The Bible Story vs. Bible Stories

Here is an update of a chart from an earlier post. It has not been simplified, and, to get a readable copy, it will be necessary to click on the chart. The reason for the update is preparation for a new Bible study group, and I always like to begin any subject with the view from 30,000 feet. This is an attempt to give a Christian view of Sacred Scripture, the Whole Bible Story, from maybe 50,000 feet…not much detail included. It is a demonstration of my commitment to the *Single Page Principle.

We will probably use this by just taking turns reading and discussing each of the verses, context included.

* My principle that all important ideas and concepts can, with enough work, be illustrated on a single page. It is an extension of Winston Churchill’s position that if someone needed a long speech, he needed very little time to prepare but, if they wanted a short speech, he needed a lot of time.

Jesus and the First Person Singular

In a Sunday morning class, we were watching a Fr. Robert Barron video in which he talked about the modern tendency to trivialize Jesus as a very smart and very nice guy with a good philosophy of life and lots of interesting stories. The fact is, he said, that Jesus was an unusual and disturbing person who challenged those around him and created a lot of discomfort.
He mentioned the question Jesus asked of his disciples, “Who do the people say I am?” and suggestedthat great teachers and spiritual leaders, Deepak Chopra, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, for example would explain a way of thinking and living but would not be concerned about who people thought they were. I could add Tony Robbins, Zig Ziegler, T. D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dale Carnegie, and Norman Vincent Peale to his list of folks who wanted or want to show us a different way (some perhaps making a lot of money in the process) but don’t express concern about who people think they are and don’t use a lot of first person singular pronouns.
It made me think about the extensive use of the first person singular by Jesus. Here are some examples:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” – Matthew 4:19

 But Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”  – Matthew 8:22

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. – Matthew 9:9
“Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven.” – Matthew 10:32
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  – Matthew 10:37-40
 “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” -Matthew 11:29
 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” – Matthew 12:30
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” – Matthew 16:24
“Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.” – Matthew 18:5
“For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” – Matthew 18:20
Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” – Matthew 19:21
 “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  – Mark 1:1
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”  Jesus said, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.‘”  – Mark 14:61-62
“Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work.” – Luke 13:32
“I am he (Messiah), the one who is speaking to you.” – John 4:26
“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” –  John 6:35
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” – John 8:12
He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” –  John 8:23
Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” – John 8:58
“I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.” –  John 10:9
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” –  John 10:11
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” – John 10:27
“I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live” – John 11:25
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” – John 14:6
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” – John 14:15
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.” – John 15:1
Christians read the words “I am,” the most fundamental first person singular declaration, coming from Jesus, especially in John 8:58 above, as hearkening back to the words of God when Moses encountered him in the burning bush in Exodus 3 and, upon being challenged to step up and lead the Children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage, asked God who he should say told him to do such a foolish thing. God replied, “I AM WHO I AM.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.‘”

Jesus was certainly loving in his encounters with many people but doesn’t seem to have been a “Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild” as suggested by a once popular hymn (based probably on Matthew 11:29 minus the “yoke” issue) except perhaps in his dealings with children. With followers and potential followers, he was confident and direct with such imperatives as, “…sin no more,” “sell your possessions,” and “keep my commandments.” His teaching challenges us to focus our own use of the first person singular to statements such as, “I believe,” “I confess,” “I pray,” “I forgive,” “I love,” and “I will.”

We may be in danger of trivializing Jesus by asking a subjective question such as “What would Jesus do?” Often what he did was heal people, cast out demons, or perform other miracles, make outrageous claims or demands on his followers, or tell wise and provocative stories. Those are not things we do very well. It may be more helpful in our spiritual journeys to first ask, “What did Jesus say?” and “What did Jesus do?” Then we can focus on what we will say and do in response.

 

Freedom of, not from Religion

This week there is a report of the beheading of four teenage Christians in Iraq because of their refusal to convert to Islam. I am willing to concede that Islam may be, or may at least become, a religion of peace if it is stripped of and separated from any political or state power, but that is not the current situation. Alignment of church and state is always tragic, and Christianity also has suffered many shameful failings when established as the official religion and sanctioned by the state.

We are still trying to overcome the residual effects of the Emperor Theodosius’s A.D. 380 decision, expressed in the Edict of Thessalonica, to make Nicene Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. How much better it would have been had he simply expanded the concept of freedom of religion begun by Constantine sixty seven years earlier in the Edict of Milan. He should have stayed on “the right side of history” and left such theological endorsements entirely up to the Church. Had he done so, the infamous Crusades would have rightly been seen as struggles for religious freedom rather than as Christian vs. Muslim.

I suppose Mr. Ron Prosor, who explained the current persecution and extermination of Christians in the Middle East in an April 16, 2014, WSJ Editorial, must have no credibility and shares that problem with Canon Andrew White who reported the beheadings. I know of no other explanation for the failure of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN to report daily on this horrible activity. Such stories could displace at least  the regular Kardashian reports.

Last evening Brian Williams chose to dedicate part of his precious twenty two minutes to a bit of fluff about some new study which concluded that men are idiots and do stupid things. He missed a perfect opportunity to point to the current situation in the Middle East, including our role in it, as obvious proof of the hypothesis.

As the suffering and death go on, we can and must give thanks to God daily for the separation of church and state and freedom of religion we enjoy in the United States of America. Such freedom was not a sure thing and was not present in early settlements here. We can thank God for leadership of such as Roger Williams for avoidance of establishment of just another theocracy here in the “Land of the Free.” Let us exercise that freedom and defend it from every encroachment, even as we remember that it is “freedom of” and not “freedom from” religion that we are guaranteed.

As a reminder of early American history, here is a picture I took earlier this week of an explanation posted in The Museum of Charleston, Charleston, SC.

 
 

Jesus…in Context

In the last few weeks I have read “Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters,” by theologian and scholar N. T. Wright, “Killing Jesus” by Commentator Bill O’Reilly and historian Martin Dugard, and a short reflection on the tenth day of Lent, “Why Was the Cross Necessary?” by Catholic theologian Father Robert Barron.  That was all topped off with a single sentence about Jesus from  Paul David Hewson, aka Bono.

Both O’Reilly/Dugard and Wright do an excellent job of putting Jesus in context, O’Reilly/Dugard taking the unusual approach of explaining more extensively what was going on in the Roman Empire and in Jerusalem in particular, and Wright, also considering Rome, but emphasizing the Jewish world view, based on their history, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the fulfillment of prophecies therein.  Wright uses a “perfect storm” metaphor to explain the disruption that occurs when the Jewish world view, the Roman world view, and the arrival of God, in flesh, announcing a new world order, the coming of the Kingdom of God, collide. Both books give a pretty clear understanding of why the crucifixion of Jesus was a quite reasonable, and even necessary, response to Him in the eyes of the powers that were.

The O’Reilly/Dugard book claims to be historical, not theological, and describes Jesus not as a Messiah but only as a man who “galvanized a remote area of the Roman Empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love.”  The only thing that really bothered me about the book was the slant in this phrase describing the response of Jesus to the question of whether it was OK to pay taxes to Caesar: “Why are you trying to trap me? Jesus seethes.” Well, he did address them as hypocrites so maybe he was “seething.”  Or maybe he was just feeling sorry for them. Anyway, such interpretation is more characteristic of historical fiction
than of history. Don’t let that keep you away from the book.  I just want you to know I noticed it.

The Wright book is a theological treatise and goes beyond the crucifixion with chapters titled, “Under New Management: Easter and Beyond,” and “Jesus: The Ruler of the World.”  It is a book that can help Christians see the big picture, the total Bible Story, and avoid the mistakes that easily come from picking and choosing verses out of context and basing ones theology on them.

Then there was Father Barron’s reflection for the 10th day of Lent, pure theology, explaining why The Cross was necessary.  It is very short, and you can read it here.

And, finally, Bono’s declaration.  “When asked, “Who was Jesus?,” Bono answered, “That is the defining question of what Christianity is about… Either he is the Son of God… or he was nuts.”  Note the switch from present to past tense. I will go with the present tense alternative. Of course that is the choice also of Bono, Barron, Wright, O’Reilly, and Dugard.

All of these are highly recommended reading for these last few days leading up to Easter, day one of the new creation.

 

Defining God Down, So He Can Be Denied

Revised, with apologies, December 17th, 2013.

The Experience of God by Eastern Orthodox theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart is a critique of both the faulty logic of modern atheists and of the easy targets provided them by simplistic understandings and explanations of God by people of faith.

To whet your appetite for Hart’s books, he, in speaking of those on both sides of the God-No God debate, argues that, “none of them is talking about God in any coherent sense at all.”  He goes on to write, “…my chief purpose is not to advise atheists on what I think they should believe; I want merely to make sure that they have a clear concept of what it is they claim not to believe.”Hart bemoans the rise of ideological extremism, fundamentalism, not only in religion but in politics, economics, etc., and argues that “the new atheism is often just the confessional rote of materialist fundamentalism...”  He identifies “…young earth creationists who believe that the two contradictory cosmogonic myths of the early chapters of Genesis are actually a single documentary account of an event that occurred a little over six millennia ago…’ as “opponents against which (the new atheism) is well matched.”  Hart identifies such Biblical fundamentalism as a phenomenon of the last century or so and makes the case that it is in no way a return to the faith of the early church.

I suppose we are easily tempted by the first Genesis creation story (Genesis 1) in which God says, “Let us make man in our image,”  to imagine the inverse, God in our image, a sort of super human who creates just by speaking and who would act and rule and judge just as we would if we were perfect and had all that power.  The Genesis writers seem to have done that in the second Genesis creation story (Genesis 2), saying that God created man by taking something available, some dust from the ground, and making something else, a man, out of it, or taking a rib from a man and making a woman from it. That would be crafting or manufacturing, not creating.

This is not to marginalize the beautiful inspired Genesis creation stories that teach essential spiritual truths, primarily that God created and that what He created was good.  Thanks to the divine gifts of self awareness, curiosity, intelligence and technology, we know a lot more than the writers of Genesis about the incredibly complex and ongoing creation processes God put in place.  We can even replicate some of those processes.  We have some evidence about how species change over time and some theories about the origin of species, but we still don’t have a clue about where all this matter and energy and life and reason come from, about how God created out of nothing.  As Hart writes, “The world is unable to provide any account of its own actuality, and yet there it is all the same.”

Hart never mentions Jesus or the incarnation.  Writing about the God that can be found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other major mono-theistic faiths he says, “I want to distinguish…between, on the one hand, metaphysical or philosophical descriptions of God, and, on the other, dogmatic or confessional descriptions, and then to confine myself to the former.”  Of course he is a confessing Christian, but writes, “It may be that one faith is truer than any other, or contains that ultimate truth to which all faiths aspire in their various ways; but that still would hardly reduce all other religions to mere falsehood.”  Hart explains up front that his book “forthrightly and unhesitatingly describes a God who is the infinite fullness of being, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, from who all things come and upon whom all things depend for every moment of their existence, without whom nothing at all could exist.”  It sounds like St Luke, writing more concisely in Acts 17:28 – “For in him we live, and move, and have our being;”
And this from Hart on atheism:  “I acknowledge up front that I do not regard true philosophical atheism as an intellectually valid or even cogent position.”  He sees it as a “fundamentally irrational view of reality, which can be sustained only by a tragic absence of curiosity or a fervently resolute will to believe the absurd,” that, “must be regarded as a superstition, often nurtured by an infantile wish to live in a world proportionate to one’s own hopes or conceptual limitations.”  Could we believers sometimes be guilty of that same wish?
I’m not going to spoil the reading with any more quotes.  Hopefully this has whetted some appetites for a challenging read.  You can get it on your Kindle for $11.99.  And, meanwhile Christians, as Christmas approaches, can give thanks for Immanuel, God with us.

Commitment to Social Spending: More Than a Tithe

Sometimes it helps to provide some historical context for currently observed phenomena. The chart below shows total federal, state, and local social benefit spending, as a percent of GDP, for the United States since 1960, the 25th anniversary of Social Security and five years before Medicare and Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” which featured “Guns and Butter” on its menu.  That philosophy was responsible for the major increase in social spending between 1965 and 1975.

 

I’ve written several times about the major shift in direction for the US economy in the mid 1970’s (Search www.permanentfixes.com for 1974), and one likely effect of that can be seen in this chart, growth in social spending slowing dramatically in 1975.  In 2000, after President Clinton and the conservative congress of his time had collaborated in the 1990’s to end “welfare as we know it,” total social benefits as a percent of GDP was at 1975 levels.  There was an increase in the early 2000’s, maybe due to the Medicare Drug Plan, and then a rise above 14% with the social spending done in response to the 2008 real estate crash.

So, here we are, facing an uncertain economic future, a poverty level essentially the same as fifty years ago when the “War on Poverty” was launched, a national debt of $17T, greater than our current annual GDP, and still borrowing about a third of everything the government spends.  The current approach just doesn’t seem to be working very well.  We have institutionalized poverty, and our economic future is looking pretty dim.

Here is my suggestion: Lets pin total social benefit spending at 10% of GDP, about average for the 1970’s, 1980’s, and 1990’s.  That’s a tithe, and, combined with all the voluntary giving of time and money by our generous citizens, should keep poverty in control.  And, if we stop committing social benefits to folks who really don’t need them, people like me for example, there will be plenty to help the truly helpless even while cutting Social Security and Medicare tax rates on the productive young people who will spend or invest the money elsewhere.

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I first read this 688 page document, paying particular attention to the scripture references, while I was a student at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary eight or ten years ago.  It is great educational and devotional reading for any Christian, Catholic or not, if taken in fifteen or twenty page bite size pieces at a time.  Of course Protestants will find some things they disagree with, but it will be a fairly small percentage of the whole, and those sections can just be ignored or skipped.

I read it again maybe three years ago before being received into the Catholic Church.  It seems to me that life long Catholics have amazingly little interest in this 1994 publication targeted at the American Catholic Church, but for individuals coming from other faith traditions, it is invaluable.  Below is a very abbreviated outline I prepared for introduction of the major contents of the book to persons interested in becoming Catholic or even to Catholics who are not familiar with it.

And here is a more artistic and more creative presentation of the contents of the Catechism.

In One Thing Only

Listening to yesterday’s Gospel reading from Luke 10 about Jesus sending the Seventy out and instructing them to “rejoice in one thing only,” I was reminded that it was the text for the one and only prepared sermon I ever delivered.  Near the end of my three years of Lutheran seminary, I took Professor Tom Ridenour’s Preaching course, not because I ever intended to do any preaching, but because Lutheran preaching is really based on careful and systematic analysis of scripture, with appropriate attention to context and key words, seeking understanding of what the text meant to those who wrote and first heard it and applying that to current situations.  Lutherans are among those who also face the additional troublesome discipline of following the lectionary which forces the preaching pastor to systematically work through most of Holy Scripture during a three year cycle…and then do it all over again.

Dr. Ridenour gave us several texts from which to choose for our soon to be videotaped sermon to the rest of the class.  After the taping, we each met with him, one on one, to review the video and hear his appraisal of our sermons and delivery of same.  I was probably the only student in the class not preparing for a lifetime of such preaching.

Anyway, for whatever it is worth, here are the text and my sermon.  I’m not going to reveal Dr. Ridenour’s appraisal of it, but I did get credit for the course.
______________________________________________________________

Rejoice in One Thing Only
Darryl K. Williams
– April 19, 2004
A Reading from Luke’s Gospel (10:1-20):
After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.  Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road.  Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’  And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you.  Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house.  Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you;  cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’  But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’   “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoeverrejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”  The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!”  He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.  See,I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
If you would like to spend a couple of hours reading a good story of life changing significance, curl up with Luke and Acts and read them all the way through.  These books were written by one person and comprise more than 25% of the New Testament.  We talk about Paul so much that it would be easy to get the idea that he wrote most of the New Testament, but he is in second place.  Luke and Acts together are unique in presenting, from the viewpoint of one writer, the life and ministry of Jesus AND the early years of the Church He established and of which we are members today.  The Gospel reading today describes one of the early mileposts in formation of the Church: The sending out of the seventy.
I would (or at least could, with appropriate reference to Matthew 16:18) argue that the church was born in the fifth chapter of Luke when Jesus said to Peter, in the presence of James, and John, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” That gives us a pretty strong clue about what the church is supposed to be doing.  Peter James and John left everything and followed Jesus.  Jesus took them around the countryside preaching and teaching and healing, and he gathered other disciples who also walked with him and listened to Him and learned from Him as he proclaimed the good news. The church was planted and sprouting like bean sprouts coming forth from fresh moist soil in the warmth of spring sunshine.  People were being caught.
Jesus was always looking for more people who would leave everything and follow him.  He had high standards, and he did not make it easy for those who were interested.   He didn’t just say, “Come on in.  We will work out the details later.”  In the ninth chapter, the original three have grown to twelve, and we find him sending out the twelve to proclaim the Gospel and to heal.  They apparently stirred up a lot of interest in Jesus because just after that we find Jesus and the twelve surrounded by several thousand who have followed them and are hungry.  Jesus feeds them, and then he makes one of his sobering announcements:  He was going to be rejected and killed and raised on the third day.  I guess most people heard the parts about rejection and killing but that the part about being raised went right over their heads.   Then he said, “If any want to become my
followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”
That should bring in the recruits in a hurry.  Follow you where Jesus?  To rejection and death?
Well, Jesus, I do want to do that, but I have some things I need to do first…like live a little.  I need to bury my father…and I need to say some goodbyes…and put my affairs inorder.  You’ll find these objections in chapter 9.
And Jesus says, “OK, but those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.”  And by the way, I can’t guarantee a place to lay your head at night, and you are going to have to put me ahead of your friends and family. Tough words….High standards.
But still Jesus ends up with seventy who are willing to go.  And that is where we find ourselves in today’s scripture from Luke 10…on the crest of a growing wave which is the church.
We may read a bit enviously about these seventy.  They knew Jesus…in the flesh…sat at his feet…learned directly from Him…from Jesus himself.  And Jesus gave them power.   He gave them power and authority to cast out demons and to heal the sick.   Man, would I like to have that kind of power and authority…to cast out demons and to cure people of their illnesses.  Man, I’d be going from hospital to hospital just curing people right and left.  I’d cure them and bring them to church.  I’d say, “You are cured.  Come to Ebenezer (My church home at the time).”  All the doctors would be out of business.  There wouldn’t be any need for all these new heart centers that are being built.  I’d be in the newspapers and have a book deal and….    Oops.  Sorry.  I guess I lost control there for a minute.  Maybe I am having just a little trouble with that part about denying myself.
Maybe some of the seventy went a bit off the deep end also.  They came back thrilled and rejoicing, telling Jesus of their experiences…that even the demons had
submitted to them.  And Jesus has to give them a little admonition about what they should rejoice over.  They should rejoice over one thing only: THE FACT THAT THEIR NAMES ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE.  There was no lack of follow-up on the part of Jesus, their leader, teacher, coach, organizer, source of authority, spiritual advisor, and….saviour.
Jesus gives some pretty detailed instructions in this Gospel reading.  I wonder if those instructions have any practical meaning for those of us in the church today.   OK, sure, I know it’s a different world.  People don’t walk around in the dust in sandals and carry bags of money and stay in the homes of strangers and cast out demons and cure people anymore.  We have sidewalks and cars and credit cards and Motel Six’s and managed care to take care of all those things.  And of course everybody already knows about Jesus and they have all made their decisions.  It’s up to them, and they have made their choices.
But surely we can learn something from the instructions Jesus gave?  There must be some general principles there.  If we read and listen carefully we might conclude that we are all called and sent out…not just the pastors.  Isn’t that what Jesus’ whole ministry was about…calling people and challenging them and teaching them and sending them out?  For Jesus it was not just the twelve, and for us, it is not just the pastors.
We might also conclude from the instructions that Jesus gave that we should pray for help…Jesus says, “Ask the Lord for help…”  right there is verse 2.
If we dig deeply into Jesus’ words and look for principles rather than specifics, we might conclude that we should have a sense of urgency and not waste time…that we should be satisfied with little and refuse to be burdened down by material goods…that our focus should be on others….that we should not get discouraged…that we should deliver a consistent and simple message.  All these ideas are contained in the charge of Jesus to the seventy.
Most of those instructions are all about logistics, but what about that consistent and simple message?  Just exactly what was the message he gave them to deliver?  He told them to say only two things, one in verse 5 and one in verse 9.  The first is “PEACE TO THIS HOUSE.”  The second is, “THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME NEAR YOU.”
PEACE is an important theme to the writer of Luke and Acts and remains so in our worship today.
In the story of the birth of Jesus, the Heavenly Host proclaims, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth PEACE among those whom he favors!”   We will sing the same phrase in a few minutes in our hymn of praise.
When Jesus is taken to the temple for circumcision, he is presented to Simeon who took him in his arms and praised God, saying, “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in PEACE, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,  a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.”  He probably didn’t use the same tune we are going to use for these same words in a few minutes after we share in the body and blood of Jesus.
Throughout the Gospel, Jesus tells those he has healed to “Go In Peace.”  We will hear that same charge at the end of our worship.  And after his death and resurrection, Jesus stands among a group of His followers and says, “PEACE be with you.”  And we will say that to each other today as we prepare for Holy Communion.
The meaning of peace in the New Testament is much broader and deeper than harmony among people and absence from war.   According to the prophets, it would be an essential element of the messianic Kingdom…that Kingdom of God which Jesus says has come near.  The word the prophets used was Shalom.  In Christian thought, shalom or peace is nearly synonymous with the salvation that comes from Jesus.  If you listen carefully, you can hear that deep meaning in all those phrases we use in worship.  When we pass the peace during worship, we are not saying, “It’s so good to see you.  Have a nice day.”  We are saying that we are all recipients of the peace that comes from God through Jesus Christ…that we are recipients of His free gift of salvation…that we are experiencing and sharing that gift together…that the Kingdom of God has come near…and that we too, just like the seventy, have only one thing in which to rejoice…that our names are written in the Book of Life.
Thanks be to God who gives us the strength, as we share together in the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, to continually deny more and more of ourselves and to follow Him more closely.

Sargent Shriver, “A Good Man”

I just finished reading A Good Man, Mark K. Shriver’s highly personal biography of his dad, Sargent Shriver.  Probably few people under the age of forty have heard of Mr. Shriver, but a few essential facts are well documented in Wikipedia, and there is no need for me to try to reword them.

Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr.; November 9, 1915—January 18, 2011) was an American statesman and activist.
As the husband of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, he was part of the Kennedy family, serving in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
Shriver was the driving force behind the creation of the Peace Corps, founded the Job Corps, Head Start and other programs as the “architect” of Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and served as the United States Ambassador to France.
During the 1972 U.S. presidential election, he was George McGovern’s running mate as the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. Vice President, replacing Thomas Eagleton who had resigned from the ticket.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargent_Shriver)

He was also heavily involved in his wife’s founding and operation of The Special Olympics.

The Wikipedia article goes on to say that Shriver was a devout Catholic, attended daily mass, and always carried a rosary.  His son’s biography focuses on that central theme of his life, his faith.  Mark sees his father as a person who focused his entire being on loving and serving God and his fellow man with great enthusiasm and without reservation, a strict follower of the two greatest commandments, a man who always lived in the moment, looking forward with excitement to meeting God in the life to come, and worrying not at all about mistakes of the past or challenges of the future.  He took these words of Jesus seriously:

Matthew 6:33-34  But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today. 

Politically, I would be the opposite of Mr. Shriver.  But, my conclusion based on his son’s understanding of his life is that if we all loved and served as he did, motivated as he was, all those labels that divide us, conservative and liberal, rich, middle class, and poor, gay and straight, White, African American, and Hispanic, Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian, would fade into insignificance.  We could be conservative without being A Conservative, liberal without being A Liberal, etc.  Our identities would have nothing to do with race or sex or fiscal leanings.  We would each claim only this identity: “Child and Lover of God.”

Read the book.  It is inspirational.

 

 

The Burdens of Wealth and Covetousness

The meaning of “wealthy” has changed significantly over the centuries.  In Biblical times, Abraham was declared wealthy because of his “flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, camels and donkeys.”  His son, Isaac, “had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him.”  Isaac’s son, Jacob, “grew exceedingly rich, and had large flocks, and male and female slaves, and camels and donkeys.”  Job had “seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred donkeys, and very many servants.”  Well, I’ll take some silver and gold, but you can have the rest of it.  Having such wealth sounds like a lot of worry and work and responsibility to me, trying to make sure all those servants are faithfully shepherding and feeding and watering and protecting all those sheep. I have enough trouble just keeping my one house in good shape.

Economic conditions seem to have been different in New Testament times with Roman currency established as the medium of exchange, buying and selling of goods commonplace, and existence of solid middle and upper-middle classes.  We have the example of the “rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus,” and provided a tomb for short-term occupancy by Jesus.  And there was “Lydia, a worshiper of God…from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth,” who, after being baptized, opened her home to Paul and Timothy.  It must have been a spacious home. There was Zacchaeus, who was “a chief tax collector and was rich,” but not rich like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been.  After all, he had climbed into a tree to see Jesus, having no servants to lift him up.  Wealth is relative.  I’m guessing that with the Roman Empire at its peak and with zealous tax collectors such as Zacchaeus at work throughout, most of the real wealth at that time belonged to the empire and to the emperor and his buddies.
We know enough about those centuries between the end of the Roman Empire and the invention of the printing press to know that the chances for economic prosperity were slim.  There was a vast divide between the wealthy landholders and those who were allowed, under feudalism, to eke out a meager sustenance working that land for the primary benefit of the landowners.
In the 21st century, most of the wealth of the wealthiest consists of no more than records, sometimes just digital information, that show “ownership” of so many shares of various companies or mutual funds or certain numbers of bonds, the values of which fluctuate daily for strange and mysterious reasons.  There are some wealthy landowners, such as Ted Turner who owns two million acres, but for most truly wealthy people, multi-millionaires, the tangible things they own, land, houses, cars, horses, etc., make up a negligible portion of their holdings and the much bigger portion consists only of those ownership records.  Values of such holdings are intangible and subjective and can change in the blink of an eye as everyone who owned Lehman Brothers bonds in the fall of 2008 or who bought Apple stock six months ago can attest.  And, if the records of ownership were to disappear or the rules governing ownership were to change significantly, as under Chavez in Venezuela, the ownership could be lost.  Our system, as it has evolved, is very fragile and faces threats as serious as and far more mysterious than the Biblical moths and rust and thieves.
But one thing about wealth has remained true over the centuries: Most of the wealth is and always has been held by a small percentage of the population, at least partly because only a small percentage of the population is both capable of and seriously interested in building and preserving wealth and bearing the associated burdens.  Hard work, disciplined planning, and delayed gratification often lose out to excessive credit card debt, irrational consumption, and advertiser incited envy, all of which bring burdens of their own, neither more nor less problematic than the burdens of wealth. Those of us who suffer from such may heed the warning to, “Go the ant, you lazybones.  Consider its ways and be wise,” or the commandment to “not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Sometimes envy, or covetousness, may be incited by talk of spreading wealth around.  For those burdened with credit card debt as a result of having been tempted by persuasive advertising to consume irrationally, or even for those feeling sympathy for ones so suffering, the idea of spreading some wealth around may seem very enticing.  Just force Warren Buffett to sell some of his shares in Berkshire Hathaway and send that money to Washington, DC, for redistribution.  With his or her share, the recipient of new funds can upgrade to an iPhone 10, buy a new battery powered car, paint his or her house, or invest in Berkshire Hathaway.  Chances are slim that the choice will be door number three and even less, door number four.  The house will continue to deteriorate and somebody else will have to buy those shares Mr. Buffett sells.  So, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Even with all these problems, we can take comfort that wealth or lack thereof is not important in the long run because “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions,” because “The rich and the poor have this in common: the LORD is the maker of them all,” and because we should “not be afraid when some become rich, when the wealth of their houses increases.  For when they die they will carry nothing away; their wealth will not go down after them.”  We can just hope that the wealthy will invest wisely in job creating businesses and industries for the benefit of the willing and able and will give wisely to help those who can’t help themselves.
Note: The quotes above are all from the Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version.  And, yes, I am well aware of the many Biblical warnings to the rich, not the least of which is that phrase, “go down after them,” in the last quote above.

Tweet
Follow @dkw2020