Thursday, December 18, 2014

Just a Little Bit Longer and then We'll Sing Christmas Carols

“And sure enough even waiting will end… if you just wait long enough.”
William Faulkner
This past week I submitted the text of my novel, Somewhere West of Rocky Ford, to the company I am using to “self-publish” it.  After I hit the “submit” button I needed to order a “proof” copy of the book so I can read through it, find all the typos and formatting errors, fix them, and then resubmit it.  In the near future it will be available to order in paperback format on Amazon.com and eventually I’ll order some copies to have on hand if anyone ever wants to buy a copy.  Why am I telling you this?  Because the week between when I ordered the proof copy and when it arrived in the mailbox was excruciating.  It has been a dream of mine for more than half of my life to write a novel and to hold it in my hand, to see my name on the cover.  When the package arrived, for the first time ever I’d get to hold my dream, to see it made manifest in front of my eyes.  The waiting was torture.  

Waiting can be very difficult whether it is waiting for the proof copy of your novel to arrive or waiting for the workday to be over, to be called out of the waiting room to see the doctor, to check out at Wal-Mart, for a family member to arrive for a visit, to see if you got into college, for test results, or for a baby to be born.  Waiting both tries our patience and it is the only way to develop it.  This is true of Advent as well.

The current way that our culture celebrates Christmas is basically as a month long festival of shopping that now begins before the turkey and stuffing of Thanksgiving have settled in our bellies, even though by then the Christmas music has already been playing for a couple of weeks in the stores.  Just after Thanksgiving certain radio stations switch to playing only Christmas songs.  We have work, school, and club Christmas parties starting in early December.  Even a lot of churches have just thrown up their hands and gone along with this or they may not know any different.  However, churches like ours that follow the liturgical calendar with seasons like Advent, Christmas, Ordinary Time, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, and then more Ordinary Time, proclaim a different message this time of year.  Even if our culture wants everything now, now, now, we’re going to do something that seems incredibly silly to a lot of people—we’re going to practice waiting on God.  So much of human existence (and the Scriptures say the existence of everything in the universe) is spent waiting on God.  Advent is a holy season that pays special attention to this waiting.  We want it now, now, now, but the Church says, “Wait.”

I know some of you are unhappy that we haven’t sung any Christmas carols in worship yet this year.  I’ll go ahead and warn you that we’re not singing any this Sunday either.  Why not?  Well, because even if Christmas is a month old already outside the church, Christmas is still a week away in the church.  With Advent the Church is making you wait.  By faithfully observing Advent in Sunday worship, I am making you wait.  This may be trying your patience, but I would imagine that it is also developing it.  

When we observe Christmas before it is Christmas then Christmas Eve worship is anticlimactic.  After all, we’d never dream of singing “Jesus Christ is Risen Today” during Lent, on Palm Sunday, on Maundy Thursday, or on Good Friday.  No way!  That’s an Easter song.  David opens up the organ on Easter morning and blows the doors off the church like the stone being blown away from the tomb!  Easter worship is a great release of all the tension that has been built up during Lent and Holy Week.  Christmas Eve is supposed to be the same kind of release, albeit a bit more subdued. We lessen and cheapen Christmas Eve when we treat Advent as the first four weeks of Christmas.  Christmas Eve should be just as special as Easter, special enough that we save the carols for that holy night.  I promise you that on Christmas Eve we’re going to read that holiest of stories, we’re going to light candles, and we’re going to sing, sing, sing Christmas carols until our throats are hoarse and our hearts are filled with hope, love, joy, and peace.  That’s what we’re going to do on Christmas Eve, but not yet.  It’s not Christmas yet.  It’s Advent, and Advent is the season for waiting.

This post will also go out as an email to the congregation.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

What I've Been Reading Lately

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams, "I cannot live without books!"  This is also a fairly common sentiment among Presbyterian pastors and Presbyterians in general.  I love reading and it warms my heart that Wyatt loves reading and that not only does Josselyn love us to read to her but she can now read some simple books on her own.  Not bad for a kid just short of her fifth birthday!  As a part of my love for reading, I also like to share what I have read with others.  Here is a list of the books I've read over the last couple of months and just a few sentences about each book.  If you're interested in borrowing any of these books just let me know.

The Obstacle is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph by Ryan Holiday

This is a contemporary treatment of Stoic philosophy.  The Stoics are famous for remaining calm and focused in response to great challenges.  According to the Stoics, the things that happen in life shouldn't be labeled as good or bad.  That is unhelpful.  What happens simply happens.  What matters is how we respond to what happens and whether or not we take our challenges and turn them to our benefit.  The Stoics don't spend much time on "Why?" They spend all of their time on "What now?"  I found this book very helpful.

Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck

A lot of folks (I used to be one of these folks) go through life thinking that each of us is either born with "it" or born without "it."  If we fail at something we must just not be good at that.  This is called the "fixed" mindset.  It is very common and very detrimental to progress, improvement, and achievement.  The fixed mindset says, "I am not good at that."  Fewer people have the much more helpful "growth" mindset.  The "growth" mindset says, "I am not good at that... yet, but I will work hard at it and I'll get as good at it as I can."  Dr. Dweck's point of view is that fixed mindset folks aren't stuck with it.  They can learn the growth mindset.  This book completely changed my way of thinking.

The Search for God and Guinness: A Biography of the Beer that Changed the World by Stephen Mansfield

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."  This book tells the story of the famous Guinness Brewery in Ireland, but even more than that it tells of the Christian faith and philanthropy of the Guinness family.  I had to go out and get some Guinness Stout to drink as I read the book.  The Guinness family is a great example of what is called "righteous wealth," meaning that they had a lot of money but that they used that money to do the things of God.

Lincoln's Battle with God: A President's Struggle with Faith and What It Meant for America by Stephen Mansfield

This is what you might call a spiritual biography.  It traces Lincoln's expressions of faith (and non-faith) from a child reacting against the hardcore fundamentalism of his parents in Kentucky and Indiana, to his public statements of atheism as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, to what seems to be a developing faith during his years holding public office.  I felt that this book was really honest and balanced.  It didn't try to claim that Lincoln was some kind of Evangelical Christian as some do (the evidence is against that) or that he was atheistic and anti-religion throughout his whole life (the evidence is against that too).  Mansfield (himself a conservative Methodist) just offers the evidence to the reader and then says, "We don't really know for sure, but what do you think?"  I thought it was a wonderful look at one of the most important individuals who has ever lived.

Grant: Savior of the Union by Mitchell Yockelson

This book was only about 180 pages long.  It is a part of The Generals series, which is published by Thomas Nelson press and edited by Stephen Mansfield.  There are somewhere around eight books in the series that cover from George Washington to George Patton.  This book is about Ohio's own Ulysses S. Grant.  I have been wanting to learn more about U.S. Grant but I'm not up for a 1,000 page biography so this was a good way to learn about him.  What I admire about Grant is that he was constantly calm and focused.  He was not easily rattled.  He also cared deeply for his family and cared much more for the freed slaves than most white folks did back then.  He also handled the surrender of General Robert E. Lee with grace and respect.  I'm now reading the book in this series about another son of Ohio: William Tecumseh Sherman.  With Sherman I am learning a lot about how not to live.

When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on How and When to Fight by Darrell Cole

I've spent quite a bit of time on this book already in my blog series on Captain Phillips.  This is a short book that explores Christian "Just War Theory" as it was developed by St. Augustine and then further developed by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.  It makes the point that sometimes Christians must make the decision that the best way to "care for the widow and the orphan" and to love their neighbor is to take up arms to protect their neighbor.  This book was informative, but not all that interesting of a read.

The Alchemist by Paulo Coehlo

This is the classic short novel about a shepherd boy in Spain who sells off his herd of sheep to travel to Egypt to find a great treasure.  It is his destiny to find the treasure so no matter what happens he must continue to follow his destiny.  It is told like a fairy tale.  There are no names for most of the characters, just "the shepherd boy," the "Englishman," the "alchemist."  It is a story of quest and purpose and love and God.  It didn't change my life or anything like it has for some people, but it was good.

A Simple Act of Gratitude: How Learning to Say Thank You Changed My Life by John Kralik 

You can hear all about this book by listening to my sermon from November 23, 2014 on our church website:

I hope you have time this week to open a book.  

Have a blessed week,
Everett


Tuesday, November 25, 2014

20 Things for Which I am Thankful

I apologize for not writing a post last week.  With having a presbytery meeting, a session meeting, and having to write my monthly column for our church newsletter, I just couldn't fit it into my schedule.  This week all I am going to do is offer you a list of things for which I am thankful.  This list is in no particular order and is made up of things that have popped into my mind throughout the day.

1.  I am thankful for my health and for the health of my family.  We cannot take it for granted that we will always be this healthy so we better appreciate it while we are.

2.  I am thankful I don't live in Ferguson, Missouri today.  If you have watched the news you know there are lots of reasons to be thankful for being somewhere else.

3.  I am thankful for my wife, Danielle.  Not everyone has a good marriage.  Danielle and I have a great marriage.  

4.  I am thankful that my eight-year-old son, Wyatt, made a basket in his basketball game last weekend.  I'm not one of those parents who lives vicariously through my kids and pushes them to succeed where I have failed (although I was terrible at basketball).  I'm thankful because when we're learning something new we all need "a win" at some point to give us the energy to keep growing and learning.  The smile on his face was priceless.

5.  I am thankful that my almost-five-year-old, Josselyn, loves to climb up in the chair with me every evening for "daddy snuggles."  That won't always be the case.  I better be thankful for it while I have it.

6.  I am thankful that I serve a congregation that doesn't just care about what I can provide for them but cares for me as a member of their family of faith.  I hear a lot of colleagues talk of constant tension between them and their congregations.  I'm fortunate not to have to deal with that.

7.  I am thankful that I wasn't born in the mid-1800's.  I love history and the more I learn about the Civil War the more thankful I am that I wasn't around back then.

8.  I am thankful that we live in a beautiful manse that is well taken care of by the church trustees.  When something breaks, it's not my problem.  I'm very thankful for that.

9.  I am thankful that our two dogs, Eli and Daisy, run excitedly to the door to meet me when I come in the house.  It's always nice to know that someone is glad you are home.

10.  I am thankful that the local CVS carries Clubman Mustache Wax.  For some strange reason I've been wanting to grow an Old West style handlebar mustache, but I had trouble finding the wax I need to make that happen.  Thanks CVS for making my dream a reality!

11.  I am thankful that Josselyn wanted to watch the movie Gremlins with me this past weekend and that she enjoyed it and didn't have any nightmares.

12.  I am thankful that Wyatt has inherited my love for history and biography.  The fact that I can have a conversation with my eight-year-old about World War II fills me with joy.

13.  I am thankful for the staff of our church.  They are all exceptional and do way more than anyone realizes.

14.  I am thankful that Netflix has picked up the fourth season of the show Longmire.  I love the books and I love the show.  I was so disappointed when A&E cancelled it out of the blue. Last season ended on a cliffhanger.  Now we'll know the answer!

15.  I am thankful for the people who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to serve in the military.  Not only are they sometimes in harm's way but they spend so much time away from their families.  I know that because my dad was in the Navy for 20+ years and he had to be gone about six out of every twelve months.

16.  I am thankful that this year I have been able to see my dad, step-mom, stepsister and her husband and kids in South Carolina, my sister in Philadelphia, and my mom, step-dad, brother, sister and her husband and their daughter in San Antonio.  I didn't make it to California to see my other sister and her kids, but I'm very thankful for the number of folks I did get to see this year.

17.  I am thankful that I haven't had a kidney stone in three years.  I've had somewhere around seven kidney stones since I was 19-years-old.  If you've ever had one, you know why I'm glad that I've had a three year break.

18.  I am thankful for Danielle's homemade stuffing even though she made some the other day for her co-workers and I didn't get to eat any of it.  (update: she brought me the two-day old leftovers, which I ate)

19.  I am thankful that my student loans are finally paid off!  Freedom!

20.  I am thankful for the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ, for the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of our Lord, for mercy, forgiveness, strength, faith, hope, and peace. People who don't know this will never understand what they're missing.

I could go on forever and ever.  I have so much for which to be thankful.  Consider taking the time this week to write out twenty things for which you are thankful.  I bet you won't have a problem coming up with that many.  Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Grace and Peace,
Everett

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Missed Shots

Last night Kobe Bryant set the NBA record for most missed shots in a career.  When asked about breaking the record he said, "I'm a shooting guard who has played 19 years... a shooting guard."  At first glance we might find it embarrassing.  The most misses?  But then we realize that being tops on that list means that Bryant has been good enough to play 19 years (and counting) in a league that has an average career length of 4.8 years and that he shoots the ball a lot (after all, he is a shooting guard).  The other thing is that when we look at the list we see that the others on the top of the list are all Hall of Fame legends of the game and that many of the names on the list for most misses are the same names on the list of most points scored in a career.  So does this record mean that Kobe Bryant is a bad shot?  Well, Kobe Bryant is fourth on the list of all-time NBA scoring leaders after Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Karl Malone, and Michael Jordan.  Unless Kobe gets hurt, he will pass Jordan this year.  You can't do that if you're a bad shot.

Similarly, Brett Favre was one of the top quarterbacks of all time.  You might not know, however, that he also holds the record for the most interceptions, fumbles, and incompletions. Do you know which major league pitcher holds the records for most batters walked?  Nolan Ryan.  He has also struck out the most batters.  How about the pitcher with the most losses in a career?  Cy Young.  Yet, the award for the best pitcher in each league every year is named after him!  Who has the most strikeouts as a batter?  Reggie Jackson.  Mr. October!  

Sports show us that those who fail the most are quite often those that succeed the most as well. What makes someone great is not that they never fail, but that they keep trying their hardest, keep learning lessons, keep improving, and keep on keepin' on.  They don't get discouraged; they take it as a challenge and grow from it.  This isn't just true in sports, however.  

Consider the example of Abraham Lincoln.  He lost in an election for the Illinois state legislature, failed in business, had a nervous breakdown, lost his bid to become speaker of the Illinois state legislature, lost a bid for congress, finally got elected but then couldn't get reelected, lost an election for senate, was on the losing ticket as the vice presidential candidate, lost an election for senate again, and then became arguably the most important president in the history of the United States.  Winston Churchill is also a great example.  He failed miserably during World War I costing thousands upon thousands of lives because of his terrible strategy for the Gallipoli campaign.  He was removed from office and shamed. He was enemy #1 in Great Britain.  Then he ended up being perhaps the most important leader in the modern history of the Western world.  In addition, Thomas Edison failed way more than he succeeded.  

If failure defines you then you are a failure.  If failure challenges you and propels you forward then you are a success. Here is how business guru Seth Godin puts it:
If I fail more than you do, I win, because built into this lesson is the notion that you get to keep playing.  If you get to keep playing, that means you get to keep failing.  Sooner or later you're going to succeed.  The people who lose are either the ones who don't fail at all and get stuck or the ones that fail so big that they don't get to play again... but [unlike airline pilots and people who build pacemakers] most of us live in the kind of world in which the kind of failure I'm talking about isn't fatal at all.
Why am I saying all of this?  Well, the story about Kobe Bryant's record got me thinking, as have two books I've read recently.  The first is Mindset by Carol Dweck and the second is The Obstacle is the Way by Ryan Holiday.  Reading those books helped me to realize that for years--since childhood--I have been doing what is easy and avoiding failure at all costs.  I only played the sports I was already good at, and I only took the classes in which I knew I'd get an A.  Because of that I didn't learn much and I didn't develop fortitude.  Part of why I left my first church was that we'd failed at building a new handicap accessible building (my idea) and I think I may have left because I couldn't bring myself to fail again.  By the way, after I left they figured out how to get it done, helped along by the fact that they didn't have to pay me anymore.  Part of why I started looking to leave my second church was that the core of my youth group--that had made youth ministry easy--was about to graduate.  Without them I'd be a failure.  So I ran. Thankfully God guided me to this wonderful congregation in Washington Court House, Ohio, but I have to admit that when we failed in our efforts to bring on a staff member in children's and youth ministry I had to fight off the feeling that I'd failed so bad that I needed to leave.  Somehow, though, God did a work in me earlier this year and the books I've read recently have helped me to understand just how important that work was for my future.

For years I'd avoided writing a novel because I just knew it wouldn't be good.  It wouldn't be published and nobody would buy it even if it was.  So I just didn't do it.  But this year I did it, and only 25 people bought the e-book version of it.  In years past that would have crushed me and I would have sworn off writing forever.  This year, however, I said, "Hey, I wrote a novel!"  I don't even think that the novel failed. Although I don't think any publishing house would pick it up because it is too short and not exotic enough for contemporary tastes, if I was to self-publish a printed book of it I think I could sell more of it.  I've researched ways to do that.  What if it fails?  Then I'll learn something.

I used to say, "I'm not a runner.  I wasn't built for running," but this year I said, "I can only become a runner by running."  Over and over I failed in being able to run as far as I wanted to run, but every single day I got in better shape.  I got to where I could run 3 miles, then 4 miles, then 5 miles, then six miles, then seven miles, and then eight miles.  The truth is that for years I was just making excuses and believing my own excuses.  I was afraid to fail.  What if I don't win?  I'll fell bad about myself. This year I just pushed through and you know what?  I lost more than thirty pounds, ran three regular 5K's, one obstacle zombie 5K, and a brutal 10K trail run.  Did I win any of them? Heck no!  There are high school kids who can run twice as fast and five times as far without breaking a sweat.  I did win a few medals for my age/gender group.  I had to be willing to fail in order to grow and achieve.

I want to close by saying that I think that we, not just in our personal lives but as a congregation, need to be willing to fail in the effort to fulfill our vision of "sharing the wonder and love of God with all."  Failing means that we're trying.  If we never fail that means that we aren't trying anything.  One area that I think we need to try some new things is in the structure of our church leadership.  As far as I know, we still have the same number of officers that we had when we were a church of twice--almost three times--the size.  

Our church bylaws--because they were written when this congregation was quite different--are quite constricting.  I remind all of us, however, that while the Scriptures say "the Word of the Lord shall stand forever," they don't say the same thing about church bylaws.  We can change them to better reflect our current vision, mission, and needs.  But we've always done it this way.  That's not true and even if it was it doesn't necessarily matter. But what if we change things and it is a disaster?  Well, then we'll learn something and we'll try to fix it.  Let's be willing to think way outside the box in all sorts of areas.  Jesus said that even the gates of hell can't prevail over His church, so I'm pretty sure our experimenting with different leadership structures and other ways of doing ministry aren't going to be what brings the whole thing down. We have to keep things in perspective.

I'm not the biggest fan of Kobe Bryant, but I have to give credit where credit is due.  Congratulations Kobe on having the record for most missed shots.  Your play on the court is an inspiration to me because I know that the only reason you're missing shots is because you're taking them, and you know what, we'll only remember the ones you made anyway.

Have a great week,
Pastor Everett

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Freedom after Fifteen Years!

This past week Danielle and I achieved something momentous and life changing.  We made the final payment on my student loans, paying them off years early!  After fifteen years of never missing a payment, usually paying extra, and at least twice making large bulk payments to shrink the principle, we are done!  Educational debt is an absolute scourge on our society, especially for people in my generation and the folks who are younger than me.  It is only getting worse.  Proverbs 22:7 says, "The borrower is slave to the lender."  Well, this borrower is no longer slave to that particular lender.  

Having your debt paid gives great freedom.  So why am I writing about this on my pastor's blog?  Well, the reason is that I have the Church to thank for helping this to happen.  This month our congregation is hearing "Stories of Generosity." Here is just such a story.

When I went to college my family was not able to help me financially at all.  When I was applying to schools I knew that I had $0.  Thankfully I received some scholarships and grants, but I also worked part-time during school and full-time during the summers.  In addition to these forms of income, I also took out loans, eventually racking up about $20,000 in debt, which is a lot of money, but much less than a lot of people. When I graduated, I got a job paying $27,000 a year and started making payments six months after graduation.  Even though many people I know deferred their loans until they could make more money, I have made every single payment and more.  I borrowed the money, so it was my responsibility to pay it.

Three years after graduation, I felt called to go to seminary to study for pastoral ministry.  Before I even realized this call on my life, the people of First United Presbyterian Church of Guthrie, Oklahoma discerned this call.  Under the leadership of Rev. L. Dale DePue and then Rev. Karen Rogers, the congregation felt that if they discerned God's calling on my life that they needed to help make that happen because a Master of Divinity degree from a seminary is very, very expensive.  They took my seminary education on as a mission. The little congregation, which at the time had about 80 folks in worship each week, raised more than $15,000 to help fund my pastoral education.  

I think every church should do for their seminarians what FUPC in Guthrie did for me.  They truly understood their role in the larger family of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  In addition to the generosity of the saints of FUPC-Guthrie, I received a scholarship from the Synod of the Sun (a regional governing body of the PCUSA), as well as a large tuition waiver from the endowment of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  Because of the generosity of Presbyterian Christians in Guthrie, Oklahoma, the Synod of the Sun (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas), and those over the years who had given to APTS, as well as my part-time job in the admissions office, and Danielle's full-time work at the University of Texas, I did not have to take out any loans to fund my seminary education.  Some folks leave seminary with $50,000 or more in loans in addition to what they might have already accumulated in undergraduate school.  I, on the other hand, took on no additional debt and even made every loan payment while I was in seminary and we continued to give money every single month to the ministries of our home church back in Guthrie.  Because of the generosity of the Church, I finished seminary with less debt than when I started seminary.  That's not where the church's role in this ends, however.

I cannot imagine how long I would be paying on my educational debt if I would have had to take out loans for seminary.  I think it is ridiculous how much seminary costs.  It seems to me that as a Church we should find ways to educate our spiritual leaders if we really believe they are called by God to serve in that role.  I am very fortunate that my debt did not grow so I was able to make progress on paying it off.  This process of paying it off was also helped by a program through the Presbyterian Church (USA) that grants up to $2,500 a year (for up to four years) toward paying off student loan debt if a pastor serves a church with less than 100 members and a budget of less than $100,000.  My first church fit both of those criteria.  I only stayed there two years (a decision I regret sometimes) but that money helped to knock down the principle, which lessened the interest that compounded over the years.  Eventually I ended up coming to serve my current congregation, First Presbyterian Church of Washington Court House, Ohio.  This congregation is very generous to me and to my family, which has enabled us to pay extra on the loan every month until this month when we made our final payment.

As brothers and sisters in the family of Christ and as different parts of the same body of Christ we are to take care of each other.  "Share with the Lord's people who are in need," Paul writes in Romans 12:13. When we do this, "the service [we] perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord's people, but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God," Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 9:12.  We are in this together and if we truly value the church's ministries we will invest financially in those ministries.  The same goes for the ministries of our teaching elders (pastors).  If we truly value their training and ministry then we must invest in it by paying them well and helping them to pay off their educational loans that made it possible for them to serve our congregations.  

Seminary is very expensive--too expensive in my opinion--and too many seminary students and graduates are being left on their own to pay off that debt.  It is a shame that so many congregations see the call to pastoral ministry as being a call placed merely on an individual rather than a call placed on that individual and the church together.  I am so thankful that the generosity of not just hundreds, but thousands of saints has made it to where at the age of 36 I am completely free of educational debt.  By the way, Danielle is free of educational debt as well.  This will enable us to give more to the ministries of the Church and to assist those in need, to save for Wyatt and Josselyn's college so they won't have to take on debt, and to save for retirement.  "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free," Paul says in Galatians 5:1. Thanks to Christ's Church today I am experiencing even more freedom in Christ.  Thanks be to God!

With Gratitude,
Pastor Everett

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

A Dark City

I've really gotten into the new series on Fox called Gotham.  I hadn't even heard about it for the first few weeks that it aired. My life is such that if it isn't mentioned at church or by my kids then I don't hear about it for a long time.  When I did hear of it, I was intrigued because Gotham is not actually about Batman but instead it is more about Jim Gordon (later Commissioner Gordon) and the simultaneous descent of Gotham City into complete corruption and disarray and ascent of many of the villains that will battle with Batman in Gotham City's future.  The story line for the show takes place when Bruce Wayne (Batman) is about eleven or twelve years old, so we get to see the evolution of Batman as well.  Take everything you know about Batman and Gotham City and rewind about fifteen years and that is what the show Gotham is about.  It is brutally violent in parts (it is Gotham City after all), extremely dark (again, this is Gotham City we're talking about, not Candyland), and there are some sexual situations in it (although far less than what you'd see in Grey's Anatomy). This show is for adults, not for kids.  In addition, Gotham is very much written, directed, and acted as if it is a live action comic book.  The characters and their dialogue are a little over the top. That's on purpose.  Not everyone will like this show, but I absolutely love it.

I have never been that big into comic books or into superheroes. When I was a kid I had some comic books, almost all of them Batman comics.  I like the X-Men to a certain extent, but I've just never been able to identify with heroes that have superpowers.  Superman and Spiderman have never interested me.  I'm the one person in the world that didn't like the Ironman movies.  The Incredible Hulk is hokey to me.  But I've always liked Batman, not in the campy 60's show, but in his darker incarnations.  The reason I like Batman is because he doesn't have any superpowers whatsoever.  Everything he does is done through skill, technology, and plain old righteous anger. He didn't come from another planet.  He wasn't injected with a mutating chemical.  He's just a moody, determined, ultra-rich guy who is tired of his city being controlled by corrupt politicians and law enforcement, and the criminals they're supposed to be fighting.  I can't relate to someone who can fly or someone who can pick up a car and throw it at a helicopter.  But I can relate to someone who is angry at injustice and wants to do something about it.  That's why I've always liked Batman. Plus, Batman is a really complex character. He makes me ask important questions, mainly, "Is Batman really any better than the villains he fights?"

Again, Gotham takes place fifteen years or so before Bruce Wayne creates the "symbol" of Batman and takes to the streets of Gotham City.  The city is almost completely corrupt.  The politicians and police cannot be trusted.  Everything is tied up with organized crime.  It is out of this environment that different people try to address the corruption in different ways.  One vigilante after another rises up and the cops have to deal with it.  The cops are constantly fighting the vigilantes but the corruption of the cops is, in fact, the reason for the existence of the vigilantes in the first place. It's a great case study for institutional/systematic sin.  Also, so far in this first season we have been introduced to the Penguin at the beginning of his life of crime, Cat Woman as a thirteen-year-old girl, the Riddler as a forensics expert at the Gotham City Police Department, and Poison Ivy at the beginning of her seductive criminality.  As you watch the show you say to yourself over and over again, "This city needs Batman!" but you know he's still more than a decade away.

I don't know if I'm learning any great spiritual lessons so far as a fan of Gotham, but I do think that my exclusive interest in Batman as a hero specifically because he is not a "super" hero with superpowers, sheds some light on the way I see life. Gotham, as a prequel to Batman, teaches the same lesson. There is "darkness" in all of us, darkness in the world, and none of us have superpowers with which to fight it.  

I'm a big proponent of Jungian psychology and the concept of the "shadow self." Basically, the "shadow" is all those things about you that you keep hidden, that you deny, that you don't even know about--the greed, lust, hurt, want for revenge, and so on and so forth.  We push that down so we can function in everyday life, but it keeps seeping out and sometimes exploding out of us, oftentimes when we react to something without taking the time to think about how we're supposed to react.  Have you ever "gone off" on someone, saying things you "didn't mean," when in reality you did mean them but you didn't mean to say them?  According to Jung, that's your shadow seeping out.  Jungian psychotherapy says that we have to get in touch with our shadow, knowing what is in there so that we don't get blindsided and so we can actually transform it into energy for good, rather than festering bad.  Father Richard Rohr (a Franciscan) says, "What you don't transform, you will transmit."  In other words, if you don't deal with your shadow then you're going to constantly dump it on other people without even knowing it.  This is true for Bruce Wayne/Batman, for Jim Gordon, for the Joker, for the Penguin, and for you and me.  What is inside of us must be brought into the light.

A socio-cultural example of the shadow being pulled into the open is Halloween or what used to be called All Hallow's Eve, which has traditionally been a day when the shadow side of humanity--scary, spooky, even monstrous--has been allowed to come to the surface.  Over the years and still with some conservative religious groups today there have been movements to suppress this.  What they don't realize is that, whether the shadow is a person's or a society's, suppressing it doesn't make it go away; it just makes it pop out unexpectedly. This is the role that many feel that scary movies play in our societies.  They let us view the shadow in a way that is safe and transformed into entertainment.  Likewise, on Halloween, instead of allowing everyone to actually become scary, spooky, and monstrous on that day we pretend to be that way. We have even transformed it to the point where probably the majority of costumes aren't even scary anymore--my kids are dressing up as Minnie Mouse and a pilot from Star Wars.  It is important for the dark to be pulled out into the light, not so it can be stuffed back into the darkness but so it can be transformed by the light.

The Gospel According to John uses light/dark imagery a great deal.  Near the beginning of the gospel, we read 
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.  But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God (John 3:19-21).
For Christians, our shadow side (maybe that's what Paul calls our sinful nature) has to be pulled out of the darkness and into the light of Christ--conviction, repentance, forgiveness, and then walking in the way of Christ through the Holy Spirit.  It is the light of Christ that can then transform it so that we do not "transmit" it into the world, usually into the lives of our friends and families.

All that being said, one of the reasons I enjoy Batman and the Batman prequel Gotham is that the darkness of Gotham City cannot be dealt with until it is brought into the light.  In Gotham, Detective Jim Gordon is trying to do that.  Later Bruce Wayne, as he gets older, cannot face the darkness of Gotham City until he faces his own darkness--his drive toward revenge over his parents' murder--and transforms it into something good.  The interesting thing about the Batman narrative, however, is that we're never quite sure if his darkness--his shadow--has been truly transformed (he's always right at the edge of descending completely into darkness).  Whatever Bruce Wayne's darkness has become within his role as Batman, I don't know that it can now be called light.  

Wow, I just had a thought about the symbolism of the Bat signal light that is used by Commissioner Gordon to summon Batman, and how maybe his cooperation with the authorities (finally under legitimate leadership under Gordon) transforms his darkness into light.  My mind is blown!  

Superman is obviously good.  Spiderman is obviously good. Wonder Woman is obviously good.  With Batman it isn't so obvious, and it isn't always completely obvious with us either. That's why Batman is so interesting, and that's why the grace of God is so important.

Anyway, you now know my thoughts on Gotham, Batman, Jungian psychotherapy, and John 3, as if you ever wondered. Hopefully you got something out of that.

Happy Halloween, and have a great week!

Everett


Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Manse Menagerie

Danielle and I have always been what you might call "animal people."  That doesn't mean that we act like animals (any more than anyone else) but that we see the value of having animals as a part of our daily lives. Danielle grew up with cats and I grew up with cats, dogs, and an occasional guinea pig and fish. We knew we wanted animals to be a part of our family as well, so just a couple of days after we returned from our honeymoon we went to the local Humane Society and adopted two cats.  We only went in for one but she and I fell in love with two different felines and they made us a "two-for-one" deal.  Those cats were Romy (an orange tabby) and Jackson (a brown longhair).  They lived with us in our tiny apartment in Stillwater, Oklahoma and then in our duplex in Guthrie and then in our minuscule apartment in Austin, Texas.  

While we were in Austin we brought in a testy little seven-year-old dog one step away from being euthanized, a terrier mix named Luke.  Then we had a baby (Wyatt) just before we moved to Newkirk, Oklahoma. All three animals (and the kid) did quite well with us there and then made the next move to Norman, Oklahoma.  Then we had Josselyn.  So we had two kids and three animals in our 1,000 square foot house and we did just fine. The dog was a bit of a wildcard, but the cats pretty much kept to themselves (what I like about cats).  This is the family that moved into the manse here in Washington Court House, Ohio.

As I have written about previously and feel no need to dwell on again, two days after we moved here just after Christmas, 2011, I had to put Luke to sleep.  He was old, pretty much blind and deaf, having hip problems, and pretty much incontinent.  Later that same year Danielle had to put her cat Jackson to sleep. He'd been with us for eleven years.  He had diabetes and he wasn't responding to insulin.  He had become incontinent as well.  That was a rough year.  But Romy (my orange tabby) is still with us.  We have had him for almost fourteen years, which makes him about fifteen years old.  He seems perfectly healthy and sleeps pretty much every night in bed with Josselyn.  The other day, Josselyn woke up with Romy next to her and said, "Daddy, Romy is soft like a koala bear."  He is a good cat and as many of you know he is my sidekick when it comes to battling bats.  Much to Romy's chagrin, however, over the past couple of years we have filled the vacancies left by Luke and Jackson instead of just eliminating those positions.

Eli, our huge yellow lab, came in February, 2012.  He is a great dog.  Many of you know him personally. He comes to work with me a lot of days and sleeps on the couch in my office.  A couple of years ago we got Wyatt a beta fish because we heard they were almost impossible to kill.  Well, we specialize in making the impossible possible so somehow we ended up having to flush it down the toilet.  We replaced it with several "molly" fish, most of which died fairly quickly.  One, named OJ, survived for almost a year and then got a swim bladder infection, which means he couldn't stay afloat anymore, so we had to put him out of his misery as well.  

A couple of months ago a really friendly cat started hanging out on our porch.  Of course, I ended up feeding him (Josselyn and I are the softies in our house) and he won us over so much that I gave him the name Juniper (after one of St. Francis's most beloved friars) and I took him to the vet to be vaccinated and de-flead.  We brought him into the house in hopes of incorporating him into the family.  Romy will love him just like he loved Jackson!  Not so much.  Romy had no interest in sharing his cat kingdom and Juniper started to spray in hopes of carving out some territory for himself.  Eventually we decided that Juniper was going to be our porch cat instead of an inside cat.  He stuck around for two days and then another cat chased him off.  We haven't seen Juniper in more than a month.  Hopefully he's okay.

Well, you would think that we would just leave well enough alone but then we ended up meeting a little Lab/corgi puppy that won us over with her cuteness.  We adopted her from the Humane Society via a friend and named her Daisy.  She is three months old and absolutely loves her big brother Eli (she looks like a miniature version of him) and even gets along with Romy, although Eli and Romy have never made peace. As a puppy she is a lot of fun but a lot of work too.  She's a real hoot.

Why am I sharing this?  Well, I'm sharing it because with the addition of Daisy, life with animals is on my mind.  There are advantages and disadvantages to it.  The disadvantages I have experienced are that pets are expensive (food and vet bills), they make it difficult for us to go away on vacation (who's going to watch two dogs and a cat for ten days?), and they are constantly shedding and occasionally barfing on the floor.  I understand why some people just choose not to have pets.  However, we as a family have decided that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  Having pets allows us to give homes to animals in need (if not us, who?), to teach our kids responsibility (did you feed the dog?), and more than anything to experience the unique love that animals offer to us and receive from us.  In addition, having pets gives kids practice in grieving.  My kids grieved for Luke and Jackson.  Josselyn grieved that Juniper disappeared.  They need that practice.  You don't want a human's death to be your kid's first experience of grief.  That can be overwhelming if they've never had a taste of it before.  Overall, we feel that we are a more complete family with pets and that we are raising more responsible and more compassionate children because we have pets. I believe that caring about animals helps us to care more about human beings as well.  I really think there is a connection between the two.

No matter what you believe about the mechanics of how the world was created and whether or not it (and we) have evolved, the meaning of the Genesis accounts are the same.  God didn't have to create, but God did.  It wasn't an accident of the gods as other nations were saying.  God created everything good, not evil as other cultures were telling the Israelites.    And that God put us in charge of creation (to a certain extent) and we, of course, messed the whole thing up.  What doesn't change, however, is that we are still supposed to be stewards or caretakers of creation rather than exploiting and dominating it.  I recognize that my having two dogs and a cat is not going to save the tigers, rhinos, or polar bears.  What it does do, however, is remind me that creation includes more than just me and more than just human beings.  I am reminded everyday that God can be experienced in a purring cat and a fetching dog in addition to being experienced in a worship service (notice that I said in addition to worship rather than instead of).  My experience has been that usually (not always) animal people tend to be kinder and more generous folks in general.  They have been taught that by God's other creatures.

If you don't have pets and you can't for some reason or another and you want a little taste every now and then of life with critters, come by the manse and my pets will teach you some things.  There is no better way to learn to quit being so full of yourself than to scoop poop or clean out a cat box.  A puppy lying with her belly face up will make you stop for a second to experience love instead of busyness.  Walking a 105 pound dog who has never been trained is a stellar cardiovascular workout.  And hearing the purring of a cat in your ear on a cold, snowy morning is like a winter lullaby, singing to you, "Don't get out of bed yet.  School is closed anyway.  Just stay here."

I hope you have a great week.  Pet your furry friends for me.

Grace and Peace,
Pastor Everett

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Pirates and Christian Realism Part 5

If all of this makes you uncomfortable because you are uncomfortable with situational ethics, I remind you that nearly every choice we make is dependent upon context. Wisdom is not about adhering to a set of rules no matter what. Wisdom is about knowing what is appropriate at the appropriate times.  We can say that it seems wishy-washy and at risk of falling down a slippery slope, but the reality of life is that context matters.

In regard to violence, Tim Larkin, the founder of Target Focus Training (a form of self-defense that teaches you where/how to hit someone in specific places to injure someone who is trying to kill you) gives the following example of how context changes whether or not violence is evil or good (again, I'm paraphrasing). He says that if he walked up to someone at the grocery store and punched them in the liver and then stomped on their groin incapacitating them, Tim Larkin would be a violent sociopath.  Everyone agrees that would be evil.  He then says that if someone at the bar spilled beer on him and called him and his wife a bunch of expletives and then he punched that guy in the liver and then stomped on his groin incapacitating him, Tim Larkin would be a dangerous hothead and rightly incarcerated.  I think everyone still agrees that this horrible overreaction would be evil.  He then says that if Tim Larkin was in the building during the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and had a chance to punch the murderer in the liver and then stomp on his groin, saving the lives of many more children and teachers, then what he had done would be appropriate to the situation and completely warranted. Everyone (except the murderer) would be glad that he'd done it. In the first two instances, violence was evil.  In the third instance, violence was at the very least necessary, and possibly even good in that particular situation.  I agree with Tim Larkin on that one. If--God forbid--something like that ever happens at one of our schools I pray to God there's someone in there (even a Christian!) who knows how to and is willing to use force to save my kids' lives.

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines situational ethics as
the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action must be judged in relation to the particular situation or context in which it occurs.  The stress is on relationships and character rather than universal rules.  Love is primary.
A lot of Christians are uncomfortable with this, and understandably so.  After all, God's Word is eternal.  We can't just change it when we want to, when it fits our particular desires.  I wholeheartedly agree with that criticism.  Purely situational ethics would say that there is no moral absolute that we must follow.  What is moral and immoral is completely dependent upon the situation.  Judging from some of your comments to me, this is what some of you think I am assenting to.  That is not the case.  I do not think that we can follow God's Word sometimes and not at other times.  If you think that's what I'm saying, either I'm not writing it correctly or you're not reading it correctly.  What I am saying is that God's Word/Will has two layers: the Law and the ultimate higher purpose behind the Law.  Most of the times the Law adequately leads to fulfillment of the higher purpose, but in rare situations (generally life or death situations) the Law does not adequately lead to fulfillment of the higher purpose.  What I am saying is that in those very rare situations when we must choose between following the Law or fulfilling the higher purpose behind the Law, we (like Jesus) must choose the higher purpose.  So I am not saying that there is no absolute morality.  What I am saying is that the Law itself is not the absolute morality.  The Law points toward the absolute morality.  The higher purpose behind the Law is the absolute morality.  Where did I get this?  Well, from Jesus, of course.

Here is just one of many examples that show that this is how Jesus operated: the expert in the Law that approached Jesus wanted to know which of the commandments--which part of the Law--was the most important.  Jesus, however, thought differently about it.  Jesus did not respond by picking a Law but rather choosing the higher purpose to which all of the Law must point.  Here is how it reads in The Message:
Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.”
That's a good way of putting it: pegs.  So what I am saying is that the "pegs" are absolute and never change regardless of the situation.  How we live out those "pegs" can change in different situations.  The Apostle Paul says something similar in Galatians 5.  This does not say that the Law is obsolete or unimportant.  All it says it that the Law is subservient to the higher purpose behind the Law: love God and love neighbor.  In very, very rare occasions we may have to put that which hangs on the "peg" aside in order to fulfill the purpose of the "peg" itself.

Jesus was much more interested in the "pegs" or the higher purpose (higher moral law) than in the Law.  He loved and followed the Law, but when he had to, he set particular laws aside in order to fulfill the purpose behind the Law.  The Law listed out those foods which the people of God could not eat.  Following these "kosher" laws showed that God's people were obedient to God.  However, Jesus said that it isn't what people eat that defiles a person, but what they say and do.  That is an example of Jesus caring more about the higher purpose behind the Law than the Law itself.  Paul followed suit whenever there were some who were saying that it is always absolutely wrong to eat meat that was used in the sacrifices to pagan gods.  Paul says that it depends on the situation.  As long as you understand who the one true God is and it won't bother anyone with whom you're eating then go for it.  Steak is just steak.  It is right for you to eat that meat.  It proves that you give no respect at all to pagan beliefs.  But if you're in a situation where you're eating with someone who is extremely offended by this and doesn't think Christians should ever do this then, out of respect and in hopes of keeping the peace, you should save those particular steaks for another time.  It would be wrong to eat that meat.  It shows that you don't care about the feelings of your guests.  So is it right or wrong to eat meat sacrificed to pagan gods?  Well, that depends on the situation.  What is always right is loving God and your neighbor.

When a group of men bring to Jesus the woman caught in adultery, the mob is right that the Law prescribes stoning her to death as the punishment.  That's the Law.  You can read it in Leviticus 20.  The Law is absolute and must be followed to the "T" every time, right?  Well, in this particular situation Jesus feels that mercy toward the woman, although it circumvents the Law, will better fulfill the "pegs" on which the Law hangs, will better fulfill the higher purpose behind the Law.  Jesus doesn't say the Law is bad or obsolete. He does not dismiss it, but he does set it aside in this particular situation so as to better fulfill the purpose behind the Law.  Of course, Jesus, being Savior and Lord, knows better than we do when a situation warrants that, but there are those very, very rare lifesaving times when we must discern whether it is better to follow the Law or to fulfill the higher purpose behind the Law.

Captain Phillips only does two things in the film that could be called violent.  The first is that he makes sure his crew knows that one of the pirates is bare foot so they can put down some broken glass to hurt the pirate's feet.  The plan works.  Later in the film Captain Phillips pushes that same pirate (don't feel sorry for him; he has an AK-47 pointed at someone's head) into the ocean in the middle of the night.  Eventually it is the Navy SEALS that do the violent deed of killing the pirates, but it was, after all, Captain Phillips who alerted the military of what was going on.  Again, you can't say that killing is always an evil sin and then be okay with other people doing it on your behalf.  It's not okay to hire other people to sin for you.  Captain Phillips avoided unwarranted violence but he participated in and relied upon warranted violence.  If I had a chance to prevent the machine gun toting drugged up pirates from boarding the boat at any means I'd use any of those means, and if they made it onto the boat anyway I would have no problem taking advantage of an opportunity to take down the pirates.  Is saving my own life and the lives of others from men doing evil an evil in itself?  I really have a hard time believing it is.

Here is the rub for me: things get messy when you are responsible for the lives of other human beings.  It is easy to say that violence is never okay, even in self-defense--if you're the only one who will be harmed by that stance.  It's not as easy to say that when you have a family and someone legitimately threatens the life of your family.  Just up the road in Columbus a couple of weeks ago, a single mom heard noise in her house. She awoke to find a man wearing clown mask standing over her sleeping teenage son holding a large knife. She shot the man--who turned out to be a teenager--and he died.  Is it tragic that a young person did something so frightening and violent to another human being that he ended up getting himself killed?  Yes. Did the mother commit evil in protecting her son?  Does she need to ask forgiveness for saving her son's life?  I do not believe so.  It is also easy to say that violence is never justified when you have not been given responsibility for 300 million citizens.  Part of the reason the government exists is to protect the citizens. How can you protect the citizens under your charge if violence is completely taken off the table?  When you are responsible for other people, that responsibility may sometimes make pacifism impossible.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson (a Presbyterian), who had held the USA out of WWI as long as he could, spoke to a joint session of congress to ask for a declaration of war against Germany, who was sinking American ships and trying to talk Mexico into declaring war on the USA, said "It is a fearful thing to lead this peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance, but the right is more precious than peace..."  The right is more precious than peace.  Well isn't peace what is right?  Well, most of the time.  But not in all situations.  Please don't get me wrong.  I do not advocate lying or violence, but I do advocate loving God and loving your neighbors and I understand that sometimes that gets messy.  I truly believe that the peacemakers are blessed.  But sometimes as faithful and diligent as peacemakers are, peace cannot be had.  It is then that the "time for peace" becomes the "time for war" as Ecclesiastes 3 describes.  Peace cannot be had at all costs because that cost is made up of the lives of others.  Violence is over all a tragic result of our sinful and fallen world.  Yet ironically, within our sinful and fallen world, I (along with Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, and Dr. Darrell Cole) believe that in very rare situations violence is sometimes converted into a good when it resists evil and protects the innocent.  I pray that I never have to use it, but if I wake up and there's someone in my house trying to harm my family I will do what needs to be done and I won't do evil so that good may come of it.  I'll do something good to protect my family from evil.

That's just my point of view.  Take it or leave it.  I know many of you are uncomfortable with these views. None of this necessarily reflects the views of First Presbyterian Church or the Presbyterian Church (USA). If nothing else, perhaps this series of posts has made you think about something you've never thought about. Those of you who know me know that I am a very peaceful person.  The movie Captain Phillips just made me wonder where the limits of my peacefulness might be.

Thanks for reading.  We'll get into some much lighter fare next week.  Maybe I'll write about our new puppy.

Peace,
Everett




Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Pirates and Christian Realism Part 4

Over the years, Hank Hannegraft has become famous in the world of conservative Evangelical Christians as the "Bible Answer Man" on Christian radio stations.  Some of his words serve as a very appropriate transition from last week's exploration of lying to this week's exploration of violence:
Furthermore, while the Bible never condones lying qua lying (lying for the sake of lying), it does condone lying in order to preserve a higher moral imperative. For example, Rahab purposed to deceive (the lesser moral law) in order to preserve the lives of two Jewish spies (the higher moral law). Likewise, a Christian father today should not hesitate to lie in order to protect his wife and daughters from the imminent threat of rape or murder.                                                                                                                                                                                      Finally, there is a difference between lying and not telling the truth. This is not merely a matter of semantics; it is a matter of substance. By way of analogy, there is a difference between unjustified and justified homicide. Murder is unjustified homicide and is always wrong. Not every instance of killing a person, however, is murder. Capital punishment and self-defense occasion justified homicide. Similarly, in the case of a lie (Annanias and Sapphira, Acts 5) there is an unjustified discrepancy between what you believe and what you say, and so lying is always wrong. But not telling the truth in order to preserve a higher moral law (Rahab, Joshua 2) may well be the right thing to do and thus is not actually a lie.
If you read my blog post last week you know that I agree with the "Bible Answer Man" on this subject.  I understand that some Christians don't agree--to them all lies are wrong.  I respect their opinion, but at the same time I hope that my fate is never in the hands of those Christians who would choose their own personal piety (never lying) over my life.   The same is true when it comes to Christians who are pacifists.  Good for them for having high ideals, but I hope that the safety of my family is never dependent upon them.  If--God forbid--one of my family members was in imminent danger and someone had the opportunity to keep that from happening but chose not to intervene out of Christian conviction, I would have a very difficult time understanding how they could choose their own piety over a person in desperate need. Jesus was most certainly nonviolent, but he also had a lot of harsh words for religious people who place piety over people.  Just as I refuse to say that lying is always wrong, I also refuse to say that violence is always wrong.  You don't have to agree with me but since you're reading my blog I'll assume that you are interested in me making my case.

The use of violence in the Bible paints a varied and sometimes frightening picture.  Cain killed Abel out of jealousy and was perpetually cast out.  God commanded the Israelites to completely slaughter the people of Jericho (except for Rahab who'd lied to help them).  David killed Goliath and is still celebrated for it 3,000 years later.  Ecclesiastes says, "There is a time for war and a time for peace... a time to love and a time to hate... a time to kill and a time to die."  The kingdoms of Israel and Judah are condemned by the prophets for the use of unjust violence and are also the victims of unjust violence at the hands of one imperial oppressor after another.  Jesus says, "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies and pray for them" and "blessed are the peacemakers" but then he tells his disciples to buy swords but then he says "all who live by the sword will die by the sword." We also cannot forget that Jesus refused to resist his accusers and executioners, yet he also never criticizes soldiers for being soldiers.  The apostles welcome Cornelius (a soldier) into the church, but we have no evidence that they thought he should quit being a soldier.  Paul says, "As much as it depends on you live at peace with everyone."  So what does the Bible say about the use of violence?  That's a really hard question to answer because the Bible says a lot of different things about violence.  That's why Christians have been disagreeing on this for centuries.

As I've mentioned before, Christian pacifists claim that although there is a great deal of violence in the Bible that when Jesus comes on the scene he commands his followers not to participate (or even resist) that violence.  A Christian pacifist author named T.C. Moore says that instead of violence "the Christian response to the threats of enemies is increased trust in God.  Prayer and righteousness seem to be the only ways to ensure the safety of God's people, not weapons of war."

John Calvin, the founder of the Reformed movement that eventually spawned the Presbyterians, had a different way of looking at this, however. Whether he is right or wrong I don't know, but I think it is interesting at least to know what he had to say about it.  According to Darrell Cole, a professor at Drew University, and author of When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight, 
"for Calvin, Christ's pacific nature carries little normative weight for Christians, for that pacific nature is located in Christ's priestly office of reconciliation and intercession-an office that Christians can in no way fulfill or reproduce. Christ's pacific nature-His willingness to suffer death at the hands of unjust authorities both Jewish and Roman-is inextricably tied to His role as Redeemer and is not meant to be a complete model for Christian behavior. No Christian can follow Christ as Redeemer, but all can follow Christ as One who obeys the commands of his Father."
So for Calvin, Jesus Christ had to be completely nonviolent because the role he came to play and what he came to accomplish required complete nonviolence.  After all, if we believe traditional Christian teachings, then we believe that in a very real sense Christ came to die on the cross.  Unlike your purpose and my purpose (to live to the glory of God), Jesus' purpose was to live a short life to the glory of God and then die on the cross.  His purpose required nonviolence.  According to Calvin, because--although we are his devoted followers--we do not have the same role and we cannot possibly accomplish what he did (nor do we need to since he has already done it) we are not held to the same standard of complete nonviolence. Instead we are held to the standard to live peaceful lives to the glory of God, only using violence in very rare circumstances when the good gained by that violence is worth more than the damage done.  Again, I don't know if Calvin is right or wrong, but I do know that I agree with him.

Another interesting perspective is that of Darrell Cole, whom I mentioned earlier.  I have not read his book When God Says War is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight yet but I plan to.   I have, however, read a lengthy article of his from the Catholic journal First Things that summarizes the thesis of his book.  I am fond of quoting Jimmy Carter in saying that war is sometimes a necessary evil, yet we must always remember that although it is sometimes necessary it is always evil.  Dr. Cole disagrees with that.  Cole says (I'm paraphrasing here) that if war (or killing) is always evil and sinful then we should never under any circumstance do it or support it being done by others.  As Paul says in Romans 3, we cannot do evil so that good may come of it and as both Paul and Peter say, "Do not return evil for evil."  So what that means is that either killing/war is always evil so we can never support it or do it or that when it absolutely must be done it is no longer evil, but in that particular rare circumstance it is a good.

Let's think about it this way: Is it evil for a police officer to shoot and kill someone carrying out a horrendous crime, let's say a school shooting?  Is it an evil for a soldier to kill a violent terrorist threatening innocent people?  If killing is always evil then it is also evil (a sin) when police officers and soldiers have to do it.  If that is the case then we are paying someone else to commit our sins/evil for us, which is not permissible for the Christian.  We cannot actively support sin/evil.  So we either need to withdraw our support from our local police force and the military or we need to recognize that sometimes (most of the time) killing is evil and sometimes (very rarely) it isn't.  Dr. Cole says (citing the just-war philosophy going back through Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin) that in very specific circumstance when non-violent means will not bring about the desired good, that violence (as a last resort) then becomes not a necessary evil but a necessary good.

I don't know about you (and it may not be very Christian of me), but I think it is good when a school shooter gets shot rather than him firing off another round into a five-year-old girl.  In a perfect world we wouldn't have to make that choice, but--news flash!--we don't live in a perfect world.  In that instance the school shooter's violence is evil and the SWAT team's violence is good.  Whether or not you agree with that may have to do with your Christian ideals or it may just have to do with whether or not your six-year-old son was next in line to be murdered when the SWAT team took out the murderer.  Again, I don't know what the right answer is; I just know what I think about it, which is not an anomaly within Christian thought but is based upon giants of theology such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin as well as my realistic projections of what I'd do in such a situation.

I'll cut this post off here and publish the rest of it next week.  Next week I'll get into the fact that although we may feel uneasy about "situational ethics" (something being good some of the time and bad some of the time) our lives are filled with situational ethics and Jesus and Paul actually practiced situational ethics at times.  It was the Pharisees (with Jesus) and the Judaizers (with Paul) who were always opposed to situational ethics, not Jesus and Paul.  Also, I promise that next week's post will actually mention Captain Phillips.





Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Pirates and Christian Realism (Part III)

Before you begin reading, you need to know that this is a continuation of the past two weeks' posts.  If you haven't read those posts, you'll want to take the time to do that before reading this post.

I haven't read the book on which the movie Captain Phillips was based--it is called A Captain's Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALS, and Dangerous Days at Sea--but if the movie follows the book and the actual events of that day then Captain Richard Phillips is a very brave man.  Throughout the ordeal he did what he felt was right to keep his crew safe as well as trying to save his own life as well. Like I mentioned before, his story is one that made me think about what I would have done and about whether or not there is a moment when the "rules" or "principles" we generally live by break down, causing us to go deeper or rather behind those principles to actually defy the principle in order to fulfill the greater end behind the principle.  This week I'm going to spend time with the fact that in the midst of this dire situation Captain Phillips lied to the pirates. Is that okay?

In the movie, when the heavily armed Somali pirates board the ship and make it to the bridge where the captain and a couple of other crew members are, the pirates ask Captain Phillips, "Where is the rest of your crew?" Captain Phillips, who had told the crew exactly where to hide, responded, "I don't know."  He lied!  The Scriptures say, "The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful" (Proverbs 12:22). They also say, "No one who practices deceit will dwell in [God's] house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in [God's] presence" (Psalm 107:7).  These are just two of many examples.  The Scriptures reveal to us that God doesn't like it when we lie. Because of this we have rightly formulated the principle that instructs: do not lie. 

So our principle says "do not lie," but is it ever okay to lie?  A legalist or immature Christian (who are often legalists) would say, "No.  You can never lie."  They are just trying to be obedient and faithful, but they are probably also wrong.  Thankfully not everyone is so attached to their principles. After all, every person in Europe that hid Jews from the Nazis during the Holocaust lied.  "Are there any Jews in your house?" the SS asked them.  "No Jews here," they said. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, when criticized by fellow Christians for being willing to deceive the Nazis in order to work against them, once wrote of the following example in an essay called "What Does It Mean to Tell the Truth?"

Bonhoeffer gave the example of a little girl whose teacher stands her in front of the class and asks her, "Is your father a drunkard?" The little girl, whose father is definitely an alcoholic, answers, "No."  Bonhoeffer says, "Of course, one could call the child's answer a lie; all the same, this lie contains more truth--i.e., it corresponds more closely to the truth--than if the child had revealed the father's weakness before the class."  About this example Eric Metaxas writes, "One cannot demand 'the truth' at any cost, and for this girl to admit in front of the class that her father is a drunkard is to dishonor him.  How one tells the truth depends on circumstances."  This doesn't mean that Bonhoeffer didn't think there was any such thing as objective, absolute truth.  What it does mean is that sometimes the reason behind a principle is more important than the principle itself.

Although this is not the official definition, the way I define a "legalist" is someone who cares more about the rules than about the reason those rules exist.  A few biblical examples would be the Levite and priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan.  They cared more about following the purity codes, which were meant to honor God, than they did about helping the dying man, which would have honored God even more.  Jesus didn't get along well with legalists. Again and again he showed that he cared more about the "spirit" of the law (reason it exists) than about the "letter" of the law.  The reason behind the principle "do not lie" is that God (who is The Truth) would be honored and others would be treated well. There may be times, however, when lying would actually honor God more and treat others better than telling the truth.  In other words, it may not be factual but it would be True in the sense of doing God's will. The little girl in Bonhoeffer's example honored her father (and the rest of her family) and treated him better than she would have by telling the class that he was a drunk.  There was absolutely nothing to be gained by telling the truth in that situation.  How would that have honored God?  The teacher obviously had cruel motives. Telling the truth would have only played into the teacher's (and maybe the class's) cruel intentions.  

When the pirates asked Captain Phillips where his crew was, had he been immature and/or a legalist (or a traitor) he would have said, "They are in the engine room with the lights turned off hiding in the back." Would turning your defenseless (why the cargo ship didn't have any form of security other than water hoses I don't know) crew over to armed, desperate, drugged up, pirates honor God and treat others well?  Telling the truth would technically follow the principle, but it would also violate the reason for the principle.  While the pirates may have been Captain Phillips's "neighbors," so were his crew. When he had to make a choice between his neighbors with AK-47's pointed at his head trying to steal his employer's cargo and his nieghbors who were his own unarmed and law-abiding crew, he chose his crew.  He felt it honored God and treated others better by protecting the unarmed innocent rather than telling the truth to armed criminals.  Isn't lying a sin?  Well, maybe lying is only sometimes a sin.  Maybe it is less the action itself and more the intent behind it that determines whether or not something is a sin.

999 out of 1000 times telling the truth is the right, God-honoring, neighbor-loving thing to do.  However, the unwise, the immature, and the legalistic are either unwilling or incapable of discerning the righteous thing to do in that other one time.  When life offers us easy, clear-cut, black-and-white, choices to make, following our principles makes complete sense.  Sometimes, though, we face things that are hard, blurry, and gray.  It is then that we have to go deeper, down to the reason beneath the principle, which may actually help us to do the right thing by not following the principle that one time.  

Captain Phillips lied.  By lying he did the right thing.  And to the glory of God and out of love for my neighbor I would have lied too.

So if lying is usually the wrong thing to do but occasionally the right thing to do, is it the same when it comes to violence as well?  Is violence always a sin or is it on very rare occasions the God-honoring, neighbor-loving thing to do?  I'll get into that next week. 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Pirates and Christian Realism Part II

Continued from last week...

Last week I began an exploration of a concept called "Christian Realism."  If you're not sure what that is please take a few minutes to read last week's post.  This discussion of Christian realism came out of my experience watching the movie Captain Phillips. Throughout that film I wondered what I would do if I was in that situation.  Is there ever a time when a Christian can or even should engage in violence against another human being, who is, of course, created in the image of God?  The answer that is given by Christian realism (and by what is called "just war theory," which was formulated originally by St. Augustine) is that sometimes, reluctantly, sadly, and with reliance upon God's mercy, a Christian not only can but perhaps should do so.  Christian pacifists, of course, do not agree with either Christian realism or just war theory; they feel it compromises the message of Jesus.

Over the past few days I've also been thinking about nonviolence as practiced by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Henry David Thoreau.  Hopefully we all recognize the enormous debt that we as Americans owe to Dr. King and the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who worked nonviolently for the civil rights that all people deserve.  Dr. King--against the insistence of Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and even some within King's own group--held to active nonviolence with steadfast devotion.  Thank God that he did that because had his movement been violent it likely would have never succeeded.  It was, in fact, the images of nonviolent marchers being attacked by police dogs, pummeled by police batons, and sprayed with fire hoses that finally turned the tide in favor of civil rights.  Yet, although we are indebted to the role played by active nonviolence I personally believe that we are confused and naive if we think it is possible and desirable in every situation.  Although I'm venturing away from Captain Phillips again, I think it might be of interest to explore this.

First of all, we have to recognize that pacifism and active nonviolence are not the same thing.  Pacifism means opting out. Active nonviolence means putting yourself in harm's way to make a difference but refusing to use violence in the effort to make that difference.  It seems to me that Jesus was not teaching pacifism as much as he was teaching active nonviolence.  It also seems to me, however, that there are times when active nonviolence is no longer an option.

Although I am not an expert in these things (so take what I write as opinion not as fact), active nonviolence--i.e. Dr. King's brand of civil rights protest, Gandhi's leadership toward Indian independence, and Thoreau's protest against the Mexican-American War--only works when it is used against a legitimate authority that has limits imposed on it by law and public sentiment.  As a result of Thoreau's refusal to pay a tax as a protest against the Mexican-American War (which seems to have been orchestrated as a land grab), Thoreau merely spent some time in jail and wrote Civil Disobedience. He wasn't beheaded by masked terrorists.  The British Imperial government Gandhi faced off against was terribly unjust and ruthless at times but it did, at least, have limits.  Many police departments and politicians in the South were also terribly unjust and ruthless, but they did, ultimately have to answer to the federal courts, which were finally beginning to interpret the constitution as applying equally to all races.  They also had to answer to the federal administration, which was responding to increased public outcry. Many nonviolent protesters were attacked and some died, but ultimately active nonviolence worked because legitimate authorities were hemmed in by their own limits and these legitimate authorities were either forced or convinced to do the right thing.  Active nonviolence only works against legitimate and civilized (at least in theory and principle) governments or organizations.

I have trouble with Christians who are complete pacifists because I feel that they enjoy the benefits and safety provided by non-pacifists while refusing to participate in making those sacrifices if called upon to do so.  This is America, however, so although I disagree with them I am adamantly opposed to them being forced to do so or punished for being conscientious objectors.  I, of course, don't have trouble with Christians who engage in active non-violence in the fight for justice.  I'd hope that I would have been brave enough to march with Dr. King had I lived in that time and place.  I do have trouble, however, with my brothers and sisters in Christ who believe that there is always a nonviolent solution to every problem.  To me this is Christian idealism rather than Christian realism.  I am a realist.  

Hitler had no limits.  He did not respect German law, international law, common decency, or the moral teachings of any religion. What would have happened if French, British, Canadians, and Americans held hands and marched through the streets of Europe singing "We Will Overcome" and "Peace Like a River"?  Hitler would have mowed them down with machine guns.  What would ISIS do if we sent in negotiators to come to a peaceful agreement?  They would decapitate the negotiators and publish the video on the Internet. ISIS has no limits, no legitimate authority, no concern for public opinion.  So what is left?  To choose to do nothing (pacifism) is to choose to save the lives of violent ethnic cleansing terrorists over saving the lives of innocent victims.  To choose nonviolent means when dealing with an aggressor without limits or laws is to choose to sacrifice the lives of every single protester, while still not making a difference because the aggressors don't care about what is right or moral, only about what feeds their lust for power and violence.  Sometimes, regretfully, there is only one way to protect the innocent from those without limits, law, and consequences.

So what would I, a Christian, do if I was in Captain Phillips's situation, held captive by Somali pirates without limits, law, or consequences? We'll have to get to that next week...