Trump’s Wall and the Cross

[SPOILER ALERT: THIS POST TAKES AN UNABASHED, “NO-HOLDS-BARRED” POSITION REPUDIATING THE BUILDING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BORDER WALL WITH MEXICO. IF YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR SUPPORT OF TRUMP OR HIS WALL CHALLENGED, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.]

First, this is a theological blog, not a political one. However, there are times in which issues which have their origin in politics impinges so directly and so profoundly upon theology and ethics that to ignore them means a retreat from Christian convictions. This is one of those times.

Second, I admit there is an immigration problem to be addressed by the lawmakers of both the United States and Mexico (and possible other nations). This is a serious, and I dare say, entrenched, problem that calls for thoughtful, deliberate, and above all, a unified approach if it is to be solved.

Third, I support policies that provide for safe, legal immigration to the United States, and also defend the sovereignty of this nation. Those who are drawn to our country are drawn to us for a myriad of reasons – and they should be given every opportunity to do so LEGALLY. The line between legal immigration and illegal immigration is not really all that fine. It should be defended and protected.

With all of that being said, a few days back I made a comment on my Facebook page and also on Twitter that apparently upset some folks. Without repeating everything, I just pointed out how not all that long ago President Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin wall and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” I opined that the same people who thought that was a wonderful idea are now supporting the building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico – kind of a strange, and in my eyes, a wicked form of hypocrisy.

I was challenged, and I must say in a very polite and generous manner, by a young man who had the dubious honor of being one of my students. I regard him as being thoughtful and sincere almost to a fault. But, in his defense of Trump and the wall, I must say he (and those who think like him) are just wrong.

To my young friend there is no difference between the wall and other forms of “security” such as the walls Israel has constructed – or any nation for that matter (I pointed out that Communist nations have had walls for decades if not centuries, but that did not impress). For him, as for many Trumpsters, the wall represents security and national sovereignty.

To that I say, “Exactly how?”

Let’s just cut to the chase – building the wall will make the U.S. no safer, and will not solve the immigration problem, to any greater extent than the confiscation of every firearm will solve the problem of violence in America. If you think that a little bit of steel and concrete will stop human trafficking and the influx of drugs and illegal immigrants into the U.S., then I would politely, yet pointedly, suggest you are under the influence of a special kind of logic inhibiting drug. Let’s unpack that a little, shall we?

Proponents of banning all guns (or at the very least, all handguns) in America argue that without guns, America will be safer. Those who defend gun ownership respond (and I agree) that is a specious argument. There will never be a way to confiscate all handguns, what will happen is that criminals will always have access to handguns, and only the law-abiding citizen will be damaged by such a ridiculous proposal.

Proponents of building a wall to stop illegal immigration argue that the wall will prevent all (or at least the majority) of illegal immigration. Again, a specious argument – do you really think someone who is determined to enter the U.S. illegally will be deterred by that silly wall? It might keep out the migrant workers (upon whom so much of our agricultural output depends), but for the hardened trafficker or drug runner that wall will simply be a speed bump.

And, let us be perfectly clear about another issue – the wall will do nothing towards solving the greater problem of WHY people are fleeing oppressive governments and are “yearning to be free” in the land of opportunity. Illegal border crossings are not the disease – they are the symptom that indicates the disease. Building a wall will NOT address the underlying issues that will simply re-appear in different forms somewhere else.

Trump’s wall is nothing more than an ideological symbol of American (read white) supremacy masked as a “law and order” effort to stop “those” people from coming into the U.S.

Christians should repudiate that ideology – and the symbolism – as clearly as we can.

I return to President Reagan’s famous declaration. It was, in one incredibly short and powerful sentence, a statement of the core of America’s greatest gift to the world – that all people should be free, and that walls that create hatred and animosity must be torn down. Torn down, not by military aggression, but by the simple power of human dignity and respect. Trump’s wall creates hostility and distrust – read aggression – between many people who are more closely related economically and culturally than they are to other people in their own countries of legal residence. Trump’s wall is nothing more than a facade – a symbol (and a false one at that) – of security and “legal” obedience.

That’s my political take on the subject. Now – let us consider what Scripture has to teach us.

Consider such passages as Amos 5:14-15, 21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Hosea 5:6; Isaiah 1:16-17, 8:12-13, 55:8-9, 58:6-7; Jeremiah 9:23-24, 22:3, 34:17; Leviticus 19. Consider how God repeatedly told the Israelites to be kind to the alien – as they had been aliens and slaves in Egypt. This is a common, and well noted, theme throughout the Old Testament.

But also consider Matthew 5-7! Read Matthew 23. Read Matthew 25:31-46. Consider James 2:1-13!

Consider Ephesians 2:11-22 where the apostle Paul goes to extreme measures to point out that Jesus “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility” so that he might “reconcile us both [i.e., both Jew and Gentile] to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” You see, in the Kingdom of God there can be no walls. Walls separate, Christ unites. Walls create division and hostility. Christ brings peace.

Just a note, but if you try to argue that the above passages pertain to Israel or to the church, and that he has another set of ethics for the world, then I politely but emphatically argue that I am not an Augustinian nor a Lutheran, and I do not ascribe to the “two Kingdoms” ideology. God may hold those who are aware of and who accept his laws to a higher degree of obedience, but he never, ever, said that he had two sets of ethics or moral absolutes – one for the “secular” world and one for his kingdom. (Read Romans 1-3)

If it was right to celebrate the destruction of the Berlin wall, then it is now wrong to celebrate the building of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. If it is now right and proper to build Trump’s wall, then it was wrong to applaud and support President Reagan. You cannot have it both ways.

You can attempt to defend Trump’s wall on purely pragmatic grounds – that it will stop illegal immigration. I am fully convinced that is a foolish, even ridiculous argument, but you may have it if you wish. I must add here that the cost of this foolish endeavor is five billion dollars! The building of the wall is immoral simply due to its cost. Just think how that money could be spent on policies that would have an impact on illegal immigration. It just boggles the mind.

You can also attempt to defend the wall on purely political grounds – that it was Trump’s promise before he was elected, therefore he should try to get it built. That, in sum, is why I think most people who support the wall want it built. That wall will be a collective “thumb-in-the-nose” to all those mean, nasty, ugly liberals. However – let’s be real here. Trump will not be president for long, and what kind of reaction will transpire when the next Democratic nominee is elected? Revenge is a dish politicians love to serve hot or cold, and I shudder to think what is in store two, or at the most, six years from now.

However, let us be clear. You cannot defend the building of the wall using any semblance of Christian doctrine or ethics.

For Christians, standing on this side of the cross, building Trump’s wall is just flat out wrong – and the whole of Scripture supports me on that statement.

Let us ascend by climbing lower.

A Week Without Social Media – A Review

Last Friday I made a radical, and some might add, too hasty decision. I had spent a sleepless night fretting over an argument I was having with someone I don’t even know regarding an issue that neither one of us had any inkling of the truth of the matter. Now, stop and think about that. We did not know each other. We were both making assertions the other thought was wrong. And, in perfect honesty – neither one of us was in a position to know any of the facts of the case. All we had was some quotes and a lot – I mean A LOT – of speculation and incendiary accusations.

When I finally woke up on Friday I thought – phooey with this. Why am I losing sleep over an event like this? So when I got to my office the first thing I did was to deactivate my accounts with Facebook and Twitter. I still have one “social media” account, but I have to admit it is about as useless as it can be. But it doesn’t cause my blood pressure to go ballistic, so I’m keeping it for a while.

Anyway, what I was getting to was this – here are some reactions to a week without Facebook and Twitter.

  • I really, really miss some aspects of Facebook. FB was how I kept up with many of my friends and professional acquaintances. That was how I learned about their joys and their hurts – and got to see some pretty hysterical pictures of pets. Cutting off all of that is pretty disorienting. I wonder if anyone is missing me – but that in and of itself reveals that much of my social media interaction was all about ME, so maybe God was letting me know how selfish I was becoming.
  • On the other hand, I do not miss the political posturing and hate memes at all. I had friends that were all over the political spectrum, and it was pretty distressing to see the vitriol expressed by people who I knew to be good and thoughtful friends. I could not care less who they supported or what issue they hated, but their FB posts made it impossible for me to keep up with them and avoid the drama. I know there was the “unfollow” and “unfriend” options, but then how was I to keep up with them?
  • Twitter, on the other hand, has become a garbage dump. I realized at one point that I was following certain persons – leaders within the Church of Christ with a large following of both real and “internet” persons – who were posting comments that were blatantly unchristian would have infuriated Jesus. They were not just border-line comments that could be excused as opinions or feelings – they were outright scandalous in nature and revealed the most bitter and hateful heart. I now have zero respect for those leaders, and I even question those who support them.
  • I have realized that I am going to pay a pretty steep price for deactivating my accounts. A purely tangential benefit of my FB and Twitter accounts was that I was able to keep up with the newest books and trends in theology. In the past week I feel like I have just had my left hand amputated. Somehow I will need to figure out how to stay abreast of this information via other sources. I just have to find those sources.
  • Another price to be paid – FB and Twitter were two avenues that I used to broadcast my blog posts. Now millions of my devoted readers are bereft of my profundity. “Meaningless, meaningless, everything is vanity and a chasing after the wind.”
  • You might be tempted to argue with me that all I have to do is to focus on the good and ignore the bad. The only problem is – FB and Twitter posts were created for the very specific purpose of NOT being ignored. No one posts a meme or tweet and then says, “boy, I sure hope no one pays attention to what I just said!” That is the big lie of social media. You can’t argue, “it’s just my opinion, get over it.” When you disparage a public figure, when you blindly accuse someone of murder, when you post bitter, hurtful words that are clearly intended to cause someone else to hate what you hate, you cannot just say, “I’m entitled to my opinion.” You may be – according to the US Constitution. But since when is being legal being right? Since when were the words of Jesus rescinded – “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” When was it that Jesus retracted his statement that the two greatest commands were to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and the second greatest command was to love others as we love ourselves? If we would not physically treat someone with such disrespect if they were in front of us (and with Jesus standing nearby), why do we think we can get away with treating that person shamefully just because we are “anonymous” on social platforms like FB and Twitter? I confess – I have stooped to the very behavior I am condemning, and it is primarily for that very reason that I deactivated my accounts. “If your FB or Twitter feed causes you to sin – CUT IT OFF!”

I won’t lie and say the past week has been easy. On way more than one occasion I have been tempted to restore my accounts “and just listen,” but then I realize my self-control when it comes to “just listening” is about as useful as putting up a stop sign in front of a hurricane. My FB and Twitter accounts were changing me – and I assure it it was not for the better. You can only drink poison for so long before it takes its effect. I know there are many good things about FB, less so about Twitter. But sometimes you have to put up barriers around your spiritual life to protect that which is the most important to you.

On the positive side, some of my guitars have seen the outside of their cases for the first time in months . . .

Reconciliation

Yesterday I shared some thoughts about the sad state of our American justice system. To recap: I believe the problem is the system itself. It is built on an adversarial foundation in which both sides try to “win” the case, and the truth of the situation at hand gets lost in the war. The goal of our current system is either vengeance or revenge (in the form of a conviction and incarceration/execution) or acquittal. In this system neither the victim nor the accused is served any kind of justice. Even if there is an acquittal, the accused is forever branded with the “Scarlet Letter” of having been arrested and tried for whatever crime he or she was supposed to have committed. As one famous defendant said following his acquittal, “What court do I go to to have my name cleared?”

Biblical justice, however, had an entirely different goal – reconciliation. In God’s plan there were no jails, no prisons. An accused was brought before the town elders, multiple witnesses were required to proclaim guilt, and there were steep prices to pay for perjury. Once “convicted” the guilty had to make restitution to the victim or the aggrieved party – thieves had to replace the stolen goods, plus and additional amount of “interest” or “punitive damages.” In the case of actions that were so egregious as to dehumanize the victim (pre-meditated murder, rape, kidnapping), the guilty was simply executed.

Notice that in every case except the last, the goal was the reconciliation between accused and victim. The goal was the repair – as far as was humanly possible – of the relationship between individuals and between the accused and the community he or she violated. In the case of premeditated murder, rape, or kidnapping that restoration was impossible. In God’s justice system there is a line that, once crossed, cannot be restored. When you devalue human life to the point that you intentionally take a life, destroy a person through sexual assault, or kidnap them, then you sacrifice your own life. It is elegant in its simplicity. We have corrupted it by trying to make it more “humane.”

When our founding fathers created a system built on an adversarial foundation, and where the goal is simply to establish a legal standing, they eliminated the possibility of the judicial system working toward reconciliation. In order for reconciliation to function, a different foundation needs to be laid.

  • Critical for the process of reconciliation to work there has to be the genuine offer of the possibility of forgiveness. The offer has to be genuine (not simply a legal fiction), but it cannot be considered to be automatic.
  • The other critical component for reconciliation to work is the prospect of an honest, complete, and unpretentious confession of all guilt. Once the door of forgiveness has been opened, it is absolutely necessary for all accountability to be expressed in genuine repentance. There can be no room here for self-serving confession (“I’m sorry you were offended” is the worst confession ever uttered).
  • The final critical component would be for each party to then agree upon what steps are necessary and proper for the restitution of relationship between the guilty and the victim, and between the guilty and the larger community. Forgiveness does not mean that in most situations there needs to be some form of restitution or punishment. Maybe it would be the full restitution of items stolen. Maybe it would be a public apology. Maybe it would be public service for the victim or for the community. What ever the decision, it would have to be agreed upon by all sides and it would have to be measured. Just as an example, our current system of incarcerating individuals for the mere possession of illegal drugs is both inhumane and unjust. It serves no good purpose at all – except to make some individuals very wealthy (lawyers, judges, prison builders).

A justice system built on reconciliation would look radically different from our current system. I think it can be done, though. I think it has been done before.

I think it was started by a man hanging on a cross outside the city of Jerusalem, some 2000 years ago.

Maybe those who claim to follow that man should think about reconciliation before we demand revenge. Just a thought.

Dancing With Goat Heads

Embed from Getty Images

I think, somewhere back there, I have shared just how much I despise the American justice system. This catches some people by surprise – they equate the American justice system with everything that is good and holy in the world – right up there with apply pie, mom, and baseball. For those who know me the best, it should not come as a surprise that I have a somewhat different take.

The American justice system is the goat head in the garden of life. It does what it was designed to do (cause incredible pain), it multiplies its pain prodigiously, and it puts out a cute little flower to hide its insidious little weapons.

Let me cut directly to my conclusion here: nothing short of the biblical concept of justice will ever count as “justice,” and the American system is designed to make that justice an impossibility.

Basic civics lesson here. The American justice system is built on the principle of adversarialism (I think I made up a word here). The point is we have a prosecution team (the State) and a defense team. The prosecution is intent on achieving a conviction, the defense is intent on avoiding that conviction. As we have seen in far, far too many cases throughout our entire history, the prosecution can and does act dishonestly, and the defense can and does act dishonestly. Innocent individuals are convicted, and guilty individuals are acquitted, and as far as the judicial system is concerned, nobody cares. If a jury reaches a decision, the “system” worked. There are certainly those outside of the court system who care deeply if a wrong verdict has been declared, but the number of innocent people in jails and prisons and the number of guilty perpetrators walking our streets is stark evidence of their relative inability to effect any significant changes.

The problem IS the system. And as long as the system keeps grinding out verdicts, nothing is going to change, and there will be precious little “justice” in our country.

Now, how would a biblical system of justice look different from our current system? For one thing, instead of focusing on “winning” or “losing” a case as the adversarial system demands, both the prosecution and the defense would be focused on arriving at the pure truth of the case. The idea that our adversarial system is designed to get at the truth is the greatest, and most damaging, lie of our justice system. Currently our prosecution teams do all they can to avoid certain truths from becoming evidence – and the defense teams are just as vigilant to avoid letting other truths from being known. Judges, the so-called arbiters of truth, routinely prohibit certain truths from being heard by the jury. If you ever participated on a jury and thought you were getting all the facts – whoo boy, were you ever lied to.

A system based on identifying the truth of a case has profound implications both for the innocent and the guilty. The innocent would have no fear of the judicial system (honestly – how many minorities think our current system is fair?). On the other hand, the guilty could be treated in a much different fashion. Have you ever stopped to notice how in the God’s perfect plan there are no prisons, no jails, for those guilty of crimes? Thieves were to repay what they stole, plus some “interest.” Those guilty of taking a life, albeit with no intention, were allowed to live in a modified “house arrest” (were able to live in a city of refuge). Those guilty of intentionally dishonoring human life (murderers, rapists, kidnappers) were simply executed.

Today our prison mentality has turned the judicial system into a growth industry. There really is no “justice” when a person is sent to prison. There is no restitution, there is no personal interaction between criminal and innocent victim. It is all sterile, and for all intents and purposes, invisible.

To me, no greater example of how this could change the life of an accused and the lives of the victims is the current case of the Dallas police officer facing charges in the death of a young man. In our current adversarial system, we (the public) will – without question – never be told the truth of what happened. The prosecution will tell “their” truth, and the defense will tell “their” truth – but the goal of each will be to “win” the trial. Regardless of the outcome, I will have very little confidence that justice will be served.

In an open-ended search for truth and genuine biblical justice, both sides would sit facing each other, and the accused would be allowed to explain and defend him/herself. Critically, they would be allowed, and even encouraged, to confess their guilt. The victims (or their survivors in at the case of a death) could challenge the presentation of the accused’s story, and ask questions. They would be permitted, and even encouraged, to extend forgiveness and work with the guilty to arrive at an equitable restitution/punishment. The judge would preside to make sure everything was conducted in a civil manner as befits a civilized culture. And, mark this: there would be swift and severe repercussions for perjury! (Deuteronomy 19:16-21) Prosecutors would be severely punished for manufacturing incriminating evidence or concealing exculpatory evidence, defenders would be severely punished for manufacturing mitigating evidence or concealing evidence of wrongdoing. In sum: the purpose of the preceding would be to determine the truth of the situation, and if guilt is present, to determine the appropriate restitution and, if needed, punishment. The most important goal would be to maintain the cohesiveness of the community.

Without the quest for truth, any exercise in a judicial preceding is simply an exercise in futility. We as a people could do so much better – if we had the will to do so. I’m afraid that is the problem. We are all so wrapped up in vengeance and revenge and retribution that we cannot see that we are dancing barefoot in a field of goat heads.

The Danger of False Analogies

It should come as no surprise that in today’s emotionally over-charged world, where every slight or mistake is regarded as an epic outrage, that not only the topics of conversation are dangerously over-wrought, but so are the manners in which those conversations are conducted. This is true in theology as well as politics, but for ease of observation I am going to highlight a couple of analogies that are currently being used that, to my semi-professionally trained eye, do far more harm than good. I want to say at the outset that I am critiquing a process, and I have no-one in mind as a guilty party, so if you have used one of these analogies rest assured I am not picking on you individually, just the bad analogy.

The first one compares what is going on with immigrant families being separated at the southern border with abortion. The line of thinking is this: you cannot be against abortion and support the separation of children from their families at the border. The analogy fails on just so many levels. To begin with, the question of the separation of children from adults in detention centers is muddied by the fact that most of the reporting is done by journalists and media personnel who utterly despise the current president, so their reporting is hardly to be considered fair or equal. On the other hand, no one doubts what happens at an abortion clinic – a pregnancy is terminated. Euphemisms aside, no one is doubting that result. The policy of separating children from adults is done, at least ostensibly, to protect the children from predators housed in adult detention centers. No one can argue that abortion protects the unborn. The policy of separating children from adults may be clumsy, misguided, and poorly administered, or it may be violent and immoral, but no one is suggesting that the end result is the mass extinction of millions of babies. The analogy is simply horrendous.

The second analogy follows along the same lines – you cannot be pro-life and support capital punishment. All life is sacred, so the argument goes, so if you are against abortion, you must be against capital punishment or you are a hypocrite. Once again, the analogy is simply false. Capital punishment is only administered at the end of a long and contested legal proceeding. Theoretically at least, only those who are guilty of certain crimes are executed. [Note: I am aware of the mis-management of the use of capital offense prosecutions. I am not arguing that such prosecutions are always fair or equal – only that the analogy to abortion is a false one.] On the other hand, no one argues that an unborn child is guilty of anything, and the baby has no advocate, no legal system in which to make appeals, no jury trial, no judge to oversee the proceedings. The analogy is actually hideous – all life is not equal, and anyone with a high school education should be able to understand the difference between a murderer or rapist and an unborn child. This argument also completely dismisses the fact that it was a holy and just God who commanded, not just allowed, the execution of murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. To suggest that God equates murderers with unborn children is simply obscene.

The problem with such analogies is that they are tremendously effective – for those who are in complete agreement with the speaker/writer. “Wow, how brilliant!” is the sycophant response. On the other hand, for the opponent, the argument is typically either ignored, or is actively mocked. I know of no one who has had their mind changed about the immigration debate, capital punishment, or abortion, due to such over-strained analogies.

I think what is worse is that, for the person who can see through the emotionalism, the analogy actually makes the speaker/writer appear uneducated and churlish. When I see or hear such analogies (and these two are not the only ones) I don’t immediately reframe my views; I think, “Poor fella, he needs to learn the rudiments of logical argument.” And I think this whether I agree with the writer/speaker 100% or disagree 100%.

One other extreme danger is that the truth of what the writer/speaker is trying to communicate gets lost in the emotionalism of the analogy. To separate a child from his/her parents at the border may indeed by a moral crime. The policy may indeed need to be changed – or just flat discontinued. There can be no debate that the judicial system has grossly mis-administered the capital punishment laws. Innocent men (and perhaps women) have been executed – of that I have no doubt. And there is no recourse when such a mistake is identified. The American system, with all of its checks and balances, has simply not worked in too many cases.

But, the truth of the matter gets lost in crass emotionalism when false analogies are used. The questions surrounding the immigration debate do not need to be clouded by illogical connections to the abortion debate. Likewise with  capital punishment. The issues revolving around the just administration of any penalty (corporal or capital) needs to be separated from the moral tragedy of the murder of unborn babies.

Obviously, the very same is true regarding theological debates. Whether a congregation has a fellowship hall cannot be compared to the role of baptism in salvation. Whether a person has a cup of coffee in a Bible class is not a question equal to the deity of Jesus. Whether or not it is appropriate to raise one’s hands during worship is not a question on par with whether God raised Jesus bodily from the grave. To equate something of mere opinion to that of saving faith is to make a false analogy, and in the final analysis, the entire conversation is corrupted.

Let us debate the serious issues of theology – and politics – but let us conduct those debates intelligently and with respect toward our opponents. False analogies do not build bridges – they are hand grenades tossed into the camp of the enemy. Jesus told his disciples to be wise as serpents, yes, let us be that wise! But – he also said to be as innocent as doves. That, my friends, is the mark of a thoughtful and intelligent debater.

Let us become wiser by descending lower.

Jesus Contradicted Jesus

I love that title. And, no, it is not necessarily created  as “click-bait,” although, if it got you here, so much the better. But, my title is absolutely correct. Jesus did contradict Jesus, and in the most emphatic way. Confused? Irritated? Wondering if I’ve lost the only two working synapses in my noggin? Let me explain.

Many Christians wonder what Jesus (son of Mary) was talking about in Matthew 5:43 when he said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'” Up to v. 43 it appears that Jesus has been quoting mostly from the Torah, the book of the Jewish law. I have often heard this verse explained away (and have probably explained it away) by saying that Jesus is quoting oral teaching here – that nowhere is it specifically written that a Jew was to love a fellow Jew, but hate an enemy.

Except, it was written that Jews were to love their neighbor and hate their enemy. It was not written thus in the Torah, but it was written down. In case you were wondering, here is the passage:

Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly; hold back their bread, and do not give it to them, for by means of it they might subdue you; then you will receive twice as much evil for all the good you have done to them. For the Most High also hates sinners and will inflict punishment on the ungodly. Give to the one who is good, but do not help the sinner. Sirach 12:4-7

Those words were written approximately 200 years before Jesus, son of Mary, was born in Bethlehem. They were written by a Jew by the name of Jesus ben Sirah. His book is entitled variously as Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirah, or simply as Sirach.

Now, the words of Jesus our Lord do not perfectly match the words of Jesus ben Sirah, but that is not the point. The point is that for approximately two centuries there had been a strain of Judaism that was promoting the very teaching that Jesus our Lord was seeking to destroy. There was a written document that promoted the active hatred of one’s enemies. Jesus our Lord was not making this up on the fly. His teaching had a specific audience – those Jews who were so distorting the Torah that they were actually teaching the opposite of what Moses taught. [For confirmation, see Leviticus 19:18, 33-34]

What is simultaneously fascinating, and deeply troubling, about this passage is not so much that it exists (although, that is troubling in itself), but, if the comments in the New Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha are correct, the Jews came to reject the book from their canon, and it was certain Christians who accepted it into their canon of Scripture! This explains the title Ecclesiasticus, or “church book.” [See the introduction to Ecclesiasticus, in the Oxford edition of the NRSV, page AP 86.] That really bothers me – here we have a book that, on the whole, teaches some marvelous things about God and human nature – but that in this one instance alone is so clearly and unambiguously refuted by Jesus of Nazareth.

So, there you have it folks, I was not making this up, and I did not create a title in order to deceitfully bring you into this blog. Jesus did refute Jesus – Jesus of Nazareth our Lord clearly and with great power refuted the writings of Jesus ben Sirah. I would suggest that today we are all followers of Jesus – the question to answer is, which Jesus are we following?

Let’s ascend by climbing lower.

“And You Will Know That I Am The LORD Your God”

I have stated verbally, and I think in this space too, how I believe I am experiencing some of the best Bible study this year that I have ever been able to accomplish. That is both reassuring (thankful I am not going backward) but also embarrassing. I feel like I should have been at this point many years ago, but I guess some skulls are just thicker than others. Anyway, what has helped me tremendously this year is that I am using fine line markers to highlight, and in some cases, make notes in my Bible. This has helped me see some powerful messages in books where previously I would just skim over or glide past certain words or phrases. I noticed one such phrase while recently reading through Ezekiel. When one phrase (or even word) keeps reappearing in a chapter or book, it is time to pull out the ol’ thinking cap and ask what the author was trying to communicate. So, I offer the following as both result of my reading and for your continued thoughts.

The phrase that caught my attention is, “And you will know that I am  the LORD your God” and numerous variations. Sometimes it is second person in speaking to the Israelites (“you”) and sometimes it is third person (“they”) in referring to the nations. At least once a specific nation is mentioned – Egypt!

So, here is what I discovered in my non-scientific, non-computerized, and non-original Hebrew language analysis: that phrase (or a variation) shows up 60 times in the book of Ezekiel. What makes this even more profound is that the phrase does not appear in 23 out of the 48 chapters – therefore, if my math is correct, Ezekiel uses the phrase 60 times in 25 chapters. In a couple of chapters (20 and 25, to be specific) the phrase is used 5 times!

There are a number of other phrases that convey basically the same thought, but in different expressions: “They shall be my people, and I will be their God,” “I am (or will be) your God,” “I the LORD sanctify them,” “I the LORD have poured out my wrath.”

So, I ponder – why this emphasis? Why is it so critical for Ezekiel to communicate that YHWH is God, and that the people will finally understand this? Did they not know that YHWH was God? Were they not good, devout, wholesome Jews?

In a word, no. God had to show Ezekiel this, and he did so in a dramatic fashion, taking Ezekiel in visions to the Temple in Jerusalem where Ezekiel saw how corrupt the worship of the priests had become. They had drawn images on the walls of the temple depicting foreign gods, and both the priests and the leading women of the nation were actively involved in idol worship. In a dramatic, and what had to be for the faithful a crushing scene, God is so fed up with the nation that he gets into his chariot and leaves the temple and the city in order to allow it to be destroyed by the Babylonians.

All well and good for those faithless Jews, you might say, those ignorant hooligans who had every blessing in the world yet turned their backs on God.

And I ask, the church in America is different how?

We all, liberal and conservative, wrap our interpretation of the Bible in the American flag, and use patriotism as the primary lens by which we invoke the Word of God. We all, liberal and conservative, refuse to consider or apply the teachings of Scripture that not only challenge, but destroy, our pet ideologies. We all, liberal and conservative alike, have removed God as the sole arbiter of our thoughts and intentions and words, and we have replaced him with pragmatics (what works) or cultural relativity (what is) or shallow emotionalism (what I feel) as the basis of our theology.

Consider this: notice how Republicans (in general) passionately argue that all pre-born life is sacred, that regardless of how a baby was conceived (even through rape or incest) or what might or might not be considered “defects,” that life is precious in the sight of God and must be protected. Democrats (again, generally) reject that thinking, and argue it is up to the whim of the mother to decide who is allowed, or is rejected, entrance at the border of life. In the issue of immigration the roles are reversed 180 degrees. Republicans (I repeat, generally) argue it is the right of a sovereign nation to decide (i.e., “freedom of choice”) who is admitted entrance, and careful examination must be made to decide if a life is “worthy” to be granted visitor or citizen status. Conversely, Democrats (same song 4th verse) argue that all life, regardless of whether we “want” the immigrant or whether he/she exhibits any “defects” should be granted admission.

And, both sides appeal to the Bible for support of their views.

Can there be any more stark of a contrast in how we allow politics and “patriotism” to color our interpretation of Scripture?

Dear Christians, brothers and sisters, can we not see here how critical it is for us to stand under Scripture, and to argue that all life is precious, created in the sight of God – and at the same time remember the repeated and emphatic commands of God to treat the alien, the fatherless, the poor, the destitute, with love and compassion? Why is it either/or? Why can we not, as those who are supposed to understand forgiveness and grace so much more than anyone else, extend that grace to all people – people who look like us and people who don’t look like us (or believe what we believe)?

I will admit to my own fears and shortcomings in this regard – I have to deal with my fallen humanity just as much as the next guy (or girl). But – Christians are called to a higher standard. We are not called to just aspire to the Constitution of the United States of America. We are called to aspire to the Being, the very nature, of God.

The very same God who sent Israel (and Judah) into Assyrian and Babylonian captivity because they forgot God.

God promised Ezekiel that following their punishment, both Israel and the nations would learn that He, the LORD, is God.

Will the church ever learn that?