit for the choice, I heartily agreed. My own experience, and the experience of many inner-city residents, is that the video shown on Sunday is a representation of America that is often marginalized as undeserving of a place in the ongoing American dialogue concerning the matter of a national identity. My concern, however, and the purpose of the video and the beautiful accompaniment, is with the issues of the greater Christian community. As the Monty Python video was meant to represent, human economies are based on empire, and it is through empire that economies develop and ingenuity finds support. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Detroit, and the State of Michigan’s history. My intention with the video, however, was to put on display what occurs when the church leaves the city behind. In my old neighborhoods, great protestant churches stood empty and falling, as the old members died, and their children then stopped driving in fro the suburbs to keep them going. The churches that stayed, well, their membership were quite scared to provide outreach. Only African-American churches tended to do so, or missions. To many, it seemed as though God had left the city. Additionally, the video was in keeping with the prophetic admonishments to Israel and Judah, and what happens to God’s people when unfaithfulness reigns. There are a wide variety – numerous examples – of God and the prophets promising destruction of Israelite civilization, with city walls crumbling and a mass exile of the citizens of Judea. The result of such exile, or exodus, as some prefer, leaves the city of Jerusalem to the poor, just as in Jeremiah. When the exiles come back to Jerusalem, they lament over the vast destruction, and begin the task of rebuilding the city. Unfortunately, they perceive the people who stayed behind as impure, and cleansed the altar because the people left behind had continued to worship there. They then excluded those very faithful people from worshiping at the new altar. Of course, those people of the land became known as Samaritans. Al of this, whether in the prophets or Lamentations, suggests that the wrath of God does not spare even the mighty, but will bring low Jerusalem, and the once mighty Detroit. If you read Lamentations, and the Psalms, you can imagine the Judeans remembering the songs of Glory and conquests, the celebrations of David and Solomon and the exodus, as they stood among the ruins to rebuild.
Truly, when I see Detroit on return visits, I find that many things are missing. Old homes, businesses, apartments, and, old friends. For me, this is entirely a biblical issue, and not an issue of electoral politics. It is an issue of the politics of Jesus, however. For in the story of Jesus, we find that even the Samaritans are welcomed back into the story of God. Not only did Jesus reveal himself to the Samaritan woman at the well, but Jesus indicated that even the Samaritans, whose country Jews would refuse to even walk through, were neighbors that not only deserved love and justice, but should be invited back to worship with those who had before separated them from the people of God, and stripped them of their identity. The Bible indicates that many Judeans rejected the message of reconciliation and that one must live a life of faithfulness. According to Jesus, and the Judean historian Josephus, God again judged Israel, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed for good in 70CE according to God’s wrath. How does the church respond to God’s wrath, and what songs inform our understanding of the church’s call to faithfulness? It would be beneficial if a congregation could decide on the response to that question together, but, many of us, especially myself, have our singular filters through which we view the Bible and experience the divine. If there is one thing I have learned through writing and preaching, is that I loose all control over the meaning of my words and others interpretations of those words. All interpretations of my work are legitimate, if only because legitimate personal experiences inform interpretations. So, having tried to explain the meaning behind my decisions, I respect your concerns and the way you communicated them very much. My apology is not for my work, but for my failure to realize that others might be very hurt and angry at my representations of specific aspect of America. I should have made it clear, or considered another venue, though there is no better venue than worship to identify our inner discontent and find meaningful ways to express it with others, and share it with our God.

God’s Peace,
Scot Miller M.Div., MA Religion, MSW
Director of Adult Ministries
Georgetown United Methodist Church

Heretics, Methodists, and Rob Bell, Oh My!

Ok, Pete asked me to write, and I’m feeling a little controversial. (That probably surprises most of you that know me.) For a few weeks now, I’ve heard more about Rob Bell’s new book than I’d like to, but I did read it, and even posted a facebook review for those who might not believe I would read it. I also read it due to the fact that many of you who attend Georgetown are very interested in what all of the fuss is about. Most people might respond that all the fuss is about heaven and hell, and how central these concepts, or truths, are to our expression of faith, and our belief in the veracity of the Bible. The big question for many who have, or who have not, read Bell’s book is, “Is this man saying the Bible is not true?” Now that is a loaded question, and a lot of folks have been gunned down whether trying to answer it honestly, or failing to answer it correctly.

Yet, the legitimacy of the Bible is not the question we should be asking about Rob Bell’s book. Indeed, the question might rather be, why is this book controversial, and how do we respond to controversy. The past four-hundred years have been filled with theological controversies that refuse to this day to be settled. Realistically, since we no longer burn people at the stake in our country, there is nothing gained by applying the “heretic” label to anyone, for any reason, because it no longer has much meaning. At least, not in the intended pejorative sense. Heresy as such, however, can now provide a valuable contribution to those who state they are Christians.

First, modern charges of heresy are intended to marginalize people from organizing sustained theological challenges to ancient dogma. It is difficult, however, for individuals who are not invested in maintaining dogma to take such charges seriously. This is evidenced by the plethora of denominational interpretations of Scripture, up to and including such “salvation dependent” issues such as the Arminian challenge to Calvinist, Scottish Presbyterian, and Puritan insistence on election.

The concept of positive human response to the fact of grace was once rejected as being impossible by early Church leaders like Augustine. The great one of Hippo thoroughly squashed the concept of human responsibility, and the potential for faithful spiritual maturation. While Augustine considered that there was a potential for humans to reject grace, he still believed that, on their own, humanity was doomed to failure without the extension of grace. Only god could pull you up by your spiritual bootstraps. That did not necessarily suggest a concept of predestination, however.

The opponent that Augustine squashed was known as Pelagius. Pelagius was teaching that human beings were not affected by “original” sin, but were born with a potential to identify sin and overcome it. In fact, Pelagius is said to have preached and written that, because of free will, human beings could choose to do right or wrong. Supposedly, he stated that Adam set the bad example, and Jesus set the only worthwhile example, that of sacrifice and obedience. Once spiritually mature, a disciple could conceivably embark on a journey toward perfection. Pelagius, as it turns out, was forever labeled such a heretic that, centuries later in England, James Arminius was often labeled as a “heretic” for teaching, well. Pelagianism. And then, well, Enter John Wesley.

First, however, we should identify that Arminius was not a “Pelagian” theologian. He did believe in free will, but that freedom was exercised within the context of original sin. Within this concept, Arminius believed that human beings were capable of responding positively to the world around them as they experienced and accepted the grace of God that exists beyond mere evidence of predestination, which he rejected as an uninspired concept. With free will, and without predestination, Arminius believed that individuals had the ability to reject salvific grace at any time, thus opening themselves to eternal condemnation.

John Wesley, to whom Methodists owe their origin, was an Arminian over and against the Puritan leaning Calvinism of the Church of England. Wesley, like Arminian, would reject the concept that had existed for 500 years or more that Christ had died for humanity by paying the penalty due to sinners as demanded by a God whose honor could not be reputed by the fact of sin. Arminianism, and later Wesleyans, believed that Jesus died for every person, not just those predestined, and that Jesus could not have been paying a penalty for sin, because if he had, then no one could go be eternally damned. According to Arminius and Wesley, if individuals had the free will to reject grace and salvation, then Jesus could not have paid a penalty for all though only some would benefit. He must have suffered so that those who were bound by original sin could be forgiven, experience saving grace, and choose obedience as a means of, well, achieving a spiritual maturity that closely resembles that perfection that Pelagius spoke of in the Fifth Century. Wesleyans have identified this opportunity for perfection as Sanctifying grace, part of that process through which the disciple continuously receives revelation and responds freely through obedience. I’m not so sure Wesley was ever identified as a heretic, mostly because, by the time he was preaching in public, there was religious toleration in England, and there were no consequences for “heresy” due to the fact that families had spiritual and ecclesiastical options. The Anglicans were no longer the only game in England.

Interestingly, according to the prevailing understanding of then canonical texts, Church theologians wrote about grace and salvation in a manner that most closely resembled Pelagius, and not Augustine. Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and others wrote that, when Jesus said such things as “let your light shine” that disciples were capable of choosing to do good. Others suggested that, if we did not have the choice to do good by our own choice, we could not do any thing but evil and therefore could not logically be held responsible for our sin. So how did Pelagius become a heretic, and Wesley, not so much more than a mere thorn in the side of Anglicanism?

Many contemporaries of Augustine were not exactly sure why he was so concerned with the teachings of Pelagius, and his understanding that such a teaching was a threat to the Church. Naturally, catholic understandings of doctrine are important, but it is hard to imagine that such an issue was one determinant of salvation, when grace was considered to be conferred through sacraments as distributed through the Church. Politically, the Church had been unified throughout the Roman Empire during the Council of Nicea, where the theology of Arianism, an understanding of the Trinitarian aspects of God, was laid to rest by the triumph of Athenasius. Of course, Arianism was labeled a heresy. Yet, the Council provided the unifying factor for Emperor Constantine, and removed the threat that religious schisms would threaten the empire.

Perhaps then, we might see the Augustine – Pelagian debates as part of an ongoing challenge to all institutions, that being, the challenge by new disciples to change as the Holy Spirit directs our understanding of God. Augustine was aging when he decided to take on Pelagius and marginalize his theology, but Augustine’s age most likely had very little to do with his fear of new thinking. More likely, Augustine was concerned about his authority, and, his theological legacy. If he did not challenge opposing viewpoints, how could he ever be considered by others to have a grasp of truth? Augustine’s concept of self may have had as much to do with his destruction of Pelagianism as it did with a fear of potentially lost souls. Augustine’s legacy was being challenged, and his total corpus of work, and, perhaps his faith, were felt to be in jeopardy by an opposing theological understanding.

With Wesley, there was no legacy, or, perhaps economic and ecclesiastical realities dictated that the Church no longer found it expedient to throw a dog into such fights. There were new worlds to conquer, and economic stability and growth to maintain without disenfranchising many of the faithful. Anglicanism would reject Wesley’s teachings, but didn’t do much to silence him. He simply chose not to make himself much of a problem, because there was no ultimate victory that needed to be one. But, what in the world does this have to do with Rob Bell.

First, the questions we must ask are, what is at stake when dogma is challenged, and what have these challenges produced in our collective spiritual past. I believe that we might value the presence of such challenges, whether heretical or not, because they in fact have very little to do with salvation, and perhaps more to do with limiting popular experiences of the Divine that might challenge our own spiritual and theological stagnation. The question about Rob Bell and his concern with heaven or hell is not one of heresy, because, quite honestly, very few people care outside of that group of believers who are committed to their spiritual investment and the expected returns. Rob Bell is rocking the boat for some, not because what he says is dangerous, but because he is, with the help of a major publishing concern, publicizing the questions that has been asked by many who have felt that, in effect, not only were Christians refusing to answer, but were refusing to even listen to. Stock answers and party lines only go as far as the choir.

So I am not viewing the Bell controversy as a concern for heresy, because the world doesn’t care about heresy anymore. In fact, we now exist in a marketplace of ideas, where people want to see truth claims lived out and bearing fruit, and not just stated as fact because they have been for 400 years. The fact is, predestination, and even heaven and hell as consequences, are not ancient biblical teachings. They are just not a concern of our Hebrew and Israelite forbearers. Quite honestly, most Christians are interested in controversy because we are starved for spiritual, intellectual, and practical growth, and we aren’t finding that in our churches. Bell is not the first to state any of the concepts that are the focus of his book. They are basic seminary questions that have been dissected by theologians, linguists, and historians. The answers are yours to choose from, and quite often, we choose what is safe, and not what fosters growth and an experience of the Divine working in our lives in new ways.

So, Bell is viewed as a threat, more than likely because he is charismatic and he relates well with the general population. He speaks the language, he dresses the part, he is hip and challenging, and resembles a safe way to rebel against our staid institutions of worship. The funny thing is, none of this would be possible if it were not for the fact of major publishers who put Bell on every available media outlet. He’s not saying anything new, no more than Wesley or Pelagian was. But he is threatening the life work of a lot of people who are apparently more invested in being vindicated by public debate than by their faithfulness to the Creator God. Funny, this Creator God is known primarily, and perhaps wholly, through the life of a heretic. There is even a few books written about him.

Advent Observations

Please forward all complaints to joy@gumonline.org

Every December, the birth of Jesus is remembered throughout Christendom. However, I have observed Advent as encompassing the liturgical overtones of dual truth claims. For Americans, Christmas is, not only a celebration of a savior born, but a celebration of a triumph of another kind. I believe Christmas is as much a celebration of American entitlement, and acts more as Christian propaganda, as it has been a time to reflect upon what the birth stories mean in our lives. We are meant to be a people who confess that Jesus is our sole authority over all matters of faith and practice. Yet, we have become a culture that celebrates our faith in a saving act of God by participating in the sacraments of consumerism – desire, decadence, and debt.

With feasts apparently bent on celebrating majority status more than reflecting the context of Jesus’ humble birth, we commit mostly to loving those who love us. We gain worth by giving, not so much in memory of Jesus, but in a manner that asserts our ability to maintain appearances. While we consume in the name of Jesus, we triumphantly thrust our majority status upon all, not only confident in own religious faith, but in the belief that our faith is properly vindicated by the complete absorption of all into the spirit that fuels, not faithfulness, but a faith in the economic and political superiority, maintained through the use of Christian language. This attempt to publicly legitimize faith, and the use of faith to underwrite socio-economic privilege, has consequences. Biblical values are commandeered to dress up utilitarian ethics as Christian in origin, then manipulated to support political supremacy. “Jesus gave us freedom – we must defend our freedom through torture.” This is not a question of policy, it is one of Christian ethic.

When I reveal that my family does not put a tree in the living room, or give gifts, to our children, others ask, “what about the kids, don’t they miss out?” I’m not sure. However, mountains of gifts and Santa’s lap, or debt designer jeans, do not indicate that Jesus has any meaning in our lives. Children should be gifted, along with our spouses and families, every day of the year. As a Quaker, I believe that every day is holy. Every day is to be lived as a celebration of Jesus, and it should be made evident, not by crèches in public places, but in how we love our neighbors and the poor.

We have reached a point where matters of faith have been co-opted as support structures for entitlement. Our economy is built upon a sense of financial and consumer entitlement that has reached a point in our market system where corporations are dependent upon meeting Christmas sales goals to stay solvent. Michigan will suffer if we do not buy enough to benefit the state through the six percent sales tax that is levied upon our purchases. What does this indicate? That Jesus come to save privileged economies by lending his name to consumerism? Or has Jesus come to save our community from the fiercely independent stream of individualism that we use to excuse our mass consumption as a provision of individual and family worth, or, therapy.

In their hearts, some are let down, so removed are we from relationship with that aspect of Jesus which is truly saving. Arguing about Merry Christmas or Season’s Greeting, and then telling them they are only valued when they acquiesce to immersion, is not indicative of Grace. We reflect God’s gifts by reflecting appropriately upon the birth of God’s anointed. We give to the poor, and clothe and shelter those in need; visit the prisoners, and serve one God, for God and mammon cannot both be served.

The birth stories, and the God revealed through Jesus, are done no justice by our purchasing video games and designer jeans as expressive of God’s love. Such faith firmly commits us to economic idolatry in which we serve the gods of entitlement and sing the hymns of our deserving, and not the amazing aspects of grace. Christmas illumines us, not by our love, but by our collection of stuff. Is this where we get worth from, and is this our sense of Christmas purpose?

God does not abhor free markets. I do not believe that God is done a disservice by wealth. I do believe that God will not be marginalized by consumption, especially to a point where consumer choice is identified as a standard of blessing. Indeed, God’s standards are established by manger and cross.

Proposed programming for Winter/Spring 2011

Hey Georgetown, Please look through the following proposed calendar of Adult Christian Programming and let me know what you think. Please comment or email me, and let me know your thoughts and suggestions.

January
Wednesday 5th Jesus Seminar Presentation
Thursday 6th Methodism & the Christian Community

Sunday 9th Comparative Religions Abrahamic Faith
Thursday 13 Methodism & the Christian Community

Wednesday 19th Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Thursday 20th Methodism & the Christian Community

Sunday 23rd Comparative Religions – Far Eastern Faiths
Thursday 27th Methodism & the Christian Community

Sunday 30th Doubt Box

February
Thursday 3rd Methodism & the Christian Community

Wednesday 9th Sexuality and the Bible
Thursday 10th Methodism & the Christian Community

Sunday 13th Love and Logic parenting presentation

Wednesday 23rd Presidents Day First Amendment and Christianity

Sunday 27 Doubt Box

March
Wednesday 6th Spiritual Disciplines

Sunday 13th The Apostle Paul and the Role of Women in the Church
Wednesday 16th Georgetown University

Wednesday 23rd Georgetown University

Sunday 27th First Chapter of John’s Gospel
Wednesday 30th Georgetown University

April
Wednesday 6th Georgetown University

Sunday 10th Holy Week and the First Easter
Wednesday 13th Georgetown University

Friday 15th Simplicity Retreat
Saturday 16th Simplicity Retreat

Wednesday 20th Georgetown University

Sunday 24th Doubt Box

May
Wednesday 4th Diverse views of Atonement

Sunday 8th The Matriarchs, Ruth, Hannah, and Mary

Wednesday 18th Daniel, Mark 13, and the Revelation to John

Sunday 22nd The Social Gospel or Radical Faithfulness

Sunday 29th End of Season Dinner and Doubt Box

What’s going on at Georgetown

Hi folks,

Christian adult education has been underway, and we have quite a bit going on in the way of programming.

Most of you know that Georgetown University is on Wednesday evenings for the next four weeks. A light meal is served at 6pm, and programming begins at 6:30. Deb Berg is doing a Spiritual Exploration group, thoug you might ask Deb if there is still an opening. They are trying to maintain a sense of intmacy and continuity.

Carol VanderNat, however, has plenty of space in the Library for her group. If you like Andy Griffith, you love Carols group. She chooses an episode of Mayberry RFD, and then asks the group to participate in a discussion of the spiritual aspects of the show, and how the values exhibited by characters in the series relate to our own values in the context of our faith, and our contemporary culture.

Pastor Bill and I are responding to questions chosen from the Doubt Box. Folks contribute question, and a few are chosen and read to the group. Lively discussion ot the spiritual, biblical, and theological aspects of the issues follow.

Other upcoming events.

A dinner will be held by Pastor Bill and Scot in honor of those members who have been at Georgetown the longest, including many charter members. Look for an invitation from staff for the opportunity to participate and share memories of GUMC in its infancy.

Bill has an ongoing program on Tuesday evenings concerning the origins of Scripture. This offering will be continuing through March, and it begins at 6:30.

On Wednesdays in December, Scot will be offering a discussion group centered around the Advent Conspiracy programs. This is a four week group concerned with how Christians have come to observe the birth of Jesus, and how we might reclaim the religious and uplifting nature of the event, in response to the consumer culture that has marginalized the significance of teh messae of the Messiah.

Lots will be coming in January, but two things are set. Pastor Bill’s course on teh origins of the bible will continue, and Adult Ed. groups on the particulars of Methodism. This group is open to all folks interested, and will also serve as an introduction to membership for those wishing to join the Georgetown community.

I am considering ongoing Wednesday or Sunday evening programming for the winter, perhaps alternating between the two days to coincind with youth group events. Please let me know what about any ideas or questions that you might have.

God’s Peace, scot miller

When Christians Get it Wrong: Faith, Science, and Politics

When Christians get it wrong… a few words about science. One of the things to consider about this chapter of the book some of us are reading is that the subject of politics is included in the header. While my program this Sunday will focus mainly upon the apparent tension between faith and science that exists for some of us, I would like to focus on the political aspects of this tension, and why the issue of science, faith, and fundamentalism, are such a sticking point for Americans.

Much of the reason we feel uncomfortable about the issues of fundamentalism, and sometimes, our own faith in God or creation, is due, on one hand, to fear, and on the other hand, to embarrassment. We are often in fear of six day creation believers because we believe that it is an irrational concept of what is real. Such fundamentalism is scary to some of us because a some folks are flying planes into buildings, keeping there wives in submission, or killing women’s health providers. While many of us may have a more nuanced language to describe women’s reproductive health, or abortion, we fear those, or get angry at, people of faith who call doctors and women “baby killers,” no matter what our views on abortion are. Many mainstream Christians prefer the Rodney King response to extremism. “Can’t we all just get along?”

I also feel that faith is sometimes an embarrassment to some of us. When confronted with challenges to the existence of a god, or our God, or resurrection or virgin births, we have a tendency to explain our faith in negative terms. “Oh, I don’t believe in virgin births or resurrection,” we usually say. “Or, we assure people that we are not “fundamentalists” so that we can reassure them that we will not be attempting to save their souls or condemn them to hell if they don’t allow Jesus into their hearts. Believe the main reason we don’t tell others the positive aspects of our faith is we are afraid of being challenged or ridiculed by those who might perceive us a weak or provincial, or worse, intellectually stagnant, if we say that we have a sense of certainty, not only about our faith, but of who God might be as reflected by our congregation.

Yet, I believe the main reason we resent six day creationists who refuse to accept the progressive findings of the scientific method, or continue to maintain that the Bible is inerrant, word for word, without contradiction or historical inaccuracy, is mostly political. Oh, we might laugh a little at their beliefs, but we rarely laugh at others like the Amish or the Hutterites. We rarely view Orthodox Jews as threats to our well being. Basically, Americans are pretty much reticent to tell others what they should or should not believe about God. However, fundamentalist Christians are not reticent about sharing their faith, and this makes us uncomfortable. But when fundamentalists attempt to control the nation’s political destiny and use literal interpretations of Scripture to support power grabs, we get angry. We are fearful of the possibility that religious radicals might manufacture enough political capital to facilitate a return to Sunday Blue laws, quiet sexism, or, as happened about a decade ago, the curtaining of a century old statue representing justice in a government building because the artistic nudity offended the Attorney General.

So, I propose that Christians are getting it wrong, but not necessarily when they claim that the Bible is inerrant. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant, but I do believe it can be an infallible resource. In fact, my own belief in the value of Scripture might seem conservative to many who attend Georgetown, including Pastor Bill. I don’t think that constitutes as fact that I am getting it wrong, though. I believe Christians get it wrong when they try to legislate their personal, congregational, or denominational ethic on the rest of America, for instance, when some churches put pressure on Texas schools to include Creationism in high school text books. Since Texas orders the most text books, it creates a situation where much of the rest of the nation is stuck with texts that present this point of view, because text book makers do not make different editions for different states. Such political action perpetrates an atmosphere that smack of forced baptisms that converted most of Europe centuries ago.

This is Constantinianism at its worst, which means that the Church is relying on the nation state to evangelize. The Roman emperor Constantine not only decriminalized Christianity, he began the process of making the faith a state religion, and very soon, allowing Rome, and not Bishops, to decide who could take communion and who could not. And this history folks, is the beginning of a history of Christianity getting it wrong. The political evangelization of the “other.” Forcing the six day creation perspective on others is not different than the forced baptisms of early medieval Europe. Let’s remember, we should never be ashamed of our faith, and we should put in the effort to assert and articulate our faith perspective in a comfortable manner. We should remember, however, that the gospel is only good news when it is received as such, as the gift that it is, and not forced upon the “other” as a legislated and legally binding truth claim.

Is God a God of Judgment?

The funny thing about the biblical concern with judgment is the different way in which Christians (and non-Christians) tend to view the concept. A lot of folks, who have used certain proof-texts to suggest that Christians should not make moral judgments in the case of others, do not like the idea that God might display any characteristic other than grace and forgiveness.

Other folks tend to go overboard with belief that some god of wrath may call all of those who confess Jesus by name up into the air. Everyone else is condemned to a post-mortem furnace where you have neighbors that are poking you with pointy sticks for eternity. That does not seem like judgment, but more like the torture of enemy spiritual combatants. Hey, I’m just saying, a legal case has been made.

If the reader is expecting that I’m going to argue for some kind of a middle ground that will please the majority that stands somewhere in the middle, that won’t be the case. I don’t like to resolve biblical or theological tensions by accommodating a watery spiritualism. The fact seems to be, that Israel experienced what seemed to them to be a God who was full of lovingkindness, grace and forgiveness, but often got angry. According to the prophets, God displayed a righteous anger.

Now, I don’t know if every incident of anger attributed to God, such as the massacre of thousands for apparently disrespecting the Arc of Covenant, is fully representative of the true character of God, but I am sure that the people of Israel felt that was the case. Like good Mennonites, they probably thought they deserved it too.

Of course, Scripture is self-correcting, and even represents a God of repentance. Think of the story of Jonah. God was threatening to unload a boatload of wrath upon Nineveh, but sent Jonah to give the citizens of that great city a chance to repent. In the Authorized Version, Jonah 3:9-10 suggests that God repented as well. Nineveh, an empire that practiced evil in the form of militarism and violence, was called by God to repent of violence, and the citizens responded positively, and in humility. According to Jonah, God responded to this corporate act of repentance by “relenting” (NASB) of the violence that was about to be divinely unleashed against the very nation that God sent to “punish” the Northern Kingdom.

Interestingly, the text never suggests that Jonah repented, or, relented, even though he finally acquiesced to God’s instruction to preach repentance to Nineveh. Jonah followed the letter of God’s desire, but he had no change of heart. He did not, as Nineveh and YHWH did, repent of the extreme anger and violence that dwelt in his heart. Jonah was a hater. Even when God displayed a grace that Jonah must have firmly believed in, or at least believed that the potential for forgiveness existed, by delivering Jonah from the belly of the fish, Jonah could not overcome, or turn away from, the burning hatred that existed in his heart.

The question remains whether a god exists that would have destroyed Nineveh as though it was another Sodom and Gomorrah. But I do believe this about YHWH. The God of Abraham and Sarah, who we believe is known through the life of Jesus, responds positively to human repentance. Where is the potential for judgment in all of this? Nineveh experiences salvation because it has turned away from violence and degradation. When human communities turn away from violence and place their trust in a God who responds to such faithfulness, they enjoy the aspect of grace that come from a relationship of self-emptying and humble trust that YHWH will indeed save. It is the “kenosis” attributed to Jesus in Philippians. Judgment is displayed when human communities continue to rely upon violence and coercion as a means of maintaining a sense of security, and, of responding to fear. We fall apart as a community, never satisfied with the potential for grace that exists when we sense that God is somehow involved in history.

So, I contend that God does get angry, and does judge the evil that exist in human communities in the form of violence and injustice. And, as we refuse to repent from our violence and our capacity to maintain social and economic injustice, we will suffer the “wrath” experienced when we suffer the consequence of unfaithfulness, a feeling that we might never, ever, be secure in what we have, to the point of spending trillions on defending a life-style that, well, angers God. Isaiah would say we have become “fat and sleek.” This is what Israel and Judea experienced in exile. This is how the people of God interpreted that event.

The other question remains, should we, as followers of Jesus, stand in judgment of others. Mathew clearly states that we should, with forgiveness being the primary goal of making judgments against our brothers and sisters. Forgiveness, and repentance, not only on the part of the brother who offends our community sense of justice and peace, but full repentance in respect to our own anger, our capacity to be offended, and our capacity to allow hatred to dwell in our hearts like Jonah did. If God can forgive sinners who have committed evil, how can we not respond by doing the same. Suggesting, however, that God does not get angry or practice judgment is the kind of cheap grace that allows followers of Jesus to feel better about our own refusal to reconcile with our enemies, and forgo the hatred that drives us into, well, an experience of God turning the divine face away from us. Such feeling of isolation is an experience of wrath that we most often attribute to our own failings. That is one tough burden to carry.

Finally, I am not quite sure why we believe that the judgment of YHWH is a necessarily a bad thing. For if we believe in a God of grace, forgiveness, and mercy, would not the righteous judgment of God be a great event in human history, where the Creator makes everything right, just, and properly and intimately relational in our existence? Why would judgment, if God indeed has the potential to repent in response to human faithfulness, not judge according to the intentions of humanity, over and against our failures. This is what Jesus is concerned with when he preaches for us to “repent, for the realm of God is upon us.” Indeed, when God does not judge our enemies according to our satisfaction, whether they be Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, or fundamentalist Christians, do we often respond like Jonah did, and fail to repent of our own anger and hatred?

Please send all complaints to joy@gumonline.org