Disciples and the Lord’s Prayer

(Spoiler alert: due to the amount of material to cover, today’s post will be longer than normal)

Can a disciple pray the Lord’s Prayer (model prayer) as given in Matthew 6 and Luke 11? While I do not ever remember specifically being told I could not pray the prayer, I have heard many sermons and discussions where the conclusion is that at least with one phrase it is inappropriate to do so. That phrase is “Your kingdom come.” Because within the Churches of Christ the kingdom has been associated with the church, and because the church was established on the day of Pentecost in A.D. 30 (or thereabouts), it is no longer necessary to pray for God to establish his kingdom.

This discussion came up again recently. It got me to thinking – where in the New Testament is the kingdom of God specifically connected to the church? Because that claim is so frequently made, I felt intuitively that there must be some manner in which the two are related. I decided to research the matter and find out myself. So I pulled out my Greek concordance and looked up the word for “kingdom.”

All 157 references. I put my project down and decided that someone else should do the heavy lifting. But, after a while I came back to the question. So, I put on a pot of coffee, pulled out my tablet full of yellow sheets of paper, and started reading and jotting notes.

To cut to the chase (for those who do not want to wade through the following) – yes, I believe that a disciple not only can pray the Lord’s Prayer, but actually should pray the Lord’s prayer – including the debated phrase. To defend my conclusion I offer the following three arguments:

(1)  After reading each of the 157 uses of the word “kingdom,” I could not find a single passage that definitively linked the concept of kingdom to the church. What I did discover is that there is not one single concept that covers every use of the word. In fact, I discovered at least 8: this is purely my own classification and you might find more or fewer. To summarize as briefly as possible –

(a) The use in Jesus’s parables (26 occurrences*, including parallels). Here Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is like . . . ” I just could not discover where the word “church” could be interchanged without some serious distortion.

(b) The reign, or rule of God (39 occurrences). Included in this group would be passages such as “seek first the kingdom of God” and Jesus’s teaching that his kingdom is not of this world. While it might be argued that the word church could be interchanged in a couple of these references, the use would be strained at best.

(c)  References to a future “inheriting” of the kingdom (38 occurrences). Illustrative here would be the thief’s request, “remember me when you come into your kingdom,” and Paul’s statement that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.” These statements just do not make sense if you insert the word “church” instead of kingdom.

(d)  Of special note are the references to the kingdom being “near” or “at hand” or “among you” (31 occurrences). This is how John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles all started their preaching. Jesus taught on several occasions that children already constitute part of the kingdom, and in the beatitudes he used the present tense, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven/God.”**

(e) and (f)  Two very closely related groups are references to the “gospel” or “good news” of the kingdom (7 occurrences), and the proclamation of the kingdom (11 occurrences). To be honest, I had never really noticed the idea of the “gospel” of the kingdom – but by combining these two groups you get a significant number of references to the kingdom as being the subject of the early church’s preaching and teaching. Once again, it strains the meaning of the word if you insert the word “church” here – Jesus did not preach the good news of the church, nor did Paul preach the church. He specifically told the Corinthians he preached only Christ and him crucified.

(g)  There are a number of references (19 by my count) where the word simply refers to a human, or in a couple of references, Satan’s kingdom. These clearly cannot refer to the church.

(h) And, finally, I discovered 8 occurrences in which the word “church” could be interchanged with “kingdom” and the meaning would not be too seriously changed. Significant here would be Jesus teaching that unless one be born of water and Spirit he/she cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5), and Paul telling the Colossian disciples that God has called them from darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son (1:13). I did not find any passage that demanded the equivalency, but these at the very least allowed for it.

(2)  Very closely related to the above argument, the fact is the church is just one very small aspect of the kingdom of God. The church is the body of Christ – of that there can be no argument. But, here again, can the body of Christ on earth be described as the entirety of the kingdom of God? And, is every church (congregation) purely under the reign of God? It could be argued that the congregation in Laodicea was outside of the rule of God – they had nothing of which Christ was pleased. He was outside of the church, seeking admission. If you want to argue that the “kingdom” is the invisible, ethereal concept of the “church” then you are changing the limits of the discussion, and I could just as well argue that the entire universe has always been, is now, and will always be the “kingdom” of God. It does no good to argue speculative concepts when we only have flesh and blood congregations by which to measure the fullness of the “kingdom,” if indeed the words are interchangeable.

(3)  While Jesus gave his “model” prayer while he was still alive (and thus before the establishment of the church), the gospel accounts were not written down for three or so decades after the day of Pentecost, therefore the gospel writers were writing to teach their churches what Jesus wanted them to know. Because prayer is such a significant part of the disciples’ life, they recorded Jesus’s words regarding how to pray. And a major part of that prayer was the request that God’s kingdom be established on earth as well as in heaven. If Matthew and Luke deemed it necessary for the Christians in the first century to pray for the coming of God’s kingdom (long after the day of Pentecost) then I see no compelling reason that disciples today cannot pray the same prayer.

So, if it is perfectly acceptable (and in my opinion, expected) for the disciple to pray for the kingdom of God to come, why was it ever suggested that we cannot pray the model prayer? The best answer that I can come up with is the early Restoration Movement leaders’ utter contempt for the Roman Catholic Church. If there was a practice supported by the Roman Church, and that practice did not have a specific “book, chapter, and verse” to support it, then it was attacked ruthlessly by the early Restoration leaders. One practice that was, and still is, central to the worship of the Catholic Church is the recitation of the Lord’s prayer. By casting aspersion against the phrase invoking the coming of the kingdom of God, the early Restoration leaders could eliminate the recitation of the entire prayer (that, and the claim that doing so was using “vain and repetitious words”). I cannot guarantee that is the reason – but it is the only one that makes sense to me. This is especially significant in light of the fact that there is no passage in the New Testament which clearly equates the church and the kingdom.

Can we, and should we, pray the Lord’s model prayer? Absolutely! There is no scriptural reason against it, and every reason to do so. The church has come – to be sure. But, let us pray, and pray fervently, that God’s reign will be manifest throughout this bent and broken world.

*If you add up all these occurrences you will have a number that exceeds 157. That is because many occurrences can fit into more than one category. This is not a scientific study – it is just me trying to get a grasp on a very large and complex subject.

**In Matthew the phrase is almost always “kingdom of heaven.” Matthew accounts for one-third of the references to the kingdom (54 out of 157), and there are only 5 times where he uses the phrase “kingdom of God.” This is usually explained as his Jewish reluctance to use the word “God” for fear of using God’s name inappropriately. For whatever reason, it is obvious that he prefers the word “heaven” to speak of God’s reign and dominion.

Rush Limbaugh and the Stunning Collapse of Trumptopia

A little background here. I have been an occasional listener of Rush Limbaugh for years. At first I thought he was some kind of guru or swami. Over time I came to realize he is just a really good entertainer with a keen eye for politics. The title of my page, “Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection” is a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of one of his books, something along the lines of undeniable truths for life. I am not a regular listener, much less a devoted ditto-head. He is a brilliant satirist, and for years he was the only voice that challenged what is now referred to as the “main stream media” – and he has been reviled for it.

But the other day I heard him say things I would never, ever, have expected him to say. When President Trump signed the “Omnibus Spending Act of 2018” I thought Limbaugh was going to bust a gasket. He was absolutely apoplectic – angry, upset, disturbed, irked. I don’t think he agreed with Trump at all.

Which is, to put it mildly, hysterical. I have never heard Limbaugh campaign for anyone more devoutly than he campaigned for Trump – even during the primaries. He claims not to take sides during primaries, but even my occasional listening proved to me that his shows were “all Trump, all the time.” I heard him say on more than one occasion that Trump was not a conservative, but he was willing to overlook that reality for the simple reason that Trump stuck his finger in the eye of the Washington “establishment,” and for Limbaugh that was good enough. And, of course, after the primaries it did not matter who the Republican candidate was, the mission of the day was to make sure Clinton #2 was not elected.

So, returning to Trump signing this 1.3 trillion dollar budget – one that Limbaugh swears was created by the “establishment” in order to destroy Trump. I just have one question – why is Limbaugh, and all of his loyal ditto-heads, upset, or even shocked? They knew that Trump was not a fiscal, nor an ethical, conservative. They knew he made decisions based on what he thought was best for himself. They knew he loved to be provocative and to stick his finger in other peoples’ eyes. What they did not expect is that he would do it to them! They expected a non-conservative, free-wheeling and dealing, ethical opportunist would remain faithful to them and their agenda, and when he did not, they did not know how to handle it.

All of which just drives me deeper into the wisdom of David Lipscomb, and more recently, Glen Stassen. Lipscomb lived during the presidency of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of American presidents. And he also lived during one of the greatest, if not the greatest, catastrophes to ever befall this nation. Through it all he remained steadfast in his conviction that it was only to God and to God’s kingdom that one should pledge allegiance. For Lipscomb a smaller government, or a more constitutionally conservative government, or a more Christian government, was not the solution to mankind’s problem – government itself was mankind’s problem! A physical government might be necessary, but it was an evil necessity, one that should be steadfastly ignored beyond what it was biblically permitted to demand (and for Lipscomb, that was basically only taxes).

Glen Stassen guided me in an individual study of the theology and ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As a result of that study I was introduced to a new, and for me, profound understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Stassen took an exegetical observation made by W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison and gave it hermeneutical “legs” on which to stand. The observation is that Matthew 7:6, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you,” far from being just a disjointed and unconnected saying, is actually a central teaching regarding a disciple’s commitment to God and God’s kingdom. If we sell ourselves, and our allegiance, for a mess of political slop, we should not be surprised when the political dogs and pigs turn around and bite us.

Which is, precisely true to Jesus’s words, exactly what has happened to the followers of Trumptopia.

I have been utterly dumbfounded by the way certain Christians have turned a blind eye to Trump and his ethical and moral collapses. I remember the “moral majority” screaming for then President Clinton’s impeachment over his sexual misconduct and his lies. Now we are told sexual misconduct is not a major factor in whether a man should remain president – only that he promote our conservative agenda.

Except that President Trump is not now, has never been, and most likely will never be, either fiscally nor morally conservative.

When we cast what is holy and precious (our physical and spiritual allegiance) into a political pig sty, can we be surprised that the residents of that sty turn and attack us?

With each passing day I am becoming more and more convinced that the Sermon on the Mount speaks directly to the disciple’s relationship to every aspect of his or her culture – and that includes the government. Lipscomb was absolutely correct. Government may be necessary, but it is an evil necessity.

The disciple’s allegiance is to God, and to God’s kingdom. If we forget that, or if we reject that, we have no one to blame but ourselves when the dogs and pigs come growling.

No King but Caesar

In my daily Bible reading today I came across this phrase (John 19:15). In their zeal to protect their position and have Jesus executed, the chief priests uttered one of the most, if not the most, blasphemous statements recorded in Scripture. I believe John wanted his readers to hear the irony. They were trying to force Pilate’s hand by making him choose between Jesus and Caesar. They wanted Pilate to know they stood firmly with Caesar, and if he chose Jesus, then he would be committing treason. And in so doing, they denied the God they claimed to worship.

As I read and and listen and ponder the discussions involving our national politics I fear the church is sinking to the level of the chief priests. Just consider – the Chief Priests were the visible connection between the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later Moses and David and all the prophets toward God. They maintained the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly worship in the Temple. They were the mediators between the nation of Israel and God. And yet, when their position was challenged, when they feared losing their power, they did not defer to God for their protection, but to a Roman emperor. The death of the Son of God did not matter so long as they maintained their grip on power – and undoubtedly the physical benefits that were attached to their position.

And so today, when challenged by economic problems, or political problems, or ethical problems, the church is not responding with the message of the gospel – it is responding by clinging to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or some undefinable right or freedom. When we do that we are simply and plainly repeating the cry of the Chief Priests. Jesus is on trial each and every time we are faced with a choice between the way of the cross or the way of the world, and by appealing to some form of human government or secular philosophy we betray our Lord and savior.

When Jesus confronted the disciples with a particularly hard teaching, whether it was stated or not, a question was attached – do you want to follow the world, or do you want to follow me? On one such occasion Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go -you have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:67) Even though his faith was imperfect, Peter got the point. Once you commit to following Jesus, everything else pales in significance.

When we confess that Jesus is the Lord of our life, when we confess that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died to set us free, we are making a profound political statement. That statement is somewhat hidden in our language, but in the first century the word Lord was attached to only one person – the Roman emperor. To call Jesus Lord was to make a politically subversive – read treasonous – statement. It could, and sometimes did, result in the death of the one making the statement. A person did not make that confession lightly. It had radical implications for the way one lived his or her subsequent life.

Today, when a person says they can be a Christian if their constitutional rights are protected, if certain laws are passed or are not passed, if a certain political party is in the seat of power, if the tax code is changed to their benefit, if they are allowed to write or say or protest, if they can benefit from the system of supply-side economics, or any one of a dozen other ifs, then what they are saying is that there is something that stands between them and Christ. They are saying they have no king but Caesar.

On the other hand, the apostles had no right to bear arms, they had no right to free speech, they had no right of a fair trial, they had no right of free assembly, they faced confiscatory tax laws, they faced summary execution on the accusation of treason, they enjoyed neither the protection nor the blessing of their national government. And they not only survived – they flourished. They had no Lord but Jesus Christ.

“We have no king but Caesar.” Those are chilling words. The cold harshness cuts like a knife. John intended it. He wanted his readers to hear that blasphemy.

Are we willing to hear it today?

An Apocalyptic Vision for the Church

In my essay yesterday I pointed out that Barton Stone, and just a generation later David Lipscomb, grasped something about New Testament Christianity that Alexander Campbell either could not see, or rejected. Campbell was an ardent post-millennialist: he believed the movement of which he was a part would usher in the “millennium” and at the end of a long period of human perfection, Christ would come and establish his reign in heaven. He even named his second journal the Millennial Harbinger to emphasize that point. In a semi-related footnote, the Civil War destroyed that belief for Campbell, and he died as so many prophets of human exceptionalism die, disappointed.

Stone, and later Lipscomb, saw things differently. They were just as committed to the restoration principle (just return to the pages of the New Testament in order to restore the church to New Testament simplicity), but they recognized something else. The New Testament has an undeniable forward looking dimension, but it is not created by the wisdom or strength of mankind. For Stone and Lipscomb, if the world is to become a better place, it will only happen by the power of God, and that will only occur through the working of the body of Christ on earth, the church! Lipscomb was especially adamant on this point, writing clearly and passionately that Christians are to avoid every form of contamination with politics, even to the point of refusing to vote. Christians could not participate in the army (Lipscomb was horrified at the thought of Christians killing Christians in the Civil War), nor were they to serve in any civil positions. Christians are to live as kingdom citizens, and it is the reign of God in heaven that draws disciples of Christ into living in and promoting the reign of God on earth.

This is the polar opposite of “pie in the sky by and by” theology whereby Christians simply try to be “good people” until they die so that they can float around on little clouds playing their golden harps. This apocalyptic worldview almost got Lipscomb killed, and it was his adamant refusal to participate in politics that has resulted in his influence basically being expunged from the history of the Churches of Christ. On the first point, during a severe outbreak of a deadly epidemic (cholera, if I remember correctly) in Nashville, while Christians fled the city in droves, Lipscomb stayed and used his horse and buggy to drive Roman Catholic nuns around the city so they could minister to the sick and dying. Regarding the second point, it was during World War I, and ultimately World War II that the pacifistic view of Lipscomb was violently rejected (pun intended) so that the members of the Churches of Christ could be viewed as “good patriotic Americans.” Today, among the overwhelming majority of members of the Churches of Christ, patriotism is virtually identical to Christianity. Lipscomb, and I believe Stone, would be aghast.

As any reader can probably guess, I am deeply indebted to Stone (what I can read of him, although he did have some weird ideas). I am even more indebted to Lipscomb. I have read Lipscomb’s Civil Government and I am impressed with two things: Lipscomb’s profound biblical knowledge, and his theological insights. Those who disagree with Lipscomb very rarely ever actually engage Lipscomb, they simply defend their love of country and their political commitments more loudly. Which, in an ironic manner, simply proves Lipscomb’s point: you cannot promote God’s kingdom and the kingdom of Satan at the same time. Jesus said it this way, you cannot serve God and man.

A truly apocalyptic worldview has profound implications for the church. I’m not even sure I understand all of them – no, I am certain that I do not understand all of them. I have lived my entire life in an ethos where Christianity and Americanism were considered identical. America was God’s chosen land, and he blessed it with prosperity and peace. I do not think I have ever seen, and I have certainly not worshipped in, a church that is so fully immersed in the kingdom of God that it seeks to literally overturn the rule of Satan in its community. A congregation that exists so that its members can float around on little clouds when they die is inherently crippled – it has no eyes to see, no ears to hear, and certainly no arms or hands to help. Conversely, a church that lives each and every day empowered by God’s indwelling kingdom not only sees, not only hears, but intentionally and actively works to alleviate human misery and to promote that indwelling kingdom.

As America sinks deeper and deeper into moral depravity and violence, I am growing more and more convinced that only this apocalyptic worldview will save the church. We must, we absolutely must, accept the reality that those who deny the lordship of Christ will never be able to think or legislate themselves out of the quagmire that those who deny the lordship of Christ have thought and legislated themselves into. Only when we learn to live, to utterly and totally exist fully immersed in God’s kingdom of love and justice, will the church be able to be the light set on a hill, to be the salt that purifies and preserves this generation.

An Essay

“On the Moral Condition of the United States, and the Social and Political Pressures which Prevent it from Improving.”

After yet another example of mass-murder I believe it would be safe to say that there is no one in the United States who would deny there is a serious, and perhaps even systemic, moral problem in the United States. Yet, in spite of this virtually universal acceptance of the reality of the problem, there is an equally universal lack of understanding of the cause of the problem, let alone how to repair the problem. Solutions are usually presented along the lines of liberal / conservative; Democrat / Republican, but even within these disparate and hostile camps there is not much agreement. What follows is obviously just one person’s opinion, but I also believe it to be based on solid theological and sociological foundations.

The root source of our moral collapse in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is the Constitution of the United States, and the closely related document, the Bill of Rights. Designed to be a hedge against the totalitarian regimes of the dictatorships of Europe, these documents enshrined the basic tenets of secular humanism and rationalism, both held in check by the veneer of a “Christian” worldview. That is to say, in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the individual human is the ultimate reality; but the documents are so infused with deistic, and intentionally latent Christian, language that the conservative nature of the primarily Christian culture managed to subdue what we can now see is the inevitable outcome of these documents.

When the Constitution and related founding documents are read through the lens of at least a formally “Christian” understanding, the pervasive individualism and rationalism are muted. The deistic “creator” of the Bill of Rights is naturally assumed to be the Creating and Redeeming God of the Old and New Testament. “All men are created equal” easily becomes “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” What is so quickly overlooked is that in 1776, slaves of any race were not considered to be fully human, therefore not “men.” Neither, it should be pointed out, were women, who were denied the freedom to vote. But, while the documents themselves were not Christian, those who interpreted them were at least nominally Christian, and the force of biblical morality gave the documents at least an appearance of divine approval.

All of this evaporated when the United States shed the illusion of being a Christian nation in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In the new millennium the ability of biblical morality to restrict the inevitable results of the secular humanism disappeared. Now we can clearly see the fault lines of the founding documents of our country. When the individual is the supreme and final judge of morality – of even such basic human characteristics as his/her gender – why is is it a surprise that such a human can wantonly kill dozens of other citizens because of a real or perceived slight in his or her childhood? When the power of a community to discipline – and even physically remove such a person through capital punishment – is removed, there is no recourse for that community to discipline such deviant behavior. Even worse, when the fruit of secular humanism fully ripens, even the desire for such discipline evaporates. This is not a hypothetical statement. Even today there are apologists who speak for the monsters who murder children in their school rooms, suggesting that it is the very idea of communal boundaries that explains such deviant behavior (“he can’t be held responsible – he was abused/bullied/repressed”).

There are those who suggest that what is needed to reverse this trend is to re-establish a Christian identity for the United States. I simply do not see that cat crawling back into the bag. There is simply too much political and sociological pressure to maintain the hegemony of the individual to allow that to happen. In other words, we have become what the founders of our country destined us to become, even though they would be horrified to know what became of their grand experiment in human governance. We can argue until the cows come home by themselves about whether the Constitution is a living or dead document, about a literalist or a dynamic interpretation of the law, or of a dozen more questions. But until we understand and accept that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are simply human documents, and display all the frailty of every other human document, we will never have the ability to overcome the trajectory of our increasingly narcissistic and violent culture.

There are, of course, a number of issues that relate tangentially to this question: our seemingly pathological love affair with increasingly powerful weapons of personal destruction, our equally pathological unwillingness to effectively enforce laws which, at least theoretically, could circumvent some instances of mass-murder, and our innate refusal to accept any responsibility for our own feelings of anger and hate.

We are, of a certainty, all fallen human beings.

Is there a political solution? Perhaps, but as I see it that would involve a new  constitutional convention in which the existing Constitution would have to be radically altered to give the community (whether it be the nation, the state, or each community) far more authority that it currently has (basically, the justice system would have to be created from scratch, and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” would have to be replaced with a concept of justice as a pure and impartial search for truth). Frankly this is a ridiculous fantasy, as in, it just is not going to happen.

So, is there a religious, or better yet, a faith solution? Yes, and it is here that I revert to my understanding of Barton W. Stone, David Lipscomb, and many others. Their view of the world was decidedly eschatological, and some would say apocalyptic. They knew, or at least believed, that the thoughts and plans of mankind were only evil, and that humans were not going to think or legislate themselves out of the mess that they thought and legislated themselves into. In sharp distinction from the millennial optimism of Alexander Campbell, they believed that all human governments were, and are, inherently opposed to God’s rule, and Christians should in no way, shape, or  form, put their trust in such systems. In the words of Jesus, Christians are not to cast their pearls before the swine of secular government, whether it be a monarchy or a democracy. In the face of such hostile governments what is a Christian to do? Exactly what the New Testament taught: pray for such governments in that they allow for peaceful existence, pay whatever taxes or dues are mandated by such governments, and beyond that to love the Lord your God and serve Christ’s church with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. This meant feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the poor and imprisoned, and striving in every way possible to demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth. Imagine what would happen if every Christian church believed, and acted, as if God, and not the government, is in charge. If Christians do not believe it, why should the world?

The solution to our narcissistic, and increasingly violent, culture is not to be found in the passage of more laws. It is not to be found in the proliferation of more, and more powerful, weapons. It is not to be found in turning our Constitution into an idol. The solution to this problem is to be found in the crushing realization that we cannot solve this problem. We are the problem, and until we are transformed into the image of Christ, the problem will never be solved.

What Was It Like In A.D. 65?

I wonder what it was like in Jerusalem in A.D. 65. Approximately 30 years earlier the wandering Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth had prophesied that one day the walls of the Temple would be torn down. Thirty years is a long time for most memories. Besides, the world in 65 was a lot different than it was in 30.

I just wonder – what was it like? We all know what it must have looked like beginning in 66. The Roman legions started marching, the war machinery started building up – those who had any common political sense knew then that the gig was up. Hilltops like Masada started looking a lot more attractive for a lot of people. But what must it have been like for the common ordinary citizen – the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker?

Were there a lot of messiahs running around – demagogues with perfectly coifed hair spouting off about the “fake news” of the Roman threat? Were the papers full of stories about leading Temple administrators being involved in sexual misconduct cases? Were the talk shows saturated with accusations and counter-accusations of the local gymnastic games being rigged by the Greek Games Commissioner?

I just wonder if the average Joseph sitting down with his morning paper had any inkling of what was just over the horizon. Looking back through the lens of almost 2,000 years of history it seems like it had to have been crystal clear what was about to take place. Occupying forces simply do not like perpetual unrest, rebellion. They want peace – or, maybe not so much peace, but the absolute absence of armed resistance.

I wonder also about the faithful Jew become Christian – the follower of the wandering Rabbi. He (and she) knew of the prophecy, but so much time had passed. Babies had been born, children had been raised, parents had been buried. The walls were still standing. In 65 the Romans might have been close (they were always close), but the tanks and artillery pieces were still not in position. Yet. Did they know? Could they see? Jesus had spoken. They believed. But in 65, did they really know?

One of the key words in the latter portions of the gospel accounts is watch. Jesus said the end is coming, be alert. Watch. He even gave some pretty good hints as to when the Temple would be destroyed. He did not give a time-line, but enough information so that it would not catch the faithful by complete surprise. The rooster always crows a little before dawn.

I just wonder today as I see the world seemingly coming unraveled at the seams – what is just over the horizon? Is 2018 the same as 65? Did not Jesus tell his faithful that, while it might be a while, the end was surely coming? There were many who heard, and remembered, and stayed alert and watched. I think they were ready in 65. I don’t think everyone was beguiled by the perfectly coifed demagogue spouting off about fake news. I don’t think everyone was distracted by all the sordid stories of back-room dalliances and athletic field conspiracies.

Just thinking out loud here, but what was it like in Jerusalem in A.D. 65?

Charlottesville, Racism, and a Chilling Prospect

Trigger alert: the following blog post contains some truths that may be difficult for little snowflakes to handle. If you cannot consider any opinions that differ from your rigid worldview, you might want to skip this one.

I’m sure the topic of the Charlottesville, VA riots were the topic of many sermon addresses this morning. I happened to think my thoughts on the book of Job were more appropriate for the moment, but that does not mean I do not have some thoughts on the events of the weekend. My reaction is threefold:

  1.  The rhetoric and the beliefs which underlie the white supremacist movement are vile, repugnant. That much is without question and every Christian of every ethnic background should be loud and clear in denouncing the “alt-right” movement, the KKK, and every other neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. I have been pleased that the response of virtually every Christian leader that I have seen has been uniform and unequivocal. There can be no quarter given in opposing this worldview.
  2. However, the most troubling response to me is the one I have NOT seen, not after this weekend nor for the past eight years. For these eight years, and largely with the complicity of the sitting president, there has been a racist movement that has rioted, looted, destroyed property, and ruined lives. Throughout these same eight years, I have been told that these racists are fully justified in their actions, that I should wring my hands in horror at the “injustice” they have be subject to, and that I share in the guilt of the nation simply because of the color of my skin. The very spiritual leaders that are (correctly) denouncing white supremacy were either stone cold silent as the rioters destroyed homes and businesses, or they symbolically joined in, trying to absolve themselves of the guilt of their “white advantage.”

Well, folks, racism is racism, no matter what the color or ethnic background of the racist. I am glad to see some preachers, editors, and other spiritual leaders denounce the “alt-right” and their ignorant minions, but their complicity and silence as the “BLM” movement terrorized large portions of a number of cities is deplorable. Why is the racism emanating from one race acceptable, if racism from another race is to be deplored?

3. Beyond the hypocrisy of an astounding number of individuals, there is another terrifying aspect to the events over the weekend. Many are calling for a ban on the freedom for certain groups to be able to speak. This is a chilling development, and if it is not opposed with the most vehement objections we can mark this point in history as the beginning of the end of the United States. I vehemently reject the hate and violence of the “alt-right,” the KKK and the BLM movements. But, as the classic saying goes, I must defend their right to speak (speak, not perpetrate violence) to my dying breath. If they do not have the right to speak their lies, how am I to be guaranteed that I can speak my truth to their lies?

It has already been proposed in many places that limits should be placed on “hate speech” that would include denouncing sexual perversion as a sin. If hate-mongers can be legally muzzled simply because we object to their tirades, what will prevent the prohibition of the preaching of biblical truth? The “slippery slope” argument is an argument that is fraught with danger, but there is another danger here that is real and profound. We must not, we cannot, prevent some idiot from speaking just because we think his words idiotic.

What would have happened this past weekend if those who disagreed with the white supremacists had simply moved to a different part of town and held a counter demonstration, replete with racial unity and a vehement, but peaceful, denunciation of the weirdos across town? But, no – hatred was met with hatred; violence was met with violence, and the world must wonder what ever happened to the great American dream.

As much as I do not want to hear them, I have to allow the bigots to have their say. But I do not have to listen. Let them march – and vacate the entire region around them. Let their words fall on empty streets and vacant buildings. Ignore them – but not their hate! Ignore their presence, but reject their ideology!

Christians must unite to condemn racism. All racism, no exceptions, no excuses.

[editor’s note: I had to correct the location of the riots – sorry, I have been a little distracted, and did not pay close attention to where the riots happened.]