news

Can I Make Sense of the Senseless?

Frank
“‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'” (Matthew 26:52)
“He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

How do you make sense of the senseless? This reminds me too much of the church shootings that happened in Colorado in 2007. Probably because that is my spiritual home, so to speak, and I take these events personally. I wrote about that trajedy here and here. But I’m not going to jump on some soapbox and try to find meaning or attempt to place blame. At this point, I am simply going to be quiet and pray. Because that’s all really anyone of us can do.

12 killed and 50 wounded at Aurora theater

Aurora victim survivor of Toronto shootout

Paris premiere of Dark Knight Rises cancelled

Witnesses describe sureal, horrible scene

Authorities: suspect’s apartment “booby trapped”

LA Police step up patrols in wake of violence

Repost: Sanctuary

Frank

I’m dusting off this old post in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s illegal immigration law yesterday. Though written five years ago (!) the issues are still the same and the Word of God hasn’t changed.

***

Do you remember Elvira Arellano? She was an illegal immigrant who made headlines in fall of 2007 for claiming sanctuary in a Chicago church. This headline led me to study my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. At the time, the debate over illegal immigration died down, although as current headlines show the debate never went away.

Also in the fall of 2007, the city of Simi Valley, California sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since by their actions, allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that made perfect sense.

If this would have held up, it would have set a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? At the time, most agreed that this was an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in in the first place? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kind of like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They are here for a reason, after all; Mexico is an absolute mess between its economy, political corruption, and rampant violence between rival drug lords. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic du jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to help the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Or are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected, and depending on where you live chances are there is someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.

Counting the Cost (of college)

Frank

I haven’t had the chance to get online much lately, so I’ve been checking other blogs and news remotely on the run. Yesterday, these three articles were literally lined up in my Google Reader, so I figured that’s too much of a coincidence to pass up. It’s odd to see this much coverage right now. College application deadlines aren’t for another couple of months and it’s been a couple of months since the annual “best of” lists for colleges were released. So maybe they’re filling a slow news day. Anyway, all three articles tackle student load debt and the cost of college. If you’re in that stage in life or have children approaching that milestone decision, these are worth reading:

The Face of a Movement

Frank

I could have waited to post this next week, but since today is November 5th, it is appropriate to post today. This article in MSNBC brought this to my attention. The mask of Guy Fawkes, brought to recent fame with the graphic novel and eventual movie, V for Vandetta, has become the symbol of the Occupy movement. Anonymous, smirking, almost mocking those he (or she) is protesting against, this is the face of the Everyman. Whether fed up with the profits on Wall Street, or some other en vogue cause, all one has to do is don this mask and join the throng of the opposed.
But I wonder if this symbol would be so embraced if people actually knew its origins?

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I can think of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

So who is Guy Fawkes, other than a popular Halloween mask and political symbol? These entries on wikipedia (Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot ) are worth reading. The poem above, and the celebration of Guy Fawkes Night, are celebrated by anarchists, were used symbolically in V opposing fascism in Britain, and continue to inspire anti-government sentiment.

The poem sounds inspiring, but it continues:

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t’was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli’ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England’s overthrow;
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

You see, the poem wasn’t celebrating his treason, but was celebrating his getting caught. And it continues further:

A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o’ cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A fagot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we’ll say ol‘ Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!

Why did he do it? His treason was in response to discrimination by the British Monarchy towards Catholics. That’s right, this treason was over religious freedom. Even more ironic was that the Monarchy was a borderline theocracy led by King James, the commissioner of that version of the Bible bearing his name.

So I wonder if the Occupiers recognize Guy Fawkes as not only a symbol against the government, but as a symbol of religious freedom. Somehow I doubt it. At the opposite end of the political spectrum, I wonder if proponents of a “Christian America” recognize the irony. I doubt that too.

So as you burn your “guy” in effigy, launch a firecracker, or light a bonfire tonight to celebrate some new world order, remember that it was for religious freedom that this country was settled, for freedom from tyranny this country was founded, and opposition to theocracy that inspired the Gunpowder Plot. Remember, remember the 5th of November.

Martyr

Frank

When Osama Bin Laden was killed, the US government was quick to remove the body to bury it at sea. There were criticisms from one side fueling conspiracy theories that he wasn’t actually killed since no concrete evidence was ever provided. While critics on the other side noted that the Muslim religion required burial within two days.

A few months later, Muammar Qaddafi was killed during the Lybian uprising. His body was kept on full display, long after the two days their religion prescribed, for the Lybian people to see. He is now buried in an undisclosed location.

In both cases, their final resting place was kept secret so as to not become shrines. Critics have pointed out, in both cases, that these leaders should not have been killed but rather held on trial like ousted dictator Saddam Hussein. They argue that killing these leaders elevates them to martyrs, evidenced by how their burials were handled.

This isn’t a political post, but Qaddafi’s headline was fresh in my mind as I was reading about the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, the first martyr of Christian Church. At the time, it could be argued that the Jewish leaders had enough; after warning the disciples to stop their blasphemy in the Temple and in synagogues, an example had to be made. A later verse stands out to confirm this: “But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.” (Acts 8:3, emphasis added) I would expect their desired outcome would have been the disciples backing away in fear. I expect government and rebel leaders felt the same about Bin Laden and Qaddafi.

But the disciples did not back away nor did they back down. Acts 8 continues, “Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.” (v 4) Martyrdom didn’t stop this religious revolution, it emboldened it.

Maybe it’s a stretch to compare these two brutal megalomaniacs with the first Christian martyr whose “face was like the face of an angel.” (Acts 6:15) But I think this example, not to mention others in history, prove that the critics have a valid point.

Imaginary Line

Frank

(I might be the only blogger in the universe not writing something this morning about Steve Jobs.)

Where is the “wall of separation” between Church and State? In the past week there have been some headlines that show that the line is arbitrary and constantly on the move.

Last Sunday was the “Red Mass” in Washington, DC traditionally done before the Supreme Court starts their session. This is a tradition that goes back 58 years. (though the Red Mass isn’t limited to the US government, the actual tradition dates all the way back to 1245) But wait a minute. Aren’t the Justices the ones who decide where the aforementioned line should be drawn? And here aren’t they participating in a religious ceremony explicitly tied to their governmental role? Interestingly, two of their first cases are Separation issues: a 10 Commandments display and applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to ministerial employment decisions.

The same Sunday, not coincidentally, was “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” (No, I’ve never heard of it either) where some ministers were preaching explicitly political sermons, sending the IRS their recording, and daring them to take away their tax-exempt status. The problem is, the whole 501(c)3 designation as a non-profit is very misunderstood. This status isn’t limited to churches, but any non-profit. So say a charity cannot explicitly endorse a candidate because he or she may support the cause of that charity. The same is true of a church. But it does not forbid the church from preaching on social or political issues consistent with their doctrines. They just cannot actively endorse or campaign for a particular candidate or ballot issue. This is why churches were allowed to rally their congregations in support of California’s Proposition 8. Churches are perfectly within their right to assemble political support or opposition. They are only not allowed to endorse specific candidates or political parties from the pulpit. Important note, churches conducted similar activities to abolish slavery and advance Civil Rights. If churches were not allowed to even speak on social or political issues then each of these movements would have died out.
Meanwhile, a student in Northern California was docked points on his grade for saying “bless you” in class. Of course the religious crusade came out to cry persecution! But wasn’t necessarily the case. When you read the story it becomes clear it had more to do with disrupting the class than anything else (though the teacher’s explanation left a lot to be desired.) besides, who didn’t fake a sneeze in school just to get the whole class to start a string of “bless you”s? Keep in mind however, that public schools are an arm of the government.

Finally, California passed a bill banning the banning of circumcision. (if you’re confused by the double-negative, you’re not alone; MSN’s homepage originally linked the article with the headline “California bans circumcision”) This was in response to the city of San Francisco trying to pass such a ban. Never mind that the Courts struck that effort down. California feels the need to be redundant to pass a law to affirm what the Court already decided. Of course, the reason for striking down SF’s law was that the government cannot restrict an explicitly religious practice (though not all are circumcised because of religious views). Hmmm, I wonder how the court cases are going against The Church of Reality (or Cognizance in some places)?

Ok, so after reading the above can you honestly tell me there is an explicit wall of separation between Church and State? Or is it more of an imaginary line?

The Conflict Continues

Frank

I interrupt my rantings and ravings about the state of the American Church (TM) to bring you some real news. (Actually my Internet being down all day yesterday helped, but I digress)

I could never do justice to all the tributes, prayers, responses and reflections on September 11 online. But I do want to call your attention to a couple of articles that tie in to what I wrote on Monday. First, the compilation of reflections on 9/11 and faith from The Washington Post’s blog, On Faith. Also check out The Gospel Coalition’s blog post on how the number of evangelical churches in New York has steadily grown since 9/11. Kinda contradicts my point on Monday, but I would argue the context is different (New York definitely has a different lingering effect than the rest of the country’s religious landscape).

I also want to call your attention to the fact that some things have changed in a dramatic way for the worse. Prejudice and profiling have become the norm. And if you’re Muslim, or even look “foreign”, then you don’t want to fly on 9/11 as Shoshana Hebshi learned and later blogged about. (warning on the second link, it is getting an insane amount of traffic since being linked to from most mainstream media so expect it to lock up your browser while it loads).

But that’s still not all I want to call your attention to. My favorite Facebook post from 9/11 was this from a friend of mine:

“Ten years ago, I began this darkest of days in federal courts class discussing the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, today, I leave for Kabul to assemble the largest gatherings to discuss the Afghan Constitution. God be with all those souls lost that day! May we never forget.”

Pretty cool, eh? His next post (after posting that he landed safely):

“major explosions in Kabul…half dozen, we are in a bunker in our office”

Then, almost 24 hours later:

“After nearly 22 hours, the attacks against Kabul are over. There is no question, however, it was the most extensive attack on Kabul the Taliban’s fall in 2001. While we are lucky that the death toll wasn’t higher, the psychological toll will be far worse and no matter what is said by certain generals, we are not winning.”

Close your eyes for a moment and picture who might be writing these posts. Do you picture a soldier in fatigues, a lawyer in a business suit, or a politician shaking hands? What race do you suppose he is? Would you believe that these posts come from a Muslim whose family emigrated to the US from Pakistan decades ago?

I was going to link to this article back in April when Florida Pastor Terry Jones decided it was a worthwhile political and religious statement to burn a Koran, but chose against it. But in the wake of the anniversary of 9/11, the racial profiling since, and the risks to Hamid’s life, I’m going to post it today. This was written by my friend, Hamid, and I believe is a must-read to provide context to the conflict that we only hear about in the news.

The full article is here. Here’s an excerpt:

“Few Muslims quibble with the notion that the Qur’an is the word of God. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad some fourteen centuries ago. While the Qur’an is found in book form today, it began as an oral tradition and hence, even to this day, millions of Muslims follow that tradition by memorizing lines from the original Arabic. Coincidently, the content of the Qur’an (which is about the size of the New Testament) largely remains a mystery to most believers since the original version is in sixth-century Arabic and more than 85 percent of Muslims today are not Arabic speakers. Moreover, even if one could begin to grapple with the Arabic, the Qur’an is filled with allusions, allegories, puns, and an unmatched poetic style. Consequently, Muslims will often turn to religious leaders to understand its content, leaders who often know little more than their fellow believers.”

You often hear the straw man argument, if Islam is a religion of peace, why don’t more Muslims speak out against terrorism? This is your answer right here. Just as the Catholic Church consolidated political and religious power by controlling distribution of the Gospel message (how many peasants in the Middle Ages could really speak Latin?), the fear-mongering political power in the Middle East controls the message.

I post these things not to open up political or religious debate, but hopefully to open your eyes to “the rest of the story” so to speak. The conflicts that led to 9/11 are ongoing still today.

A “New” Gospel

Frank

There was a recent article in Oprah Magazine (no, I”m not a subscriber) about Hilton Kelley, a restaurateur in Port Arthur, Texas, and environmental activist. The blog Get Religion, called my attention to this story and both of us got hung up on the same point.

Of course there’s a religious angle, Kelley partners with a neighboring church. So the article calls Kelley’s efforts to warn about the environmental dangers of the local pollution and the oil industry in general a “new gospel”. Get Religion takes issue with this statement as there’s no other context given, especially noting that there’s no other comments, pro or con, from other local churches on this issue. In addition, is it really fair to compare environmental activism to the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? To me, calling it a “new gospel” is just the journalist’s way of adding a religious spin to the article for the sake of the religious spin and shouldn’t be taken more seriously.

Or should it? One of the push-backs to Christianity is the notion that we know it all, that it’s our way or the highway (to hell), that we’re right and everyone else is wrong. The counter usually goes something like this, suppose you saw that a highway led to an unfinished bridge yet all the signs are up assuming it is finished and cars start driving by at 65 mph. Would it be arrogant to try and get the drivers’ attention to tell them that the signs are wrong and that they are headed to their death? Is it prideful to try and save someone’s life when you have evidence of disaster ahead?

In that context, maybe environmental activism is a new gospel, so to speak. No, it’s not “Good News” to share that the air you’re breathing is going to kill you. But neither is it good news to tell someone that their sinful lifestyle will lead to an eternity in Hell. The Good News is that it doesn’t have to be this way.

This is where the Social Gospel walks a very fine line between political activism and genuinely spreading the Gospel. There are different types of activism under the Social Gospel umbrella- from Kelley, above, to the communal lifestyle of Shane Claiborne. Both can be looked at from a religious and politically conservative perspective with the simple reply, !@%# hippies. But it doesn’t have to be so polarizing.

Activism can take many forms and many extremes. I’ve written before about the mission field right outside of our doors. Activism, the “social gospel”, being “missional” can start right in front of you.

A couple events stick with me on this issue. Almost exactly one year ago, 14 year-old Dominique Peatry was shot and killed outside of a house party on Labor Day weekend. Normally, such a tragic event would be followed by rallies, maybe even a march on City Hall, usually led by local religious leaders. No such rally ever took place. The part that continues to grieve my soul is that the Wednesday prior we had a Midweek service at a park right around the corner from where she was killed and where she lived (two different places, same part of town) with the explicit purpose of spreading the Gospel in that part of the community that night. Instead, I heard most of my brothers and sisters complain about meeting on the “wrong side of town” and how they didn’t feel safe letting their children play in the park because of the demographics present. The part that keeps me up at night is wondering if young Dominique was at the park that night and whether she either heard the Gospel, or was ignored because of our own prejudice.

The other event was a year before that during fire-season when a whole community was uprooted by fires surrounding their homes. They were relocated all around the area and one center was set up at a local high school two miles from our church building. They had to leave everything behind. It was late at night. They were tired and hungry in need of clothes, blankets, and food. What a great opportunity to serve! Instead we weren’t prepared and were unable to rally any kind of support to a community in need just a couple of miles away.

You see, this new gospel doesn’t have to be some liberal cause. It doesn’t even have to be political. In fact, it isn’t new at all. It is a very old Gospel. The only good news that really matters in the end.

Money Matters

Frank

I’m on vacation, so I’m going to be short on commentary.

A common theme in my study and blog reading lately has been finances; either the finances of the church, of individuals, or of this country. Maybe the recent debate over the “debt ceiling” stirred everyone’s thoughts on this. But that wasn’t our frame of mind the other morning as my wife and I were talking about stewardship. Coincidentally I had just read this post over at Cerulean Sanctum which hit on the very same points. (that’s two posts in a row that Dan totally nails it IMHO, blogging on points that are on my heart at the same time he posts them.Three, if you count yesterday’s post) I also recalled the first chapter of David Platt’s Radical Together that asks us if the “good” things we’re doing as a church are keeping us from doing the great thing of advancing the Gospel.

MSN Money had a recent article on “Rev. Billy” who isn’t actually a minister (though since his growth in popularity has since been ordained) but makes his mark “preaching” against materialism and consumerism.

A combination of recent polls show that as financial difficulties hit people are less, not more, likely to attend church. That’s contrary to conventional wisdom.

Jared Wilson asks what it means to be “Rich Towards God” over at A Gospel Driven Church.

Mark Lafler hits a hot button debating filing for bankruptcy over at Bibledude.net. Personally, I came to the conviction a while ago that carrying debt, in and of itself, is a sin because when you sign that receipt at the store you are pledging that you will pay it back. (Mortgages, student loans, and car payments are different in that they are intentionally scheduled to be paid off) Mark’s argument is that even if you are forced by your circumstances to file for bankruptcy, that the “Christian” thing to do is to make every effort to still pay off your debt. I agree whole heartedly. (I don’t want to come across as self-righteous here, either. My family is on the long climb out of debt, but we are committed to be debt free ASAP)

Finally Jonathan Keck at Theology21 asks if we really believe “In God We Trust” with our finances and shares his personal experience of losing a job.

(Meanwhile, we are paying out the nose for our all too short vacation. Such is life)

Prison

Frank

Some sat in darkness, in utter darkness,
prisoners suffering in iron chains,
because they rebelled against God’s commands
and despised the plans of the Most High.
So he subjected them to bitter labor;
they stumbled, and there was no one to help. (Psalm 107:10-12)

Last night, Dr. Drew Pinsky was talking about the death of Amy Winehouse on Headline News. When I tuned in, he was talking with his guests (three recovering addicts and a clinical psychologist) about how addicts become imprisoned by their lies. They lie to cover up their use. They lie to manipulate their friends and family. They lie to continue to cover up all the other lies. The road to recovery requires brutal, complete honesty.

Sunday my recovery group had the pleasure of welcoming a brother from sister church where he leads their recovery ministry. Our meetings are safe havens, so I’m not going to spill the details of his life. But he wouldn’t care if I did. Honesty is required for recovery, but we treat the truth as very valuable. Yet his attitude is that the truth is what God has done in his life. And that, he will shout from the rooftops. But I’ll leave that for him.

One thing I will share that stuck with me, was his description of his stint in prison. He described how it was easier to be a Christian and recovering addict in prison than it is to be faithful and sober out in the world. That makes sense. In prison, the environment is strictly controlled. You are surrounded by sin, but you can choose to lock yourself away and avoid what you can. But the world is uncontrolled and unpredictable. Sin is plentiful and freely available. So in order to stay strong in the world, you need to be honest with yourself- your weaknesses, your temptations, your struggles. You cannot think you can overcome the temptations of the world on your own.

Honesty. It not only frees you from the prison we build ourselves with our lies, but it also strengthens us for the daily struggles we face. As addicts we need to be honest with ourselves, our partners in the fight, and our God who knows our inmost thoughts and grants us the grace of sobriety. Without such honesty, we might as well lock ourselves up in chains.

Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble,
and he saved them from their distress.
He brought them out of darkness, the utter darkness,
and broke away their chains. 
Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love
and his wonderful deeds for mankind,
for he breaks down gates of bronze
and cuts through bars of iron. (vs 13-16)