9.20.21 - Happy to be Presbyterian

1 Corinthians 5 ... I wonder what's up?

Started reading through 1 Corinthians a few days back, and stopped for awhile this morning on the 5th chapter, wondering, and googling ... what were the circumstances?

And how easily the women in question is dismissed - and the man so easily condemned.

Sounds like a bunch of busybodies holding their noses without any regard for the two people in question, running off to Paul like 4th grade tattletales.

It occurred to me: was she much younger than the man's stepfather?

Was she abused?

Was the son rescuing her?

Were the woman and her "husband" divorced, or was she abandoned? Or had she run away?

With the uneasy feeling that, then or now, women are treated as property ... women belong to the men, and in this case, the son is "violating" property law - stealing from his father, if you will.

This morning, I wanted to ask Paul:

"Don't you have bigger fish to fry?

Have you looked into the matter?

Or are you just going by what the busybodies offer?"

I read Paul with the greatest respect - he gets a lot of things right, as I see it.

But his easy condemnation of the man, with no interest in the details, or the possible suffering of the woman, and maybe the man's kindness to redeem her, leaves me uncomfortable.

With years of ministry behind me: I know something of "sin," in my own life, and in the lives of others - there is sin committed with hubris, arrogance, and ego, power, and domination.

Then, there is "sin" committed because there's no easy answer to so many hard moments in life. And what the community busybodies might label as "sin" is nothing less then folks caught up in a messy situation, not directly or immediately of their own making, working to make the best of it, to mitigate further harm, and to practice kindness, and to find a way through.

Here, as anywhere, the ease with which the "righteous" condemn "sexual" immorality ... it's so easy to do, and it's so rewarding.

Comments????

Jesus Was Clear

Jesus was clear, painfully clear, I’m sure, that only a few of the religious leaders sitting on top of the social, religious, financial, heap called The Holy City would give him the time of the day.

The rest would be happy to see him go away, and if not going away voluntarily, they’d be more than happy to help him on his way.

Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time trying to convince the inconvincible. 

He understood the human tragedy, that power and wealth are more than enough to undo the soul and create monstrous ideas and behavior. 

Some can resist the allure of wealth and the power it bestows, but most succumb, in one degree or another. Some maintain a balance, but a lot of folks dive into the money bin like old Scrooge McDuck.

Jesus addresses the question of wealth multiple times, not so much to convince the Oligarchy, but to trouble them, disturb, distress, and discomfort them, compelling them to do their worst, to reveal to them, maybe, and to reveal most certainly to the world, their naked villainy (thaniks to Shakespeare for the phrase) and rapacious ways. 

Jesus knew the likely course of events, and remained true to God’s calling, to be faithful, to be truthful, and, as needed, to put his life on the line, which, in the end, he had to do. 

It was die, or lie. 

Satan was hoping that Jesus would choose the lie, but much to Satan’s disappointment, Jesus chose instead to die. Believing, hoping, wondering, if his death would finally mean something. But whatever it might or might not mean, Jesus turned from the lie offered so eloquently and so richly adorned, to die between two thieves, two more men deemed “useless” and “dangerous” by the ruling elite, who washed their hands of the whole thing, because they had better things to do.

So, Jesus spent most of his time with the disciples, in whom he had great hopes … maybe. 

And time, too, with those deemed by the Oligarchy as worthless, dangerous, sinful; the down-and-out who deserved their sad lot in life, for whatever reasons the rich and the powerful so decided. 

The rich and the powerful always need folks on the bottom so that the rich and the powerful might congratulate themselves on their own faith, their moral character, their god, their energy and their abilities, while dropping a few coins into the charity box, making them feel even more superior, and even more wonderful.

Jesus spent his time with those who had a chance to be real.

Jesus sought the lost.

Healed the broken.

Lifted up the downtrodden.

Gave hope to the desolate.

Walked with the lonely.

Visited the stranger.

Crossed boundaries.

Went fishing.

Made breakfast on the beach.

Gave life to the dead.

And light to all the darkened corners.

He spent his time where there was hope for a better day. 

With people who were eager to hear his message, even though they most likely didn’t understand much of it, but they knew that he was tweaking the noses of the proud and the pompous, and the crowds loved him for that … and also the food and the fellowship … and even their own ill-formed hopes of some kind of a Messiah, who might just help them throw off the chains of Rome, chains forged by violent leaders and a brutal military police, aided and abetted by the Jerusalem elite who were more than happy to see their own people suffer even as they enjoyed their resorts and golf courses.

All right, they didn’t play golf.

But they would’ve if they could’ve.

Poverty and Wealth Are Not Virtues

Poverty isn't virtue ... it's just poverty.

Nor is wealth a virtue ... it's just wealth.

Both replicate one another.

Both are very much by chance ... though these days,

The wealthy like to believe it's by their own hand.

And, hence, poverty's a fault,

A failing.

Of the poor.

Strange.

That we've made wealth a virtue.

Poverty a vice.

Poor choices and a lack of drive.

So, take away from the poor.

All the more.

And reward the wealthy.

All the more.

Strange.

For the disappearance of reality from all of this.

The failure of the wealthy to appreciate the

Chanciness of their position.

And the refusal to look with a kindly eye

On the poor.

Slandering the poor.

While congratulating themselves.

As if wealth were a virtue.

To be rewarded.

And poverty a vice.

To be punished.

Study Group: Notes, Reflections and Questions - FDR's Character and Wilson's Religion - March 17, 2014

Study Group, March 17, 2014

I love history, and now in my retirement, have a chance to read more of it once again (I was a history major in college, and in seminary, focused on church history) …

I believe that in knowing more of our history, we can better understand today’s events (e.g. Crimea!) and what our politicians are saying, both conservative and liberal and those who are “damp” (a descriptor of Roosevelt in 1930-31 with regard to Prohibition - that is, he was neither dry nor wet, but wanted, at that time, to let the States decide it).

Conscious or not, everyone stands on the shoulders of history. Some stand more intelligently - William Buckley on the conservative side of things and Robert Kennedy on the liberal end of things. Both, now, are dead … but their descendants carry on. Though, for the life of me, I have a hard time finding contemporary conservative voices that make any sense - most, like Paul Ryan, who quotes Ayn Rand, seem to be mostly poseurs, pretenders and buffoons. As for liberal voices, Robert Reich seems to me to have a solid grasp on both his philosophy and what it means for America. Bernie Sanders, as well. Christian writer Jim Wallace seems to be in the “damp” category, though with heavy leanings toward the left. Diana Butler Bass, church historian, clearly leans left, as well. I would put them in the Reinhold Niebuhr camp.

Yet, in this respect, there is very little new under the sun when it comes to views of human nature, society and the solutions to our economic and social problems.

At a loss for how to prepare for our meeting, I’ve decided to share some of my recent reflections, knowing that it won’t take much to get a thoughtful and good-hearted discussion going.

Here’s one of my latest:

Monday, March 17, 2014

Hoover, FDR, the Great Depression and American Business Leaders

As the nation plunged deeper into the Great Depression, Roosevelt, governor of New York State, went into action, believing that government has a social responsibility to provide when the chips are down.

During all of this time, a Roosevelt-for-President movement was gaining momentum.

What surprises me is how many of highest business leaders of the land were lining up behind Roosevelt. He was anti-tarrif, "damp" on the question of Prohibition (leave it to the States) and pro-active for moving the economy.

I can only think that the best heads of business understood that a healthy nation needed a strong government working on behalf of all the people.

Roosevelt created in New York State what was ultimately to become FEMA (1933), raised income taxes (graduated) and put people to work, and if work couldn't be found, helped them out to weather the storm.

What's good for all the people is good for American Business - Roosevelt understood this, and so did the nation's top financiers.

Sadly, Hooverism seems to have won the day for what is now the GOP, driven by the Koch Bros and other private-interest groups, who have little concern for America, and can only focus on their own private coffers.

As with Hoover's policies in 1931-32, a private-coffer driven economy can only spiral downward … to some ears, it sounds good - "sink or swim; you're on your own," and for those swimming, they're mighty damn proud of their achievement, even as millions drown in the murky waters of poverty. I guess they should've learned how to swim.

-------------------------

Questions:

Some, like Governor Ritchie of Maryland, suggested that it would be best to “let nature take its course. Others, like Roosevelt, believed that a pro-active government was needed to forestall disaster for millions. 

1. How does this play itself out these days?
2. Who are the spokespersons for these respective views?
3. What appeals to you, and why?

------------------------------

One of my heroes …

FDR, Polio and Kindness

Reading about #FDR's polio, summer of 1921 …

Because of his family's enormous wealth, every specialist, therapist and all the needed equipment was provided. Throughout it all, FDR maintained a vigorous determination to make it; many a visitor found themselves leaving encouraged and cheerful. His ability to make others feel right and good was uncanny. All of life up to this point was filled with extraordinary people who believed in him, encouraged him and provided opportunity. FDR grew up in a network of people who understood the absolute value of family, community and helping one another.

As I read about all the help that was given to him, he was learning how reliant he was upon the goodness and kindness of others - a value instilled in him from the day of his birth.

And this is exactly what he gave to the nation throughout his presidency - knowing that we're all in this together, that we can only help one another, and those with the ability to help need to help those who are unable to find a way through.

No one condemned FDR for his illness, no one blamed him for his condition - they only helped.

Such is the heart of FDR's greatness … he condemned not the poor of the land, he blamed no one for their weakness, but devoted himself to endless political experiments to help everyone find a better life.

----------------------

Questions:

Whatever we believe and however we act, it’s rooted in our biography, if note, as well, in our biology. 

1. What are the key pieces of your life that have shaped your political views - i.e., how you look upon your world, and how you think government should interface with social issues?
2. If your parents were alive today, or are still with us, what are their views, and how did that shape you?
3. Were there key players in your education?
4. Who are you heroes?

------------------------

The place of “god” in our lives …

Reading a bit about Wilson's "peace treaty" after WW1, he came home, in his usual Presbyterian pomp, declaring, that the treaty had come about "by no means of our conceiving but by the hand of God who has led us into this way." ~ "FDR," p.174

If "love covers a multitude of sins," for the good, "blind dogmatic belief that it's God's doing rather than ours" covers over a multitude of sins that require the light of day instead. 

How disingenuous of Wilson - though, perhaps, he believed it. It's an affliction common among the dogmatic - "Why, it's not me, it's God!"

Wilson's firm conviction that his presidency was divinely ordained cut him off from all kinds of people who might have stood with him on the League of Nations, and it blinded him to the awful things decided in Paris, 1919. Wilson went it alone, convinced that God was all he needed, and he was all God needed, too.

I, myself, know of no greater evil than this kind of perverse dogmatic trust that "it's all God," and not me, or something like that.

Serial killers rely on this kind of delusion, and apparently many a religious leader soliciting money and leading congregations into foolish decisions.

Wilson made an ass of himself, I fear, while hiding in some delusional dogmatic Presbyterian notion of God's infallibility at work in Wilson's vision and life.

History, at its best makes clear, that all Wilson needed to say, and should have said, was this: "We have labored long and hard to find a workable peace for Europe. It's likely to have many flaws, for our vision and understanding is so limited. All of us prayed on so many occasions that God might have some hand in this. And we can only hope that we have crafted a document that means something, and perhaps, in God's mercy, we might have God's blessing, too."

In such a moment, humility would have covered a multitude of sins.

------------

Questions …

1. Where is Wilson’s “blind belief” at play these days?
2. Can belief in God be helpful, problematic, or …
3. What’s the status of “God-belief” in your life these days?

Shut and Locked Doors

Some love shut and locked doors ... don't know why.

Does it make them feel powerful to be, or so they think, on the inside? Does it feel good good to them to know that others are locked out of their little party?

Whenever the United States has engaged in such discussions, in time, God be praised, the door has been unlocked to the blessing of everyone.

Those on the outside found new freedom and opportunity, and those on the inside found that the inside is a whole lot better when everyone is present and accounted for.

An inside group with only a few is more a prison than a party.

Diminishing Kindness in America

I see one of our nation’s greatest attributes diminishing - kindness.

We’re known around the world for kindness, but I see this quality of character taking quite a beating under the onslaught of t-party values and right-wing crabbiness, with far too many Christians either ignoring the progressive loss of kindness or, worse, cheering it on in some kind of an upside-down misconstrual of the gospel.

And this worries me.

As it did Jeremiah, as he watched his beloved nation slide further and further into a very dark hole, wherein the wealthy were privileged and living in pleasure and three representative categories of people were slipping deeper into distress.

Jeremiah identifies three groups who are the victims of his nation’s greed - aliens, widows and orphans. People who ordinarily have no social voice or economic clout. Only a nation with compassion and kindness will address their needs. But as Judah slipped further away from God, all the while claiming to be righteous (“The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD” - Jeremiah 7), compassion died on the vine before a harvest.

Jesus quotes Jeremiah in the context of his condemnation of the temple, and his instructive warning to beware of the scribes, or legal experts, who devour widows’ homes and then say long prayers. When Jesus sits by the treasury to watch people depositing their money, nothing how easily the wealthy drop in large sums, while noting a widow who puts in her last two copper coins, he notes her situation, not as an example of giving, nor does he lift up her virtue as a giver, but she’s a victim of a heartless system that would willingly take “all she has on which to live,” and put into a treasury that can only benefit the already-wealthy. Indeed, she’s a singular example of those widows whose homes are being devoured by the legal experts for the sake of the wealthy.

All of this dressed up in religion: the use of religion to bless business, and the transformation of business into religion.

We have taken the very people Jeremiah identifies as vulnerable, and the victimized widow of Mark, and turned them into “bad people” who are parasites on the system, lazy and irresponsible, depriving the upper-crust of their self-proclaimed share of the pie.

That some should feel this way is a contradiction of our better angels, so to speak, a denial of something vital to America’s identity. But what truly disappoints me is the failure of Christians to identify this decline and lament it’s loss in the American character.

Sadly, a lot of Christians have bought the story of the t-party as if it were the gospel, and it makes no sense whatsoever, for nothing could be further from the gospel than the bitterness and crabbiness of the t-party and right-wing ranters. Their childish complaints about government and their idolization of the wealthy as “job-providers” doesn’t square at all with history, nor does it reflect anything of the Gospel.

Furthermore, it’s a message being proclaimed in many pulpit, but then, many a pulpit has become nothing more than a message-chair to ease the pains of the life and give us a good night’s sleep. Preachers go on and on about marriage, children, success and self-esteem, while Jesus slips further into the shadows of our forgetfulness.

Yes, this disturbs me deeply.

But my greatest distress is the failure of so many Christians to do anything about it.

The South Has Won the Civil War (of Ideas)

The April 17, 2011 New York Times takes a close look at the GOP's effort to redesign the American landscape, or as I put it, to undo everything done by FDR and liberal northeastern establishment.

Is this really the death of kindness in America?

When it comes to the social compact, it's clearly the death of kindness.

On a personal level, any of the current GOP conservative leaders might be good and decent and even kindly. But the failure is occurring at the point of the COMMON good; the conservative world has always focused on the power of the individual to rise and shape her world; this is intensified in evangelical circles where salvation is a "personal" thing and everyone has to find his or her own "personal relationship with Jesus."

In many ways, the conservative view of America is still a reflection of small southern communities out of which this philosophy grows: rugged individualism, charity (but not social change), religion that's deeply personal and emotional (if it's emotional, then it must be good), small government, low taxes, anti-union sentiments (because unions are socialistic and deny individual initiative and freedom) and social division along the lines of race (determined by God) - as long as a person of color got off the sidewalk, even the lowest of the whites enjoyed class privilege.

The failure of evangelical christianity is its loss of the social heart of Scripture - we are our "brother's keeper." The New Testament is read through spiritualized eyes, translating everything into spiritual principles, thus avoiding the social context in which the New Testament was written.

The medieval church did much the same thing, turning Jesus into a savior, to avoid his ethics, and preserve the social order of the day. Victorian England and its opposition to Darwin was aimed at preserving the social order of landed gentry and the working poor; anything that suggested change was anathema to the church and its patrons, the aristocracy.

The current philosophy of the GOP is an image of the ante-bellum south. With huge migrations of people form the Deep South and West South, all of this was brought to SoCal and the West Coast in the 20th Century - it supported Goldwater's failed campaign, reworked itself and give us Nixon and Reagan, and has since revitalized southern politics and touched the heart of many Americans in the midwest and far west. The movement remains determined to undo the America created by FDR - a "welfare state" and unions, gov't regulation and appropriate taxation, along with a strong middle class. All of this is "the enemy."

As I put it, the South won the Civil War of ideas! And the current GOP has embodied these ideas perfectly! 

Who Wants to Hear About Grace?

One of the most insidious devices used by Satan to destroy us (personally and socially) is the story of the self-made woman ... who, by dint of her own energies and creativity, masters the world and achieves success.

American mythology is filled with images of frontier women and men bravely hacking their way through the impenetrable wilderness, fighting off wild beasts and staving off savage attacks from those who would foolishly resist progress. The loner. The entrepreneur. The successful!

American religion, as well, has drunk deeply from the well of this salvation-by-works view of life, turning many an American pulpit into a podium for motivational jargon and silly stories that always bring a tear to the eye without the genuine transformation essential to the gospel of a real Christ - a living Christ who invites us to deny ourselves, trust God radically, give away profoundly, take up our cross and follow unconditionally.

Why is this notion of a self-made woman such an insidious idea?

Well, for one, it's patently false!

If one probes beneath the surface of the lives of the successful, one discovers the hidden imprint of grace, an imprint discernible through the lens of faith, itself a gift from God.

That's the point, I suppose - life is a gift from God, every bit of it, determined by God. Though we must be careful - this idea has been used by the powerful and the wealthy to justify the poverty of others and the maintenance of the social status quo as if it were the will of God, forever and immutable. Hence, the Victorian objection to Darwin who suggested that systems actually change. Churchly high pulpits linked arms with positions of privilege to fight Darwin's ideas and to promote the "created order ordained by God" to keep others in slavery and some in the lap of luxury. How convenient to believe that poverty and privilege are ordained by God.

But the point remains: the Bible and the work of good theologians point to the mysteries of grace that bestow wealth and power without our participation. Wealth and power - gifts from God, irrespective our character, our morality, our faith or our intelligence. Ouch! Did I just say that?

Socially, the myth of the self-made woman perpetuates the kind of pride that divides a society against itself - the "successful" person, imaging her success to be of her own making, looks down her snoot at everyone else, and then publishes a book or two about how smart she is, and if working-man Pete and single-mom Susie could only be as smart and as hard-working as she's been, why, they'd be successful, too, living on easy street and enjoying the well-deserved fruits of their labors.

Clearly, one of the fiery darts used by the Evil One to puff the soul and destroy our social conscience.

On the other hand, when one confronts the mystery and the joy of grace, one realizes, quickly, just how fragile our success is - how a million little factors, way beyond our purview and control, have brought us to this point in life. It truly is "amazing grace," and such grace leaves us spell-bound and grateful and utterly humbled.

In the face of grace, we begin to see why God has blessed us ... so that we might be a blessing to others (without questioning and judging their status even as we question and judge our own status in the light of grace), and use our position to fight the larger evils that oppress and destroy body and soul.

The wealthy and the powerful, if they truly understood the source of their wealth and power, would all become deeply radical, working tirelessly to change the hideous systems of disparity and death, even supporting a much higher tax rate for themselves, because taxes are the means of a shared responsibility to care for one another, paying their taxes with joy, giving thanks for what they have without demanding ever-more.

Living in the power of grace, the wealthy and the mighty would devote themselves to legislation and programs to provide the best of schools for every child everywhere, to promote unions for the protection of the guys and gals who turn our beds and serve our food and wash our cars and clean our streets and fight our fires and solve our crimes and fight our wars. Living in grace, the powerful would work to change the world rather than using charity as a sop to the poor and a salve to a greedy conscience.

Grace no longer asks the question: Why are poor people poor? As if it were their fault.

But asks the larger question: Why has God given me so much?

And then grace rolls up her sleeves, figures out how to spend a whole lot less on the self and engage a whole lot more in making this God's world, as it should be, after all.

Grace - who want's to hear it?

But it's the truth, and only the truth, the gracious truth, shall set us free at last.