mercy, mercy me...

“Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” – Mark 7:14-15

I am really troubled and fascinated by the decision of the Scottish legal system to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, who was convicted in the 1988 terrorist bombing of a Pan Am flight over Scotland that killed 270. This man was the only one convicted of anything and there is some doubt out there as to the veracity of the case against him. Maybe it was entirely a politically motivated and fueled trial and conviction, I don’t know. Someone needed to be responsible, no doubt, and although I can’t say whether this guy was implicit or not, I can say that it wouldn’t be the first time that someone had been either wrongly convicted or convicted of something far beyond their actual involvement because a perpetrator was needed to satisfy some sense of justice.

And then again perhaps he was involved, even if only in planning or some downstream funding or organization. Even if his involvement was only at that level, if you are willing participating with a group or organization that believes the killing of innocent victims is justifiable you are every bit as complicit as the one who straps on the bomb or pulls the trigger, in my opinion.

My real issue with this case is what it says about our idea of justice. Is such a thing attainable? If this is the guy who really orchestrated the entire event, would his death even in the most gruesome manner possibly balance the scales against the 270 innocent lives lost? I’m sure that my feeling on this matter would be quite different had one of my loved ones been on that flight, just as I am quite sure that if someone did something to hurt my children I would have vengeance not love on my heart.

Still, the justice system seems like it ought to be built on something other than responding to our passions. When Jesus refutes the eye for an eye normalcy of his time with “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38) it is much more than a refutation of vengeance. He is calling for us to have anger, just not to act from that anger. Just as our anger does not produce God’s righteousness (James 1:20), our justifiable and understandable desire for vengeance does not produce God’s justice.
Perhaps the most meaning in the Scottish court’s actions can be found in this: When the call came for mercy to be shown to this man whose life is over and for whom a small amount of painful existence is left, the answer was for mercy. It was perhaps more than he showed his victims if he is truly guilty of that crime, and certainly more mercy than has been shown to the countless victims of terrorism worldwide. But hell…mercy has to start sometime, doesn’t it?

C'mon Mr. Obama!

As recently as June of this year, a national poll indicated that 72% of Americans polled favored a public option in health care reform. How is it that we are now seeing the death of this as an option? How is it that in the span of a few weeks we have gone from this as a central part of the reform process to an optional one? Can we chalk this one up to effective counter-protests?

In an informal class setting before worship last Sunday, some members of Norman UCC discussed the health care crisis, the reform efforts and what we might glean from all of this both as citizens and as people of faith. We were a collection of mostly “like-minded” people in terms of our politics and views of the role of government and we had several opinions. One of the opinions voiced was that the public option is the way to reform, but it is too much, too fast. It needs to be examined more so that we are sure about where we are headed and what we are obligating ourselves to. Perhaps that is right…it certainly is a more reasoned and practical way of dealing with an issue that evokes many emotions – but mostly fear.

If we don't address the fear, we won't get anything accomplished. I don't believe that the big chunk of us who consider ourselves more moderate and reasoned in our decision-making and conclusion-drawing are living out of the same fear that the fringes are. But the fringes get the publicity and you simply cannot consume that from every direction the way that we have without absorbing some of it. Jesus once said that he is the bread of life and that we must consume him to find the Kingdom of Heaven. That means to me that if we consume fear instead of hope, darkness instead of light and hatred instead of love we will live up to the adage "you are what you eat".

We can discuss many options and you can even look at the proposals side-by-side here. There’s lots of information out there…I guess I should say that there’s lots of propaganda out there, most of it unsupported by any actual information. I have yet to hear anyone who has cried “death panels” actually support that statement with anything other than speculation about what could happen. I mean, theoretically aliens could invade the planet tomorrow. It doesn’t mean that I should be shouting that at the top of my lunatic lungs on my FOX news hour-long trip into crazyville.

Meanwhile, militia membership and activity is up dramatically, the rhetoric and general tenor of “Tea Party” and “Birther” and “Anti-Socialism” movements grows angrier. The powder keg is full, all that is needed is a spark and I’m afraid that it can even be a real powerful flashlight. Fear is controlling and dominating all of our discussions and decisions. What we need is a leader who again will say, like FDR, “we have nothing to fear, but fear itself”.

My disappointment with Obama and the administration is not with the lack of liberal agenda fulfillment. Heck, I know where I live and understand that my own personal political agenda is far too left to be implemented. I’m fine with that. I actually prefer a more centrist government…something that keeps us from swinging back and forth on a pendulum of polarization would be nice. My disappointment is with leadership. Now is the time to lay out good arguments for why we need health care reform and to demonstrate in clear terms how a public option is the best one. The “Obama is a socialist” nuts will never be with you. They are against you because you won the election or because you aren’t in the right political party or, worse yet, because you are black. There’s nothing you can do about any of those issues.

I sense that part of Obama’s pull for lots of people is that we saw an opportunity in him to have a “post-partisan” system in which we made decisions based on what is good for the country, not what makes one party successful. It’s time to go back to the grassroots organizing that won the White House. There are more people, I believe, who want this than don’t. The ones who don’t are simply louder. Let’s not make decisions that way. Evoke your base. Awaken the middle that simply stands and watches the spectacle of what passes for both journalism and politics these days, either too busy or apathetic or disgusted to do anything. That’s what leaders do.

A Citizens' Proclaimation for Sanity

I have had many people tell me that when you point your finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you. This is a point which seems lost on most politicians, the Oklahoma Legislature perhaps even more than average. In yet another example of how we make of ourselves a completely polarized nation, the Oklahoma Legislature takes time out of keeping us 36th in the country in education (2007 rankings), 5th and 6th in the country in divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births to tell you that the source of the recession and the so-called degradation of our society is…wait for it…your morality. (I’m sure it’s not yours, probably someone else’s…)

In a wonderful continuation of Christian revisionist history we are compelled, as most of these arguments go, to return to a time when everything was great and we didn’t have any of these problems because we recognized the “biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives” and did not “forsake the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built”. We are never told when this time was; just believe them when they tell you. Don’t bring up the fact that “biblical admonitions” were the very thing that were used to keep African-Americans in slavery, women from voting and even children working in factories. These same “biblical admonitions” demand that people who commit adultery are to be put to death (Leviticus 20:10) and that every seven years everyone should forgive all debts owed to them (Deuteronomy 15). And while we’re on the subject, you might want to ask a Native American what he or she thinks about our “rich Christian heritage”.

Of course, there are places you can go if you’d like to have a government driven by scripture. They’re called theocracies and perhaps Saudi Arabia or Iran would welcome you, as long as you convert. That’s going to be your problem – no Protestant Christian theocracies to choose from. You’ll have to convert, you just can’t make The United States a theocracy unless you are willing to give up the United States. Because the truth is that while Christianity certainly influences our “rich heritage”, what makes it rich is our freedom. And you can’t have both a Christian nation and a free nation at the same time – you have to choose.

My point is that this argument is really tired yet salacious enough to keep turning up again and again, despite its obvious flaws. The most obvious is that we are founded as a “Christian nation”. Do I believe that many practicing and believing Christians were part of the founding of this country? I certainly do. I also believe that they we wise enough not to place those personal views in the founding documents. The problem is, just like with reading the Bible, we are trying to read these documents with our own values in mind instead of seeing what was written then.

For instance, quoting Patrick Henry and James Madison to support the “Christian Nation” argument is disingenuous primarily because they were on opposite sides of this issue during their lives. James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” was written in 1785 in opposition to a proposal by Patrick Henry that all Virginians be taxed to support “teachers of the Christian religion.” The “Memorial and Remonstrance” remains one of the most powerful arguments against government-supported religion ever penned. Find the full text of the document here: http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html

Three of the people quoted in the “Oklahoma Citizen's Proclamation for Morality” document had nothing to do with the founding of the country. They signed neither the Declaration nor the Constitution. Of the people quoted, it is Jefferson and Madison we must be most concerned with because they wrote the Declaration and the Constitution respectively. Certainly others were involved, but their signatures on the documents must mean that they agreed with the final product enough to have given their approval to it.

Pulling quotes out of context does not give one a viable picture of the turmoil and great debate in which the founding of this country took place.

I could easily counter a Madison quote with this:
“The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." -James Madison

Or I could counter a Jefferson reference with this one:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
--Jefferson from the Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781 – 1785

We can play that game all day because these men lived just like we do – they looked at new information and they changed their minds. They grew and developed their opinions. So, reading quotes doesn’t really give us a complete picture. Looking at the documents that ALL parties signed does give us an idea about what they agreed on.

While God is mentioned expressly one of the founding documents, it is not applicable to simply insert your own personal Christian interpretation of that term, particularly since the founders had a variety of expressions themselves. If the Founders had intended to found a Christian nation, surely they would not have forgotten to leave out their Christian objectives in the Supreme law of the land. Nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." There is a reference to the “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, but this again cannot be taken to mean God in the way that Representative Kern or any other elected official sees it. This is more the God of 12-step groups, a “higher power” that is non-specific for the very purpose of being embraceable by the largest number of people. This is not a coincidence, it is the intention of the Founders so that the church and state could remain as separate as possible.

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.

There is more to complain about than just the “Christian revisionism” and the blatant attempt to co-mingle religion and government (always with the religion of the instigator in the primary slot, of course…because they’re right.) The implication of this document is that our “moral crisis” has delivered us to a state of economic decline and ruin. Yet, the same people who profess this kind of Christian revisionist thinking have largely been in charge of the government for the past decade and nowhere in the “charges” leveled against our nation are things like unchecked greed, disregard for our fellow human beings, lack of love for our neighbors or any of the same accusations that Isaiah leveled against ancient Israel so long ago. Instead we get the same tired list of abortion, same sex marriage, and illegitimate births (among others). It wasn’t anything on this list that caused Bernie Madoff to rob thousands of people of their savings, nor is it same sex marriage that somehow threatens “traditional” marriage to the point of a 50% divorce rate.
If you wish to be helpful, begin to offer solutions that work beyond a glib and over-sentimentalized “return to morality”. It is clear that no side of this (or any other) argument has a monopoly on morality. We your constituents grow increasingly tired of one-upsmanship, the unambiguous support of party over country and the blatant attempts to enforce your own sense of religion as if it were the only answer. If that formula works for you, great. Knock yourselves out in your houses of worship and in your homes. But the capital building is where you serve everyone, not your own narrow interpretation of scripture, history or morality.

Despite my lengthy and somewhat frustrated argument above, my real issue with this is the undercurrent of theology that is present in this document. It is identical to the theology presented after Hurricane Katrina which held that the Gulf Coast was merely getting its due for its sins of debauchery and promiscuity. The idea that God is a vengeful being waiting to smite us with natural calamities, financial hardship or suffering of any kind is certainly present in the Bible. But so is the notion of a God who calls out Jerusalem with judgment but says this: “Look, I will send peace flowing over her like a river…As a mother comforts a child, so shall I comfort you…” (Isaiah 66:12).

God is not a God of fear but a God of love. As a minister of the Gospel I welcome calls for people to live moral lives, but not when they are presented as if there are some of us who do and some of us who don’t – and you know who you are. We all fall short of God’s Grace and the only way that we get anywhere is together in the spirit of love, not compartmentalized by the seat of judgment.


All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. – John Adams

The Ten Commandments as lawn ornament

So here in Oklahoma the legislature, apparently having solved the economic, traffic, education and environmental problems, have spent some good time on a bill to erect a monument to the Ten Commandments on the capitol lawn as a - get this - shrine to the law. That's kind of like saying the Lincoln Memorial is a tribute to beards.

It is pretty clear what the monument is intended to do, regardless of the careful and deliberate wording used by the proponents of this bill. Unfortunately the only legislature in the country to gain GOP seats during the last election apparently feels like its duty is to be the sole bastion of far right wing politics in the nation. Oh sure, there's the Rush and Cheney tour coming to a theatre near you, but they (thank God) can't make legislation.

The bigger issue is not separation of church and state, although that is a biggy. The bigger issue for me as a follower of Jesus and a person who values scripture is that this effort to establish monuments to the Ten Commandments does two things, neither of them helpful. It actually violates one of the Ten Commandments - you shall make no idols for yourselves. It also takes the sacredness of such a covenent and completely trivializes it.

The Ten Commandments are part of the covenental language between God and the people of Israel, the ancestors of both the Jewish and Christian faiths. In an effort to get what they want, the people who are pushing for this have so lost sight of the sacred nature of this covenant that they are willing to say that it is simply a legalistic model for us.

While we can certainly argue that point by itself (frankly we'd be better off with a monument to the Magna Carta if we're looking for our legal basis to be memorialized), I prefer to simply say that the Ten Commandments have a far better home on our hearts than they do on the lawn of the capitol. Let's worry about actually living the Ten Commandments more than memorializing them.

Back to the roots

What kind of God did Jesus reveal?

It is an important question that a friend of mine asks and he goes on to wonder if the battles for Christian theologies/dogma/orthodoxy have not so clouded or damaged or even warped this vision that we must almost "start over". Can the man who said "Why do you call me good? No one but God is good", have been pointing us away from him and toward God the whole time? Is it better that we worship Jesus or follow him?

I talk with people all the time here in Oklahoma who no longer practice religion because they can't buy it anymore. They can't handle the theology or the nature of the church or the plain ol' hypocrisy. They are spiritual people, meaning that connection to God is important to them. But they don't find a place in religion. The question is - is that important?

Ultimately I think that it is because organized religion (and who are we kidding, its not that organized) allows us a chance to practice our faith...to give some structure to our own spirituality. I don't think that you can find God in a vacuum - it is why even monasteries create community. God id found everywhere, true, but isolation leads to unchallenged theology, which is never good.