HEAVEN IS NOT THE ANSWER

I was sharing a story recently about a 14-year-old boy I met who, a few months ago, had taken the life-and-death risk along with his 13-year-old cousin to travel from their home country of Honduras (in Central America) to the United States. After bumpy bus rides to get to Mexico, hanging on for life to the top of box cars on a fast moving freight train journeying north, and finally swimming the Rio Grande they arrived on the U.S. side of the border. But that was not the end of their journey. After the river was the desert. They had no map, and they had no food. Only water. They set out walking, and walking, and walking. “We didn't know where we were going,” he said. “At times we felt that perhaps we were going in circles. There was no sign of civilization, of anything. I was hungry and tired. We had walked three days without food. Only water. Finally,” he said, "I turned to my cousin and told her: 'I don't think I can go any further. I think that I will die here.'”

Somehow, miraculously, it was at that moment, when all hope seemed lost, that the U.S. border patrol appeared. “When I saw them,” my friend continued, “I gave thanks to God. I knew that if they returned me to my country I would almost certainly face death there as well, but at least there I would be buried by my family and not simply lost here in the desert.”

In keeping with what is reported in the US State Department's “Human Rights Report “ on Honduras¹, this young boy spoke of the horrific situation in his own home community. In recent years two of his uncles and several cousins have been killed by criminal gangs. Staying – and refusing to join the gangs – would have guaranteed his own death and possibly the death of yet other family members. His cousin, like so many girls they know, would have been forced into prostitution to support the gangs or been forced to be the spouse or concubine of one of the gang leaders. And so they fled – risking their lives in hope against hope that somehow they might live!!

I shared this story with someone who acknowledged that we hear of more and more violence in our world. “Even here in the U.S.,” they said, “it seems the news is filled with stories of violence. “Our world is getting worse and worse,” they continued. “I think Jesus is telling us: 'Get ready, because very soon I will be coming for my own.'”

I was left speechless. This was their only response. They indicated no real human pathos for the boy and his cousin or for other victims of violence. Rather, for them the answer was simply that Jesus is coming to rescue his own to heaven, and the rest be literally damned!

Now I have to admit that if I believed this was the core Chrisitan message, I would not be a Christian. But in fact, this understanding flies in the face of the biblical message. According to the Bible, heaven is not the answer. In both the Jewish and Christian scriptures we learn that the message is not one of escape from the world but a calling to be engaged in the real lives of people in the world, with a particular care for those who are at the margins.

The Jewish Torah (Exodus 22:20ff) is one place where we hear that God demands a particular concern and care for the least powerful. “You shall not molest (bully?) or oppress an alien (i.e. immigrant)” we read, “for you were once immigrants yourselves in Egypt. You shall not wrong any widow or orphan. If you ever wrong them and they cry out to me, I shall surely hear their cry,” says the Lord. The passage continues, that we should not charge interest to a poor person who has borrowed money from us. Also, if you take the coat from a poor person as security deposit, the coat must be returned by nightfall so that they have something warm to sleep in. If we fail to abide by these ethics and the person cries out to God, we are told, the God will hear their cry and we, the ones who failed to hear their cry, will be the ones in trouble.

Similarly, in the Gospel of Matthew (25:36ff) we read that how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the ill and those in prison – our response to them is essentially our response to Jesus and to God. Turning a blind eye, failing or refusing to recognize and respond caringly to their need is essentially turing away from God.

Given the conversation here in the United States about how we respond to those like the young Honduran boy and girl whose story began this post, as people of faith should not the words of these sacred text perhaps give us pause? Are we not called to be a people who look at and live life by values different from the values of our border-protecting, us-against-them, it's-all-about-me consumerist society? I challenge myself and those reading this post to consider how we might shape our lives and the life of our societies and world today so as to embody – give flesh to - the kind of values and calling offered by the writers of Exodus and Matthew.

1 The Executive Summary of the State Department's “Honduras 2013 Human Rights Report” can be downloaded at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220663.pdf

SPARE THE ROD

I was listening recently to a radio talk show dealing with the question of corporal punishment of children. Some spoke in favor and other spoke against it.

On several occasions the Jewish Proverb was quoted to provide moral support and religious sanction to the practice of corporal punishment: “Spare the rod, and spoil the child,” they quoted. In fact the the verse reads (quoting from the New American Standard Bible): “Whoever spares the rod hates the child, but whoever loves will apply discipline.” Callers to the radio station interpreted the verse, as I have heard on many other occasions, in support of corporal punishment including spanking a or even using a belt or a switch as an effective and appropriate way of shaping the attitudes and behavior of children.

As I listened, it became one of those occasions when I wondered. How am I, as a person of the 21^st Century, to understand my faith tradition. We know today that there are other and better ways to train our children. Spanking is hitting, and an adult hitting a child is an abuse of power from which flows painful (in contrast to growthful) memories and the potential for negative emotional and developmental consequences. An adult hitting a child is a disrespect which teaches the child that it is ok to disrespect others, especially if they are smaller or weaker than you. It is an example suggesting that it is acceptable, even recommended, to resolve disagreements with violence.

So, as a Christian, what do I believe, how do I resolve this contradiction between my knowledge as a 

modern person and this proverb that, in faith, I hold up as reflecting divine wisdom? My pondering was interrupted by a woman who called into the program. Speaking against corporal punishment, she said (and this is what caught my attention): “Our problem is that we use the Bible to justify our cultural norms.” She continued by explaining that the context for the use of the term “rod” in the proverb is actually the experience of a shepherd community. The rod was a long pole or stick that was used by the herder of sheep not to hit the sheep but to steer or guide them, give them direction. And so, the caller explained, the proverb's reference to the rod is a reference to teaching and guiding our children, not a justification for hitting them. (Cross reference: Psalm 23:4)

This caller named and illustrated a very common error in how we approach our sacred writings. One of our biggest mistakes in reading the Bible is to read it as though it had been written today. On the flip side, she pointed to an important principle of biblical interpretation.

Even with the modern and updated translations, it is important to recognize that the cultural setting for the biblical stories and language are  very different from our own. When we fail to recognize this historical and cultural distance, our tendency is to misunderstand the meaning of a passage by incorrectly reading our own setting and culture into the story. Thus for example, with the story of “spare the rod,” we imagine that it is supporting the historical violent practice in American culture of hitting our children and we may, as many do, argue that this is what God instructs us to do when in fact the writer's intention (and the divine wisdom revealed in the text) is completely different. In consequence, as people of faith we end up misunderstanding the true depth and challenge of our religious texts.

So here is the principle for biblical interpretation: As “people of the Book”, it is critical that we approach our Scriptures first with the question of what the writer – 2,000 years ago, or more – intended in what s/he wrote. To the best possible of our ability, we need to understand their setting, their lives, their culture first. What did the words and story mean to them? What was their point of reference? This is where the modern studies in archeology, anthropology, cultural and Biblical studies are important resources. Today we have a wealth of knowledge about ancient times that was not available to those of even the most recent past centuries.

So the first step is to do our best to understand what was intended in the ancient setting of the original writer. Only after this first step can we responsibly move to the next, which is asking what wisdom a particular story or passage may reveal for our lives today. Often this “application” to our present setting is less direct and more a matter of thinking symbolically or drawing analogies. Thus, in our example, as a shepherd's rod was used to direct and guide sheep, so by analogy the “rod” in relationship to our children is a symbol for giving guidance and direction.

RADICALIZATION - ?

I reject the notion of “radicalization,” as though it were the result of some kind of external force foisted upon a person against their will or conscious decision.¹

In recent years this term has become a favorite in the media and among politicians. It is used to explain what has happened to, “good, middle class American kids” who turn from the values and culture they've been raised in to join militant groups here in the US or overseas. It is similarly used as the explanation for how young Middle Eastern men and women become jihadists, in some cases willing to give their own lives for their identified cause.

The story usually goes something like this. A young person is introduced to Islam (currently Islam seems to be the primary named source of this so-called radicalizing influence) through friends, reading, or by viewing sites on the internet. Next they begin frequenting a mosque where they come under the spell of a radical cleric. And the next thing we know, they've left their family and friends, and have turned up in some covert “terrorist” organization.

It is all made to sound as if somehow these young people have been duped by a power that is beyond their rational control or will. They've been led blindly astray by propaganda or seduced by the powerful charismatic skills of an unbalanced, dangerous leader. It is not something they choose but something that has happens to them. And thus the use of the term “radicalized.”

While acknowledging that there may be some cases of such power of mind and circumstance over will and choice, I would argue that this is the exception rather than the norm. Saying that people are “radicalized” suggests that they are some kind of automatons, unable to think or decide for themselves. It reveals a diminished sense of what it means to be human, conjuring that somehow we are easily fooled beyond our own ability to understand or choose – even to the extreme of unconsciously, unintentionally losing all that we have and know, and of risking our very lives.

Somehow, this understanding of what it means to be human rings hollow and false for me. I give human beings more credit. Starting from the view that humankind is created in the image of the divine I affirm that, at our core, humans think and feel and decide and make thoughtful choices. And sometimes those choices take us in directions quite different from what those around us may expect or consider acceptable. But that doesn't mean we've been duped.

Rather than accepting that people are “radicalized,” I propose an alternative view. Is it possible that in meeting new people, reading or learning about new things, people discover that the views and culture they have grown up in have somehow been less than fully accurate or honest? Is it possible that in encountering and exploring new realms they discover a bigger world, a bigger reality out there that they had not been aware of (or that perhaps had been hidden from them) before? Is it possible that they find that the sources they trusted and believed in – family, religious leaders, teachers, politicians – have actually, wittingly or unwittingly, kept them from knowing all that there is to know; that they had been fed a less than accurate or perhaps even false understanding of the world?

I remember in the 1980s hearing President Ronald Reagan assert categorically that the United States government was in no way involved in supporting rebels seeking to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, in Central America.² At the same time there were some so-called “radical” voices claiming significant US involvement with the rebels. So, who to believe? All that I had been taught and the majority culture around me said “the President.” Several years later though, the truth came out that in fact the Reagan administration had been deeply (and illegally) involved in supporting the rebel fighters.

During this same time period I read about how the United States has been involved many times in the internal affairs of Central American, Caribbean, and South American countries, not infrequently supporting the over-throw of democratically elected governments; serving the interests of the United States and of US businesses without regard for the often negative consequences visited on other nations. Argentinian theologian, Jose Miguez Bonino, describes these economic, political and military interventions of the United States as “neo-colonialism.”³

A more recent example is the urgency demanded by George W. Bush's administration in the invasion of Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The invasion certainly demonstrated the tremendous destructive capability of the US military machine. But of course we now know that the reason given for the invasion was most likely a bald lie, fabricated to give credence for a war that lasted more than ten years, cost thousands of lives on both sides, that destroyed Iraq as a nation (witness the continue chaos there, even as I write), and that brought the US economy to the brink of collapse.

What I have learned from these experiences is that the world isn't always what I am told that it is, that I must question and explore and research and ponder to come to my own informed understandings and conclusions. And through this effort, my viewpoints and commitments have changed. Through learning and questioning and thinking I have come to conclusions and decisions that do not necessarily go along with the majority culture and expectations of those around me.

And so for many years now I have claimed the identity of radical. In the 1980s I considered joining rebels fighting the repressive military-led government in Salvador that was backed by the United States. But this was not because I had somehow been “radicalized” against my will. Rather, I had studied and reflected and questioned, and in the process I had discovered my own values and formed my own opinions about the true and the false, the right and the wrong in the world.

My views and values are informed by faith. I am called and I willingly confess that my primary allegiance is to the God witnessed to in the words of the Hebrew prophets and in the life of Jesus Christ. I am also formed on a deep personal level by listening to and seeking to stand hand-in-hand with the peoples at the margins - the silenced, rejected, discarded, invisible ones. I have learned that much of what I hear in the media and from politicians and even in our schools and churches in the United States is information that has already been “spun” for political and economic and ideological gain. I have learned that much of what we are told is only partly accurate, if not completely false. And so I have made a commitment to question, and to stay informed, to take stands, and to involve myself in activities that denounce injustice and that aim, with others, at creating a world of peace, deep human community, and justice. And if that means I must challenge and question the society and culture in which I live, so be it. This choice is not because I have been “radicalized,” but because as a full human being I have come to personal, conscious, thoughtful decisions.

And so when I hear the explanation that people taking critical, independent stands in our world today are doing so because they have been “radicalized” – I question the accuracy of the analysis. This word, it seems to me, is just one more attempt to keep us from seeing the world as it truly is. Instead of being “radicalized” against their awareness or will, I suspect that people may be fed up with the way things are, that they are fed up with the what is being done in so many places around the world in our name, and that they have come to a free and reasoned decision to think and to act differently; to act in ways that more honestly express their experience and values, ways that they hope will create a more just, peaceful and humane world.

1  This is probably one of the most radical postings to date in this blog. My purpose is not to encourage or condone violence but rather to challenge us to question how our world is framed and interpreted.
2  For more information see https://libcom.org/history/1970-1987-the-contra-war-in-nicaragua 2014-09-06
3  See his book Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation.  

TRUTH OR FACT?

I know it has been a while since my last post. Since then I moved and changed jobs. I accepted a position at a great justice-focused organization, HOPE CommUnity Center (www.hcc-offm.org), which I am sure I will be sharing more about in future posts.

But today's theme is another. Its has to do with confusion around how we use the term “truth” or “true.” In certain juridical or contractual settings it is common to invoke the oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Some versions add as a final phrase, “so help me God.” Usually in this setting, what is being declared is a commitment to express what one understands to be an accurate accounting of some observed event or set of facts. Not living up to this commitment would involve failing to account for all that one knows about the event or intentionally mis-representing what one observed. In other words, it would involve giving false testimony, telling a lie.

The same understanding is employed when we say, for example, that a particular story is a true story. The suggestion is that the events or details involved literally took place, that they represent a factually accurate accounting of the incident. The contrast would be a fictional story, a story that is about imaginary events or people; events or people that are not real.

Where the rub appears for me is when the use of language I have just summarized leads us to the equating fact with truth. As I have expressed in earlier posts (see, for example, "A Strange Mix"), there are many things in the Bible that I do not believe represent literal facts. The creation story is one. The first chapter of Genesis describes a flat earth with a bowl-shaped dome over it, with moon and sun traveling across the dome. As a person of the 21^st Century, it is impossible for me to understand this account as representing accurate factual material. Similarly there are aspects of the so-called “history” of the People of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures that from the perspective of modern historical research would appear not to be based in a factually accurate accounting. Similarly, between the Gospels we find contradictions in the account of Jesus' life, suggesting that not all accounts are fully factually accurate.

Now, the fundamentalism within which I grew up could not admit to any such judgments concerning scripture. Contradictions had to be explained away. Thus the biblical survey courses at Moody Bible Institute were titled “Bible Synthesis.” Claiming the over-all authorship of God, God's self, passages were pulled from different authors and places in scripture to seam together a single and allegedly internally consistent narrative. Needing to counter “modernist” claims concerning evolution, it was affirmed that the Genesis creation is a literal factual accounting of how the world came into being just a little over 5,000 years ago. The idea within fundamentalism is that if we could have been witnesses as the world was being created, we would have seen before our very eyes the appearances of the various aspects of the earth and universe as God called them out. We would have witnessed literally God taking up clay and shaping a man, as well as surgically removing Adam's rib and forming woman. And within the milieu of this biblical fundamentalism, to claim otherwise would be regarded as undermining the truth of the Bible. Similar glosses would be made to address other "difficulties" in the biblical narrative. Truth, according to this view, is to be understood in the sense of the “true story” referenced above, as contrasted to falsehood or fiction.

               "There are parts of the Bible I believe to be 

                              factually inaccurate."

However, over the years I have come to the conclusion that there is another way of understanding this and it has to do with what we mean when we use the word “truth.” A helpful distinction, I believe, is to separate our understanding of “truth” from “fact”. There are parts of the Bible that I believe to be factually inaccurate. Some sections, like the creation story, were in my way of thinking never intended to be thought of as fact (in the literal, scientific way we imagine today). This does not mean however that these biblical passages are lacking in truth.

My view is that for something to be true does not require that it be grounded in fact or that it be a factually accurate description. At times I have used the story of Pinocchio as an example. I suspect there are few of us who would claim that the story of the wooden puppet who became a living boy and whose nose grew every time he told a lie is an historical or factual accounting of events. Nevertheless, the story being fictitious does not remove it's truth, does it? Is not the truth of this story something about the importance of being honest and the downside of being dishonest? Similarly, concluding that portions of the biblical accounting of Israel's history or of Jesus' life are not historically grounded or factually accurate does not remove their truth value. Rather, we must ask ourselves: what was the author wanting us to understand, learn or grow in as we hear his narrative? Is it God's greatness or faithfulness in the life of the Hebrew people? Is it a story to help us understand the profound significance Jesus had in the life of the early Christian community? These are the truths in these accounts which stand independent of the facticity of the account itself.

So when I hear someone talking about what is true or what is required for something to be true, I find it helpful to keep this distinction in mind. For me, factual accuracy is one thing. Truth is something else. And the validity of the latter does not depend on meeting the criteria of the former.

THE HUMAN CAPACITY FOR AMAZING GREATNESS: WHAT IF . . .

Our niece, Paola, came to spend time with us over the holidays and one of the things we did together was to visit the Kennedy Space Center. This was the third time Isaura and I had been there, a tourist attraction that in our estimation wins easily over Disney.

At Kennedy one journeys through the history of space exploration that, less than a century ago, was only imagined in the figures and stories of comic books. Kennedy's new 90,000 square foot Shuttle exploration area boasts the latest in interactive learning technology. At the center of the display is the Atlantis orbital spaceship viewable from a variety of angles and from two different levels. The size of a “portly” jumbo jet, the shuttle's gigantic open cargo bay and expansive tile-covered underside leave an impression of hugeness and grandeur, diminished only when one views the solid rocket boosters and external tank required to lift it into orbit.

Another part of the space center that I always find incredibly impressive is the Apollo Center, 

Isaura and Paola at the "base" of the
Saturn V Rocket

with its display of the mighty Saturn V Rocket that launched humankind on their journey to the moon. Standing, it is the height of a 36-story building and weighs 6.2 million pounds. Generating over 7 million pounds of thrust, this rocket was able to launch 130 tons of space capsule, moon landing craft, other equipment, and astronauts into earth orbit, a piece of machinery truly of “Star Wars proportions.”

As we drove up to the Kennedy Visitor Center, it was with anticipation of being awe-struck again and being able to introduce our niece to the grandeur of it all. And, the thought that came to mind for me was: What if we, the human community, were to put all of our energy and resources into this human capacity for amazing greatness? What could our world be like?

Of course I am aware of the critiques and concerns about the space program and of the fact that this enterprise can be and is used for purposes not so noble – like extending our ability for spying and for taking warring power into outer space. The Star Wars movies certainly show this side of human capability. But what if . . . what if . . .

According to a recent U.S. News & World Report article, in the last decade plus the United States has spent over $4 Trillion dollars on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the cost continues to rise!¹  By comparison, only 5% of this amount ($209 Billion) was spent on the 30 years of the space shuttle program, which began in 1981 and ended in 2011. Emphasizing the positive efforts in the space program focused on research related to health, nutrition, extending our understanding of the human body and gaining greater knowledge of the cosmic neighborhood of our solar system and beyond, imagine what we could do by doubling or tripling the amount of money spent on this program. And what about much less technologically costly and difficult efforts right here on planet earth, like ridding the world of diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, eliminating hunger, ensuring education for all, and creating a world economic system that guarantees a modicum of equality ensuring that every single adult and child would have the resources needed for a descent, healthy, and dignified life. I am sure that other goals could be added to these and, given the creative and inventive capacity of humankind illustrated in the exhibits at the Kennedy Space Center, that these could all be achieved at probably less than the cost of 10 years of modern war.

“I realized up there that our planet is not infinite. It's fragile. That may not be obvious to a lot of folks, and it's tough that people are fighting each other here on Earth instead of trying to get together and live on this planet. We look pretty vulnerable in the darkness of space.”  Alan Shephard - the first American in Space, Commander of the Apollo 14 mission, and the fifth person to walk on the moon.

But even if the cost were eventually higher, wouldn't our world be a incomparably better place if we focused our energy, thought, creativity and resources on constructive, positive efforts rather than wasting so much in efforts that amplify our capacity to kill, maim and destroy?

May we, in this New Year that is before us, join hands in creating the energy needed to launch and support efforts that highlight, encourage, and strengthen the human capacity for amazing greatness.

1  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/28/the-total-iraq-and-afghanistan-pricetag-over-4-trillion