Hope in The Age of Trumpism

H O P E I N T H E A G E O F T R U M P I S M
The scoundrel has said in his heart

“There is no God”
They corrupt, they make loathsome their acts.
There is none who does good.
(Ps. 14.1, trans. Robert Alter)1
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CHRISTIAN?
Historically, almost any set of beliefs and faith described as religion has been
used to support a corrupted form of power over others. In today’s world,
ISIS claims its acts of terror as justified by Islam. Jewish settlers on the West
Bank claim that Hebrew Scripture gives them the right to take land from the
Palestinians who have lived there for generations. In the US we have people
who claim self-referentially that they are Christians yet support white nation-
alism, individualism (conditional love for one’s neighbor), racism, misogyny
(against gender equality), policing people’s bedrooms and dictating woman’s
reproductive choices. Where in the Gospels (the biographies of Jesus’ life)
are such notions supported? In all of Scripture, these notions have little to do
with Jesus, His life, or His teachings. What they do have in common is the
assertion of power over another in the name of one’s religious beliefs. But, is
this what Christianity is really about?
The Gospels introduce a radical redefinition of power — very different from

that of imperial religion. The imperial gods justify (demand) power over oth-
ers to ensure the smooth running of the empire and for the use of violence to
preserve order. Instead, the Gospels, through the crucifixion of Christ, rede-
fine power as: (1) fidelity —right relationships where promises are kept and
the common good is pursued; (2) service — to God rather than to empire; (3)
work — for the well-being of our community and environment, rather than
our self interest.
1Robert Alter comments: “The thrust of this line is more moral than theological. The concern is not a philosophical
question of God’s existence but the scoundrel’s lack of conscience, his feeling that he can act with impunity, be-
cause he thinks he need not fear divine retribution” (Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms [New York & London: W.W.
Norton & Company, 2007], 9). Essentially, autocracy rather than faith in reason and reaching common ground.
LYLE A. BRECHT DRAFT 1.15 - CAPITAL MARKETS RESEARCH - D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 8 Page 1 of 115
The Most Reverend Michael Curry, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal
Church, describes this Gospel-based radical redefinition of power in today’s
world as choosing to participate in what he terms the Jesus Movement. He
says that as Christians: “We must become radically biblical and theological.
We must enter our communities deeply and intentionally, with love…. it all
starts with Bible study and prayer….You can’t read the Book of Exodus
without being stirred by the theme of the liberation of people. We have to
engage with the Word deeply — that’s what Dietrich Bonhoeffer did, that’s
what Martin Luther King Jr. did….Then you can transform institutions into
servants of the Jesus movement.”
DOES GOD REALLY SUPPORT BUILDING WALLS?
“I am deeply concerned that the United States has contracted a disease we

might call ‘truth decay.’ In politics and beyond, we see the danger that Sen.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan once warned of, that people feel entitled not only to
their opinions, but to their own set of facts to support those opinions.” Thus
writes Michael D. Rich, President and Chief Executive Officer, RAND Corpo-
ration in his introduction to Andrew R. Hoehn, et. al., “Strategic Choices for a
Turbulent World: In Pursuit of Security and Opportunity” (2017).
For those who have never heard of the RAND Corporation, they are a global
policy think tank located in Santa Monica, California. After the second world
war, when the hydrogen bomb was invented and some military generals ad-
vocated using this weapon of mass destruction on the Soviet Union before
they had access to the H-bomb, President Eisenhower asked RAND’s scien-
tists for a better solution than another war. RAND came up with Mutual As-
sured Destruction (MAD) based on game theory, a mathematical description
of a prisoner’s dilemma — a game that can be ‘won’ only by not trying to
maximize one’s advantage. This is essentially the game the US and Soviets
played for 40 years to avoid WWIII and the annihilation of much of the world.
You may be asking what this has to do with a sermon given by Robert Jef-
fress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church at St John’s Episcopal Church in
Washington DC at a service attended by the president-elect of the United
States on the morning of his inauguration. In this sermon, Pastor Jeffress
argued from Scripture (the Book of Nehemiah) that God approved of building
walls — referring to the apocryphal wall that is to be built separating Mexico
LYLE A. BRECHT DRAFT 1.15 - CAPITAL MARKETS RESEARCH - D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 018 Page 2 of 115
from the US along the southern border of the US. Which is what reminded
me of Michael Rich’s statement above. Can a Christian, at least someone
who claims to be part of the Jesus Movement, truthfully derive this message
from Nehemiah? Or, is this just a situation of someone choosing “their own
set of facts to support those opinions”?
Picking one set of words from Scripture to support one’s opinion is called
“proof-texting.” Indeed, proof-texting of Scripture has been used to support
the Crusades where killing ‘infidels’ (Muslims) was for God’s glory, the treat-
ment of women as property (human, but lesser than a man), slavery (whites
were created by God as the superior race), Jim Crow laws (ditto), etc. And
now, apparently building walls of hate for an other, lesser type of human —
the immigrant. Problem with this proof-text is that it ignores Joshua where
the walls of Jericho were torn down by God’s action. And certainly, it has
little to do with Jesus’s biographies (the Gospels), which were all about tear-
ing walls down between peoples.
THE EXODUS
When one thinks of the Old Testament story of Exodus, what immediately
might come to mind is wandering the desert for 40 years. But what is Exodus
really about? One theme that comes through loud and clear is that Exodus is
about redefining justice, grace and law. It’s about liberation from the imperial
gods of Egypt. This is what Jesus was preaching in the Gospels (the biogra-
phies of Jesus) and Paul in his Epistles in relation to the imperial religion of
the Roman empire. And maybe, this is our task as Jesus Movement followers
in relation to the empire we find ourselves living in today.
Walter Brueggemann reflects in God, Neighbor, Empire: The Excess of Divine

Fidelity and the Command of Common Good: “much of the Old Testament
[and New Testament] text emerged in context of empire amid great concen-
trations of wealth and power.” Scripture was to become an antidote to such
imperial religion that was designed specifically to cement in place the ‘right-
ness’ of the status quo where the powerful ruled for their own interests rather
than for the common good. The imperial gods promoted laws that extracted
wealth from the vulnerable for use by the most powerful; that commodified
people and things (money as the measure of all things); and that justified the
use violence to assure the smooth operation of imperial policy. Imperial reli-
gion went as far as to exclude the concept of ‘neighbor.’ Instead, as
Brueggemann points out: in empire “there are only threats, allies of conve-
nience, and dispensable labor.” The story of the Exodus introduces ‘neighbor’
as a meaningful sociopolitical concept supported by the religion of the Is-
raelites.
Where Exodus (and much of Scripture leads, if we are listening with an open
heart) is to transform society through justice - a justice where everyone “can
live in security, dignity, and well being” not just those whom the imperium
deigns as worthy. To extend grace (mercy) to the less fortunate and vulnera-
ble: ‘You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall
not take a widow’s garment in pledge’ (Deut. 24:17). To obey the law, but a
law that guarantees “an ordered distribution of goods, social power, and so-
cial access that precludes extortion, abuse, and oppression against the vul-
nerable” rather than law that fosters such legitimized forms of abuse.
PARTICIPATING IN THE JESUS MOVEMENT
What does participating in the Jesus Movement look like? Maybe just as im-
portantly, what does it NOT look like? During the early days of the church
when being a member of the Jesus Movement was underground (frowned
upon by the dominant powers of the day) and could even lead to a Jesus
believer’s death for being a threat to the “national interest,” the church
thought of themselves as ekklesia. In Greek, ekklesia was used to refer to
that assembly of those with citizen rights in a given polis (community). The
job of this assembly was to be engaged in the business of the community, to
debate decisions that would affect the public good, and to participate in the
implementation of activities that could result in a future worth living in — for
themselves and for their children.
What the early Christians meant by using ekklesia to define their community
was as “the assembly that bears the public presence of God in history” as
William T. Cavanaugh in his Migrations of the Holy: God, State, and the Polit-
ical Meaning of the Church so eloquently says. At least to Jesus and to Paul,
that is what being a member of the Jesus Movement looks like. It means
questioning today’s attempt to separate us from one another; to define reali-
ty as we are what we own or what we do as defining our worth. It means
never forgetting whose we are and to whom our deepest allegiance lies. But
maybe most of all, choosing to become a member of the Jesus Movement
means that we are willing to listen to God’s voice in our lives rather than our
own ideology (e.g. conservatism or liberalism) or the noise of the mass me-
dia. Listening instead to learn what God reveals in our History here on earth.
What being a member of the Jesus Movement does not look like is assum-
ing that the world is defined by the powers. That God prefers the fortunate.
That the less fortunate are somehow less loved by God. That nativism, au-
thoritarianism, misogyny, and racism is in any way participating in the Jesus
Movement. Being a member of the Jesus Movement is hard work. It de-
mands that we, as members of the ekklesia, must break our imagination out
of captivity to the current political state. To constitute our community as an
alternative social space. As Cavanaugh states: “The theological rationale for
such a move is founded on the biblical account of how salvation history in-
terrupts and transforms human space and time.” In other words, being a
member of the Jesus Movement is at its base a hopeful venture based on
faith in God’s providence.
SIN
As Fleming Rutledge in her Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Sermons from

Paul’s Letter to the Romans suggests: ”Sin is one of the main subjects of the
Old and New Testaments. It is also one of the main subjects in the daily
news.” SIN is from the Hebrew word that means “the satan’ or “the accuser,”
a force that lures us fallible humans into errors of judgement and then
blames us for it. Sound familiar? We all know this force that is regularly en-
countered in our daily lives and even broadcast into our living rooms almost
daily when we turn on the television and hear about what is being acted out
in our names on the national stage. As Genesis 4:7 laments: sin lies in wait at
the door. We commit sins when we fall short of God’s desires for us and for
the world by substituting our own desires (idolatry) for God’s desires for us.
We miss the mark; sometimes by a lot. Scripture reflects in story after bibli-
cal story that human hubris, putting individual or collective desires ahead of
God’s desires, constitutes SIN.
What does this mean for us collectively? How do we avoid SIN? Jeremiah
had one approach. Avoid denialism. Quit trying to fit the world and each oth-
er into an ideology. Instead, deal with reality as it presents itself. Not only is
ideology blind to data, it only, always, leads to failure and woes. God does
not operate according to either our ideology or our momentary desires.
God’s plan is God’s plan, not of our choosing or conveniences. Our di-
chotomous world of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, capital-
ist or socialist, nationalist or cosmopolitan, white supremacist or desegrega-
tionist, sectarian or nonsectarian, denominational or pluralist… God does not
recognize the simple-minded, convenient dichotomies we erect for our ease
to judge one another. However, Jesus, in the biographies of his life (the
Gospels) does provide some insight into how God thinks. God is for a trans-
formative, communal life of love, forgiveness, justice, compassion, mercy,
peace, and care for all creation.
The opposite of these ways of being in the world is SIN, for sure. Anyone
who preaches or acts otherwise is demonstrating a sinful being in the world.
As NT Wright in his The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Mean-
ing of Jesus’ Crucifixion best describes God’s reaction to human sin as
“what he sees is what a villain maker would see if the player were to use his
lovely creation as a tennis racquet.” What God is for is the purpose of the
church, no matter what the prevailing culture decides to reward or to pro-
claim. In essence, the church is called to be a community of confessing resi-
dent aliens in a culture that is steeped in SIN… always striving towards
God’s desires and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Light and the
Way. Not Caesar. If we listen closely, what the Gospels reveal is that living ‘in
Christ’ is an adventurous journey! A journey of faith into an unknown territory
that may even appear as diaspora.
CHRISTIANITY VS. ATHEISM
A common notion is that a Christian believes in God and an atheist

does not. But at a deeper level one encounters a worldview of not-
knowing (uncertainty) versus a worldview of knowing (certainty). For a
Jesus Movement follower, knowing the final truth about reality is hard-
ly possible. That is because truth is provisional; evolving and continu-
ously being revealed as God acts in History. For the atheist, the final
truth about reality is possible. All that is required is to discover the
truth through the rational mind such as with a scientific experiment or
mathematics. However, there is a very large problem with this philo-
sophical perspective. It assumes an objectivist world where truth ex-
ists ‘out there’ to be discovered by an objective or ‘right-thinking’ ob-
server.
Some shortcut this analytic work and assume the final truth is re-
vealed through ideology. Throughout all of recorded history ideo-
logues have always been ultimately defeated by physical reality (grav-
ity always wins, despite one’s ideology). But what about science?
Since the early 1930’s, the world’s quantum physicists have shown
that an objectivist view of reality is dead wrong. No experiment is ever
conducted by a perfectly ‘objective’ observer outside the system (part
of reality) being investigated. The truth is not ‘out there’ to be discov-
ered. Scientific truth is always provisional and subject to modification
and deepening based on experience (e.g. experiments), understand-
ing 9deductive reasoning), and insight (inductive reasoning).
Thus, the perspective of many of today’s top scientists is closer to the

Christian version of truth than an atheist’s who believes what is cer-
tain can only be ‘discovered’ or explained through scientific or math-
ematical language (or ideology). Think of love. To an atheist, love is
just a bunch of physiological changes in the human body triggered by
environmental stimuli that is useful for genetic survival of the individ-
ual. To one who accepts uncertainty, love may be that but is also a
mystery; a wonderful human emotion to be cherished, experienced

and appreciated.
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
Maybe one of the hardest questions humankind has ever asked is:
“why is there something rather than nothing?” Almost every culture
throughout history has attempted an answer to this question. Up until
very recently, the answer deemed most satisfactory was that there is
something because of the action of a god or gods, usually engaging
in some cosmic battle or adventure. One of the unique aspects of the
Israelite’s God is that something, all of creation, came into being be-
cause of God’s love.
Today, the physicists, philosophers and theologians are still debating

this question: “why is there something rather than nothing.” The
physicists have the most interesting (mathematically challenging) but
ultimately useless answers. For example, according to Stephen
Hawking, the universe exists due to a quantum flux. Which is a sim-
ple way of saying that the universe’s existence is dependent on a
complex set of mathematical equations that prove the ultimate Epi-
curean philosophy that “everything is random.” Thus, there is no ex-
planation really for why the universe and the earth and people exist.
Other physicists get around this tautology by claiming the universe
exists because there are an infinite number of universes that exist in a
multiverse and we know it exists because of the strong anthro-
pogenic principle (i.e. because humans exist, our universe must nec-
essarily exist).
Of course, philosophers take umbrage with all this circular thinking

by the physicists that explains little and still leaves open the deeper
question of “why.” In this context, the theologians appear to have as
straightforward and ultimately satisfying answer: “God created all
there is.” But in this context, God is not a subject, but a verb. And,
God is thought of as The Mystery, The Power, The Ultimate Answer
that is beyond knowing, beyond the deepest probing of the human
mind, beyond the rote mathematical formulas of the physicists. In

other words, there is no conflict between the knowing of this God
and the probing of science. Science is merely a means for us to un-
derstand how God works. Religion is a just a way of acknowledging
that there is still Mystery, no matter how much we imagine we under-
stand about the universe at any particular juncture in time. There is
no reason to push God out of the way for science’s sake.
WHAT IS TRUTH?
In John’s Gospel, Pilate asks Jesus, ‘what is truth?’ Tricky question.

For us in our postmodern world that accepts pluralism, truths are rel-
ative and forever evolving. That is how science works. All theory
evolves and a scientific ‘truth’ or hypothesis about reality is ‘true’ un-
til an experiment disproves it. For example, even gravity as truth has
evolved. Newton’s theory of gravity has long been superseded by
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. And, today quantum physicists
are exploring yet new explanations of gravity beyond Einstein’s. That
does not change the fact that if we drop something, it will fall toward
the earth, only the why.
Another aspect for how we answer the question, ‘what is truth?’ to-
day is our dualistic view of reality. That is, there are truths that are
allowed in our spiritual lives and truths that our physical being ac-
cepts. Neither Jesus in the Gospels, Paul in his letters, in fact, in all of
Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, did these ways of thinking
about truth exist. There was no dualism – the spiritual and physical
were not separate things. Truths were not relative or evolving based
on experiment. That is not to say that everything was set in stone.
Only that God was at the center of truth about the world. And, God
could not be tamed by human desire or experiment. God was present
and revealing new and novel truths all the time for those with hearts
to hear and Gospel eyes.
But, back to Pilate’s question, which is really about Caesar. Pilate is

actually asking Jesus whether Jesus or Caesar gets to define the
truth. For Pilate, the answer is obvious. It’s the Roman Empire. Paul
actually answers Pilate’s question in his letter to the Colossians and
elsewhere. For Paul, rather than truth defined by empire, the church
is a community living ‘in Christ’ that refuses to believe in the truth as
Caesar would have it, but instead reimagines the world in the image
of the invisible God, made visible by Jesus. That is what truth is for
those living ‘in Christ.’
As Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat in their Colossians Remixed:

Subverting the Empire write: “A split-vision world-view that divides
faith from life, church from culture, theology from economics, prayer
from politics, and worship from everyday work will always render
Christian faith irrelevant to broad sociocultural forces. Jesus’ life and
teachings were the silent answer to Pilate’s mocking question to Je-
sus, ‘what is truth?’”
MISOGYNIES
Such a funny name. What does it even mean? Does ‘misogyny’ describe
anything more than the violence of using power to create victims of women,
because they are women? Do misogynies exist and continue today due to
our silences? Silences of betrayal? Might our job as those who attempt to
live ‘in Christ’ be to, at the very least, to model speech that breaks the si-
lence of violence and the violence of silence. But, what does this look like in
a world where identity-politics separates; is designed to separate one from
the Other into smaller and less effective groups? Scripture offers a strong
contrary claim — that separation is Sin.
Maybe what we need today is an in-breaking of speech that cries out for a
new kind of power: “the power of love, the power of understanding and hu-
man compassion, and the creative dynamism of the will to love and to build,
and the will to forgive”… with our neighbor (the Other), our Selves, our God,
and God’s good creation. It is time for a Being-in-the-world without misogy-
nies, without using our power to create victims. For as Miroslav Volf writes in
his Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness,
and Reconciliation, the “Kingdom of truth [Jesus!] came to proclaim was the
kingdom of freedom and therefore cannot rest on pillars of violence.” In a
fragmented world continuously at war with the Other, might those of us

working on living ‘in Christ’ discover how exhilarating, exciting and adven-
turous it is to be a people of peace and love? Maybe what we are describing
after all is discipleship — to Jesus. What it may look like; what it means.
WHY UNDERTAKE A SPIRITUAL JOURNEY?
Some of us when asked what we hope to accomplish on our spiritual jour-

ney respond that we hope to ‘get closer to God’ or ‘realize our full potential
as being human beings.’ What is interesting is that both Jesus and Paul
might disagree that such goals are the primary objective of one’s spiritual
journey. For Jesus and Paul, spirituality is what is practiced (lived out), not
necessarily what one believes is uppermost. For example, in Mathew Fox’s
Confessions, he writes: “Spirituality is required to make people awake and
empower them to face the deep crises that the earth is undergoing today,
and the poor who constitute so much of humanity, and the young who may
be in despair, and the indigenous peoples of the world who are being wiped
out.” The point I believe Fox is attempting to make is that spirituality equips
one to confront reality and to make a difference. For Fox, spirituality is about
community building and action, not necessarily about just feeling satisfied
with one’s own personal relationship with God.
Thus, attending church on Sunday, meditating, taking a long walk in the

woods, reading Scripture, praying, etc. are all spiritual disciplines. The pur-
pose of these disciplines are to awaken one into their true selves — to be
the person that God is calling each us to be. But, this does not make one a
‘spiritual person’ or even an ‘enlightened one.’ Essentially, the proof is in the
pudding —talk is cheap. Only be acting does one demonstrate that one has
awoken. And, spirituality at its most fundamental level looks like resistance
to the status quo of a world that operates according to Pharaoh’s or Cae-
sar’s totalizing definition of what is truth — what is acceptable and given —
as opposed to God’s.
One example of what spirituality looks like in practice might be the work of
the two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, who refuse Pharaoh’s command to
kill the baby boys of the Hebrew women, so that the people multiplied and
became very strong (Exod. 1:15-22).
RESURRECTION #1
Resurrection takes work and specific action. We all know this. Recovering
from an assault or downturn is not a spectator sport. Remaining passive be-
cause it just seems too hard to overcome adversity or remaining quiet often
just deepens the depression one might be feeling. What the powers hope
that we might feel is that: “my actions won’t really matter, I am too small and
insignificant to make a difference, so why bother.” These are just the things
that the followers of Jesus might have felt and thought after the crucifixion of
Jesus in around 33 CE. But, this is exactly what did not happen. Instead, the
followers of Jesus more than just woke up. They got off their couches, went
out to the streets of their day and proclaimed the Good News. Not only did
the world change big time — today, we actually measure time in terms of
before and after the birth of Christ. A movement was borne that the majority
of the world’s present population identifies with. Why was that? What hap-
pened? What was different this time? How did an assault against one’s be-
liefs and understanding of truth that was held to be defined by the powers
result in resurrection rather than defeat? How did a small minority of believ-
ers grow to become the majority of the world’s population?
In the First Century CE, Rome was ascendant. Rome’s empire defined the
economic and political reality of the occupied territory of Judea (present day
Palestine). To make things really explicit, the Romans imbued their emperors
(Caesars) as earthly personifications of the sovereignty of Rome - they were
gods! The Roman Principate assumed that the Roman Empire contained
“the chosen people of the gods” and was the divine vehicle to defeat the
forces of chaos in the world — to restore heavenly order in the form of a re-
turn to the ‘garden’ of the former Republic. The emperor was the paterfamil-
ias of all the people (called ‘Father’), deified as the sole ruler of a universe
where taxis (order) was the primary aim of social and political structures.
These structures were achieved through a meritocracy based on paideia
(heroic engagement and sacrifice for the good of the state), competition, and
nomos (the law) imposed through coercion and force. Justice (iustitia) was
first and foremost defined as that which was beneficial to Rome and its citi-
zens. All this is documented in the Acts of Augustus recounting the salvific
power of the gospel of Caesar written in Greek on the walls of the numerous
temples to Augustus.
RESURRECTION #2
For Paul in his Epistles, the kingdom of heaven was a standard religious
code phrase meaning an in-breaking of the divine realm into the realm of
Caesar, Herod Antipas, Pilate, etc. — the olam-ha-bah (‘the world to come’).
This vision relies on the view that the world we live in can be repaired (tikkun
olam) — that a better world is possible through communal action.
As Amy-Jill Levine writes in her The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the
Scandal of the Jewish Jesus “the kingdom of heaven is not, for the Jewish
Jesus of Nazareth, a piece of real estate that can be bought by the coinage
of Rome for the single saved soul; it is a communal vision of what could be
and what should be. It is a vision of a time when all debts are forgiven, when
we stop judging others, when we not only wear our traditions on our sleeve,
but also hold them in our hearts and minds and enact them with all our
strength. It is the good news that the Torah can be discussed and debated,
when the Sabbath is truly honored and kept holy, when love of enemies re-
places the tendency toward striking back…. Jesus did not die because he
taught that the poor would have an easier time getting into heaven than the
rich; he did not die because he rejected Torah; he did not die because he
preached love of God and love of neighbor. He died because... in Roman-
occupied Jerusalem [he was making a political statement that the estab-
lished order did not appreciate].... He died under the criminal charge of sedi-
tion: Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews” - as a political dissenter.”
So, the question remains, how did Jesus’ followers resurrect themselves
when the Roman powers crucified Jesus on the cross? For to die by crucifi-
cation was one of the most demeaning and horrible ways the Roman empire
had for exercising its power; to show the world it could do whatever it want-
ed, at any time, to whomever it chose. In other words, crucifixion was a form
of state-sanctioned torture. Torture designed specifically to destroy not only

physical bodies but social bodies and communal solidarity.
RESURRECTION #3
By now we should be thoroughly perplexed. Jesus has just been tortured to

death in a public show of humiliation by the most powerful agency in the
world during that day. Yet, his followers rallied and proclaimed the Good
News. This not only sounds incredible, but unlikely. Yet, the biographies of
Jesus (the Gospels) claim this is what happened, and history validates the
fact that the Jesus Movement was hardly crushed by Rome’s violence. In-
stead, the Jesus Movement flourished to include the majority of people living
on the earth today. How can any of this be explained, much less compre-
hended?
NT Wright, one of the preeminent interpreters of the New Testament today, in

his The Resurrection of the Son of God spends 817 pages attempting to ex-
plain these questions: Why did Jesus’ followers rally and prevail after such a
humiliating murder of their teacher? Were they writing history [the biogra-
phies of Jesus’ life]? Or was it actually the projection of their own faith-expe-
rience? What Wright comes up with is — it was both. Something ex-
traordinary actually happened — is a historical event. And, this real event,
understood as Jesus’ resurrection, was interpreted as “the divine vindication
of him as Messiah, ‘son of God’…. the cross was not just another messy liq-
uidation of a would-be but misguided Messiah; it was the saving act of
God.”
In today’s skeptical post-modern mind, such a description of reality is almost

inconceivable. But, in the First Century CE, to Jesus’ followers, this was a
fact of their reality. It propelled them forward to live ‘in Christ’ against the
truths promulgated by the powers of the Roman Empire. Today, such belief
offers an opportunity to be engaged in the world, searching for truths that
are not the easy, convenient truths of the dominant powers. But maybe most
of all, the resurrection offers those attempting to live ‘in Christ’ to participate
in a new creation of “the God revealed in and as crucified and risen Jesus of
Nazareth.” In all, one of the most revolutionary and long-lasting movements
in human history. Our choice is whether we wish to be part of the Jesus

Movement today, or not.
MORALITY & POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
“I’m a conservative” or “I’m a liberal” are both statements of potentially radi-

cally limiting categories. Is someone claiming that they subscribe to a politi-
cal ideology that is devoid of God? That the worldview of Jesus as de-
scribed in his biographies (the Gospels) is immaterial to their moral stance as
it affects others’ lives? How can this be so? Aren’t politics and religion highly
compartmentalized where never the twain shall meet? Not really. Why? Be-
cause all politics is moral, at least according to cognitive scientists who have
thought deeply about these issues such as Georg Lakoff in his book, Moral
Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 3rd Edition (2016).
In the Gospels and Paul’s letters, what is presented is a worldview that may
be about as different from the worldview of today’s liberals and conserva-
tives (and some religious folks too) as cars are to dogs and cats. Of course,
this is confusing, not only because self defined conservatives and liberals
sometimes claim to be following Jesus’s or God’s will, but also because they
each believe they are absolutely right in their moral stance. No wonder we
have a hard time understanding, much less appreciating each other’s poli-
tics. Yet, if one’s political views are indeed based on deep-seated assump-
tions about what is moral, maybe such moral views might benefit by some
anchoring in Scripture.
Some of the best biblical work on worldview these days is contained in N.T.
Wright’s work, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2013). According to Wright,
Paul believed that history was divided into two chronological ages: the
‘present age’ and the ‘age to come.’ The ‘present age’ is evil to the extent it
intrudes into and harms God’s good creation and undoes what God’s pur-
poses are in creating humans in the image of God. God will judge whether
humankind has taken care of His good creation, or not. This judgement will
be tempered by mercy, as demonstrated by Jesus during his lifetime. The
‘age to come’ is not a destination. It’s a way of being in the world. Listening
for Spirit-guided revelations is what participating in the Jesus Movement

might look like to Paul. To listen to God’s voice in our lives. To enjoy the
freedom to learn. To have the discipline to act on what we have learned —
with an open heart. For Paul, this way of being is the telos of Jesus Move-
ment followers — “a mature humanity which reflects the divine image….”
Thus, Paul would strongly reject the idolatry of any political category that
subsumes God’s divine plan. Paul further “insists that the real, ultimate ene-
my is not any human being or structure, but the dark anti-creational forces
that stand behind them and use them as puppets [for] their nefarious pur-
poses.” Is it possible to be resurrected from today’s limiting political cate-
gories? To be open to the in-breaking of God’s world — the kingdom of
heaven?
THE POLITICS OF MATTHEW
Sometime during the 70s or 80s CE, a Jewish disciple of Jesus (aka
Matthew) wrote a euaggelion (“good news” or “gospel”) to his small commu-
nity (estimated as somewhere between 19 to 1,000 individuals) in Antioch
(likely). At the time, Antioch was the third largest city (about 150,000 popula-
tion) in the Roman empire and it served as a regional Roman administrative
and military garrison city. Rome had already destroyed the temple in
Jerusalem during the First Jewish-Roman War in 66-73 CE. Rome had de-
clared that it won this conquest and was able to amass its empire because
“To war against Rome is to war against God” (Josephus, JW 5.378). Rome
declared its emperors as “gods” with “divine sovereignty” over humankind.
With its building program, laws, coinage, and culture, Pax Romana created
an everyday barrage of imperial theology and ideology designed to subju-
gate the majority of the population who served the interests of the ruling
elite. Within this cultural and historical context, Matthew’s Gospel declares:
• Matthew’s community can look to the loving and merciful God described
by Jesus for comfort, rather than rely on the retributive, violent God as
sometimes described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Christian Old Testament);
• instead of looking to the civil god embodied by the Roman Emperor,

Matthew’s community can look to Jesus;
• instead of assuming that the civil state’s laws and policies represent the
will of god, Matthew’s community can look to God’s saving presence and
will manifested in the life and teachings of Jesus;
• instead of maintaining hierarchal and patriarchal households as the cus-

tom in the Empire, Matthew’s community can live in more egalitarian
households where women are valued equally as men and inclusive of all
people regardless of their supposed “rank” in society;
• instead of embracing imperial order as the result of imperial power exer-

cised through violence and war, Matthew’s community can embrace Je-
sus’ message of a non-violent and loving God as a path toward peace;
• instead of the Roman empire having the last say over the life and death of
its people, Jesus’ resurrection is a demonstration of God’s ultimate life-
giving power, saving presence, and peace-loving empire (“the empire of
heaven”) that can even overcome death.
THE SABBATH
Book review/reflections on: Walter Brueggemann, Sabbath as Resistance:

Saying NO to the Culture of Now (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2014), 89 pp.
The Sabbath for Christians is each Sunday of the week. Do we spend our
Sundays resting? Participating with our community of faith? Why is the Sab-
bath still important today for Christians? What does it mean for us to partici-
pate in Sabbath practice? What does it say about us to participate in Sab-
bath practice? What does it say about our relationship to God, our neighbor,
our environment to participate in Sabbath practice? What is Sabbath prac-
tice, anyway?
These are just some of the questions the renowned Old Testament scholar,
Walter Brueggemann, asks and attempts to answer. Sabbath practice means
stopping work; disengaging from the everyday of cultural distractions. A de-
liberate re-centering and remembering of God in our lives; reconnecting with
our neighbors.
It may be hard for many of us to imagine how revolutionary the idea of Sab-
bath was when God gave the Sabbath to the escaped Hebrew slaves at
Sinai (Exodus 20:8-11). That is because, as slaves in Egypt, there was never
any day of rest. Every day was a day devoted to production for Pharaoh.
Thus, the first meaning of Sabbath was one of resistance to the grinding,
death-dealing production quotas imposed by Pharaoh. Pharaoh was a god
who never could be satiated in his endless pursuit of wealth and personal
comfort.
But Sabbath is not only resistance. It is alternative. The Sabbath was given
to God’s people by a God who gives gifts; in our liturgy; the gift of Eucharist,
for example. Our God is a god of abundance and neighborliness (Matt.
22:36-40). Unlike Pharaoh who was a god of scarcity. In Pharaoh’s world
there was no community, no neighbors, no time for worship other than more
production. In today’s terms, a secularized religion where devotion to the na-
tion-state is preferenced and worshiped above everything else, even love for
an Other: such as God, family, and self. God rescued humans from
Pharaoh’s slavery. Sabbath is a time to remember. To remember what God
has done for us and is doing for us in our lives — every day, every minute of
every day. For Christians, celebrating the Sabbath is a remembrance that life
is a gift, not a possession!
TRUTHING IS IN JESUS
In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians the Greek in Verse 4:15 reads “that as
churches grow, they are to increasingly take the shape of Christ.” The way
Paul indicates that this happens is by “truthing in love.” The NRSV English
translation of the New Testament translates the Greek as “speaking the
truth.” But, Paul uses the Greek word for truth as a verb - “truthing.” So,
what does “truthing Jesus in love” look like for the church and its members?
And, what might any of this have to do with what each of us may face each
and every day - not just on Sundays?
Could one aspect of truthing Jesus in love be what this says about who the
God is that we worship? Could a result of having this God, the God as re-
vealed through Jesus, for the God we worship, a renewed humanness? If we
are made in the image of God, and Jesus is the image of the God we wor-
ship, that says a lot. For it hopefully enables a new, genuine humanness to
emerge as someone reborn to being in the world in a totally new way. A way
that is not predetermined or limited by the customer and constraints of the
powers, today’s Ceasars who want, even demand that we remain silent. That
we feel powerless to change the world, even a little. That we accept as truth
what the modern-day Caesars tell us to think. To behave ourselves so that
the powers can more easily go about doing what they wish to do, for their
benefits. As Timothy Gombis in his The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in
the Triumph of God writes: “Truth is not merely a set of facts….the church’s
task of studying Jesus’ life - his word, his actions, his way with
people….gives us wisdom as we set about” truthing Jesus in love.
Thus, truthing Jesus in love is a way of being in the world that presumes re-
sponsibility and how to live in the world wisely for the good of all. A human-
ness that accepts responsibility not only for healing broken relationships, but
for healing the natural world we presently live in - with love. Good truthing to
you! The hard part is that all this truthing must take place in Caesar’s world,
where there are many gods, many lords to worship.
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM SCRIPTURE?
In Battlestar Galactica, a great sci-fi TV series from a few years ago, periodi-
cally one of the characters would comment: “this is all happened before and
it will happen again.” This is a play on the observation: “those who don’t
know the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them.” So, do we bother to
ponder Scripture because it describes the mistakes of history, so we don’t
repeat them? Not exactly. Scripture is not remotely like what we moderns
describe as “history.” Scripture is much, much deeper than that. Scripture is
a narrative of how God acts in History. That is History that has a telos or
meaning versus the seemingly random actions and events that make up the
history we watch on the news each night. News that appears more chaos
than anything a god cares about or secular authority has any control over.
So, if Scripture is about History, why bother to study it? Because it helps to
make sense of today’s history. It helps to understand God’s purposes for our
common life. That is why reading Scripture in one’s alone-ity may bring so-
lace, only reading Scripture in community typically constitutes real study.
Why? Because there are layers and layers of meaning and nuance to each
Scriptural passage. And context is important to bring these meanings to
bear in one’s current life conditions. Context that is almost impossible to get
at by oneself. Context and meaning that is available only from group study
and most of all, reflection. Group study and reflection over time.
If one comes to a Scripture passage one year and has the same understand-
ing of that passage the following year, that probably means you are stuck.
Either you may not have been listening to God in your life, really listening, or
maybe you never understood what that particular passage might have meant
for you in your life in the first place. That is, Scripture is not something to be
learned or memorized once and for all for all time. Scripture is never some-
thing that one “understands” fully and then can move on. What is important
about Scripture is what happens between you and the text. The great Jewish
mystic, Martin Buber, describes this as an “I and Thou” relationship. A dy-
namic relationship that changes one forever, again and again in a never end-
ing process. IF one is willing to work and be open to this change!
Is this what studying the Word might look like? Yes. Engaging, really engag-
ing, Scripture is hard work. Why? Because engaging with Scripture requires
change on the part of both the reader and the hearer. If one walks away from
this experience not feeling somewhat uneasy and challenged, one may not
have heard the Word. Maybe not because it wasn’t heard, but because one
was not listening deeply with transformation as a possibility. Maybe God did
not give us Scripture to confirm our beliefs as much as to challenge them -
to learn and to grow. Engaging with Scripture is much, much more than a
spiritual exercise. In Biblical terms, spirituality is less about belief than how
one acts and relates to others in the day to day world we live in.
WHY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?
Book review/reflections on: Walter Brueggemann, Reality, Grief, Hope: Three

Urgent Prophetic Tasks (Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge: William B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Company, 2014), 165 pp. and James D. G. Dunn, Jesus
Remembered: Christianity in the Making Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI & Cam-

bridge: Eerdmans, 2003), 1019 pp.
The Romans did not crucify Jesus because he was practicing medicine
without a license: Enabling the blind to receive their sight, the lame to walk,
the lepers are cleansed, the deaf to hear, the dead are raised, and the poor
have good news brought to them (Matthew 11:5). Crucifixion was reserved
by the Romans for political offenses alone.
During the First Century CE, the Roman elites preached the faith of empire -
Pax Romana - a totalizing view of reality. What this meant in practice was
that Roman authority, Roman technology, Roman wealth and Roman power
were believed exceptional. So much so, that the Roman empire was ruled by
a god, the reining Caesar. Because of Rome’s wealth and power and techno-
logical knowhow, it could assure self-sufficiency to its citizens and bend the
rest of the world to its desires. Indeed, it was destined to rule the world. This
was the Roman totalizing view of history. Anyone who preached an alterna-
tive reality was not only ontologically wrong, but dangerous to the estab-
lished order.
So, here comes Jesus preaching an alternative reality. A reality deeply em-
bedded in the Jewish Torah, and prophetic and wisdom tradition of the
Tanakh (Christian Old Testament). Technical knowhow, wealth, power and
reliance on a ruling god-like civil authority is not the basis for self sufficiency.
Instead, reliance on God as sovereign, rather than Caesar, defines reality.
Instead of technical knowhow, wealth and power, what is most important for
a peaceful, productive society are justice, righteousness, and steadfast love
of neighbor.
Jesus summarizes this alternative view of reality in his greatest command-

ment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind….You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew
22:37-40). Could there have been a more disturbing message for the Roman
elites to hear? That is, Roman exceptionalism would never lead to their soci-
ety’s invulnerability and ultimate security. Only love of God and neighbor
would result in society’s ultimate security. Pilate would certainly want to cru-
cify such a potential king (Messiah, Christ) espousing such ideas — for obvi-
ous political and military purposes. Thus, Jesus’ teachings have been anath-
ema for all authoritarian regimes and their totalizing fantasies of history —
since Jesus walked the earth.
GOD’S RESCUE OPERATION

One big picture question that arises in 2017 CE is: “what is the whole point of
the church today?” For followers of the Jesus Movement, this answer is actu-
ally straightforward: To participate in the “forgiveness of sins” that results in a
new reality - God coming “on earth as in heaven.” Heaven in this context is
“God’s space,” right here on earth. In other words, contrary to popular opin-
ion, at least in New Testament Scripture, being a member of the ekklesia liv-
ing “in Christ” has absolutely nothing to do about being spiritually awakened
and good in order to reach heaven when one dies. So, in 2017 CE, what
does being a participant in the Jesus Movement look like? Maybe one answer
is to metanoia (repent, turn around) from running headlong off the cliff. Avoid-
ing the certain extinction of the human species - image bearers, God’s “royal
priesthood.” Actively moving on a path towards “sustainability” rather than
certain collapse. The choice is binary. One path leads towards God; the other
away.
From this purpose-driven, Jesus Movement church perspective, Borrego is a

model for the whole earth. We are collectively jogging toward falling off a cliff.
To avoid collapse, we must repent (turn around) and start running away from
the cliff. Anything less is certain extinction - of our community. But today,
there is no where else to go. Nowhere to move to that does not face similar,
albeit maybe for different reasons, sustainability challenges. The only choice
that remains is to bring heaven here and soon, or certain collapse.
So, as a Jesus Movement (what Christianity is really talking about) church,

maybe what we are talking about is a ‘purpose driven’ church (ekklesia). A
church whose purpose is fearless love. And, no greater love than contributing
to a sustainable community for acting out the deepest message of Jesus
Movement participation. But, what is “sustainable community?” From Scrip-

ture, this is way beyond pedestrian notions of ecology, economic develop-
ment and partisan politics. What, from a Jesus Movement perspective, sus-
tainability means is bringing the message of fearless love in order to create a
future worth living in. That is, bringing heaven here on earth through fearless
love. Is it possible through our faith we have the possibility to engage real
democratic polis - decision making - for remaking systems sustainable rather
than watching our systems collapse in real time? The call is to give up our
adiaphora and participate in the Jesus Movement. Collectively engaged in
building a future worth living in — today. All hands on deck — all are needed.
A new relationality through fearless love — with a purpose!
A POLITICAL VISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
What? Jesus was not political. He was merely speaking about things “reli-
gious.” This wrong-headed view of Jesus’ teachings and actions is prevalent
today. But for First Century CE Jews, Jesus’s teachings and actions were po-
litical. Rome executed Jesus for sedition, not for his “religious” views. The
politics of the First Century were obviously somewhat different than today’s
politics. Actually, the worldview of those in the First Century did not include
our concepts of either “religion” or “politics” as separate things to think about.
This separation only occurred for the first time in Western thinking in the
Eighteenth Century. During the Enlightenment, religion was deemed a sepa-
rate subject from the affairs of the state. Thus, can the New Testament offer
us any insights to the politics of today’s world?
Essentially, the “political” vision of the New testament was in direct contrast to
the political vision of Rome. Rome ruled the empire. Rome decided what was
truth. Rome ruled through the violence of military might. Rome determined
the validity of socioeconomic structures. Rome determined the limits of what
could imagined as to how one lived life. Jesus taught that God rules the
world. God determines what is true. Jesus conquered the empire through
weakness, not military strength. Jesus (and Paul) taught that the church was
a valid socioeconomic structure, whether the empire approved or not.
Jesus taught that our imaginations were limitless, as God’s revelations were
not limited by what empire decides. In other words, the empire’s project to
have us believe that everything is fixed, as it should and always will be and
that there are no options for re-visioning the status quo were both self-serving
and idolatrous. What is ultimately important and real is that God, not Caesar,
is sovereign and that our lives have both direction and meaning by remem-
bering this. Thus, Jesus, in his teachings and actions, was about as “political”
and relevant today as he was in challenging First Century notions of the sta-
tus quo.
THE BIG STORY
Theologians call the big story of Scripture a ‘biblical metanarrative.’

What that means is underlying the stories in the Bible, there are gen-
erally a few main themes that emerge. For example, in the Old Tes-
tament two of the big stories that emerge are: (1) God is the creator
of all that is; and (2) God cares for all things that are part of his good
creation.
In the New Testament, three of the big stories are: (3) Jesus has bro-
ken down all barriers between who the culture deems elite and those
others who are deemed less than; (4) Jesus has shown who really in
charge, not through violence, but through weakness (his crucifixion);
and (5) Living among us, Jesus loved us. He broke bread with out-
casts and sinners, healed the sick, and proclaimed good news to the
poor.
In both the Old and New Testaments, one metanarrative is: (6) the
truth about God is not reducible to power, or at least power as the
world sees power. That is, those perceived as being ‘in power’ do not
have a monopoly on truth.
These six metanarratives might be considered a worldview of Scrip-

ture that applies to how God acts in History. One might summarize
this worldview as God’s purpose is to liberate His creation from ‘vio-

lently imposed regimes of truth’ that impinge on the freedom of God’s
good creation to flourish. As Jesus Movement followers, the oppor-
tunity is for us to live into this worldview. Which is where sacrifice and
sometimes pain arises. For living out such a worldview may put one
in direct conflict with ideologies and powers that subscribe to a very
different worldview. A worldview that promotes violence as the solu-
tion to all differences; that elites are destined to be raised higher than
those less fortunate; that Caesars’ truth prevails because they exer-
cise worldly power. In today’s parlance what passes for fact by the
powers is often merely ‘truthing.’ A poor and misleading facsimile of
what the truth of reality may actually be.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?
Absolutely nothing, or maybe quite a lot. The Bible is pretty clear

about humankind’s relationship, actually vocation, to care for all
things in God’s good creation. In Genesis, the English Bible mistak-
enly translated the Greek in the Septuagint (3rd century BCE Greek
translation) of Genesis as “subdue” nature. But in the original He-
brew, this word in Genesis is best translated into English as
“steward,” which connotes “care for” as opposed to “dominate over”
or “use up.”
Clearly, the Bible has little to say about the science of climate
change. But the Bible has a lot to say about denialism. Even 2,600
years ago during Jeremiah’s time. It was also a time of competing
truth claims. Deniers were plentiful. They claimed to be the voice of
conventional wisdom; wisdom that assaulted and contradicted Jere-
miah’s message to the people. So Jeremiah raised his speech to
cries of anguish. His cries rang out against the drumbeat of the de-
niers’ conventional wisdom: Conventional forms of strategy and poli-
cy have failed. All leadership has failed. Our entire future is now under
assault. This history-making change is not a secret matter. All this is
happening in our midst, in public. All we need is eyes to see and ears
to listen. Our leaders are adamant to maintain the status quo. They
are immune to the notion that their denial will result in the death of
our community, our world. The leaders even claimed Jeremiah, the
carrier of this discordant message, an ‘enemy of the state.’ Jeremiah
summarized his view of these deniers:
Therefore their way shall be to them

like slippery paths in the darkness,
into which they shall be driven and fall;
For I will bring disaster upon them
in the year of their punishment, says YHWH. (Jeremiah 23:12, NRSV)
As of January 2015, the Pentagon has ordered its officials to start

incorporating climate change into every major consideration, from
weapons testing to preparing troops for war. In September of 2015, a
coalition of top military and national security experts, including for-
mer advisers to Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, warned that
climate change poses a “significant risk to US national security and
international security.” If the most powerful military leaders in the
world and a $60 billion national intelligence community are no longer
deniers concerning climate change, could deniers now be considered
‘enemies of the state?’
Thus, what we learn from Scripture is that ideology does not prefer-
ence God’s revelations concerning reality. Denialism ultimately al-
ways leads to the abyss. In any argument one can always chose be-
tween confirmation (the certainty of one’s ideology) or learning. The
Bible teaches us that learning (ongoing revelation) is God’s way.
LIFE & HOPE IN THE CHURCH
In the time of Paul, there were two prevailing philosophies in the land:
stoicism and Epicureanism. The stoics believe the world’s grand nar-
rative involves an endless series of birth and rebirth. In today’s world
this might be best characterized by the big bang with an expanding
universe that ends in a heat death after billions of years. Thus, the
narrative of one’s life is to eat, be merry, get rich, and enjoy today for
in the end there is no hope other than what Caesar can deliver. One
might be relieved that some of the brightest physicists today are
questioning the big bang to heat death scenario for the universe.
The Epicureans, on the other hand, believe that there is no grand nar-
rative in life. All that occurs in life is purely random. If there is a god,
he is somewhere else and certainly not involved in our lives. Sound
familiar? This might be the perspective of someone who describes
oneself as an atheist. Thus, since there is really no narrative to one’s
life, its all randomness, why not just eat, be merry, get rich, and enjoy
today for in the end there is no hope other than in what Caesar can
deliver.
What Paul describes is the belief that Jesus as the Messiah, not Cae-
sar, is capable of delivering hope for all, no matter poor or rich, what-
ever color skin, sexual orientation or gender or ethnicity, today and
forever. Thus, the narrative of one’s life starts with a particular belief.
That belief is that God, as embodied by Jesus, is present now and
always. God is with us, all of us, in our times of trouble. Our life narra-
tive is towards God. No matter what the vicissitudes of Caesar’s rule
looks like in the present.
And, this is where the church enters in. The church is meant to be the
united community of Christ. To stand together in hope, no matter
what Caesar has in mind. We are to live in hope. We are to act as a
people of responsibility and a people willing to heal relationships.
Lastly, we are to be a people to hold the word of worldly power to
account.
LOVE #1
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as

yourself” (Gal. 5:14)
Lately I have been hearing statements such as “Jesus is all about love” and
“God is love.” Thus, anything that is not positive is not Godly or could be
remotely part of the Jesus Movement. While the first two statements are
true, they may not be true as the speaker intends. That is because the Eng-
lish translation of hesed used in the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures (the Christ-
ian Old Testament) and the Greek agape in the New Testament as “love” has
little to do with a feeling or emotion that denotes or connotes the “love” de-
picted in a Hollywood movie or the “love” of a pale skinned, blue-eyed Jesus
described by a prosperity gospel televangelist.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, hesed denotes and connotes steadfast loyalty.

This term is used almost exclusively to describe God’s relationality with hu-
mans, and especially Israel. What it means is that God will not abandon hu-
mans. His covenant to “be with us” will never be broken, no matter what.
Hesed in the Old Testament has little to do with feelings or positive human
emotions, but a way of being with the other — in steadfast faithfulness.
The Greek agape in the New Testament adds some nuance to this relationali-
ty. The nuance is that this relationality between God (and Jesus) with human-
ity looks somewhat like the relationality in the best of idealized circum-
stances between a Mother or Father and their child or between brothers or
sisters in a family. The unwillingness to abandon the relationship, no matter
what. Again, feelings or positive human emotions do not necessarily enter in
to either the denoted or the connoted use of this term.
So, if we are “loving our neighbor as ourselves,” what might this look like
with this understanding of the word love from Scripture? For example, in the
case of a husband who beats his wife at night but wakes up in the morning
and says: “I love you” to her, a “neighborly loving” response (Scripturally)
might be to provide sanctuary for the abused wife and report the husband to
the authorities. Conveying positive, loving thoughts to this disturbing situa-
tion is unlikely to be what the quote from Paul, Matthew, Mark, and Luke to
love one’s neighbor means. “Jesus is love,” means Jesus will be with us, no
matter what. Love your neighbor as yourself is in essence a political com-
mand. That is what Scripture is saying. It does not mean a Christianity de-
void of the crucifixion or taking action when action is needed.
LOVE #2
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as

yourself” (Gal. 5:14)
“Jesus is all about love” and “God is love.” What Scripture tells us is that
imagining Jesus as a soft spoken rabbi who only said wise things and healed
folks along the lines of the Jesus portrayed in Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of
Nazareth is highly limiting. Like putting Jesus in a box. Scripturally, maybe
Andrew Lloyd Weber’s Jesus Christ Superstar might be closer to the mark. In
the biographies of Jesus (the Gospels), Jesus could be very confrontative,
in-your-face, and many of his parables and teachings were about as radically
political in their day as they possibly could be. Scripture makes evidently
clear that Jesus was not crucified for practicing medicine without a license
or because he was preaching love — at least the kind of love that was kum-
bya. In today’s parlance, Jesus was crucified as an “enemy of the state.”
A problem with “God is love” as the sole description of God, connoting that
God is defined by and only recognizes all that is positive in the world is prac-
ticably a rewrite of the Scriptures. It is putting God in a box. It is also hereti-
cal. The early Church defined this heresy as Marcionism. Marcion’s (d. c.160
CE) central thesis was that the Christian Gospel was a Gospel of love to the
exclusion of the Law. He consequently rejected the Old Testament in its en-
tirety claiming that the Creator God of the Old Testament had nothing what-
soever to do with the God of love and grace as revealed by Jesus Christ. For
Marcion, the only Canonical Scriptures were 10 of the Epistles of St. Paul
and a portion of Luke’s Gospel. His Christology was Docetic (the contention
that Jesus was divine and only ‘appeared’ human).
But how does any of this explain the violence of God in the Old Testament?
Certainly, the God of the Jesus and Paul was not a violent God enacting ret-
ribution on non-believers. And, if God is not a violent God, does this mean
he is only about love? Last month’s essay discussed what “love” in Scripture
means —steadfast loyalty — non-abandonment, no matter what, NOT kum-
bya — positive feelings or human emotions as understood in today’s English
connotations of ‘love.”
Thus, God of both the Old and New Testaments is love from the perspective
of His steadfast loyalty to humanity, no matter what. But the violence of God
in the Old Testament is still unanswered. Susan Niditich in her War in the
Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (1993) attempts to wrestle
with this discontinuity from the God of love. What Niditch comes away with
from a close reading of the violence in the Old Testament is that it is more
about an epic description of God’s justice, along the lines of the Illiad, that
describes contests “between those occupying a marginal place in society
and the powerful; those at the center of society with the capacity to
oppress.” Taken as a whole, “The war traditions of Hebrew Scriptures gen-

uinely grapple with issues of compassion and enmity.”
CONVERSION
Often, when we think about conversion, we think about Paul’s change of
heart on the road to Damascus. Paul, who was not on a horse, was struck
with a vision of the crucified Christ that forever changed his life. Unfortunate-
ly, this concept of ‘conversion’ has been trivialized by some Christians to
mean an ‘event’ that occurs in one’s life as a before and after experience
where one did not believe in Jesus to where one declares to be ‘born again’
acknowledging that “Jesus is my one true Lord and savior.” The simple
problem with this idea of conversion is that it focuses on belief whereas the
Scriptures focus on one’s behavior or actions after conversion. For example,
what one believes is not relevant if one is not expressing this belief through
actions. And, in Scripture, there are many models of conversion that include
a process through time as opposed to a one-time event. That is, conversion
to a new way of being in the world may not occur all at once, but over time.
What is more startling in Scripture is that ‘conversion’ has little or almost no

relation to ‘spirituality,’ at least today’s notion of spirituality which is a quies-
cent, pious passivity to the world or attending church regularly. Indeed,
Scripture’s portrayal of ‘conversion’ looks more like resistance in today’s par-
lance. Paul’s new beliefs from his conversion propelled him into the world to
preach the Good News. Along the way, he was beaten, thrown into jail, tried,
and finally executed. Not because his conversion made him ‘spiritual.’ But
because through his conversion he became a threat to the State. In today’s
term, he became a national security risk. Paul resisted the prevailing truths of
Caesar where Pax Romana (the peace of Rome) meant war and occupation.
Where Caesar was declared a god and was assumed to convey the final
truth about reality. Where this truth could not be questioned without ret-
ribution. Where resistance or demonstrations of an alternative future were
suppressed. In other words, conversion, at least in Scripture, meant one’s
willingness to man the barricades — to above all, resist — but as with Jesus
— through love, not violence. Contemporary representatives of what ‘con-
version’ looks like Scripturally might include folks such as Mahatma Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Bishop Tutu, even His Holiness the Dali Lama, etc.
JUSTICE #1
The concept of justice in the Scriptures was pretty straightforward, originat-
ing in God’s ṣĕḏāqâ and mišpāṭ (Heb. judgement and righteousness). The
entire purpose of justice as thought of in the Scriptures was to interrupt the
totalizing system of Pharaoh (in the Old Testament) and Caesar (in the New
Testament). This, above all was what God expected from his followers. By
totalizing system is meant that the named powers of Pharaoh and Caesar
called all the shots. God and Jesus were irrelevant — they didn't matter —
there was no Mystery or Reality beyond what Pharaoh or Caesar determined
as fit their convenience at the time. Thus, followers of Christ and adherents
to the Hebrew God were tasked with resisting justice as defined by Pharaoh
or Caesar:
Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees,

who write oppressive statues,
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be your spoil,
and that you may make orphans your prey! (Isa 10:1-2).
What the Old Testament scholar, Walter Brueggemann, in his God Neighbor
Empire: The Excess of Divine Fidelity and the Command of Common Good
(2016) indicates is that what Scripture does is to narrate stories that illustrate
that “Justice as socioeconomic political recovery from the debilitating injus-
tice of totalism requires human agency.” In other words, although justice
comes originally from God, justice on earth will occur only through human
agency. At least, that is what is portrayed over and over again in Scripture. In
our resistance to the powers that be, we are directed to fight for shalom — a
justice that supports the common good, which Scripturally, is fidelity to God,
not fidelity to Caesar. Not a lot of grey in the decision being asked of us as
Christians. And, from the New Testament, what this justice that supports the
common good looks like is a new creation.
As Amarta Sen in his The Idea of Justice (2009) remarks “Freedom to choose
gives us the opportunity to decide what we should do, but with the opportu-
nity comes the responsibility for what we do — to the extent they are cho-
sen actions.” For a Christian, Scripture suggests that we are to be active
seekers and doers of shalom, never passive recipients of Caesar’s justice,
which is too often injustice as seen in God’s eyes: let justice roll down like
waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream (Amos 5:24).
KURIOS KAISER or KURIOS IĒOUS?
The presumed and acceptable nationalist creed during the First Century CE
was Kurios Kaiser — “Caesar is Lord.” The closest analogy today might be
“Heil Hitler.” As Fleming Rutledge in her Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Ser-
mons from Paul’s Letter to the Romans suggests: “Anyone who said ‘Heil
Jesus’ would soon hear the midnight knock on the door.” The means for
empire to maintain its power is to control the prevailing narrative at all costs.
Jesus’ teachings were a counter narrative to the narrative of Caesar. Instead
of Caesar as sovereign, God was sovereign. Instead of Caesar determining
what was true, only God’s truth was valid. Talk about Jesus Followers being
a national security risk! The leader of this movement, Jesus, had to be put to
death for the common good of the State. Which is often confusing to Chris-
tians who subscribe to Positive Christianity.
Positive Christianity was developed and promoted by the National Socialists

(Nazis) in Germany during the late 1920’s. It espoused that only the “posi-
tive” aspects of Christianity are real. Criticism of the State is not allowable,
only support. Thus, the entire Old Testament and parts of the New Testament
that are “negative” in their critique of the established order are to be no
longer tolerated as the real Christianity. Essentially under Positive Christiani-
ty, Christianity is a nationalist religion subservient to the aims of the State.
For example, under the theology of Positive Christianity, we are members of
a nationalist American Christianity, not Christians living in America. True
Christianity is entirely passive. Its job is to be “positive” and support the
State.
This is what Paul was referring to in Romans when he said: For I am not
ashamed of the gospel (Rom 1:16). What Paul was saying was that he was
not afraid of speaking truth to power; of standing up and fighting for God’s
truth of love for all of creation and for all of humanity created in God’s image;
of maintaining relationality with our neighbors, as ourselves. For Paul, to be
Christian was to be seditious to an established Power that was steeped in
Sin.
For everyone else, to imagine switching from Kurios Kaiser to Kurios Iēous
for someone who had been crucified by the Romans, the most humiliating
form of torture, hung naked on a cross in full public display, reserved only for
the most heinous crimes against the State, was surely a mind-blast almost
inconceivable to our modern sensibilities. If nothing else, the early Christians
exhibited a degree of courage and resistance in the face of overwhelming
political opposition that is difficult to conceive of in today's world, at least
the day-to-day world that most Americans are at all familiar with.
ALTERNATIVE FACTS
Let’s see. The “alternative facts” with respect to gravity are what? If I throw a
ball into the air, doesn’t gravity always win? Am I willing to listen to a person
whose opinion about gravity is that gravity is just a made-up notion by a
bunch of colluding scientists who don’t know what they are talking about?
Yet, it seems today that we regularity encounter folks who have an opinion
about something that falls into the category of “alternative facts.” And, if we
choose to ask them a clarifying question or disagree with their opinion, we
are accused of being “political” or worse, told that we “don’t know what we
are talking about.”
Under the guise of post-modernity, sometimes one argues that all opinions
are equally valid, or “facts are merely relative.” Of course, this is not what
post-modernity means. Science is not about the “manipulation of facts
about reality.” Economics is not about the manipulation of understandings
about monetary policy. Religion is not about the manipulation of theories
about God. Whatever the topic, some people get stuck. Instead of being
open to discovery and growth in understanding about the vast reality that
makes up the universe we exist within, we have already made up our minds
as to what is fact and what is fiction. In such cases, we are often wrong. It is
only our hubris that keeps us from learning and discovering what is really
real. In this hubris is resistance — to facts that are facts rather than reliance
on “alternative facts” —for convenience or to make us feel good.
Which brings up the subject of reading Scripture. The Bible may be the most
political book ever written. At least still in print. As Richard Rohr in his Jesus’
Plan for a New World (2011) writes: “It has done an immense amount of
good. At the same time, it probably has caused more damage than any other
book in human history.” In other words, one can derive great insight and un-
derstanding about one’s current life challenges or one can use Scripture to
justify white nationalism, misogyny, racism, gender discrimination, violence
towards one’s neighbor, disregard for those less fortunate, and even war.
One of the problems with reading the Bible is that if one is not careful or will-
ing to work to understand what Scripture is actually saying or means for us
today, one can imagine that Scripture can be twisted to justify almost any
immoral, unethical or evil thoughts or actions that one brings to the reading.
In technical language, one is doing eisegesis, not exegesis. That is, one
reads-in meaning to Scripture that is not there rather than uncovering the
original meaning that is actually in the Scripture. This is tricky, especially for
fundamentalists who imagine that the meaning is limited by the specific, lit-
eral meaning of words. The problem with this interpretation is that the He-
brew the Christian Old Testament was originally written in and the koine
Greek that the Christian New Testament was originally written in does not
support such a notion. As Richard Rohr comments: “In the name of taking
the word literally, the fundamentalist is in fact missing the literal word.”
PREACHING THE GOSPEL
Maybe the archetypal Biblical account of what preaching the Gospel looks
like is from Chapter 7 of the Acts of the Apostles. This is a narrative of the
stoning of Stephan for preaching the Gospel that is anathema to both Sad-
ducees and Pharisees, much less their Roman overlords in First Century CE.
What Stephan was courageous to proclaim was that in not recognizing Je-
sus as Lord, the Sadducees and Pharisees were essentially traitors to their
own tradition. Instead of assuming that attending worship at the Temple and
calling it a day, this was not good enough. Obviously, such a message did
not go so well for Stephan.
However, Rowan Williams in his Meeting God in Paul: Reflections for the
Season of Lent suggests is that what Stephan and Paul in his own right were
doing was not preaching a religion. Indeed, the idea of a religion or religious
ideas was not even on anybody’s agenda. What preaching the Gospel meant
to both Stephan and Paul was announcing a “a new world order, a new way
of belonging with God and one another.” In today’s vernacular, Stephan’s
and Paul’s preaching the Gospel was highly political. But, it wasn’t until the
Eighteenth Century CE that politics was invented as a unique subject sepa-
rate from religion that also did not become a unique subject separate from
politics until this time. In other words, the Sadducees and Pharisees were
not really political parties as we understand political parties today. Nor would
our dichotomy as classifying people or ideas as conservative or liberal work.
Such classification categories did not exist then. Trying to fit discourse into
political vs. religious or liberal vs. conservative is entirely anachronistic on
our part.
What Jesus’ message and life embodied and what Stephan and Paul were
preaching was a radically new way of being in the world. This way of being in
the world was founded on God’s unfailing and undeserved love for us, which
we were to reflect into the world — to ourselves, our neighbors, and to God’s
good creation. Jesus’ teachings and Stephan’s and Paul’s preaching has lit-
tle to do with belief, but one’s being in the world. The Gospel brings us up
short — talking or thinking love is not enough — only acting in love is living
the Gospel. That is probably why Jesus, Stephan, and Paul were all killed.
This idea must have been as threatening then as it is today.
So what is this new way of being in the world look like and why is it so
threatening? Maybe Paul summarizes it best in Galatians:
There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and
female. For you are all one in Jesus Christ. (Gal. 3:28)
In other words, what the Gospel is saying is that we no longer get to put
someone in a box — judge them as less than or unworthy based on their po-
litical persuasion, ethnicity, race, gender, status in the community, nationality,
etc. Talk about a threatening way of being in the world! Gospel based love is
very different from warm, positive feelings toward another person or even
casual acts of charity toward those less fortunate:
Accept one another as Christ accepted us to the glory of God (Romans

15:7)
Today, there are plenty of folks who claim to be Christians, but have not yet
accepted the Gospel of Christ — at least the Gospel that Stephan and Paul
were preaching — a Gospel (Good News!) based on the teachings of Jesus.
You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall
not profit by the blood of your neighbor: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:16)
POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY
Positive Christianity, sounds good doesn’t it? After all Jesus’ teachings were
all about love, and love is certainly positive. But, Positive Christianity, as de-
veloped by the Nazis during the 1920’s is actually about something very dif-
ferent than love — at least the type and form of love as described in the
Gospels — God’s unfailing loyalty toward all humans and all of creation. But,
Positive Christianity is alive and well in certain Christian denominations and
sects today. Instances of the theology underlying Positive Christianity can
actually be found today in some sermons preached on Sundays even in
mainline churches. Let’s look at the theology of Positive Christianity:
• Christ was not Jewish. His teachings had little to do with the Judaism or
the politics of the First Century CE;
• Positive Christianity is entirely quiescent. Its job is to be positive (as de-

termined by the powers) and to passively support the State in all matters;
• Only the positive aspects of Christianity are real. Criticism of the State is
not allowable. Thus, the entire Old Testament and parts of the New Testa-
ment that are negative in their critique of the established order are no
longer tolerated as the real Christianity. Commentary on Pharaoh or Cae-
sar as sovereign are beside the point;
• Essentially under Positive Christianity, Christianity is a nationalist and

racist religion subservient to the aims of the State. For example, under the
theology of Positive Christianity, we are members of an American Chris-
tianity, not Christians living in America.
In essence, Dean G. Stroud in his book Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow: Ser-

mons of Resistance in the Third Reich (2013) states: “It was, one might de-
duce, Christianity with no God, no Christ, and no content. It was the ‘politi-
cally correct’ version of an empty gospel.”
The Nazis originally developed the tenets of Positive Christianity in the

1920’s. For example, Hans Kerri, Nazi Minister for Church Affairs articulated
most clearly how Positive Christianity was to support the State:
“The Party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and positive Chris-
tianity is National Socialism... National Socialism is the doing of God's
will... God's will reveals itself in German blood... True Christianity is repre-
sented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party
and especially the Fuehrer to a real Christianity... the Fuehrer is the her-
ald of a new revelation.”
However by the late 1930’s, this attempt to co-opt the message of the
Gospel ultimately failed. For example, 715 Confessing Church pastors2 were
arrested by the Nazis in 1935 who dared to preach negative Christianity —
the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some were imprisoned for a few days, months or
years, some died in the Camps, others were beaten, shot or hung. Almost all
had a few of their parishioners walk out in protest for preaching the Gospel.
“Love, forgiveness, sin, redemption, salvation, prayer, humility, and weak-
ness all have their place in the Christian vocabulary, but in Nazi speech these
are replaced by hatred, rejection, brutality, final victory, obedience to Hitler,
and rejection of the weak, the ill, and the marginal.”
2 Clergy who “confessed the absolute Lordship of Christ over the Church.” The Confessing Church grew out of the
Pastor’s Emergency League which was formed when it became clear that the Nazis wished the church to fall under
the state’s political rule.
The question asked of German Christians during Nazi times may be a similar
question being asked of Christians today in America: “Can we follow Jesus
even if it means going against our favorite politician, political party, articulat-
ed national interest, or whatever entity or idol usually prevents us from see—
——ing the gospel clearly?”
“When the preacher exegetes the biblical text faithfully and in obedience to
the biblical text, he may find himself challenged to say dangerous words that
will demand from him ‘civic courage’ (Zivilcourage).”
DOUBT
Be merciful to those who doubt (Jude 23)
Abolish all doubt and what is left — only the confused conviction of funda-
mentalist Truth. One foolishly imagines that only he/she knows what is right
— what the Truth is. Because of this absolutism, for those subscribing to a
fundamentalist ‘faith,’ one relies instead on arrogance, not the faith of Ju-
daism, Christianity or Islam. Such hubris actually looks more like infidelity.
The advantage to being an infidel (Latin for faithlessness) is that this elimi-
nates all struggle — there is no doubt.
In her TED talk “The doubt essential to faith” in June 2013, the author Lesley
Hazelton reminds us that: “we, the vast and still far too silent majority, have
ceded the public arena to this extremist minority. We've allowed Judaism to
be claimed by violently messianic West Bank settlers, Christianity by homo-
phobic hypocrites and misogynistic bigots, Islam by suicide bombers. And
we've allowed ourselves to be blinded to the fact that no matter whether
they claim to be Christians, Jews or Muslims, militant extremists are none of
the above. They're a cult all their own, blood brothers steeped in other peo-
ple's blood. This isn't faith. It's fanaticism, and we have to stop confusing
the two. We have to recognize that real faith has no easy answers. It's diffi-
cult and stubborn. It involves an ongoing struggle, a continual questioning of
what we think we know, a wrestling with issues and ideas. It goes hand in
hand with doubt, in a never-ending conversation with it, and sometimes in
conscious defiance of it.”
In other words, fidelity of faith, as opposed to infidelity is political, is contin-

gent, is uncertain, is worth the struggle. For a Jesus Movement follower,
knowing the final truth about reality is hardly possible. That is because truth
is provisional; evolving and continuously being revealed as God acts in His-
tory. However, that does not mean that any truth or opinion is equal to any
other truths and opinions. When we are discussing science, scientific
method is the ground. If we are discussing Christian theology, Scripture and
the theologians of the Church are the ground. If we are discussing politics,
the Gospels most assuredly must be our ground.
A FINAL SOLUTION
In his 1925 Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Adolph Hitler lays out his theology.
He, not Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Christianity, with its language of “love,
forgiveness, sin, redemption, salvation, prayer, humility, and weakness” is
‘old school’ and useless today in the ‘real world.’ Given that human beings
are animals and all is merely struggle for survival, only “hatred, rejection, bru-
tality, final victory, obedience to Hitler, and rejection of the weak, the ill, and
the marginal” should be honored. So for Hitler, what does this struggle for
survival look like? It looks like a racial struggle to secure Lebestraum (living
space) — “the riches of nature.”
As Timothy Snyder writes in his Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and
Warning (2015): “In Hitler’s ‘struggle for the riches of nature,’ it was a sin not
to seize everything possible, and a crime to allow others to survive. Mercy
violated the order of things because it allowed the weak to propagate. Re-
jecting the biblical commandments, said Hitler, is what human beings must
do. ‘If I can accept a divine commandment,’ he wrote, ‘it’s this one: Thou
shalt preserve the species.’” In other words, democracy and human freedom
— pursuit of liberty, life and happiness was anathema to Hitler and others
who subscribed to his Germanic, white, racist, nationalism. But, every racist
struggle must have an Other to be racist against for racism is always “an as-
serted hierarchy of rights to the planet.” During the later 1880’s and early
1900’s, the annihilation of the native peoples in the German colonies of
Africa was such a Hitlerian divine commandment. This is the first time Final
Solution was used when a German state geologist “called for a ‘Final Solu-
tion to the native question.’” In My Struggle, Hitler claimed that the Jews
were the people who had originally introduced such ideas of weakness such
as love and mercy and hope that were so contrary to the survival of the
species, so they, by default, must be dealt with as a Final Solution. In today’s
world, instead of colonial native Africans or Jews, the Final Solution appears
to be focused on immigrants. For example, Amnesty International’s annual
report “The State of the World’s Human Rights,” describes 2016 as “the year
when the use of ‘us vs. them’ narratives of blame, hate, and fear took on a
global prominence to a level not seen since the 1930s.” Maybe Paul’s letter
to the Ephesians challenges this anti-Christian message best:
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens (immigrants), but

fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household…
(Eph. 2:19)
As Keary Kincannon, pastor of Rising Hope United Methodist Mission

Church that operates a hypothermia shelter in Alexandria, VA reminds us:
“God makes no distinctions between us whether we’re undocumented or
documented. Our role is to love people the way Jesus loves people regard-
less of their immigration status, regardless of their faith, regardless of their
political affiliation, we are just to love all people.”
US VS. THEM
Amnesty International’s annual report “The State of the World’s Human

Rights,” describes 2016 as “the year when the use of ‘us vs. them’ narratives
of blame, hate, and fear took on a global prominence to a level not seen
since the 1930s.” What Jesus Movement Followers must remember is that,
at least from the Gospel’s remembrances of Jesus’ teachings and Paul’s
Epistles, there is no ‘us vs. them.’ For example, our Holy Baptism covenant
asks: “Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as
yourself? and “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and
respect the dignity of every human being?” Notice that our baptism did not
suggest that we “seek and serve Christ” in some persons or that we “re-
spect the dignity of some human beings more or less than other human be-
ings of our choosing or convenience. Our baptismal vow is quite explicit.
This not only comes from Jesus’ radical politics of caring for the poor, the
alien and the outcast, as reiterated over and over again by the Old Testament
prophets as God’s desire for blessed relationality among humans (and God’s
good creation) , but also made explicit by Paul in Corinthians 5:17. As
Rowan Williams in his Meeting God in Paul: Reflections for the Season of
Lent (2015) says: “Paul says that to be baptized in commitment to Jesus is
to become or be involved in a ‘new creation.’ Everything is beginning again
because the real universe (as distinct from the fantasy world of our fear, self-
ishness, greed, folly and rivalry) is the universe that hangs together finally
because of the love of Jesus….where no one is a slave or migrant deprived
of dignity…” In other words, ‘blame, hate, and fear’ as reasons to create an
us vs. them conflict is not Christian and those who claim their allegiance to
Christ, yet treat the Other with disrespect or support policies that do, are not
behaving in anything approaching a Christ-like being in the world.
SOLIPHISMS
“If you are preaching your truth, then you are claiming everyone else is
wrong.” I get this response regularly in meetings as a director on the water
district board. A ratepayer claims that if he can turn on the faucet and water
comes out, he knows all there is to know about the water business and if I
disagree with him, “I don’t know what I am talking about.” This conflation of
truth, opinion, and disregard for facts seems to be a particularly pernicious
and dangerous virus going around today. I encounter it everywhere, in al-
most every subject one chooses to discuss today, even in the trivia of cock-
tail party chatter. Sometimes when I am confronted with alternative facts, I
respond with either incredulity or hilarity as someone works feverishly to
convince me that black is really white, up is down, war is peace, or even that
gravity isn't really real. All supported by their alternative facts — facts that
are actually particularly noxious opinions whose support is a particular, limit-
ed ideology.
But, maybe the most dangerous area where alternative facts can be lethal is
in the arena of religion. This is because religion is often foundational to one’s
worldview — which god or gods does one choose to worship? Things can
get quite dicey. ISIS claims its acts of terror as justified by Islam. Jewish set-
tlers on the West Bank claim that Hebrew Scripture gives them the right to
take land from the Palestinians who have lived there for generations. In the
US we have people who claim self-referentially that they are Christians yet
support racism, white nationalism, individualism (conditional love for one’s
neighbor), misogyny (against gender equality) — e.g. policing people’s bed-
rooms and dictating woman’s reproductive choices. Of course, each of these
world religions actually do not remotely support such world-views. A much
different god that the God of Islam, Judaism, of Christianity is being wor-
shipped by folks who subscribe to these views. So, what about the deviant
Christian who claims that: “If you are preaching your truth, then you are
claiming everyone else is wrong.” This may be the ultimate sophism, a re-
sponse worthy of those subscribing to Positive Christianity ad developed
the 1920’s Germany by the Nazis — in essence, an impenetrable conflation
of alternative facts, opinion, and ideologically-driven truths — solipsisms to
the core.
THE LANGUAGE OF FAITH
The language of faith is not the language of love or at least, the type of love
that relies on emotions and ‘positive feelings’ some confuse with what love
as described in Scripture means. The language of faith is political, but not
political in the sense of the divisive partisan politics of Twenty-First Century
America. As Rowan Williams in his Christ on Trial: How the Gospel Unsettles
Our Judgement (2000) reminds us that the language of faith is “freeing our-
selves to see the truth.” Not to suffocate ourselves with self-limiting and self-
confirming untruths supported by ‘alternative facts.’ For example, today in
the newspaper one Christian denomination has a quote from Paul’s letter to
Romans that the job of Christians is to obey the established authorities at all
costs (civil obedience). Nice try, but that is not what Romans 13 actually
says when translated from the Koine Greek into English. Not what Paul sug-
gests in reading his entire letter to the Romans. And certainly not what Jesus
teaches in the Gospels or the prophets proclaim in the Old Testament. In-
stead, the language of faith is to preach truth to power, to love one’s neigh-
bor as oneself, and to forego the sovereignty of Pharaoh and Caesar for the
sovereignty of God. In other words, the language of faith does not look like a
language of quietude — going along to get along — but a language that
starts with a personal morality and ethical behavior based on God’s unfailing
faithfulness towards all humans. This is a far cry from civil obedience in
times when authorities twisted the word of God to support Crusades where
killing ‘infidels’ (Muslims) was for God’s glory; the treatment of women as
property (human, but lesser than a man); the subjugation and control of
woman’s bodies (ditto); slavery (whites were created by God as the superior
race); Jim Crow laws (ditto); etc. And now, building walls of hate for an other,
lesser type of acceptable human — the immigrant.
The Language of Faith reflects that: “God is simply that which makes it nat-
ural and necessary to act against insanity and violence. God is the reality
that, simply by being what it is (or who it is), establishes that violence cannot
fill up the whole space of the world.”
THE PARABLES OF JESUS
The parables of Jesus are some of the most political narratives ever written,
al least that have been preserved for posterity. Who knew? Too many Chris-
tians read them as nice, interesting, hard to figure out narratives about an-
cient times — hardly relevant for today’s world. But, that is not the case. The
parables of Jesus have imminent value for us today — for those who have
eyes to see and ears to hear. For these parables call to question our entire
worldview today, just like they did to hearers in the First Century CE —
maybe, more so. In Richard Lischer’s Reading the Parables (2014) he states;
“But if we really listen to Jesus, we cannot help but notice that the Christian
message trades in pointed words of a different sort, vivid pictures, imagina-
tive language, and a new view of everyday life from which God is not absent
or relegated to the margins…. ‘Scripture’ is no longer a collection of texts,
but the enveloping context in which believers live and worship.” This is why I
suggest that the parables are so political in their intent. That is, because in-
stead of assuming we live in a ‘religious world’ ruled by God and a ‘secular
world’ ruled by the secular powers, Jesus’ parables says this is nonsense.
We live in only one world — ruled by God. In First Century CE, this was
about as politically subversive statement as could have been made. Certain-
ly, such an idea was anathema to the civil powers of the day. That is also
probably why Jesus was crucified as ‘an enemy of the State.’ As he certainly
was not killed for preaching about love and peace or healing the sick without
a medical license. And today, maybe this is why we often choose to imagine
that Jesus’ parables were just interesting narratives rather than highly politi-
cal challenges as to whom we chose as our sovereign — to whom do we
owe our allegiance?
LEADERSHIP
When we think of Jesus, do we think of him as a model of good leadership?

He certainly was not the idea of leadership embodied in a First Century CE
Messiah. Someone who would expel the occupying Romans from Judea
(modern-day Palestine). A great general or politician blessed with soothing
rhetoric. Which brings up the question: Why do we imagine real leaders are
those individuals who “spread derision and division… ideology and blame”?
Thus, in some respects, the Gospels (Jesus’ biographies) and Paul’s letters
are commentary on what real leadership looks like and what it does not look
like. Real leadership has concern for the common good and compassion for
the less fortunate, the disposed, and the immigrant (the alien in Biblical lan-
guage). Toxic leadership disregards the common good and relies on the lan-
guage of hate of outsiders by insiders. There is no compassion shown by
toxic leaders. The Gospels and Letters of Paul are pretty clear on the differ-
ences between real leaders and toxic leaders. What is also clear from Scrip-
ture is that as followers of Christ (members of the Jesus Movement) our re-
sponsibility is to stand up to toxic leaders — the likes of Pharaoh and Caesar
— but, not in the usual way employed by toxic leaders, with violence. What
Jesus recommends is to lead with love instead. Hey, maybe Jesus is a mod-
el of good leadership after all.
TALKIN’ ABOUT A REVOLUTION
Reflections on N.T. Wright’s The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering

the Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion.
What N.T. Wright believes is the ‘revolution’ started by Jesus’ crucifixion is a

redefinition of what it means to be human. “Humans were made to be ‘im-
age-bearers.’ to reflect the praises of creation back to the creator and to re-
flect the Creator’s wise and loving stewardship into the world.” What consti-
tutes sin “is actually idolatry, worshiping and serving anything in the place of
the one true God.” That means if we subscribe to a political persuasion, ide-
ology, or leader that serves as our sovereign over the sovereignty of God, we
are committing idolatry. What idolatry does is to distort our “vocation as
bearing God’s image.” This looks like sinning, which “ becomes the refusal
of humans to play their part in God’s purposes for creation as a whole” — to
be in relationality with God, self, neighbor, and God’s good creation. This is a
far, far cry from those who subscribe to a “moralist God who threatened
people that he would send them to hell if they displeased him” or to watch
passively on the sidelines as God’s good creation is despoiled by some toxic
leader. So, how does any of this have to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.
The crucifixion has to do with a rescue operation so that humankind can ful-
fill its calling — something that sin prevents or at least gets in the way of.
Essentially, Jesus’ “death, the climax of his work of inaugurating God’s king-
dom on earth as in heaven, was the victory over the destructive powers let
loose into the world not simply through human wrongdoing, the breaking of
moral codes, but through the human failure to be image-bearers, to worship
the Creator and reflect his wise stewardship into the world…”
The entire New Testament narratives reflect “that when Jesus of Nazareth
dies on the cross, something happened as a result of which the world is a
different place. This is good news indeed! Something extraordinary — revo-
lutionary occurred. Sin, “the human failure of vocation” was overcome. We
no longer need to be passive as “the ‘powers’ seize control, and the Cre-
ator’s plan for his creation cannot go ahead as intended.” Jesus has mod-
eled a new way of being — taking an active part in God’s plan for the world.
THE MELANCHOLIA OF VIOLENCE
One of the most unsettling and potentially politically radical teachings of Je-
sus as remembered in the Gospels (Jesus’ biographies) was Jesus’ teach-
ings about violence. Namely, his radical support of non-violence. Such a no-
tion was certainly unsettling in First Century CE when the entire Roman em-
pire was based on violence and the maintenance of order in occupied terri-
tories through violence, which the Romans propagandized as Pax Romana.
Today, violence is still the standard for achieving order and often one’s par-
ticular political aims.
The New York Times has published a revealing series, Violence: A series of
dialogues with philosophers and critical theorists on the question of violence.
The purpose of violence is all about “the violation of bodies and the de-
struction of human lives.” To enable people to imagine that violence will
solve their problems, the proponents engage in “the violence of organized
forgetting.” The forgetting that is necessary is that violence ultimately de-
stroys “the customs, spaces and rhythms that constitute a person’s life.” In
essence, the place where violence occurs is “nowhere” and the Others who
deserve violence being done to them “consist of demeaning processes in-
tended to disqualify lives and ways of living from deserving safety and
rights.” Ultimately, violence is a political decision. The Scriptures, both Old
and New Testaments, especially Jesus’ teachings, provide a political alterna-
tive to the human penchant to violence and violence’s effect of suffering and
neglect. In the Old Testament, violence destroys God’s good creation, curses
God’s image in which human beings were made, and disrupts the rightness
of the cosmic order.
FREEDOM
Scripture has a lot to say about human freedom. A Scriptural take on free-
dom is not even close to a recent politician’s definition: “Freedom is the abili-
ty to buy what you want to fit what you need.” This definition of what free-
dom means is derived from the Greek notion “freedom is equivalent to ‘do-
ing whatever one wants.’” The problem with that definition of freedom is that
it oftentimes assumes one can only be free absent laws and regulations.
Maybe the ultimate version is a property owner who claims: “This is my
property and I can do anything I want with my property.” Maybe such senti-
ment works until the property owner next door decides to establish a dump
for radioactive waste on his property, rendering the value of all nearby prop-
erties zero. Laws and regulations are necessary for maintaining property val-
ues and for markets to work. For example, ln study after study, Nobel econ-
omists have shown that little wealth can be created without rules (regula-
tions) that govern markets. Otherwise, no one can make profits other than a
few ruthless, greedy operators. Deregulation and lawlessness tends to result
in markets collapsing, as costs are transferred to the public. What is going
on is the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs.
A more sinister effect of such a definition of freedom is that it tends to create

an ‘enemy of the people’ where freedom is thought of as freedom for me to
do what I want and the ‘me’ happens to be those in power. This definition of
freedom has “been used by totalitarian dictators to foster resentment and
hatred of certain groups, and eventually to crush dissent and opposition.”
However, such a definition of human freedom might be considered an abom-

ination and pure idolatry by the Old Testament prophets, Jesus in the
Gospels (his biographies), and Paul’s Epistles. In Christian sources, human
freedom is derived from ‘free will.’ God has given humans the freedom to do
good or do evil. To work for the common good or to be selfish and greedy.
To reflect God’s image or to sin. But the ultimate purpose (telos) of this free-
dom is to become all that God has created us to be. Anything less is sin and
has absolutely nothing to do with being free. Instead of being free, one
would be a slave to Sin — those forces that bind us and render us less than
what God had in mind for us when he created us.
The psychoanalyst, Eric Fromm, in his Escape From Freedom (1941) that
discusses why people may gravitate towards totalitarianism over democracy
says: “Democracy will triumph over the forces of nihilism only if it can imbue
people with a faith … in life and in truth, and in freedom as the active and
spontaneous realization of the individual self.” Scripture says it somewhat
differently, but the path toward freedom and away from slavery does involve
faith — in the one true God as our Sovereign, and not Pharaoh or Caesar.
FEAR NOT
Yea right! Nice idea, but there is so much to fear these days. For example,
we might get killed in a terrorist attack. But, the risk management experts
say more Americans die each year falling in the bathtub than from terrorism.
Americans are 1,333 times more likely to be shot dead by a criminal than
killed by a terrorist. But shouldn’t we be concerned about all those illegal
immigrants waiting to harm us? Unfortunately, again the risk management
experts say that this population is the least likely to engage in violent crime.
There are many, many things to fear, such as an asteroid striking the earth
obliterating most of life, a pandemic that runs rampant, killing millions be-
cause the nation’s population does not have adequate access to the health
insurance to afford primary care. Significant loss to property values due to
the nations of the world failure to come to terms with Anthropogenic Climate
Disruption (ACD). The risk of nuclear war fueled by a madman whose mas-
culine power has been maligned by a foreign power. The loss of competitive
advantages in the global economy due to restrictive immigration laws. Loss
of economic leadership due to continued reliance on fossil fuels, etc.
So why did Jesus tell us not to fear (more than 300x in all of Scripture)? Was
he on to something or just unbelievably naive? My guess is that by “fear
not,” Jesus was not saying that if we walk into the lion’s den spouting
solemn prayers that God would make everything turn out OK. I suspect that
walking into a hungry lion’s den would produce the same outcome no matter
how spiritual or prayerful one might be or believe one was. And likewise, as-
suming that God or nature will miraculously solve the problem of ACD, by
now a multi-trillion dollar existential problem is probably not the best or most
rational risk reduction management strategy.
No, my guess that Jesus’ admonition to “fear not” is a sound strategy to

stop worrying and to do something to address whatever problems one faces
or understands at the moment. But, the idea is to proceed with hope and
trust that God is with us in our times of travail. Not that God will somehow
solve our problem for us. That assumption is the domain of the televangelists
who claim that everything will work out only if we send the televangelists a
big enough check. Jesus is very clear in his Gospels (the biographies of Je-
sus) — it up to us to address our problems, in love, with knowledge of God’s
steadfast love for us, enough love to walk with us through our valley of tears
— no matter what.
THE EUCHARIST
Every time that I participate in worship services, I dutifully go to the commu-

nion rail and receive the Eucharist. Have you ever wondered what is going
on in the Eucharist? I know that for myself, attending worship services and
going to communion helps me get through the next week. That is, when I
miss a Sunday worship service, I can tell the difference all week long. But,
why do I go to communion each Sunday? What is going on for me in this
sacrament?
What I have come to understand is that there are three momentous and
earth-shattering things happening in the Eucharist during each worship ser-
vice for me:
(1) the Eucharist is a symbolic acknowledgment that my neighbors mat-

ter. That God created us all human in His image to share bread with
one another — that being in relationship with God means, if nothing
else, being in communion with one another;
(2) the Eucharist is a symbolic anamnesis (remembrance) that salvation

rests with God, not human striving. This is a bit tricky as many peo-
ple still think of salvation as something that occurs after death, as in
“going to heaven.” But this is not the case. As we learn in Jesus’ bi-
ographies (the Gospels), salvation comes from turning toward God
and away from false idols such as one’s allegiance to a political par-
ty, a particular economic ideology, certainty in one’s beliefs versus
the uncertainty that comes with listening to God in one’s life rather
than one’s own hubris, imagining human rationality is all there is
when the universe is so filled with mystery, etc.
(3) however, what changed my understanding forever of why I choose

to participate in the Eucharist was a book by William Cavanaugh,
Torture and the Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ
(1998). What Cavanaugh describes is how the faithful in Chile under
the Pinochet regime used the Eucharist as a sign of resistance to a
regime of torture — a non-violent act of defiance that ultimately

brought this corrupt regime down. So, each Sunday, when I walk
down the aisle to the communion rail to receive the Eucharist, I think
of myself marching for the resistance. But, what am I resisting? I am
resisting a world where my neighbor is judged as less than based on
any number of attributes (ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual
orientation, relative wealth, position in society, etc., etc.). I am resist-
ing a Caesar who believes his/her ideology triumphs over science
and factual data. I am resisting those who believe their certainty
concerning reality removes the mystery of God acting in the world as
He chooses, rather than as we wish Him to act. But most of all I am
marching to the communion rail to show the world that God is my
sovereign, not Caesar. I am a Christian living in America, and not
afraid to show my allegiance to God.
CHAOS
Christianity’s “failure to display consistently the fruit of the Spirit: denomina-

tional love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and especially denominational
faithfulness and self control (cf. Gal. 5:22-23),” as Kevin J. Vanhoozer in his
Biblical Authority After Babel (2016) writes is hardly contestable. By why is
that? Why do we stray so far from our Christian roots of love of neighbor,
care for God’s good creation, and openness to God’s willingness and prom-
ise to resurrect our lives from our own certainties and destructive, but com-
fortable habits? Some might provide an easy answer: “its just human
nature.” But, what does that really explain? From history and anthropological
research of other cultures, we know that this easy answer is not necessarily
true in all place and at all times. Human nature is actually quite fluid through
time and place.
I would like to present an alternative direction to look. A direction that

William T. Cavanaugh in his Theopolitical Imagination: Discovering the Litur-
gy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism (2002) explores. He
argues that, Christianity is at its very foundation, is a religion of resistance —
of political resistance to a socio-economic reality that is dead set against our
Christian roots of love of neighbor, care for God’s good creation, and open-
ness to God’s willingness and promise to resurrect our lives from our own
certainties and destructive, but comfortable habits? To be blunt, Jesus, and
Jesus’ biographies (the Gospels) are anathema to the powers and authorities
— not just of First Century CE Roman occupied Judea, but today, in Ameri-
ca.
This dichotomy between christian and Christian identity might be under-

stood as that between Positive Christianity (developed by the Nazis in the
1920’s) and a Confessing Christianity. One who subscribes to Positive Chris-
tianity believes that the purpose of Christianity is to support the present
Caesar as a nationalist duty. Jesus was just all about love and never political
in his parables. He was not only mistaken in his criticisms of the Sadducees,
the ruling class of the day, but of Rome, the occupying military force of the
day. The Old Testament story of the Exodus and criticisms of Pharaoh must
be excised from the Bible of the Positive Christian.
In contrast, the Confessing Christian does not subscribe to a nationalist

church, but the church of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ life and teachings provide the
polestar, not the reigning Caesar. Allegiance to the message of Jesus to love
one’s neighbor, care for God’s good creation, and openness to God’s will-
ingness and promise to resurrect one’s life from our own certainties and de-
structive, but comfortable habits takes precedence to one’s political party,
ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, position in society, relative wealth, etc.
WHY DO WE GET UP WHEN WE HAVE BEEN KNOCKED DOWN?
I don’t know about you, but it seems like its so much easier to get knocked
down these days. An unkind word to one’s face. Even worse, unkind words
behind one’s back. Like sharp knives. Such devastating remarks and actions
can be so casual. So innocent, yet earthshaking to the one for whom this
negative energy is focused. So how does one respond to someone taking an
ax to a relationship or to a reputation, imbuing one’s very being with some-
thing bad, something less than human? And if confronted, the one assaulting
utters pure words of denial: “what, have I offended you? This is your prob-
lem. I was just speaking the truth.” Pure gaslighting and pretense that the
other has no humanity, deserves no respect, just because ____________ (fill

in the blank — but always such a good reason in the mind of the assaulter).
Certainly, the national news doesn’t provide a solid ground of being. The
news is regularly anything but uplifting. My dreaming nightmares are tame
compared to the morning news these days. On what basis does hope spring
eternal? Could it be attitude? I often hear, “attitude is everything. All you
need is a positive attitude and your life will be perfect.” I don’t know about
you, but I hear that platitude and it sounds like dribble — demented ravings
— the very avoidance of reality. If I ask, “now, how or why should I have a
positive attitude about nuclear war with North Korea?, the answer that is re-
turned is unintelligible magical thinking. Like living in a fairyland where fairy
tales always come true.
If you ask me why I bother to get up when I get knocked down, I would an-
swer that I still have hope. Hope is NOT a positive attitude. Hope is hope.
Hope, not that some politician will make anything better. Hope, not that God
will somehow sweep down and drive all the evil from the world. But hope
that, with the unmerited grace of God, if I bother to get up, I can make a dif-
ference in the world. And faith that if I try, do my best, something, no matter
how small, will be better today, or someday in the future, for me having got-
ten back up rather than stay knocked down. At least, for me, this is what the
biographies of Jesus (the Gospels) and Paul’s letters say in so many words.
The narcissists and gaslighters of the world do not have and will not have
the last word. So why should I give them that power just because they treat
me like dirt, less than human because___________ (fill in the blank).
COMMITMENT
Commitment is a good thing. Yes? Or does it matter what one is committed

to? Might we know people who are committed to death? Like watching Fox
News or CNN excessively and believing that either media source conveys
what is real or important in the world. I know folks who are committed Re-
publicans or Democrats, as if this bifurcation of what is important in the
world of politics gives them sustenance. Forgives deceit and incompetence,
as long as the elected official is of the correct party. I also have friends that
are committed to money, sex, demographics, place, sports team, dietary

regimen, TV series, decor, authors, etc. Maybe a better descriptor would be
passion for. Which helps. What commitment might we have a passion for?
Ah, now you imagine that I plan to describe that our commitment should be
God, or religion or church. But, that is not where I am going.
My sense is that what commitment we might strive to have passion for is to

take care of one another. At least that is what Pema Chödrön in her Living
Beautifully with Uncertainty and Change (2013) suggests. That commitment
requires us to go beyond “prejudice and fixed opinions, and open our hearts
to everyone: those we like, those we don’t like, those we don’t even notice,
those we may never meet.” Now, what is the point of this passion? Could it
be that such a commitment might be an antidote to our resistance to
change; to stop living in and with our certainties? And, after all, what is the
essence of Jesus’ message in his biographies (the Gospels) and Paul’s let-
ters? Might it be that it is time to change, to engage the world with new
eyes, to be less certain that what we believe, how we behave toward others,
towards the environment, towards ourselves, and towards God is actually
useful or correct or even moral and ethical — or Christian — at least any-
thing recognizable from Scripture?
Believing in Jesus, which is often accompanied with lots of shoulds and shall
nots is one thing. But I do not imagine that is what Jesus meant by “believe
in me.” My sense is that Jesus was offering us an opportunity to act like him
— to take care of one another and trust in the faith that God will take care of
us. If only. What Scripture points out over and over again is that such faith in
action requires an openness to change — to be less certain that we have
things all figured out and that our way of dealing with reality is the only right,
correct way to proceed. What Jesus is asking of us is hard, hard work. And
so life-giving; so wonderful and blessed! Something truly to be committed to
with passion!
MINORITY REPORT
Did you ever stop to think that the Bible is actually a minority report? The vi-
sion of some fanatics who believed that the royal portrayal of history was not
accurate because it does not do justice either to the activities of God in Histo-
ry, or the immigrant, the widow, the orphan — those marginalized ‘neighbors’
of the human condition. At least this is the perspective introduced by Walter
Brueggemann in his The Prophetic Imagination, 2nd Edition (2001).
Instead of being ignored or suppressed by the prevailing powers and authori-

ties, whether by Pharaoh or Caesar, Scripture opens up a new History — full
of possibilities. Maybe the most radical possibility that Scripture opens up is
that of human freedom. Freedom to think for oneself; to ask what God wants
of me; to pursue a path toward God. A God who is also free to be God. To
lead us to unknown and unexpected places. A God that would be unwelcome
in the power centers of the world, disavowed by the Pharaohs and Caesars of
every generation. Why? Because the Pharaohs and Caesars thrive on control
— the disruption of human freedom; the fragmentation of neighborly solidari-
ty. Instead, the Bible is full of passion for the human condition; of liberating
examples of men and women who stand up to power that seeks to separate
them from a path towards God.
This vision of human community in Scripture is a radical vision of our rela-

tionality with God, with our neighbor, with the environment and what defines
us as persons in this world. In Scripture, “Justice and freedom are inherently
promissory.” They are promised gifts from God. But, it is up to us, each of us,
to help realize these gifts from God.
SECRETS
For most of my working life, I have been both privileged and burdened by se-
crets. The secrets I am referring to are not personal or hidden from view for
some nefarious reason. They are secrets of state, corporate boardroom con-
fidentiality, and even created by intellectual property rights. Mostly, these se-
crets in the grand scheme of things are trivial, no matter how closely held.
This is in stark contrast with the secrets of the priesthood.
As L. William Countryman in his Living on the Border of the Holy: Remember-

ing the Priesthood of the Holy (1999) states that the secrets held by the
priesthood of believers are those truths “glimpsed in the borderlands of the
Holy.” “Without such priestly ministry we are in danger of finding ourselves
bewildered and cast adrift.” Such Truths are hardly available from Fox News
or CNN or casual conversation. The primary responsibility of this priestly min-
istry is to preach the Truth of the Gospel. “The gospel takes what is already
intrinsic to us and fill and enhances and clarifies it.” What defines this priestly
ministry is that at best it “introduces us to hidden things, to secrets.” These
secrets are the deepest aspects of what it means to be human. These se-
crets “are secret because they concern dimensions of human expression
where language fails… [they] take us beyond the realm of everyday thinking”
— to the Borderland of the Holy.
A FIELD OF POSSIBILITIES
Question: Do you believe that: “humans have a meaningful place in a mean-

ingful world”? If so, this requires courage “to see the world in certain sorts of
ways,” at least according to Johnathan Lear in his Radical Hope: Ethics in the
Face of Cultural Devastation (2006). Yet, daily, almost hourly, one is faced
with a world reeling out of control. Is this why many of us feed anxiety that
‘something is not right’? Why some of us spend a few moments each day in
mourning?
Instead of ideology as an antidote — believing that the world can be saved if

only one’s preferred political views were in power or compatible policies were
enacted, maybe there is a better way. Might this ‘better way’ start and stop
with the model of Jesus? That is, Jesus acted in the world as if it has mean-
ing. Such actions, if lived into in the model of Jesus’s actions, opens up a
field of possibilities, unknown and unseen with eyes blinded by ideology.
Might Christianity at its essence and ideology in its results, be diametrical op-
posites?
THE LEGITIMACY OF RADICAL HOPE
Hope, especially radical hope, is likely unrelated to optimism. As Johnathan

Lear in his Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation (2006)
writes: “It is the hallmark of the wishful that the world will be magically trans-
formed into conformity with how one would like it to be, without having to take
any realistic practical steps to bring it about.” Radical hope, as opposed to
optimism or ‘positive thinking’ is very different in that it empowers one to act
with courage in the face of convenient reasons why not. Even when daily
news signifies that: “There is a storm coming that will blow down all the trees
but one.”
Radical hope in the face of what one is exposed to “is a daunting form of
commitment to a goodness in the world that transcends one’s current ability
to grasp what it is.” This is not only mysterious, but requires much courage.
Courage to maintain a path towards radical hope that God is with us, in
steadfast love — no matter what the world says or believes at the moment.
WITNESSING DEATH
I’d like to discuss a different sort of death. Not the bodily death of a friend or
loved one. Nor the death of a relationship. Instead, the death I am referring to
is the death of coherence. A walk into the abyss of unknowing (that some-
times feels like a run). The end of history that one understands. For example,
when I walk into a restaurant and order a hamburger, this is an entirely co-
herent act. But, what if the waiter responds, “sorry sir, there are no more
hamburgers. All the costs in the world are extinct.” Or, further imagine, for
whatever reason, there are no more restaurants. Or even a distant memory
that such a place ever existed.
This is exactly what happened in 70 CE when the Romans destroyed the

Second Temple. For the Jews of the First Century, history stopped. What de-
fined them as a people was no more. The Romans were not just about de-
stroying a building, but destroying the meaning of life for the Jews. The objec-
tive was to render an entire people without the cultural signifiers that once
gone would disrupt an entire culture past recovering. This is the stuff of dicta-
tors and the hubris of occupying warfare.
What the Romans did not count on was that this had happened before when
Nebuchadezzar destroyed the First Temple in 587 BCE. Instead of surrender-
ing to a time where ‘nothing happened,’ the Hebrews wrote their cultural his-
tory in the Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament). Also, this time what the
Romans did not count on were the teachings and life of Jesus.
Jesus’ message was that History is not determined by the decrees and acts
of the Powers and Authorities — by those claiming to represent Caesar — in
any age. Only God determines History. If we listen with open hearts and dis-
cerning ears, we too can act in God’s History. No matter what the prevailing
Caesar chooses to do or fails to do. We have the freedom to choose which
history we live into.
In today’s world, maybe the intolerance we see all around us is driven by the
fear that indeed history around us is collapsing. Instead of trusting God and
His History, it is sometimes so much easier to blame the collapse on the Oth-
er, knowing full well deep-down that the Other is just a convenient scapegoat.
RIDING A BICYCLE
I’d like to propose that following Jesus is like riding a bicycle.As Erika Warm-
brunn writes in her Where the Pavement Ends: One Woman’s Bicycle Trip
through Mongolia, China & Vietnam (2001): “Why was I bicycling across Chi-
na? Because a bicycle is freedom; a bicycle is independence; a bicycle is
self-sufficiency. Because traveling by bicycle takes away the option of control-
ling your environment, or glossing over the ugly bits. Because a bicycle lands
you in places you didn’t know you wanted to go, and shows you things you
didn’t know you wanted to see, things you cannot search out by saying, ‘I’ll
take the train here, I’ll get off there.’ The things I want to happen were things
that only happen if you don’t plan them. The things I wanted to find were
things were things you can only find if you aren’t looking for them, things,
contrary to my nature, that I couldn't put on a list and check off as I want.
They were the moments, images, and connections that happen in places in
between.”
Could it be that following Jesus is like that? An adventure into the Unknown?
The opposite of this freedom of possibilities might be captured thusly:
What has been is what will be,

and has been done is what will be done;
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said.
“See, this is new?
It has been already.
in the ages before us” (Eccl. 1:9-10)
Instead of no new beginnings, following Jesus is all about new beginnings —
a radical hope that transcends the actions of those lost in a world without
God. The adventure is living into a faith that Jesus walks with us each mo-
ment, each step along the way “going to places you didn’t know you wanted
to go.”
RESIDING ON THE MARGINS
One of the defining characteristics of the Bible is how many stories are about
folks on the margins of power. Sure, we have stories about David and
Solomon, but, for example, the stories of Jesus in the New Testament are
certainly all about the teachings and actions of someone on the far margins
of power in First Century Palestine. Not only was Palestine an occupied terri-
tory where Rome was the center of power, but Jesus was not only un-
schooled, un-credentialed and unappreciated by the Second Temple Ju-
daism powerful elite — they even had a hand in convincing the Roman au-
thorities to crucify him as an “enemy of the state.”
What characterizes those on the margins of power is suffering. As individual

Christians and as a Church, we may often “feel powerless and unable to
control events. In that sense, it will suffer — not from direct persecution as
much from apparent irrelevance, dismissed to the margins by the powers
that be” writes Wesley Granberg-Michaelson in her “5 Spiritual Strategies for

the Trump Era” in Sojouners Magazine (April 2017).
However much we suffer, what the New Testament biographies of Jesus (the
Gospels) teach is that our perspective and context for understanding what
needs to be done to alleviate such suffering is that of the stranger, the wid-
ow, the orphan. That is, the “way of seeing the truth of society from the per-
spective of the powerless and oppressed stands in contradiction to the ver-
sion of ‘truth’ seen from the perspective rulers.” So what might be our re-
sponse to the ‘truth’ as reveled from the perspective of those of us on the
margins of power? “Pope John Paul II said that solidarity ‘is not a feeling of
vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people,
both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and preserving determination
to commit oneself to the common good of all and of each individual, be-
cause we are all really responsible for all.’” “It is this mutual belonging that
lies at the foundation of Christian social ethics.” This is not a liberal or con-
servative ethics, but a human Christian ethics. We all reside on the same is-
land Earth in a very, very big universe of God’s good creation.
SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
When I was playing sports in my youth, ‘sitting on the sidelines’ was a

derogatory statement meaning someone who was not committed to playing
the game. This was in stark contrast to those players who were committed.
William T. Cavanaugh in his Field Hospital: the church’s engagement with a
wounded world (2016) asks just such a question of the Church: “the church
either engages with ‘culture’ and the ‘world,’ or withdraws from them.” There
is no middle ground. The church is called to be a ‘player,’ but not a ‘player’
“in the game of the powerful.” As Pope Francis put it: “‘I prefer a church
which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets,
rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from cling-
ing to its own security.’”
Too often, churches want to ‘play it safe,’ with a stunted imagination that
separates the church from reality by an ‘ethereal spirituality’ or a ‘secular
practicality’ that is devoid of Jesus other than in the use of god language. If
anything, Jesus was present — he was real — he was engaged fully in the
game — committed. And the game was responding with love and compas-
sion to a wounded world. The church that Jesus founded was a church that:
“goes out into the world and helps to bind the wounds by taking on the suf-
fering of others into the suffering body of Christ.”
Sometimes this ‘ethereal spirituality’ or ‘secular practicality’ even metasta-

sizes into a nationalistic ‘Positive Christianity’ invented by the Nazis in the
1920’s completely devoid of Christ. Instead of God as one’s sovereign, na-
tionalism, ideology, or something even more sinister drives the game a
church might be playing. Positive Christianity is entirely passive. Its game is
to be ‘positive’ and support the status quo —whatever happens to be con-
venient at the time (e.g. slavery). Such a church asks nothing of its members.
It risks nothing. Addressing woundedness in this world is always at social,
political, and economic risk. That is the game Jesus was playing, at least
according to the Gospels (the biographies of Jesus). Today, just as in the
First Century CE, this may still be the only game in the end worth playing.
Far from the maddening and blissfully asleep crowd waiting for all the trees
to blow down but one.
As Jesus himself described it, he was sending out his disciples “like
sheep into the midst of wolves.” To go out into the world and spread
the love of God in word and in deed — to care for the needy, feed the
hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, free the imprisoned and op-
pressed, and even raise the dead in spirit. Anything less or more
“spiritual” or ‘practical’ misses the mark — badly. “The biblical cri-
tique of idolatry goes well beyond the explicit worship of other gods
to the displacement of loyalty to the one true God onto things like
military might and money.” What ultimately holds the body of Christ
together is not mutual interests or money or privilege, “but agape
love (1 Corinthians 13:1-13).” Mutual interests, money, or privilege
describes a social club, not church. At least church (ekklesia) as envi-
sioned by Paul — members of God’s household (Ephesians 2:19).
A CRISIS OF MEANING
Robert J. Lifton’s 1982 classic research on survivors of the nuclear bomb
dropped on Hiroshima describes the psychological state of psychic numb-
ing. That is, living in a state of shock from something so unimaginable that it
leaves one “unable to respond rationally to the world around them.” Years
later in his Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial (1995), Lifton expands
this notion to encompass an “age of numbing.” Faced with the possibility of
extinction (for real) from nuclear conflagration (at any moment some crazy
person gets ahold of a nuclear weapon) and environmental collapse from
anthropogenic climate disruption (global warming; climate change), what’s
an average person to do but engage in denialism, technological positivism
and privilege — in other words, psychic numbing. In Lifton’s analysis, psy-
chic numbing acts like a drug to ease the existential pain, but with a conse-
quence. Normal abilities for rational thought about much that is important
are shut off (this assumes that shopping decisions are not affected).
So what does any of this have to do with Jesus you ask? Well, according to
the biographies of Jesus (the Gospels), Jesus was all about waking people
up from their somnambulance (sleep walking). Jesus' call for each of us was
liberation from the established order, from obedience to Caesar to living in
the kingdom of Heaven, loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. My suspicion is
that for many in First Century Palestine this sounds just as much like pie in
the sky kumbaya as it might to many in today’s world. But, that is the call for
Jesus followers. Are we ready to wake up?
THE NEWS CYCLE
I don’t know about you, but I am getting worn out. I've never been so aware
of the old saying: “No news is good news.” Don’t tell me to turn off the TV to
avoid the news, because I don’t have any TV coming into the Rectory. But
today, news seems to seep in no matter how hard I try to avoid it. I called my
sister the other day and she started the call off by saying: “We can’t talk
about politics.” After which she described all the fragmented family relation-
ships in her neighborhood and elsewhere because of politics.
My own view is that despite the pundits and media accounts, what is going
on has little to do with normative politics of Republicans vs. Democrats or
liberal versus conservative policy. In fact, I see so little of what at one time I
might have considered conservative or liberal viewpoints, I am bewildered
beyond speech. Instead I am almost daily confronted with language and
speech that would have gotten me sent to my room or, at best, my mouth
washed out with soap as a child.
My only question is if there is something wrong with the water in Washing-

ton? For example, when Rome was floundering prior to its fall around 400
CE, did the speech become so contorted beforehand? We know now that
the Romans of that day were poisoning themselves with the water they put
in their lead-lined drinking containers. Is that what is happening these wan-
ing days of our Republic? Is there any amount of news I can be aware of that
will assuage my breaking heart for our democracy under attack? Again, I do
not see a partisan divide (I have worked closely in DC with administrations of
both parties over the years), as much as a divide between regular, rational
order and disorder and irrationality (chaos).
Where do I retreat to maintain some level of my own sanity? That is where

Jesus comes into my life (although he sneaks in at many times in many
ways). In his biographies (the Gospels) he left us with a view of the world that
was full of wonder and loving acceptance that God is with us, God loves us,
and we (each and every one of us) have a role to play in making this a better
world. A world that is not defined by Caesar. A world whose ideas and narra-
tive are not limited to the narratives of the powers and authorities. A world
far, far from the maddening limits of conservative vs. liberal, Democrat vs.
Republican banter that says little and means even less when real people are
suffering.
Jesus taught us (if we have ears to listen) that what is not important is ideol-
ogy. What is important is people and relationships with God, with creation,
with our neighbors and with ourselves. Ideology, in my personal walk with
Jesus, is anathema to solving problems. And no, listening to Jesus in my life
is NOT just another ideology. Attempting to live a life based on the life and
teachings of Jesus is an antidote to the insane ideologies that the news cy-
cle serves up each day.
IN COMMUNION
In the ancient church, “being in communion” was just that. The mystical
body of Christ participating in the Eucharist together. Where the mystical
body of Christ was believed to be all the people gathered to receive the Eu-
charist together. What may be confusing to our modern way of thinking is
that none of those ancients gathered together to receive the Eucharist
thought of themselves as participating in a religious ceremony or even prac-
ticing a religion.
The separation of worship from everyday life, naming worship as ‘religion’

and everyday life as ‘secular’ came much, much later —in 17th and 18th
Century CE Europe. Even religio (religion) in Roman times meant something
entirely different that what we moderns understand as religion and had none
of the connotations of a personal belief system about the transcendent as
opposed to the secular, everyday reality.
As William T. Cavanaugh in his Field Hospital: the church's engagement with

a wounded world (2016) writes: “we become who we really are only by enter-
ing into that communion.” As Jesus said at the Last Supper: “Let me tell
you, from now on I won’t drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of
God comes” (Luke 22:18; Matt. 26:29). Maybe that is what the Eucharist is
all about. Joining with the mystical body of Christ to usher in the kingdom of
God, even for a brief moment, while we are “being in communion” with one
another. Recognizing, or even remembering briefly, that it is God who creat-
ed a good world with the ‘divine attributes of rightness, generosity, and
compassion.’
Do such notions give a new meaning to our post communion prayer — a

glimpse of Heaven?
God of Abundance,
you have fed us
with the bread of life and cup of salvation: you have united us
with Christ and one another;
and you have made us one
with all your people in Heaven and on earth.
Now send us forth
in the power of your Spirit,
that we may proclaim your redeeming love to the world
and continue for ever
in the risen life of Christ our Savior. Amen.
HEAVEN
When we think of heaven, do we imagine a great place to retire to once we

are dead and gone? Or even a great desert that is just heavenly? Or even a
beautiful retreat by the seashore that “is just like heaven?” Any way you cut
it, that is not what Jesus was referring to when he discussed the “kingdom
of heaven” in the Gospels. No. He was not thinking about someplace or
something at all. What Jesus was referring to was the rule of “heaven.” That
is, God’s sovereignty or rein, not Caesar’s as the defining force in the life of a
community of seekers. This is not remotely an appeal to an otherworldly ex-
istence or state of being. But a tangible, here and now expectation that hap-
pened not out there somewhere, but deep in here, inside the relations of the
community, inside one’s own heart. An expectation, as N. T. Wright in his The
Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion
(2016) as “the rule of heaven coming to birth on earth.” What Jesus is asking
each of us both individually and collectively, “Are we willing to engage in a
new lifestyle, ‘though which the saving rule of God will be brought to bear
upon the world’?”
THE POLITICS OF HERESY
Definition: Partisan politics is merely “all about me,” “my party,” “power for
power’s sake” is not ultimately just about division, but something much
deeper — it about what a person values, how a person acts to divide rather
to unite — at least that’s what Dante in the Inferno of his Divine Comedy
claims. In terms of those who claim discipleship with Christ, such values rep-
resent heresy. Heresy, in its deepest sense, is not about ‘wrong belief.’ It is
about rejection of right relationships — with God, with Creation, with neigh-
bor, with self.
INTERORITY
Is objectivity all there is? If one listens attentively to some of the scientists
these days, the answer is, “Yes.” The universe exists because of a quantum
fluctuation, which means mathematically, some random event that is inex-
plicable, it just is — or was at least once. Unless one can conduct an exper-
iment or apply some sort of mathematical theorem to “explain” a physical
phenomenon, it is either unimportant or badly mistaken. With this mindset,
love is a series of chemical reactions in the body caused by pheromonal
cues. That’s all. And, of course, God is a mere evolutionary useful psycho-
logical coping mechanism of humans that is merely a figment of someone’s
imagination — because so far no one has devised an experiment to prove
that God exists and no mathematics appear so far to offer any insight on this
question. However, at its deepest level the drive to objectify all that there is
and all human experience leaves out human interiority — the pretty obvious
notion that subjectivity matters.
What is interesting is that the quantum physicists back in the 1930’s figured
out that much more was going on in the universe than what could objectively
be measured. Instead of operating in an orderly, linear fashion that was de-
terministic from knowing the positions of elemental particles, reality was
probabilistic and natural systems exhibited emergence. That is, the future
was not determined, but evolves to new and novel states. In other words,
subjectivity matters. There is no mathematics or scientific theory that will
every be able to explain all there is. Yes, there is a God — as long as one ac-
cepts that “the Mystery” will always be.
John F. Haught in his The New Cosmic Story: Inside Our Awakening Uni-
verse (2017) argues the case that interiority - the subjective work that has
resulted in religion and art and a striving toward human freedom and ‘right-
ness’, for example, is every bit as real as an objectivist account of the uni-
verse. But today, religion and God and striving for ‘rightness’ in how we live
together on our island home, the earth, may be even more important for the
human species. For Professor Haught writes: “Yet the catastrophic disman-
tling of inconvenient social arrangements, the suppression of human rights,
the outright murder of dissenting human beings, and the destruction of
ecosystems essential to the survival of life can occur more easily in a world
where subjectivity has disappeared from the map of the universe than in a
world where it is acknowledged to be real.”
IS MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

A PROPER THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT?
Powerful political slogan. Who wouldn’t want America to be a great nation?

But, if we are following the teachings of Christ, what does this slogan say
about our theology? After all, at least in the Gospels (the biographies of Je-
sus), Jesus is anything but nationalist or chauvinistic to the point of exclu-
sion of others. Not only did Jesus break bread with outcasts, he made a
point to engage in dialogue with the hated Samaritans, questioned the pre-
vailing powers of the Herodians, Samaritans and Roman occupiers, made
mincemeat of the fake piety of the Pharisees, condemned the Zealots ratio-
nalization for violence and generally shook the status quo (accepted correct
way) from its foundations, including the prevailing patriarchy of the day.
So, our choice is to stick with Jesus and bring our values to the public
square or live a compartmentalized life were politics and Jesus never mix.
Paul asks this question in Romans 12. Are we to be conformed to the world
or to Jesus’ message? That’s the choice we face as Christians in a Great
America today. This really has little to do with political affiliation. It has to do
with discipleship. What does Jesus mean for us? Who and what do we
choose as our sovereign?
As St. Augustine argues in the City of God, Christianity can offer a coherent
and comprehensive view of reality, not just a tiny version of all of God’s good
Creation. Also, at least for Augustine, this living into the reality that God of-
fers is public; not just a private activity. Christianity offers a whole new way of
looking at the world and living fully in it. The opportunity is to awaken to
God’s sense of meaning, truth, goodness, and beauty. This is way beyond
simple political slogans. This is the stuff of theology and prayerful living.
LOVE #3
In a recent sermon. Rev. Laura spoke about how God is all about love. At
least this is what Jesus conveys in his biographies (the Gospels). But, how
do we understand, much less experience love in our daily lives? Love cer-
tainly feels good — much preferred to any alternative. Maybe each of us ex-
periences love a bit differently. But if God is love and Jesus’s life and teach-
ing provide a picture of what God’s love looks like, maybe this type of love is
the type of love worth seeking.
One approach to love is taken by ‘evolutionary naturalism.’ This approach

argues that what we call ‘love’ is merely an evolutionary adaptation to pass
our genes along to the future. From this perspective, the emotion we choose
to call ‘love’ is merely a series of chemical reactions masquerading as some-
thing real; that love is ultimately only imaginary. If this notion of what consti-
tutes love leaves you cold, that is the point. Since there is no subjectivity,
only objectivity (what can be proven), something that is so interior is surely
imaginary. In fact, from this scientific materialism (there is no Mystery. Life
and the universe are just random collections of dead atoms and molecules)
perspective, love has to be merely chemical reactions and little more.
Traditional religious thinkers categorically reject the notion of love held by the
evolutionary naturalists. Their ‘love’ is ultimately a reflection of God’s love for
His creation, who were ‘made in his image.’ The downside of this idea of
love might be said that it assumes that there is a perfect love we are always
striving for. Along the way of our path towards this perfect love, we are the
ones changed. The universe remains the same.
Other religious thinkers such as John F. Haught in his The New Cosmic Sto-
ry: Inside Our Awakening Universe (2017), claim that “we love one another
not only for biological reasons, and not only because we each reflect an
eternal goodness [as one of God’s good creations], but also because we are
each part of a grand cosmic pilgrimage toward fuller-being, deeper subjec-
tivity, and more intense beauty.” Wow. Not only is love part of the Mystery,
but an awakening, ever evolving Mystery. What this idea of what love is all
about suggests that love is part of a journey towards God — part and parcel
of the unfolding universe all around us; a creative act in step with Jesus
along the Way.
HAPPINESS
If one listens too intensely to the culture or the advertising we are inundated
with daily, one might imagine it is what makes us feel good (owning, ingest-
ing, or experiencing) that leads to happiness (even bliss or salvation in some
cases!). But any of us that have been around the block a while certainly
know that this is a crock. Many of us can name someone we know that has
everything, can experience whatever they want at a whim, and ingest great
quantities of the best wine and food available on the planet that are anything
but ‘happy.’ Maybe amused or distracted, but not happy.
So, what does ‘happiness’ consist of and might Scripture have something to
say that is helpful? To start, happiness appears to be unrelated to cosmic
pessimism, the notion that the universe is just a random quantum flux that is
a meaningless bunch of quarks and gluons that began their existence 13.8
billion years ago. That is not the place to start, at least the Bible tells us so.
No. Instead, if we listen to the words and life of Jesus, He is very clear that
the universe was created by God as good and has a purpose. And, the really
good news is that we were created in God’s image.
Maybe all this means that happiness begins with gratitude for all that is, in-
cluding our neighbors and ourselves, as none of us did anything to earn our
place in the universe. It was given to us as a gift. Might that mean that: “true
happiness arrives quietly and graciously only as a byproduct of our being
open” to the reality of this God-given gift? At least that is what John F.
Haught in his The New Cosmic Story: Inside Our Awakening Universe (2017)
imagines.
The theologian Jürgen Moltman goes deeper in suggesting that underlying

true happiness is hope. And, we demonstrate this deep and abiding hope by
prayer. In praying we awaken to the Mystery of God and that is what ulti-
mately leads us to true happiness. Unfortunately, this sounds like a lot of
work. So much easier to just buy something, pop the latest and greatest pill
or fly off to some paradise somewhere. Too bad, none of those quick fixes
lead one to true happiness. But, in the end, they are mere idolatry that keeps
our eye off the ball — “true enjoyment of living in the expansive presence of
the infinite: ‘As a deer longs for flowing streams, my soul longs for you, O
God’ (Psalm 42:1-2).”
AN ALTERNATE SYSTEM
One might be surprised to learn that the Bible has much to say about eco-
nomics — the system that keeps us all clothed and fed and provides us
shelter for the cold of the night and heat of the day. Commentary runs
through both the Old and New Testaments, but maybe the most forceful nar-
rative is that of Exodus. For the Israelites, Pharaoh was the quintessential
example of someone who continually broke the 10th Commandment —
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass,
nor any thing that is thy neighbor's. (Exodus 20:17). In the Bible, ‘covet’
means much more than desire. It connotes ‘taking from the neighbor’ as re-
sult of this desire.
Pharaoh was someone whose life was defined by coveting. He never had
enough, whether it be food, power, or land. His entire policies were designed
to acquire more of whatever was of value to him and to subjugate those
lesser souls around him to want and deprivation. In other words his tax poli-
cies were designed specifically to immiserate many for the benefit of the few.
So what does the Exodus narrative have to say about this economic strategy
of Pharaoh?
Walter Brueggemann in his Interpretation: Money and Possessions (2016)

has this to say about what God reveals to those exiting Pharaoh’s economic
oppression: “It turned out, to their relief and surprise that outside Pharaoh’s
regime, the domain of monopolized commodity, a sustainable life was pos-
sible…. ‘Who knew?’ Who knew there was life in the wilderness?… Who
knew YHWH was a provider who could and would outdistance the parsimo-
nious provisions of Pharaoh?” What comes through loud and clear is that
Pharaoh’s trick is to convince his subjects that scarcity is the name of the
game. God’s alternative is that instead of scarcity, gift, unearned, is the

name of the deeper reality. Pharaoh has got it wrong; way wrong.
JUSTICE #2
In 1 Samuel, Scripture offers two choices of theodicy: (1) ”justice for those
on top of the economic pyramid” or (2) “justice for all neighbors.” The narra-
tive of 1 Samuel makes it very clear — it’s either one or the other. There is no
middle ground. Theodicy is an attempt to answer why a good God allows
evil occur in His created world. Thus, in 1 Samuel, the antidote to evil is ei-
ther authoritarianism or a covenantal care for others. Authoritarianism as-
sumes a secular ‘king’ who exerts his control on the people, who would oth-
erwise spin out of control. 1 Samual points out that the tradeoff for this secu-
lar kingly solution is always self dealing where “wealth and possessions are
accumulated,” and ultimately “one’s notion of covenantal justice begins to
atrophy, so that the neighbor, most especially, the poor or vulnerable neigh-
bor, is eliminated from a vision of justice” (see Walter Brueggemann, Inter-
pretation: Money and Possessions, 2016).
In 1 Samuel, a covenantal care for others is God-centered. The elite do not

deserve special treatment because of their elite status. We were all created
in the image of God. So, it does not matter what ethnicity, race, gender,
wealth, status, sexual orientation, etc. We are all neighbors and at least ac-
cording to New Testament theodicy, “for God is not a God of disorder but of
peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). Not only does God present the world to us as gift, but
our task is not just belief, but faith that we can actively contribute to a world
becoming as the ‘kingdom of Heaven.’
The Old Testament wrestles with the notion that the consequence for failing
to act out of covenantal faithfulness where justice flows to all neighbors is
the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE by the Neo-Babylonian king Neb-
uchadnezzar. Is this due to the vengeance of God? Or, just the very wrong-
ness of human desire and greed for power and possessions? Whereas the
Old Testament struggles with the answer. Depending on what Old Testament
Scripture one chooses, one might arrive at a Yes or No that God’s wrath is
causal or merely correlational. Maybe the best Old Testament answer to this
question is from Job:
Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?
(Job’s question to God; Job 21:7)
You have sent widows away empty-handed, and the arms of the orphans
you have crushed. Therefore snares are around you, and sudden terror
overwhelms you, or darkness so that you cannot see; (God speaking to Job;
Job 22:9-11)
He will deliver even those who are guilty; they will escape because of the
cleanness of your hands. (God speaking as God; Job 22:30)
In other words, at least in this exchange, it is Job who hopes that God is a
vengeful God. But, God’s answer is a bit ambiguous, finally letting Job know
it is above his pay grade to understand God’s motives or modus operandi.
Vengeance that is ‘God ordained’ is too often just human vengeance pack-
aged and justified as somehow God’s responsibility, not humankind’s. In
psychological terms, this is known as ‘projection’ — attributing one’s own
desires or motives to the other. In this case, the Other is God.
FEAR #1
I have been reading a book lately called The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity,
and My Fight Against the Islamic State by Nadia Murad. What has struck me
most about her narrative of captivity by ISIS as a sabaya (sex slave) used to
recruit and reward ISIS fighters, is that I realized that comparatively speaking
I have never felt real fear in my life.
I have lived a somewhat adventurous civilian life. I have been trapped on a

mountain ledge for two days waiting to be rescued after taking a fall while
mountain climbing. I have been caught in the middle of the Gulf Stream In
the Atlantic Ocean on a 32-foot sailboat in a Category 1 hurricane with 80-
foot seas threatening to pitch pole our boat to the bottom of the ocean. I
have been attacked at night by men with knives, been shot at a few times,
and even wrestled a man with a gun to the ground before he shot me or
someone else. I have also stood in front of a Congressional Committee in
Washington DC testifying on issues that were anything but safe and innocu-
ous to talk about in public.
Yet, compared with Nadia’s story, I have never been exposed to real fear.
Most of the fear that I have experienced in my life has been of the made-up
kind — safe fear. Fear that gets expressed by providing me a reason for not
acting, or by convincing me that I am acting in good faith, when good faith is
anything but. Fear that arises because one assumes ‘different is bad.’ Fear
that is used to manipulate, confuse or dissemble. Such as fear about ‘the
terrorist threat to the homeland’ when in fact I may be more likely to die from
a bee sting than from a terrorist, statistically speaking.
Now, the writers of the Bible must have had their finger on fear and all its de-
structive power in the life of community and potentially in one’s personal life.
Why do I say that? In Scripture, there are 32 different word forms used in the
original Hebrew of the Old Testament and koine Greek in the New Testament
said 260 times in 252 verses. What that means in practice is that if we are
thinking that fear means ‘to be afraid’ as the English word means every time
this is translated from the Hebrew or koine Greek, we really have little idea
what the Scripture may be saying, as in the original languages the words
mean so much, much more subtle and deep things.
But what comes through for me in all of Scripture are two major ‘fear’
themes: (1) ‘Fear of God’ absolutely does NOT mean ‘to fear God,’ but to
acknowledge God and his ways are awesome — beyond easy human un-
derstanding or simple words of explanation; and (2) ‘Do Not Fear’ means, at
least for me, ‘do not tarry being all that God created me to be.’ That is, in
Richard Rohr’s terms, ‘seek one’s true self and give up forever one’s provi-
sional self.’ Simply, one’s provisional self is pretty boring and milk toast,
whereas, at least in God’s eyes, one’s true self is where the rubber meets the
road — where God chooses to hang out. Could this be where Jesus refers to
as the ‘Kingdom of the heavens?’
TRANSLATING THE BIBLE
Do your have a favorite English translation of the Bible? I have many different
English translations myself; for different moods; for different objectives. The
original Old Testament Scripture was written in Hebrew between around
1000 BCE to 100 BCE. Robert Alter, Professor of Hebrew and Comparative
Literature at the University of California, Berkley, reminds us that Biblical He-
brew changed quite dramatically through time, comparable to changes in the

English language “to the distance separating Shakespeare from John Up-
dike.” The Biblical Hebrew of there Five Books of Moses was then translated
in the Septuagint into koine Greek around the 3rd Century BCE, then it and
the rest of the Greek Old Testament was translated into Latin, with the most
prominent version, the Vulgate, a late 4th Century CE translation.
The New Testament was written originally in koine Greek, then translated into
Latin and from there and after Martin Luther’s Reformation into the vernacu-
lar of almost every major dialect on earth. An early English translation of the
Bible was the King James Bible, published in 1611. This translation is famil-
iar and often poetic, but it often got the English translation very wrong from
the Biblical Hebrew and koine Greek in original manuscripts.
Working to achieve a good English translation from the original manuscripts

is also a subjective and difficult activity for there are many different versions
of early manuscripts, few which are verbatim one to the other. Thus, not only
does philology enter in that asks what was the most appropriate original
meaning of the Biblical Hebrew or koine Greek language word, but which
early manuscripts should one rely on when translating this early text into
modern-day English?
Each translator’s theology and politics often enters in and influences which
English word gets used to convey a meaning from the early manuscript text.
Along with this selection process is a philological learning process. As older
manuscripts are discovered, the work of archeology digs understood, and
the findings of additional written material such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, our
understandings of how these ancient words were used and what they origi-
nally meant has oftentimes radically changed since the English translation in
the King James Version of the Bible. This usually does not mean that the
English in the King James Version is wrong, although sometimes it is, but it
often means that the English is not really right either.
Thus, when someone claims that “the Bible clearly says this…or that,” not
only does one need to ask ‘what do you mean?” But also “what translation
of the Bible are you quoting from?” That is, did the translator of the Bible you
are quoting from have an ax to grind or has her/his theology ‘colored’ or
skewed the use of the English. For example, even today, there are folks
when reading the story of Genesis who claim that the earth is 4004 years old
“because the Bible tells me so.” Yet, from lots of deep scholarly research, it
appears that when Genesis was written in approximately the 6th Century
BCE, the Israelites had little illusion that Genesis represented a literal de-
scription of how the world and humankind came to be. The purpose of the
narrative was to praise the Israelite God of everything who created a good
creation. In other words, unlike almost every other creation story that existed
during this period, the Israelite’s God created out of love, rather than conflict
and violence. And, the reasons for the conflict and violence that was preva-
lent in those times (as today) was not because God created evil in the world,
but because humankind brought on this violence and hardness of heart to
God’s good creation ourselves.
David Bentley Hart’s recent translation of The New Testament (2017) that I
am presently reading says “When one truly ventures into the world of the first
Christians, one enters a company of ‘radicals’ (for want of a better word), an
association of men and women guided by faith in a world-altering revolution,
and hence in values most absolutely inverse to the recognized social, politi-
cal, economic, and religious truths not only of their own age, but of almost
every age of human culture.”
THE LOGIC OF MISOGYNY
I’m currently reading DOWN GIRL: The Logic of Misogyny (2018) by Kate
Manne, an assistant professor of philosophy at Cornell University. I always
thought of misogyny fairly simply as “the lies men tell about women…. Men
who believe women are dangerous, dishonest, provocative, and disquieting,
that they must be controlled or they will do terrible damage to men.” What
Professor Manne suggests is a corrective to this naive notion of misogyny.
She suggests misogyny runs much deeper than such individual psychologi-
cal reasons, but is actually systematically political. She suggests that:
“Misogyny should be understood as the ‘law enforcement’ branch of a patri-
archal order, which has the overall function of policing and enforcing its gov-
erning ideology” — sexism. Unfortunately, this is not limited to something
that just men do. There are plenty of women enablers of the very patriarchy
that misogyny perpetuates. Researchers have noted that: “gender biases

tend to be found in women just as much as men.”
In my life experience, whether in boardrooms and halls of Fortune 500 com-

panies, government agencies at local, state, and federal levels, the daily
work of NGOs, and even in churches of different denominations, I have been
a witness to what Kate Manne describes. But, what I would like to add is my
theological perspective. For I believe Scripture, both in Old and New Testa-
ments, provides an antidote, even as this same Scripture was certainly
penned in a highly patriarchal culture and time. In fact, there are few places
in Scripture that I cannot find an in-breaking of speech that cries out for a
new kind of power — “the power of love, the power of understanding and
human compassion, and the creative dynamism of the will to love and to
build, and the will to forgive.”
Indeed, I wonder if one of the primary tasks of Jesus’ disciples today might
actually be “to bring to public expression those very hopes and yearnings
that have been denied so long and suppressed so deeply that we no longer
know that they are there”? My own life has been a journey that has been
shepherded by women who have had patience with me; who have picked
me up when I have fallen short; who have forgiven me my trespass. In all this
I have been fortunate, and blessed. I wish that all men and their women en-
ablers might experience this awakening and freedom from the years of con-
ditioning and presumptions of reality defined by patriarchal frameworks of
seeing, and definitions of what is assumed is the ‘right way’ in God’s good
creation — the world we live in.
As Kate Manne suggests, her book is “intended as a bulwark against

gaslighting in this arena: the siphoning off of heat and light from the problem
of misogyny, in both private life and public discourse, and the concomitant
denialism.” For, ultimately, “misogyny primarily targets women because they
are women in a man’s world.”
DISCRIMINATION
Is there a constitutional right to discriminate? Is this even a proper question?

Might the question be, instead, do Christians have a moral right to discrimi-
nate? Against someone because of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race,
political affiliation, social standing, wealth, religion, denomination, or whatever
form of ‘othering’ (you are different from me, therefore you are bad, wrong, or
can be dismissed as less than human than myself)? Unfortunately, these
days, there are many Christians or at least those claiming so, who answer an
affirmative, YES! It is absolutely right, honorable and moral, as Christians to
judge others as less than human, not deserving of the God-given privileges
that I am entitled — for to do so would abridge my rights.
Yet, anyone familiar with Scripture, especially the Gospels (biographies of

Jesus’ life and teachings) might be hard pressed to justify such individually or
in-group’s determined rights, at least from anything that Jesus’s disciples who
wrote the Gospels had said or done. In fact, its hard to imagine anything that
Jesus was remembered to have said or done that would even leave one with
an impression that discriminating (harshly judging through one’s actions) the
other was ok in Jesus’ worldview. So, what is going on?
I would like to suggest maybe three reasons for this disjunct: (1) misunder-
standings of what constitutes rational thought that sets limitations on what
new data can be incorporated into one’s understanding of Reality at any giv-
en time; (2) the construction of self as the Reality perceiving subject that uses
‘God’ to validate the self’s experience; and (3) an assumption regarding the
apperception of Reality that splits thinking from acting in the real world.
The first fallacy enables one to use individual belief to block one from access-
ing new data, but also the natural reaction is to suppress new data about the
world and to render the carriers of this new data as crazy, criminal, or worse,
ignored completely. One simple example might be the fact of Anthropogenic
Climate Disruption, something as physically ‘proven’ as the theory of gravity.
But what these deniers of global warming say is that this new data is not al-
lowed because it calls to question the myths they comfortably choose to live
by.
The second fallacy is that one gets to choose one’s relationship to God ex-
clusively through one’s own interiority. Instead of the self deciding to believe
in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers) understood that
their persons — their selves — were not defined via interiority, but by rela-
tionally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their envi-
ronment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships.
Thus, in the third fallacy, the point of early Christianity was hardly ever what
one says, or intellectually ‘believes’ in one’s mind, but by what one does in
relationship to one’s neighbors and God’s good creation. If one was Christian,
it was because one actually acted Christian. The notion that ‘the majority of
Christians support torture’ (or discrimination of any kind; any ism) would not
have made any sense. That is because, by definition, anyone supporting tor-
ture (or discrimination; any ism) would not, could not, be authentically Christ-
ian.
DENIALISM
On one my business trips to London a met a flat-earther. Someone who un-
derstands the earth as flat, rather than as an oblate spheroid circling the sun.
We both were eating lunch in the crypt of St. Martins-in-the-Field Anglican
Church near Trafalgar Square. He was a distinguished-looking, well-dressed
gentleman. He was well spoken. He was certain the earth was flat. He had
the ‘facts’ marshaled to prove his assertion. He was also very, very wrong.
He was a denier of evidence-based, scientific knowledge.
My suspicion is that denialism is based on a conceit and a convenience. The

conceit is that my in-group’s truth trumps everyone else’s. As I am wholly
right, anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong. The convenience is
that by denying the grayness of reality, a bright line between black and white
appears and I really don’t have to spend much energy thinking about things
deeply. I can just coast along in my black & white/right & wrong world view
of reality. While denialism oftentimes gets explained away by claiming igno-
rance, lack of intelligence or some psychological misfortune on the part of
the denier, my guess is that it is often political. That is, instead of looking for
answers, a denier looks for information to support his/her preconceived no-
tions about reality — how things actually work in the much larger world be-
yond the denier’s in-group’s purview or outside the denier’s own head. For
example, I am always amused when the denier claims “that’s just your opin-
ion,” when in fact I am stating something that the rational world’s population
understands as what is real — something as physically certain as gravity.
As often happens when I am trying to understand some political phe-

nomenon that has me stumped, I turn to Scripture for an insight. While the
New Testament is replete with testimony and insights concerning denialism,
maybe my favorite Old Testament prophet for describing the plight of deniers
and a society that trades in denialism is in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah
was eminently clear asserting that the leaders of his time were adamant to
maintain the status quo, irrespective of solid information to that to do so
would lead to collapse. They are immune to the notion that their denial will
result in the death of their community; their world. The leaders even claimed
Jeremiah, the carrier of this discordant but prophetic message, an ‘enemy of
the state.’ Jeremiah summarized his view of these deniers:

CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS
In Matthew 3:3 referring to John the Baptist, Matthew quotes John as say-
ing: “A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the Lord’s way,
make straight his paths’” paraphrasing Isaiah 40:3 “A voice of one calling: ‘In
the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a
highway for our God.’” Already, I can hear the Sadducees and at least some
of the Pharisees proclaiming ‘Fake News!’ So, today when I hear ‘fake
news!’, which appears to be used to describe factual information at odds
with one’s current political views, I smile, as this symptom of a failure to rec-
ognize Messiah-information in the world has been long-standing. Isn’t this
pretty much what the whole New Testament is about? Experiencing the
teachings and works of Jesus as the powers that be are proclaiming: ‘Fake
News!’
Even in the Old Testament, there are plenty of examples of the leaders of
Jerusalem proclaiming “Fake News!’ to Jeremiah’s prophetic voice crying
out that reality is very different from what the leaders are telling the people to
believe. So, given all these examples in Scripture, why do folks today still
tread the primrose path towards the unreal and unreliable; magical thinking
that renders the world as one wishes rather than how it actually is? My take
is that this claim of comfort in unreality is a cry in the wilderness, not to
make way for the Lord, but to make way for a deep emptiness — a naiveté
of infantile unconsciousness; from consequence-free choices. Harking back
to the story of Genesis before the Tree of Knowledge was eaten from by
Adam and Eve. The denial and conceit is that we do not live in a world of
widespread hunger, persistent depravation, global environmental destruction
and political dislocations.
But of course, if we venture to read Scripture, either Old or New Testaments,

and listen, actually listen, to what Scripture has to say, such musings that the
world, the physical world all around us, needs, begs, for human stewardship
becomes foremost. And, that is what prayer, faith in God, in Jesus, looks
like. It does not look like kneeling for our prayers in front of our bed at night-
time proud of our piety. It looks like the acts of Jesus in loving our neighbors
by caring — actually reaching out and touching the least of these. What Je-
sus’ teachings and the Old Testament prophets had to say is that faith in
God means little without doing. And the doing is physical — not talking only
to others in one’s comfort zone or finding an in-group who agrees to one’s
heavy judgement of the other, but by reaching out and touching the stranger
(immigrant in today’s parlance), the prisoner, the downtrodden, the less for-
tunate. No. Anything less is not the “highway for our God” faith — the Way
of Jesus.
As M. Scott Peck, M.D. writes in his People of the Lies: The Hope for Heal-
ing Human Evil (1983): “All mentally healthy individuals submit themselves
one way or another to something higher, be it God, or truth or love or some
other ideal…. The willful failure of submission that characterizes malignant
narcism is depicted in the story of Cain and Abel.” One of the brothers was
dealing in ‘Fake News!’, the other in following a “highway for our God.”
THE TRIALS OF PAUL
In Acts, Luke describes in detail one of the court trials that Paul is subjected
to. In summary, the Jewish leaders and their attorneys trump up a charges
against Paul that Luke believes, because Paul is an honorable man, are
groundless. Paul himself says that: “I have done no wrong to the Jews as
you know very well,” speaking to the Roman provincial governor, Festus
(Acts 25:10b).
Essentially, the charges and the court proceedings are a sham. As C. Kavin
Rowe in his World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age
(2009) states: “Politically, then, according to Luke, the Christian mission can-
not be understood in any kind of way — whether from the Jewish or Roman
[perspective] — as a takeover bid or call to sedition.” We will remember, this
was the exact charge that got Jesus crucified — sedition — as an enemy of
the state. In other words, Christianity was never at its beginnings considered
an apolitical belief system by the prevailing established order. It always chal-
lenged the status quo — was considered a disruptive force to be reckoned
with.
If one follows Walter Brueggemann’s argument in his The Prophetic Imagina-

tion, Revised Edition (2012), he claims the primary objective of the prophetic
voices in Scripture, both Old and New Testaments is to present “acts of
imagination that offer and purpose ‘alternative worlds’ that exist because of
and in the act of utterance.” In other words, the purpose of Scripture is to
push against our everyday, convenient and comfortable world-views for ‘how
things are supposed to be’ or ‘what is politically acceptable at the moment.’
That is, to live as a follower of Jesus is to be both challenged and challeng-
ing. No bones about it. Anyone who claims that Christianity is tepid and apo-
litical has got it wrong. The Gospels, for example, were harder to hear politi-
cally in their day than anything today’s politicians might say across a parti-
san divide. As Brueggemann goes on to say, both Scripture and those who
practice the Way, as followers of Jesus, become a voice for the prophetic
and the “prophetic must be imaginative because it is urgently out beyond the
ordinary and the reasonable…. To participate in the Eucharist [for example] is

to live inside God’s imagination. It is to be caught up into what is really real,
the body of Christ.”
FEAR #2
Why are we afraid? Why do we sometimes allow our insecurities and visions
of loss drive or color our faith in God; our neighbors; God’s good creation —
where we happen to live each day?
Is this just some built-in human weakness? Augustine’s original sin, so to

speak? Or are we conditioned in our culture, after billions of advertising and
propaganda dollars spent to believe that change is not just overrated, but
somehow bad. That big government is out to get us. That the Constitution is
just an outdated piece of paper. That the rule of law should only apply to the
preterite — never really to the powerful and the wealthy. Come to think of it,
there are actually many, many things to be fearful of in our world. And, when
I am feeling peaceful or forget about something to fear, all I have to do is to
turn on any news channel and low and behold, I am reminded how naive am
I to believe that I should not be operating out of a deep dread every moment
of every day. So, what is the point of all this fear?
This is where Jesus comes in. Because he says: “Fear not!” Do not fear!”
Was Jesus’ world really that much different from ours in that they had their
act together and there was less to fear in those First Century CE days? Or,
did Jesus have some deep psychological insight into human nature that has
been lost over the centuries? My guess is the answer to these questions is
no. I imagine that what Jesus was talking about was hope. That is, faith in
God.
But Jesus was not asking for a blind faith. A belief that human agency could
be relinquished. I am reminded of a story: A man and his dog were caught in
a flash flood that filled their house to the roof. So, the man and his dog
climbed onto the roof of the house. A man in a canoe came by and asked if
the man on the roof wished to be saved. The man, said: “I am a devout
Christian and I know God will save me.” So, the canoe left. Shortly thereafter,
a speed boat came by and asked if the man wished to be saved. The man
answered: “I am a devout Christian and I know God will save me.” So, the
speedboat left. Shortly thereafter, a Coast Guard helicopter appeared and

told the man they were there to save him. But the man answered: “I am a
devout Christian and I know God will save me.” The helicopter left, the flood
waters rose to cover the roof and the man and his dog drowned. Upon get-
ting to heaven, the man, with his dog beside him, asked God, “Why didn’t
you save me? Why did you let me drown? God answered: “Well, I sent you a
canoe, a speed boat, and a helicopter to save you and you rejected them.
What did you expect me to do?”
WORDS
A childhood rhyme goes:
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Of course, we now know that is a croc. Words can end one up in a lawsuit,
dissolve a decades old friendship, destroy a marriage, loose one his/her job,
lead one to suicide, send one to the mental ward or start a war. Words just
might be the most powerful force or weapon the human species has at its
disposal. Which is where Scripture comes in. It contains many words. Words
that have changed the world. Sometimes for the better, Sometimes for the
worse. Certainly, the use of Paul’s letter to Philemon to support the institu-
tion of slavery in the South was a misuse of the words of the Bible. So might
be some of Paul’s more questionable words about women, badly misinter-
preted, that kept women at home ‘in their place’ and unable to vote for so
many years.
But the words in Scripture, as understood today, are also the basis of a lib-
eral democracy that gives the vote to all citizens, the rule of law, the US
Constitution, and the idea that justice applies equally to all citizens in this
country, no matter how powerful or wealthy. Unfortunately today, many have
become unmoored with the common ethics that was assumed by Adam
Smith in his ideas of capitalism and free markets. For example, I am always
surprised by economists flouting ‘free market’ ideology who are blissfully
unawares that Smith was a deeply religious thinker steeped in Christian
ethics from Scripture.
So what does Jesus say about words?
It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes
out of the mouth that defiles…. Don’t you see that whatever enters the
mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that
come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘un-
clean.’ (Matt. 15:11, 17-18)
That is saying it like it is. I wish I had gotten that version as a child rather
than the ‘sticks and stones’ rubbish. Which, if we take our Scripture to heart,
and live out our Christian faith rather than just letting the idea of being Chris-
tian rummage around in our heads, then maybe we can get to the next level:
Everyone, therefore, who hears these words of mine and enacts them shall
be likened to a prudent man who built upon a rock. And the rain descended
and the rivers flooded in and the winds blew and fell upon that house, and it
did not fall; for it had been founded upon rock. And everyone who hears
these words of mine and does not enact them shall be likened to a foolish
man who built his house upon sand. And the rain descended and the rivers
flooded in and the winds blew and beat upon the house, and it fell, and its
fall was a great one. (Matt. 7:24-27)
WHAT DO YOU WANT? (John 1:38)
As James K. A. Smith in his You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of
Habit (2016) writes: “Our longings and desires are at the core of our identity,
the wellspring from which our actions and behavior flow…. Thus Scripture
counsels, Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it
(Prov. 4:23).” But, this is not a recommendation to lock yourself in the house
and keep from venturing out or to stay in bed with the covers drawn. No. The
counsel that comes from Scripture, most especially from the New Testament
is to surrender to discipleship. In Smith’s words: “Discipleship… is a way…to
be attentive to and intentional about what you love.”
What comes through loud and clear in the Gospels (the biographies of Je-
sus) is that discipleship is not something that one does on one’s own. It does
not flow from reading the Bible at night by oneself. Or embarking on a ‘spiri-
tual journey’ by one’s self. No. discipleship, at least what is considered
Christian discipleship, as evidenced in the Gospels and Paul’s letters, is a
community affair. And this community is the ecclesia — the church.
WHO IS CHRIST FOR US TODAY?
In 1930’s Germany, Christ was made out to be a white nationalist and racist
to fit the prevailing ethos of the National Socialist party of Hitler. “On Sunday
morning, the pews of the Christian churches were filled with Nazi officers, SS
guards, and concentration camp doctors.” At least in those churches where
the priest suspended preaching the Gospel, and chose to collaborate with
Hitler’s regime — the reining Caesar of the day. Many of the priests who
were courageous enough to continue preaching the Gospel in this environ-
ment saw their congregations decline, were threatened, assaulted, and im-
prisoned. Some were even murdered or hung.
In the midst of this storm, Christian faith was manipulated to claim that:
• Christ’s teachings had little to do with Judaism or the ‘politics’ of the First
Century CE;
• True Christianity is entirely passive. Its job is to be ‘positive’ and support

the State;
• Criticism of the State is not allowable. The entire Old Testament and parts
of the New Testament that are critical of the established order are to be no
longer tolerated as the real Christianity;
• Christianity is a nationalist religion subservient to the aims of the State.
Out of this downward faith spiral arose the theologian and pastor, Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, who argued “As much as the Christian would like to remain dis-
tant from political struggle, nonetheless, even here the commandment of
love urges the Christian to stand up for his neighbor.” That is, belief in Christ
was not enough — never enough. What is demanded of Christians, at least
those Christians who claim to be following the Jesus of the Gospels and
Paul’s Letters, is faith. Faith, real faith, demands living out one’s relationship
to God, to neighbor, to self, and to God’s good creation.
The question asked of German Christians during Nazi times may be the
same question being asked of Christians today in America: “Can we follow
Jesus even if it means going against our favorite politician, political party,
national interest, or whatever [ideology] or idol usually prevents us from see-

ing the gospel clearly?”
[Ref: “Is this a Bonhoeffer Moment? Lessons for American Christians from
the Confessing Church in Germany,” Lori Brandt Hale and Reggie L.
Williams, Sojourners Magazine (February 2018)]
A REASON TO HOPE
Rebecca Solnit in her Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities,
3rd Edition (2004) puts it pretty succinctly: “Your opponents would love you
to believe that its hopeless, that you have no power, that there’s no reason to
act, that you can’t win. Hope is a gift you don’t have to surrender, power you
don’t have to throw away.”
But as Christians, we know that there is more, much more, to hope. Deeper
than gift, more than just power. For hope stems from the deepest places
where God resides, where God meets us in our times of need and embraces
us with His grace. The notion of hope (elpsis, Gk) as rooted in God comes
from the Old Testament (OT). In the OT, it meant ‘to trust’ as in wholehearted
confidence in God “whose goodness and mercy are too be relied on and
whose promises cannot fail:”
For God alone my soul waits in silence,

for my hope is from him. (Psalm 62.5)
O Israel, hope in the LORD!

For with the LORD there is steadfast love,
and with him is great power to redeem. (Psalm 130.7)
Thus, at least in Scripture, there is little notion of hope as in wishful thinking

or positive thinking or in some notion of a kind fate. No. As hope is used in
Scripture and assumed in understanding the world-shattering fact of Jesus,
his life, death, and resurrection, hope is nether foolishness nor presumption,
but grounded in the fulfillment and knowledge of God and God’s promises.
That groundedness is simply stated as “I trust in God:”
Surely God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid,

for the LORD GOD is my strength and my might;
he has become my salvation. (Isa. 12:2)
WHAT WILL A MAN GIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS SOUL? (Matt. 16:26b)
Amen, I tell you, whatever things you bind on earth will have been bound in
heaven, and whatever things you unbind on this earth will have been un-
bound in heaven. (Matt. 18:18)
At least according to Matthew, any exchange for a person’s soul is unlikely

to turn out well. So why do folks do it? Almost any news day, if one listens
with an open heart, one can see a regular rush to exchange souls for some
advantage. How have folks become so lost in a mire of immediate but fleet-
ing utility? In the early church, this binding and unbinding was considered as
the power of the ecclesia — the church — acting in community to forgive
and to steer those lost souls toward the truth — in God.
But today, individualism reins, at least in the present American culture. ‘My
opinion’ (or ideology) devoid of facts or analysis too often serves as the im-
petus for acting or at least pontificating about reality. Unfortunately, the reali-
ty offered is often so narrow and incomplete as to become nonsensical. In-
stead of useful communication, one proceeds from a normal voice to
screaming, as few are listening to what comes across as babel to ‘others’
who may also be lost in their self-imposed construct reality. All to say, in this
scenario, souls become unmoored in the swirl. Exchanged for some advan-
tage that may only be dimly perceived by others than one’s ‘in-group.’
Given the unreality of the construct world we live in on a daily basis, the
church can offer an alternative. But only IF we chose to not bring a very bro-
ken world into the affairs of the church, our ecclesia. Can the church be a
soul-saving place where exchange is not based on utility, some advantage?
That is up to us members of the ecclesia. At least those of us who choose to
not exchange advantage for our souls.
THE USES OF UNCERTAINTY
Sometimes I wonder why the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments)
have been so powerful an influence in Western culture. For out of these old
documents have sprung the tenets of liberal democracy — the belief in hu-
man freedom as described in the Constitution of the United States, and even
the notion of the ‘invisible hand’ of the market that serves as the basis for
our capitalist system of commerce. At least as envisioned by Adam Smith is
his assumption that that ‘invisible hand’ of the market would be guided by a
solid respect for the Judeo-Christian ethics he took for granted (for Smith,
fair transactions, not maximizing return, characterized ‘efficient markets’).
Even many of our Hollywood movies and television series derive their plots
from Scripture (if one knows Scripture), centuries removed. A solid case can
also be made that, at least the Christian religion in its best form, served to
encourage and support science as a human endeavor with its openness to
exploration as to how exactly God works in the world. Whenever I read a
book where science is pit against religion, I see a straw dog. For in my mind
at least, the author appears to neither understand religion nor science and
the deep epistemology that links both of these human endeavors.
But, what caught my eye recently was a simple sentence fragment in Re-
becca Solnit’s Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities, 3rd
Edition (2004). Her sentence fragment was “power comes from the shadows
and the margins.” Essentially, a pithy summary of Matthew’s Gospel. A de-
scription, certainly of Jesus’ life and his ministry, as an unwashed peasant
from Nazareth (the Appalachian equivalent of its day), where ‘nothing good
ever comes.’ Not only, given his peasant status, was he delegitimized by the
reining oppressive politics of his day, speaking to folks that were being eco-
nomically exploited (closer to legitimized slave labor for the benefit of the
elites), but he was laughed at by the religious establishment (please note that
‘religion’ and ‘secular’ society is an anachronism as they were NOT separate
and distinct categories in those days. ‘Temple-based elites’ might be a more
accurate descriptor). Yet, today, surprise, surprise, Jesus’ life and teachings
have changed the world. Who knew?
As Rebecca Solnit says: “Your opponents would love you to believe that its
hopeless, that you have no power, that there is no reason to act, that you
can’t win. Hope is a gift you don’t have to surrender, a power you don’t have
to throw away.” That certainly describes Jesus’ trajectory. In his ministry, the
invitation is to act — with hope. Acting defines faith, not belief.
GRAVITAS
Thinking about God. Pondering Jesus’ life and ministry. Paying taxes. Plan-
ning for my funeral. All serious stuff. Or is it, really? Don’t I have a choice?
For either joy or despair, whatever the circumstance, whenever it occurs? My
suspicion is that is where memory comes in. The great Old Testament Bibli-
cal scholar, Walter Brueggemann, says: “Memory produces hope in the
same way that amnesia produces despair.” Maybe that is where Scripture
can come in to help. For Scripture is a set of narratives of hopeful memories.
Memories of God acting in History to save his people from bondage. Of Je-
sus’ life and ministry of hope to a broken, occupied people still in exile.
Scripture is an antidote to amnesia. As Rebecca Solnit in her Hope in the
Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities, 3rd Edition (2004) puts it: the pow-
ers and authorities, the elites and their media machine “would like you to be-
lieve [their construct reality] is immutable, inevitable, and invulnerable…”
But, Scripture tells us this is not so. Our job is to remember. To not fall into
the habit of amnesia (forgetting who we are and whose we are). To stay con-
nected with God and our Lord. For there is hope — and joy.
THE TRUTH
You will know the truth

and the truth will make you free (John 8:32)
Jim Wallis in his America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege and the
Bridge to a New America (2016) claims that: “untruths that we believe are
able to control us, dominate us, and set us on the wrong path. Untruths are
burdens to bear and can even be idols that hold us captive — not allowing
us to be free people who understand ourselves and the world truthfully.” So,
if this is the case, why do we continue to believe untruths? There is a whole
medical industry of psychiatry and psychoanalysis to help folks ‘get over’ or
‘get through’ their misbeliefs. There are now even well-meaning scientists of
different ilk who want to help us ‘recover’ from our misbeliefs about anything
that is not ‘rational’ in their way of thinking. Is it merely convenience or stub-
bornness that keeps us on a crooked path to nowhere?
While living in the world of untruths and misbeliefs on an individual level can
waste one’s life, on a corporate level, things can get dicy for more than one’s
self. For example, I wonder how much misbeliefs and buying into untruths
might have to do with the fact that “half of all U.S. publicly traded companies
have disappeared within ten years of entering the market”? Or the proffered
reason for declaring war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq because they had nu-
clear weapons; a war that would “cost only $50 billion.” Not only Iraq had no
nuclear weapons, but the total taxpayer cost of this conflict is now estimated
at approximately $7,000 billion; not to mention the extraordinary human toll
that produced the environment for ISIS to flourish.
Government officials in Flint Michigan made the decision to use Flint River
water rather than Lake Huron water to save $2 million a year. The estimated
infrastructure cost from this misbelief is expected at upwards of $200 million.
The resulting health care costs from lead poisoning of Flint’s children from
the switch of this water source has been estimated to be about $800 million.
The EPA puts a limit at 15 parts per billion (ppb) for drinking water and clas-
sifies water tainted above 5,000 ppb as hazardous waste. Virginia Tech re-
searchers found blood samples from Flint children with lead contamination
as high as 4,000 ppb. Poor decision making? Yes. But, likely based on mis-
beliefs and untruths.
So what does Scripture say about truth (alḗtheia; Gk)? Actually, quite a lot as
16 different word forms are used in 214 verses. In the Psalms, the God we
worship is called the “God of truth” Psa. 31:5). Jeremiah focusses on what
happens in a society at a time when “no one speaks the truth” (Jer. 9:5).
Zechariah admonishes his listeners to above all else “Speak the truth to
each other” (Zech. 8:16). But, maybe John has the last word: “You will know
the truth and the truth will make you free (John 8:32). And, to what John is
referring is the truth of Jesus. In each instance, the connotations of ‘truth’
represent what is “that on which one can rely.” For “Jesus is the only
answer.”
A WALK IN THE PARK
Then they will deliver you over to affliction and will kill you, and you will be
hated by all the nations on account of my name. And then many will be
caused to falter and will betray one another and hate one another; And many
false prophets will be raised up and will cause many to go astray; (Matt. 24:9-
11, trans. David Bentley Hart).
Before the civil war, there were false prophets in the South that used Paul’s
Letter to Philemon to preach the rightness of slavery. Martin Luther King, Jr’s
Letter from Birmingham Jail was written to those false prophets who said
that civil rights for all Americans was a nice idea, but it should come in ‘good
time.’ I have attended service at an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.
that still does not allow a woman any where near the altar, 40-years after
women’s ordination in the Church was approved. I know a Rector of one
parish who was offered $500,000 by a wealthy homophobic parishioner if he
would prohibit same-sex marriages in his parish (he turned down the bribe.
The Rector figured that was the least Jesus would have done [Matt. 23:13]).
Today, a hot-button topic is immigration, with parishioners in many churches
around this Diocese and around the nation from many denominations deeply
divided on whether immigration should be allowed for ‘non-whites.’ Even
here in Borrego.
I wonder how someone who claims to be Christian strays so far from the
Gospel? Isn’t the Gospel pretty clear about what Jesus says? In how Jesus
goes about his ministry? In how he demonstrates God’s love for all? Appar-
ently not. At least for some. Why not? As Matthew says in the Scripture that
begins these musings, maybe the reason being that following Jesus is NOT
a walk in the park. It calls for a change of heart. A change of heart in the
midst of false prophets who seductively claim they know for certain the path
to righteousness. And, they are certain that you are on the wrong path. Be-
cause you may not agree with them. Where the false prophet is easily spot-
ted is in their gaslighting. Their claims that your ways of following Christ, in
love, are anathema. As Ezekiel says: like wolves tearing the prey, shedding
blood, destroying lives to get dishonest gain (Ezek. 22:27).
MEMORY
The neuroscientists now know that memories change the micro-structure of

the brain. Memory is actually defined these days as “the process whereby
the brain undergoes structural change from experience.” That is why I would
like to suggest that attending church worship services on a regular basis is
so important. The reason is called anamnesis — remembrance of who we
are and whose we are. The objective is to show up and be present — to the
mystery of the liturgy. Not thinking about the upcoming ball game or current
imbroglios, near and far. But, the mystery — of God in our lives. How we are
so grateful for life; for our neighbors; for God’s good creation; for the ability
to love and to feel. For without this time of anamnesis, we are likely to
change the structure of our brains irreversibly. To resonate with only the
slights of the day. To the bombardment of advertisements to buy this or that
to achieve salvation. Or even worse, to the daily rhetoric of our favorite news
channel of disinformation that is supposed to define reality for us. The liturgy
is an antidote to save our brains from becoming rust buckets — changed
structurally beyond hope.
BLASPHEMY
And when he went out into the portico another maidservant saw him and
says, “This one was with Jesus the Nazorean.” And again he denied it, with
an oath, saying, “I do not know the man.” (Matt. 26:71-72)
Then the chief priest tore his mantle, saying, “He blasphemed; what need do
we still have witnesses? See now, you heard the blasphemy….” (Matt. 26:65)
Which is worse? The chief priest accusing Jesus of blasphemy for telling a
truth the chief priest would prefer not to hear or Peter denying he knows Je-
sus? In Matthew, Jesus says: Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for
every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiv-
en (Matt. 12:31). So, in Scripture, what is blasphemy? And, why is blasphe-
my against the Spirit so heinous?
For Christians blasphemy includes doubting the claim of Jesus or deriding

him. I would like to suggest that in the theology of Emmanuel Levinas,
doubting the claim of Jesus might be considered othering. That is, treating
the Other as less than, subject to your judgement for being other, and believ-
ing your own hubris amidst deep denial of such hubris on your part. Thus,
racism, misogyny, nationalism, etc. is by definition blasphemy. And so, sub-
ject to denial by practitioners of blasphemy who are apt to gaslight you if
you are courageous enough to point out such blasphemy to them.
What about blasphemy against the Spirit? In the New Testament, use of
‘Spirit’ is derived from the Old Testament as ‘living in the Spirit’ contrasted
with slavery to the law. Living in the Spirit’s “fruits are love, joy, peace, pa-
tience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” In
other words, being present and open to the divine in an other, as opposed to
mired in judgement and angst towards the other.
Which begs a question: how do you experience reentry to the world outside
the liturgy? Are you like the chief priest claiming the other has blasphemed
or like Peter, blasphemed yourself by denying the other his/her freedom to
be other?
TELLING LIES
In today’s political climate, telling lies (lies are not just differences of opinion)
appears to be part and parcel as to ‘just how things are done.’ Depending on
one’s political leanings, there are even 24x7 news channels and Twitter feeds
that cater to the lies required to support one’s particular ideology. Some
claim that this state of affairs is a result of the post-modern world where
truth is only relative. But, I dispute such a claim. Gravity is not relative. Nor is
quantum mechanics. Nor is Anthropogenic Climate Change. Nor is some-
one’s bank balance. Nor is the amount of liquid in a gallon of gasoline when I
go to fill up my car. No.
Truth is unfolding to ever deeper human understandings, but not relative;

where one truth is just as good as any other truth. Which is where Scripture
comes in and suggests what it actually means to be Christian, at least the
sort of Christian who lives out Christ’s message for the world. For the mes-
sage in Scripture, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is a loud
and clear message to stop telling lies; to quit living a lie; to stand up and be
counted against those who proffer lies as a slick device to control others and
to seek power for themselves.
Lies are considered the opposite of truth in Scripture. And truth is what ‘sets
a person free’ (John 8:32) to live a full life in the image of Christ; in the image
that God created us humans (Gen. 1:26) . So, why do so many people tells
lies so readily today? Why is misogyny (the lies men tell about woman),
racism (the lies one believes about different ethic groups), nationalism (the
lies one tells about other nationalities), etc. so present and in our faces to-
day? Has the Christianity of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ (Lev. 19:18, 34;
Mark 12:23) been erased from the world’s psyche?
Two things: people who tells lies actually believe they are claiming ‘the truth’
when in fact all they are doing is proclaiming lies for anyone with ears to
hear. And, those who still follow Christ in a meaningful way appear to have
gotten the wrong message from Scripture to ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matt.
5:39). When instead, maybe a more appropriate Gospel message is Jesus’
performance art of turning the tables of the money changers over in the
Temple (Luke 19:45-6).
At least from our remembrances of Jesus’ parables as recounted in the

Gospels, Jesus was anything but shy in calling a spade a spade (certainly
without abuse of the other). But instead, speaking the truth to the power to
those around him who were living and telling lies, while believing their lies
were ‘the truth.’ Which brings up a good question: "In this political environ-
ment, will folks who actually want to hear and live the Gospel stand up and
be counted in opposition to the non-Gospel dissenters?”
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen
plainly that what he has done has been done through God. (John 3:21)
PHARAOH
Just who is Pharaoh in the Bible, and what/whom does he represent? And,
why is Pharaoh so important today? In Walter Brueggemann”s Interrupting
Silence: God’s Command to Speak Out (A Bible Study for Adults) (2018), he
says that Pharaoh “is taken to be a god invested with absolute authority….
Nothing is possible or even imaginable beyond his reach…. There is no

prospect for anything outside of Pharaoh’s absolutism and nothing after it…”
Brueggemann argues that the character of Pharaoh sets the entire arch of
Scripture. Scripture’s narrative describes how the Israelites respond to one
Pharaoh after another in their faith and path listening to and speaking with
the true God. A God who actually is sovereign despite Pharaoh’s demand for
sovereignty.
But most of all the path towards God, according to the narratives of Scrip-
ture, is to break the silence demanded by Pharaoh. A silence that requires,
demands, that one ‘keep quiet’ in the face of Pharaoh’s hegemony.
If one reads the Psalms, for example, or Jeremiah, or the Gospels or Paul’s
Letters from this perspective, what comes to fore is speech that cries out the
hopes and yearnings that have been denied so long and suppressed so
deeply” by the Pharaohs of the day. For Brueggemann, the speech that
needs to be made is a cry for help. A cry for help that God hears (Exod.
2:23).
Brueggemann argues that the “church has a huge stake in breaking the si-
lence, because the God of the Bible characteristically appears at the margins
of established power arrangements, whether theological or socioeconomic
and political. The church at its most faithful is allied with artistic expression
from the margin that voices alternatives to dominant imagination.” And, for
Brueggemann, this artistic expression is “action in prayer” — intercession —
an “intrusion into the courts of power on behalf of another.” Maybe that is
what Jesus means by Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:19; Mark
12:31; Luke 10:27).
As Rebecca Solnit writes about the #TimesUp/#MeToo movement,

Brueggemann might claim also about the entire unexpected narrative of
Scripture: “Who determines what stories get told, who gets believed, whose
words have weight, who’s in charge has changed.” Maybe that is why
Pharaoh and his sycophants are putting up such a resistance, just as they
did in the time of Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul, etc. — all the charac-
ters from the narratives of Scripture.
Note: In Old Testament Scripture, Hebrews was a socio-political term mean-

ing “a vulnerable outsider… a people who had no legitimate membership in
[Pharaoh’s] society and were therefore exceedingly vulnerable to the whim of
the powerful.” Left-behinds. In Exodus, the Hebrews became the Israelites in
recognition of their covenantal relationship with God. This covenantal rela-
tionship is what gives them agency to break their silence (Rev 3:20).
PROPHETIC UTTERANCE
Firstly, prophetic utterance in Scripture is NOT about predicting the future.

No. Prophetic utterance is almost the exact opposite. Prophetic utterance is
speech about the present that reveals a deeper truth. A truth about the reali-
ty of the world one is living in. It is often highly stylized as poetic speech. It
always emanates from the marginalized. Unofficial sources in society. And it
almost always involves a challenge. To the established powers and authori-
ties because it calls to question their policies of “exploitative labor, unjust
taxation, and exhibition of surplus wealth.”
Most importantly, the prophet’s agency in uttering this poetic speech rests
with God; not from themselves. Prophetic speech is always a break from the
silence — a silence enforced by the powers and authorities and their min-
ions. The power and authorities and their minions typically claim prophetic
speech as nothing more than ‘fake news.’
Maybe the most obvious current prophetic speech today are the cries of the
Parkland High School students who are actively proclaiming “No More.” No
more school shootings. No more watching their classmates get blown apart.
By a bullet from an attack rife whose rounds are specifically designed to
leave a body so badly torn asunder as to be unrepairable by the most able
surgeon.
The Parkland High School students got the attention of the Episcopal House
of Bishops. The House of Bishops on March 7th said: “they ‘wholeheartedly
support and join’ young people who survived the deadly Feb. 14 school
shooting in Parkland, Florida, in their call for an end to gun violence.” Our
“humanness depends on being faithfully heard.” We are most in touch with
God’s love when we are able to hear (Mk. 7:16). Listening to prophetic utter-
ance amidst the din of deniers. Breaking our own resistance to emerge from
the silence is maybe the Christian discipline for today’s world.
While I kept my silence, my body wasted away

through my groaning all day long (Ps.32:3)
As Walter Brueggemann in his Interrupting Silence: God’s Command to

Speak Out (A Bible Study for Adults) (2018) reminds us: “Good things hap-
pen when the silence is broken. Our tradition in faith is a long history of in-
convenient interruptions” (Mk. 7:27). Our “emancipation depends on break-
ing the silence…. faith consists in the resolve to seek justice…. the refusal to
accept injustice.” As Paul preaches it, being ‘in Christ’ describes a faith that
is neither cognitive nor creedal, but an emergence from the silence.
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
The denotation of the changing of the guard is pretty straightforward: a cer-

emony where a new shift of guards takes over, such as at Buckingham
Palace. But the connotation means something much more: “Any situation in
which an individual or group charged with a task or responsibilities in an or-
ganization is replaced by another individual or group.” In the business world
this saying is further broadened to mean a sea-change in policies from the
old, tried and true to the new, untried and risky. The emphasis is on the verb
changing. In this use change never connotes returning to some golden age;
some time when things were great again. That is, to the past. Unless one
wishes to live in a constructed fantasy reality that is detached from the
present environment.
Maybe the greatest sea change, changing of the guard if you will, the world
may have yet experienced, greater even that the onset of industrial age or
the information age, was the sea change between the Old and New Testa-
ments. There the changing of the guard was how humans saw God. For God
went from a sometimes wrathful agent, responsible for all of History, a God
that must be obeyed to earn His acceptance and love, to something and
someone so different it aroused both rabid denial and deep resistance
among the established order.
In Jesus’ view, God was not wrathful, but loving. God was not responsible
for human History, but ever-present in History, walking along side us when
we are grieving (God was not the casual agent for hurricanes and earth-
quakes). We do not have to earn God’s love. God loves us unconditionally. It
is hard for me to imagine a more revolutionary changing of the guard. That is
what Jesus was about. His message was NOT to return us to some golden
age; some time when things were great again. But, to move us forward to a
world worth living in where humans could become their best selves by living
‘in Christ’ rather than ‘in the world;’ a world defined by the powers and au-
thorities — whomever the Caesar of the day happened to be.
PROGRAMMATIC SECULARISM
Traditionally in post-modern times, one imagines secularism as contrasted

with religiosity and never the twain shall meet. But, that is not actually the
case. Firstly, I would like to describe two kinds of secularism: procedural and
programmatic. Procedural secularism is enshrined in the US Constitution. It
means that when exercising the laws of the state, no preferential treatment
shall be accorded based on religion, whether that religion be Christianity,
Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. At least historically, it also meant
that one could not preference one’s religious views when hiring employees,
enacting business policies, applying for loans, making housing decisions,
etc., much as different races or sexes are supposed to be treated equally in
this country.
Programmatic secularism, however, is neither Constitutional nor anti-reli-

gious, but assumes that only one kind of loyalty — loyalty to the state — is
possible and valid. That it, it invalidates religious moral and ethic teachings
that may be contrary to state (or the current Administration’s) policies if such
religious sentiment is critical of the state. Thus, the state is the final arbiter of
truth, not one’s beliefs about God. Instead of dialogue in the public square
concerning the justness of laws governing citizens, programmatic secularism
tends to delegitimize moral and ethical speech and disconnect it from any
communal religious foundations (communal is important here, as opposed to
one’s individual religious views, which may take all sorts of irreligious turns
but yet claim sanction based on ‘one’s religion’).
The most egregious and recent experiment in programmatic secularism was

undertaken by the Nationalist Socialist Party (the Nazis) in Germany in the
1930s. During this time, the German state turned Jesus from a First Century
Palestine Jew into a blue-eyed, blond-haired Arian, whose primary purpose
was to support the policies of the Nazis. Any pastor who dared continue to
preach the Christian Gospel, was summarily deprived of congregational
support and dismissed from their church roles. If their congregations refused
to censor the pastor and abstain from listening to his preaching of the
Gospel, the pastor was often then beaten or jailed and in some cases, mur-
dered or hung — all for the temerity to preach the Gospel, the real Christian
Gospel, rather that the watered down gospel supporting the Nazi state.
Unfortunately, today in the US, some church congregations have adopted

this ‘Positive Christianity’ of the Nazi period — where the policies of the
state define what is moral and true, as opposed to the Christian Gospel. In-
stead of supporting their pastor, they punish their church and attempt to
censor criticism of the state’s policies, deposing the Church’s historically im-
portant voice, as well as the Church’s public health role.
As Rowan Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Faith in the

Public Square (2012) ventures: “If it is true that religious commitment in gen-
eral, and Christian faith in particular, are not a matter of vague philosophy
but of unremitting challenge to what we think we know about human beings
and their destiny, there is no reprieve from the task of working out how doc-
trine impacts on public life — even if this entails the risk of venturing opin-
ions in areas where expert observers vocally and very technically disagree
with each other….”
THE BAPTISMAL COVENANT
I had an uncle, now long dead, whose most daunting personal abuse was to
call someone a liberal, while pointing his wagging finger and loudly proclaim-
ing. It was almost comical as his face would scrunch up and turn red, his
veins popping out of his neck. When he did this, almost invariably at some
public function to someone whom he was in conversation with, it would
bring a wry smile to my face. Why? Because, he had no idea what a liberal
was, or even what constituted a conservative. In fact, he was politically clue-
less.
Which brings me to what may be the most brazen political statement ever
made — the Baptismal Covenant. In fact, if one buys into our Baptismal
Covenant, it renders Christian identity irreducibly political. Essentially defin-
ing a citizenship that transcends that of the state or national identity (Phil.
3:20). Unfortunately for some zealots, it renders the whole notion of liberal or
conservative identity and what passes for national politics somewhat moot.
Where loyalty to God trumps “the demands of civitas. The state’s power [is]
not the ultimate and sacred sanction.”
What the Baptismal Covenant argues is for two sorts of political action. One
having to do with the “routine business of a law-governed society.” That is
the state’s purview. But a higher and deeper political action has to do with
relations and obligations to each other; to the environment that supports
human life; and with our best selves. This is the realm of God’s love. Not
something that the state is necessarily capable of administering, nor ignoring
either. Which is why the Baptismal Covenant renders Christianity beyond the
realm of private belief to action in the world — thus, political. For every time
a Christian steps into the world of action today in love, he/she is making a
statement that God is real. That love is possible. That the current Caesar
does not have the last word. That reality is much, much bigger than the
powers and authorities would have us believe. That God has touched our
imaginations — with hope.
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the
dignity of every human being? (BCP pp. 304-5)
Ref: Rowan Williams, Faith in the Public Square (2012)
CONVERSION
The standard ‘conversion’ story is Paul’s conversion on the road to Damas-

cus. He gets thrown from his horse (even though he was likely not riding a
horse) and goes from a person who persecutes Christians to one who be-
lieves in Jesus Christ. But, is that is all there is to conversion? If I claim Je-
sus as my savior is that good enough? At least according to Scripture, that is
not even the half of it. Real conversion is not about belief only. It is about ac-
tion. And, not the kind of action that relies on what a person says, versus
how they live their life.
In fact, conversion is ultimately a political act. More than just claiming God
as one’s sovereign rather than Caesar, it is behaving as if that is true. Mark
Twains’ adage is operational: “The only rational patriotism is loyalty to the
Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.” Dr. Mar-
tin Luther King, Jr. put this in churchy terms: “Any religion that professes to
be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums
than damm them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the so-
cial conditions that cripple them, is a spiritually moribund religion in need of
new blood.”
My premise is that this is what the conversion of Paul was really about. It
was his conversion to a politics where “Love one another as I have loved
you” (John 13:34) was operational and opposed to one where ‘love’ was ap-
portioned out only to those who where the ‘right sorts of people.’
That is, real conversion is a conversion of the heart that alters the politics of
one’s life — all of it — where ‘religion’ “does not exist for itself and if it does,
that is precisely when it becomes at least death-dealing if not entirely evil.”
That is pretty harsh stuff. But what Paul learned in his conversion is that Je-
sus wants all of our self, not just a smidgen when it is convenient. Paul’s en-
tire life was changed. Whatever he did was now a political version of what
living ‘in Christ’ actually looked like to him. No more living between “two
poles—real religion and [non]-genuine patriotism” (allegiance to Caesar).
Ref: Joan D. Chittister, OSB, “A Moment for Somethings More Soulful than
Politics,” in Oneing: An Alternative Orthodoxy, Politics and Religion, Vol 5
No. 2, Center for Action and Contemplation (2017).
THE KING OF THE SLIPSTREAM
“The defeat of America need not be accounted by destructive weapons and

violence. There are easier and cheaper ways of conquering a politically in-
competent nation. It can be accomplished by psychological weapons, by
economic strangulation, by political chicanery, by intellectual subversion.
Such a finale need never occur: it cannot occur to an informed, intelligent
people. But today we are adrift is a sea of misinformation;” (William J. Leder-
er, A Nation of Sheep [Greenwich, CT.: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1961], 11-
2.)
When our daughters were still in primary school, we used to take them
camping in the Rockies of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. We would
leave when school let out in early June and return just in time for them to
start school in September. One of our favorite places to camp was in the
Grand Tetons. In Jackson, WY, we had a favorite restaurant, Bubba’s. It was
a popular restaurant, often with long lines. Waiting in a long line for dinner
one night, Arnold Schwarzenegger and his party showed up and wanted to
be seated, circumventing the waiting line. The restaurant told him in no un-
certain words to take his place in line and wait his turn. Funny, but this re-
minded me of how happy I was to be an American right then.
So what does any of this have to do with being a Jesus follower? As The
Rev. Greg Brewer writes in the Anglican Digest (2008) “Its an entirely different
orientation for our lives than we might have experienced.” What Jesus did in
his biographies (the Gospels), he sorted through the misinformation of his
age to render service to the least of those of his place and time. Even in to-
day’s world, this is a pretty radical call as it does not assume that ‘personal
fulfillment’ is the objective.
I am among you as one who serves. (Luke 22:27b)
A MOST DANGEROUS BELIEF
Showing up to church on Sunday — to be comforted — but not challenged.

Christianity as all warm and cuddly — what I believe in my head — but dis-
connected from anything physical in the real world. Reading Scripture to
mean what I want it to say. Quoting from the Good Book using an outdated
and often wrong English translation of the Bible. Disconnecting Jesus from
the everyday world I live in. In summary, this is what Reclaiming Jesus: A
Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis, signed by The Most Rev. Michael B.
Curry, Presiding Bishop and Primate, The Episcopal Church and a host of
other Christian leaders in the United States brings up short.
The essay claims that: “the question we face [as a nation; as Christians] is
this: Who is Jesus Christ for us today? What does our loyalty to Christ, as
disciples, require at this moment in our history? We believe it is time to re-
new our theology of public discipleship and witness. Applying what ‘Jesus is
Lord’ means today is the message we commend as elders to our churches.”
Why is that? The writers of this essay claim further that: “It is time to be fol-
lowers of Jesus before anything else—nationality, political party, race, eth-
nicity, gender, geography—our identity in Christ precedes every other identi-
ty…. When politics undermines our theology, we must examine that politics.
The church’s role is to change the world through the life and love of Jesus
Christ.”
This is hard stuff. Not the warm and fuzzy Christianity of my youth where
faith was connected only to personal sin and lots of guilt on my part. Is this
some new form of Christianity? Turns out, not at all. This is the Christianity of
Jesus’ day. The Christianity that drove the Western world’s civilization, its
enlightenment, its scientific striving, and technological innovations. All
stemming from a profound freedom of the human spirit to love its creator,
our neighbors, ourselves, and all of creation.
The authors of this essay claim we have made Christianity much too small.
Confined it to a Sunday morning going to church activity. At a time when liv-
ing ‘in Christ’ as St Paul is wont to say, more important than ever; more exis-
tentially necessary that ever; today, more dangerous than ever. The authors
claim that being Christian may be more dangerous than ever as they “believe
the soul of the nation and the integrity of faith are now at stake.” Why? Be-
cause of a resurgence of:
• white nationalism and racism;
• misogyny: the mistreatment, violent abuse, sexual harassment, and

assault of women;
• debasement and abandonment of the most vulnerable children of

God;
• the practice and pattern of lying that is invading our civil life;
• moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule;
• accepting “America first” rather than understanding this as a theologi-

cal heresy for followers of Christ where “Jesus is First.”
“In our baptism, we Christians are baptized into the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, turned from the old life of sin, and reborn to new life in Christ
(BCP 254).” This baptismal initiation is only borne out in how we live, not just
in how we think.
MUSTARD SEED
He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should I
compare it? It is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the
garden; it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its
branches.” (Luke 13:18-19).
Which makes as much sense today as it did then. Mustard is an unruly

weed. Nothing someone who is tending a garden or crop wishes for. Or was
that Jesus’ point? Today, maybe Jesus might compare the kingdom of God
thusly:
“The reign of God is like a leaky oil pipeline that a man built on his recently
seized land;” or “The reign of God is like when land is stolen and used fool-
ishly, but God’s peace (Shalom) ultimately prevails;” or, “The reign of God is
like a woman who built a welcome center for refugees and undocumented
immigrants on her land…”
In other words, the reign of God is not more of the same. It is not all warm
and cuddly. It is not the ‘peace’ that denotes absence of engagement with
the world. No. “Jesus described the reign of God as an invasion that rapidly
reproduces and thus obliterates the orderliness of life from top to bottom.”
At least, if we have ears to hear Jesus’ message and the will to live into His
kingdom.
Ursula K. Le Guin in her translation of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu (1997)
maybe sums up Jesus’ message in this parable most succinctly: “To believe
that our beliefs [as to how the world works] are permanent truths which en-
compass reality is a sad arrogance. To let go of that belief is to find safety”

— and Jesus.
Jesus’ story of the mustard seed is pointing to an awareness of the human

condition as God sees it as much more than a seeker of economic benefits;
“a solitary accumulator of rights, comforts and securities.” In other words,
what Lao Tzu and Jesus are cautioning us against is to accept the politics of
inevitability. As Shakespeare’s Hamlet says: “O cursed spite,/That ever I was
borne to set it right! Nay, come, let’s go together.” That is, to embrace and
move towards the kingdom of Heaven — together. There really are only two
ways: either towards or away; nothing in between — if, together, we follow
the message of the mustard seed. Jesus’ teaching of the mustard seed is
that it is up to us.
Ref: Cory Pechan Driver, “A Humble Revolution,” Sojourners, May 2018.
GRACE UPON GRACE
In Rowan Williams 2003 Christmas sermon he reminds us that: “Religious

commitment of any depth is bound to say to the world around it that the as-
sumptions and habits of the world are not beyond question.” At least that
was Jesus’ overriding message in the Gospels: “Indeed, some are last who
will be first, and some are first who will be last” (Luke 13:30). That is, anyone
who believes he/she has things all figured out and under control is merely
delusional in their ‘righteousness.’ And, from a ‘religious perspective’ are
merely surfing on the superficial meaning of what religious commitment ac-
tually looks like. For, the Gospels of Jesus purpose is to bring us up short —
to challenge us — to warn us in the loudest fashion so that we have occa-
sion to listen; that we are not alone; we are not in control; our judgments of
the world around us are not always, maybe rarely, absolutely right. That if we
espouse ourselves as followers of Jesus, our job is to challenge the status
quo; give up the easy myths we were taught as children as to how the world
works; to be open to hard learning and growth toward God. Being Christian
is a political stance in the world. But, it is neither conservative nor liberal or
anything in between — at least how we connote these dichotomous and
convenient categories in today’s world. Take time to read Scripture in a

community of seekers, as opposed to knowers. Listen and learn how utterly
challenging Scripture actually can be.
Ref: Rowan Williams, Choose Life: Christmas and Easter Sermons in Can-
terbury Cathedral (2013).
REVELATIONS
It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble.

It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. —Mark Twain
The Book of Jeremiah is one of my favorite books of the Bible. I actually

think about Jeremiah during many water board meetings. Meetings where a
member of the public believes they know everything about the water busi-
ness and the hydrology of the groundwater basin because they can turn on
their tap and the water flows. Jeremiah is one of the great prophets offering
a counter to those elite and privileged of the day who: ‘what they knew for
sure just ain’t so.’
What Jeremiah’s encounters with the authorities of his day reveal is what
Christian spirituality is all about. First, it is NOT about a personal piety and
transcendence. No. At least in Scripture, spirituality is something very differ-
ent. And, interpreting Jeremiah’s walk with the Lord, through the revelations
of Jesus’ biographies (the Gospels), Christian spirituality is about wholeness.
That is, a very physical participation in the world. A full engagement with the
political, social, and economic issues of the day. Instead of retreat from, a
bounding towards the physical world in which we live.
Where that took Jeremiah was a confrontation with the deniers of his day.
Speaking truth to power. The courage to say publicly that the emperor has
no clothes. The temerity to keep speaking the truth when those around him
told him to stop, or else. For Jeremiah, his spirituality was to stay the course.
To not close down when the going got tough. When the ‘important people’
who knew what is what told him to go sit in the back for the bus and shut
up.
Why was Jeremiah resistant to caving in the face of adversity? Because Je-
remiah was open to revelations of the Lord. Revelations that lead toward
wholeness. Revelations that bring one up short from one’s certainty. In Chris-
tianity there are few timeless truths. Our spiritual work is to be open to the
Lord’s revelations. Revelations that most certainly challenge our own certain-
ties. Certainties that ‘gets us into trouble’ in the physical world in which we
live, putting neighbor against neighbor, harming the environment that nour-
ishes us as biological beings living on this earth, and ultimately distances us
from our Creator.
WOODEN—HEADEDNESS
“Know my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed” — Axel Oxen-
stierna,
Chancellor of Sweden, on his deathbed, during the turmoil of the Thirty

Years’ War under Gustavus Adolphus
“Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a

remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in
terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring any contrary signs. It is
acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the
facts.”
Actually, Jesus is claimed to have had something to say about wooden-

headed governance in his biographies (the Gospels). The two political par-
ties of Jesus’ day were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. These two parties
were contesting for control of Palestine in the late Second Temple Period
(2nd century BCE—1st century CE). Here is what Jesus had to say about
their “wooden—headedness”:
Matt. 3:7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming
to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Matt. 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard
against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees
and Sadducees.
Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and
the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Does Acts 23:7 sound familiar? As Barbara Tuchman wonders: “A phe-

nomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is pur-
suit by governments of policies contrary to their own self interests….Why do
holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and en-
lightened self-interest suggests? Why does intelligent mental processes
seem so often not to function?”
Jesus’ model for us Jesus followers is a willingness to speak truth to power.

To first listen, really listen. Then to refuse to remain silent. Jesus was all
about acting as we are able to build a future world worth living in — the
kingdom of Heaven. Not quietly settling for the kingdom of Caesar.
[ref. Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly, 1994]:
REDEMPTION
In some evangelical circles, the catch phrase is “Have you been saved.” But,
in Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, a more faithful catch phrase
might have been “Have you been redeemed?”
Redemption was a foundational concept to the Israelites of the Old Testa-

ment and First Century CE Palestinian society of Jesus. Redemption was
essentially a business deal whereby “a family member paid a price to buy
back the freedom of a relative who was in servitude to pay off a debt…. The
freed person or land was restored to the payer’s family, which became whole
again.” Especially in Exodus, and throughout the whole of the New Testa-
ment, this broadly understood civil process was powerfully put to work to
“characterize God’s work of liberation.”
Thus, the strong metaphor of God as redeemer (liberator) was a counter to

the thought of God as judge and punisher. In the Old Testament, God was
both liberator and punisher. God was not monotonic. In the New Testament,
Jesus’ teachings were that God overwhelmingly should be viewed as libera-
tor, especially of the poor and destitute, the alien (immigrant) and those
judged harshly by the powers and authorities (the religious establishment
and Roman occupiers).
Ref. Elizabeth A. Johnson, Creation and the Cross: The Mercy of God for a
Planet in Peril, 2018.
PROGRESS
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-hearted, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always—
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding - 4th quartet
In my walk with the water district these past 8-years, of finally addressing,
after so many years, a critical overdraft of the groundwater basin, I have
come to see two very different positions:
The Deniers: there is really no overdraft, or if there is, it certainly is not criti-
cal. Or even if the overdraft is critical, there are so many reasons why not to
address the overdraft now. After all, “we can build a pipeline from the Salton
Sea.” “We can drill for ‘primary water’ in the Earth’s mantle.” “There is plenty
of water just over the next hill in another aquifer.” “Who cares, we can just
drink bottled water,” etc. etc. It does not matter that all these reasons why
not are nonsensical pipe dreams with little or no scientific or economic valid-
ity.
The Progressives: let’s solve the problem yesterday. All we have do (depend-
ing on which side of the fence one is standing on) push out the farmers, the
golf courses, the municipal users of groundwater. The problem is always
someone else’s. It does not matter that all these proposed solutions have
neither little economic nor legal validity. As there premise is always — as
long as my group does not have to change our use of groundwater or its
cost.
So, what does Scripture say about the overdraft of Borrego’s groundwater
basin? Maybe nothing. Or maybe quite a lot. Jesus was very clear that it is
both human and a common convenience to condemn the other. “Maybe that
is why Jesus became the cosmic victim and refused to condemn the victim-
izers: ‘They know not what they do.’ (Luke 23:24).”
But Jeremiah has the last word for the deniers; those individuals and sys-
tems that refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. Jeremiah summarized
his view of these deniers:

As Richard Rohr reminds us: “The further we go on the journey of

faith, the more faith has to do with trust and self-surrender. The King-
dom of God leaves none of us in our own little kingdom where we
decide what happens. God leads us all, like Abraham, out into a new
country.
Ref. Richard Rohr, Simplicity: The Freedom of Letting Go (1991).
SOMNAMBULISM
Reflecting on the nightly news recently, I wonder if the point of Scripture—

God’s insertion into the History of the Israelites of the Old Testament and Je-
sus’ teachings in the Gospels—might be characterized as a long narrative
about the evils of somnambulism. While somnambulism is often a fancy
word used to describe sleepwalking, it also denotes a form of hysteria in
which purposefully moral behavior is forgotten. In colloquial terms one might
say, “a state of going along to get along.” Theologically, the term is ‘adi-
aphorization’ a form of ethical sleepwalking. Assuming an ‘ethically neutral
stance’ (indifference) concerning real-world policies and actions, while claim-
ing to be a moral follower of Jesus.
What might an ethical stance in the world look like if we actually modeled
our behavior on that of Jesus, the Christ, as he might teach today, given the
realities and exigencies of twenty-first century life? Can we say that we are
truly living a Christian and ethical life if our actions, however ‘rational,’ are
devoid of moral purpose?
What if what actually characterizes our actions is their adiaphorization; the

demobilization of moral sentiments and beliefs from our day-to-day actions.
For example, how many of us know individuals who are able to go to church
on Sunday and express the most devout and pious demeanor, yet come
Monday morning enter the fray of the ‘real world’ and engage in activity that
includes ‘rational’ life-decisions that are ‘morally neutral.’ Might the greatest
crime against Jesus we can commit as Christians living in the world today be
going about our daily business while morally asleep?
Where is our pastoral presence and companionship? A sense of mission?

Can we awaken from our sleep walking (Eph. 5:14)? Might we (or more accu-
rately, can we?) listen to the Spirit, working overtime to subvert such politics
of the state that imposes ‘rational’ policies’ devoid of moral purposes?
THE DENIALIST
One of the themes running through many books of the Old Testament is the
notion that God does not cotton to denialism. The simple idea of denialism is
where hubris overcomes reality. Moses says: “This is what the LORD, the
God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go” (Ex 5:1) and Pharaoh says: “Who is
the LORD, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD
and I will not let Israel go” (Ex. 5:2). Things did not turn out so well for
Pharaoh and his army.
The book of Jeremiah has one of the best examples of denialism. Jeremiah
was eminently clear asserting that the leaders of his time were adamant to
maintain the status quo, irrespective of solid information to that to do so
would lead to collapse. They are immune to the notion that their denial will
result in the death of their community; their world. The leaders even claimed
Jeremiah, the carrier of this discordant but prophetic message, an ‘enemy of
the state.’
Do we have example of denialism and its consequences today? Do we need

to look any further than today’s newspaper? Some examples are funny—the
equivalent of listening to the denialist’s proclamation that gravity does not
exist or should not so easily be accepted as fact. Other forms of denialism
are tragic. For example, in South Africa, President Thabo Mbeki from 1999
and 2008 denied the link between HIV and AIDS (or even HIV’s existence)
and prevented his government from supporting any anti-AIDS programs or
even use of anti-retroviral drugs. Mbeki’s denialism has been estimated to

have cost the lives of 330,000 South African people.
What the examples in Old Testament stories and especially in New Testa-
ment narratives of Jesus’ life (the Gospels), God does not trade in denialism,
nor do denialists get off scot free. If nothing else, God calls us to listen to the
Spirit and live in the real world—a real world suffused with God’s grace.
IT’S ABOUT MEANING
As always, the issue is whose meaning gets to decide? In these days of me-
dia overload and prejudiced and highly filtered ‘truths,’ it’s easy to get
thrown off balance by the loudest and most oft repeated meme. Yet, what
we know for certain, if we choose to remember, what passes for an easy
‘truth’ today may be deemed ‘false’ tomorrow. At least, in the realm of hu-
man affairs.
Which brings up Jesus’ teachings in the time of the Roman occupation of

First Century AD Palestine. The Roman’s were not content to have the Jews
of this period just follow the laws the Romans decided to impose. If they
were, Jesus would not have been considered a ‘national security risk,’ es-
sentially a threat to the State. For, as far as we know from the Gospels, Je-
sus broke no laws. No. Jesus was much more threatening to the status quo
power structures of not only the Romans, but that of the Sadducees and
Pharisees.
What was Jesus’ threat? My sense is that Jesus’ threat to the power of the
authorities is that He claimed that God was in control, not them. That is, real-
ity was not something that was controlled by the power elite. Meaning could
be decided by each person in their relationality with God, with their neigh-
bors, with themselves, and their environment.
The message of Jesus is that each of us is liberated to seek God’s truth for
our lives. To become all we can be, in freedom from those who wish to push
us down; to keep us in ‘our place.’ In Jesus’ day, there were strict hierarchies
of those who were worthy, those who fit in, those who were to be avoided at
all costs. Jesus effectively said, ‘not in my kingdom of heaven. All are wel-
come!’ That is what got Jesus killed; a sacrifice to the liberation of hu-
mankind and compassion for our brothers and sisters — in Christ.
SELF-DEPENDENCE
Our culture celebrates the self made man (or woman). On Wall Street, the
objective of some is to make so much money that one is not beholding to
anyone else. Indeed, ‘independence’ in our culture is often seen as some
ultimate achievement. One of the political memes these days is to criticize
and punish the poor and immigrants (aliens in our land) as ‘unworthy’ be-
cause “they can’t pay.” What is fascinating to me, is that these notions of
self-dependence (depending ONLY on one’s independent agency) are anath-
ema in the Gospels (the biographies of Jesus).
As Rowan Williams writes reflecting on the New Testament: “Self-depen-

dence is revealed as a mechanism of self-destruction, to cling to it in the
face of God’s invitation to trust is a thinly veiled self-hatred.” What Williams
is essentially proposing is that at a fundamental level, one can choose cul-
tural norms or Christian norms for what it means to be in relationality with
one’s God, neighbor, and good Creation.
But, the two are not the same. Cultural and Christian norms are based on
very different notions of self-dependence. One norm claims that self-depen-
dence begins and ends with one’s independent agency: “I am in control!”
The Christian norm claims that self-dependence is a mirage, a trick of self-
deceit. Why? Because, if one reads the New Testament, the message is that
God is in control. Our lives are a gift. Our lives and all that are in them are
unearned gifts from the grace of God.
We are certainly responsible agents. There is no free lunch. But, why not give
credit where credit is due. Yes, we are both recipients and giver’s of God’s
grace in this world — co-creators of Heaven on earth (John 3:27) — or not.
It’s up to each of us to choose which side are we on. And, what does this
Heaven on earth look like? Maybe no more than “a new world of possibili-
ties, a new future that is to be constructed day y day.”
Ref: Rowan Williams, The Wound of Knowledge: Christian Spirituality from

the New Testament to Saint John of the Cross (1979 & 1990)
FASCISM & the SYRO-PHOENICIAN WOMAN
One way to think about political fascism is how it is designed to dehumanize

“segments of the population. By excluding these groups, it limits the capaci-
ty for empathy among other citizens, leading to the justification of inhumane
treatment, from repression of freedom, mass imprisonment, and expulsion
to, in extreme cases, mass extermination.”
What is helpful for the Christian response to fascism is Mark’s Gospel re-
counting Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician Woman (Mark 7:24-30):
From that place he went off to the district of Tyre.* He entered a house
and wanted no one to know about it, but he could not escape notice.
Soon a woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him. She
came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by
birth, and she begged him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He
said to her, “Let the children be fed first.* For it is not right to take the
food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” She replied and said to
him, “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” Then
he said to her, “For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone out of
your daughter.” When the woman went home, she found the child lying in
bed and the demon gone.
The object of this Gospel story is to recount that political fascism, the calling
out of the ‘other’ as ‘less than’ or ‘unworthy’ or ‘wrong’ due to their ‘other-
ness’ is NOT a Christian response. As Jesus illustrates, a more appropriate
response is empathy, mercy, and grace. What to me is so fascinating about
this story from Mark is how easy it was for the human Jesus to get caught
up — brought up short, yet recover with such grace and aplomb. Jesus is
my model. When I encounter nattering nabobs of negativism (a favorite say-
ing of the disgraced, illiberal former Vice President, Spiro Agnew), my re-
sponse must be to be quiet, smile widely, and show mercy rather than dis-
gust.
Ref: Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018)
VOICE OF THE GOSPEL

“‘I am doing a new thing. Do you notice?’ When we notice, we are strangely
free. We sing, we dance, we care—with abandonment—because we are no
longer intimidated. We get our strength back. We get our priorities right. We
declare God’s praise and reclaim the present for God to whom it belongs.
We are liberated to live in the present where God’s newness is at work, un-
daunted, undiminished, unintimidated, free, powerful, joyous. It is enough to
trust the poem and to find the present made new for God’s purpose.”
Walter Brueggemann, A Gospel of Hope (2018)
ANXIETY & FREEDOM

Every day some of us wake up worried. Why? Maybe because we realize
that many of our old ways, of being or thinking about the world, no longer
work as well as they once did. So much new information and new under-
standings to assimilate. But, also everyday, there are forces in the world that
are just out to scare us; to persuade us to spend as much of our day in fear
as possible. Mostly fear of the ‘other’ or what terrible thing may happen for
whatever possible reason. In other words, we are being manipulated to live
in fear for political purposes, in order to get us to think and do something for
the manipulator’s benefit, not our own benefit.
If this all sounds familiar, it is. That is because this motif is described in great
historical detail all throughout Scripture — in both Old and New Testaments.
In modern day parlance, Scripture says loud and clear that “Social life
changes when people live behind walls, hire guards, drive armored vehicles,
carry mace and handguns, and take martial arts classes. The problem is that
these activities reaffirm and help produce the sense of disorder that our ac-
tions are aimed at preventing.” That is, “Fears prompt us to take defensive
action. When it is taken, defensive action gives immediacy and tangibility to
fear.”
So, how does Jesus suggest we live our lives, if not in fear? Jesus’ message
is simple and straightforward: “Fear Not” (Matt. 10:24-33; John 14:27). My
sense is that Jesus’ message is a worthy path towards human freedom.
ref. Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty (2007)

Hope in The Age of Trumpism

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Hope in The Age of Trumpism

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

H O P E I N T H E A G E O F T R U M P I S M

The scoundrel has said in his heart

(Ps. 14.1, trans. Robert Alter)1

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE CHRISTIAN?

The Gospels introduce a radical redefinition of power — very diﬀerent from

LYLE A. BRECHT DRAFT 1.15 - CAPITAL MARKETS RESEARCH - D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 8 Page 1 of 115

DOES GOD REALLY SUPPORT BUILDING WALLS?

“I am deeply concerned that the United States has contracted a disease we

Walter Brueggemann reflects in God, Neighbor, Empire: The Excess of Divine

PARTICIPATING IN THE JESUS MOVEMENT

As Fleming Rutledge in her Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Sermons from

CHRISTIANITY VS. ATHEISM

A common notion is that a Christian believes in God and an atheist

Thus, the perspective of many of today’s top scientists is closer to the

mystery; a wonderful human emotion to be cherished, experienced

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

Today, the physicists, philosophers and theologians are still debating

Of course, philosophers take umbrage with all this circular thinking

mind, beyond the rote mathematical formulas of the physicists. In

In John’s Gospel, Pilate asks Jesus, ‘what is truth?’ Tricky question.

But, back to Pilate’s question, which is really about Caesar. Pilate is

As Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat in their Colossians Remixed:

fragmented world continuously at war with the Other, might those of us

WHY UNDERTAKE A SPIRITUAL JOURNEY?

Some of us when asked what we hope to accomplish on our spiritual jour-

Thus, attending church on Sunday, meditating, taking a long walk in the

of state-sanctioned torture. Torture designed specifically to destroy not only

By now we should be thoroughly perplexed. Jesus has just been tortured to

NT Wright, one of the preeminent interpreters of the New Testament today, in

In today’s skeptical post-modern mind, such a description of reality is almost

in human history. Our choice is whether we wish to be part of the Jesus

MORALITY & POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

“I’m a conservative” or “I’m a liberal” are both statements of potentially radi-

for Spirit-guided revelations is what participating in the Jesus Movement

THE POLITICS OF MATTHEW

• instead of looking to the civil god embodied by the Roman Emperor,

• instead of maintaining hierarchal and patriarchal households as the cus-

• instead of embracing imperial order as the result of imperial power exer-

Book review/reflections on: Walter Brueggemann, Sabbath as Resistance:

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM SCRIPTURE?

WHY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?

Book review/reflections on: Walter Brueggemann, Reality, Grief, Hope: Three

Remembered: Christianity in the Making Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI & Cam-

Jesus summarizes this alternative view of reality in his greatest command-

GOD’S RESCUE OPERATION

From this purpose-driven, Jesus Movement church perspective, Borrego is a

So, as a Jesus Movement (what Christianity is really talking about) church,

Movement participation. But, what is “sustainable community?” From Scrip-

A POLITICAL VISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE BIG STORY

Theologians call the big story of Scripture a ‘biblical metanarrative.’

These six metanarratives might be considered a worldview of Scrip-

this worldview as God’s purpose is to liberate His creation from ‘vio-

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?

Absolutely nothing, or maybe quite a lot. The Bible is pretty clear

Therefore their way shall be to them

As of January 2015, the Pentagon has ordered its oﬃcials to start

LIFE & HOPE IN THE CHURCH

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as

In the Hebrew Scriptures, hesed denotes and connotes steadfast loyalty.

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as

oppress.” Taken as a whole, “The war traditions of Hebrew Scriptures gen-

What is more startling in Scripture is that ‘conversion’ has little or almost no