Are We Being Biblical or Just Selfish?

Tags

bible, charity, Christianity, fundamentalism, Israel, poverty, social concerns

I read some weeks ago, and related it to you, that evangelicals on the religious right defend their opposition to federal and state programs to assist the poor on the basis of the bible.

They claim that God desires that charity be dispensed through the Church and through private means.

If that is true, then we must surely admit, that after more than 2,000 years, our failure to obey has been immense and worldwide.

Struggling to understand this interpretation, I have thought deeply and reflected on my study of scripture over the years. I alas, find no such directive.

Israel, looked at historically, has struggled, at least throughout the pre-Christian times, and arguably for all time, with whether it would be a unified nation like its neighbors. It’s time as such, was brief, during the time of David and Solomon and a few other kings. But then, the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel again split, one to return to the Tribal Confederacy model, the other, Judah retained monarchy.

Much of Israel’s (I here use the term to include both North and South) troubles centered around how it failed to follow Yahweh when it tried to be a “player” in the Mid-East, as opposed to being a “light unto the nations.” Conceivably being the latter meant setting a standard of compassion and right behavior that would set them apart as God’s chosen.

Very little in Israelite history can be looked at as individual. The community was always the central fact of life. Torah, loosely translated as “the Law” was the standard of behavior. The covenantal life was what imputed righteousness, even though the individual failed often. As a people Israel was adjudged either faithful or not, either obedient or not.

The Law (the federal government as it were) directed that the widow and orphan, the alien, were to be cared for. Surely individual were expected to do so as well, but again, they were part of the community of Israel, never segregated as individuals. Surely part of the offering to the Temple was used to support the poor, those without family, or those marginalized by purity issues.

In fact, much of the calamitous events that befell Israel, occurred because of a failure to care for the poor. Read any of the classic prophets, from Jeremiah to Isaiah, to Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, virtually all reflect on the failure of the people as corporate entity to deal in compassion with the less fortunate.

to leave the cravings of the hungry unsatisfied,

and to deprive the thirsty of drink.

The villainies of villains are evil;

they devise wicked devises

to ruin the poor with lying words,

even when the plea of the needy is right. (Is 32:6-7)

The unrelenting call of the prophets was accusatory. Israel had failed to faithfully follow Yahweh, and she had failed to care for her own.

Turning to the New Testament, I search the gospels for evidence that Jesus called for private charity and decried anything having to do with corporate care.  And again, I can find none. Surely Jesus would have spoken against the Roman practice of providing food for its poor? No. He said not a word.

In fact, Jesus made quite clear that the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the otherwise impure who were kept out of the community, should be embraced. He brought them back in. He in fact chastised the rich who neglected the poor in their greed and desire to be praised for their piety.

There is nothing that would suggest that Jesus meant individuals. He was condemning the rich in general, much as we today condemn the accumulation of outrageous wealth in the hands of individuals. “Go and sell all you own and come follow me” is an admonition to beware  the love of things when people are starving.

If we  as Christians want to turn the hearts and minds of others to empathy and compassion for each other, is it wrong to start with laws that require us to care for each other through taxation? When this becomes the norm, it becomes the norm in the mind as well. It is good and right that we, each of us, pay from our excess so that everyone can live with dignity.

For all those who were critical of social security and medicare, and still are, it has become an accepted fact of life, the least we can do. And oddly, those that condemn such practices as “socialism” dip their hands all too freely into the government coffers when they reach retirement. For it has become a “right,” one everyone partakes of.

I am deeply saddened when people turn to Paul who indicated that those in the community would not work should not be fed. “See,” they say, “Paul was clear that the community should not support the lazy.” But this is such a horridly wrong interpretation.

Paul was steeped in the erroneous belief that the end was near. Jesus was expected to return within his lifetime. Some, in his communities, believing this, felt it unnecessary to work any more, they could live off the rich among them for the short time left. Paul rightfully admonished such silliness. After all, there was no paucity of real poverty in that region, and everywhere Paul calls for the care of the widow and orphan.

In the end, we are left, I think with the usual problem. We want to give ourselves and ours more, and we conveniently accept the “interpretation” of those who tell us that the bible doesn’t support corporate giving through political entities. It is but another case of reading scripture selectively and without proper exegesis.

 It’s interpretation for personal convenience.

 Look at Matthew 25. Look at Luke 10. These are more than claims for individuals to care for others. They are teaching us to radically rethink who is our brother, our sister, our family, those whom we care for without thinking. They call us to embrace the world as our family. There is nothing within them that claim that this should be done only through private donation.

Lazy Blogging or Appropriating the Work of Others

Tags

Arizona, Art Andy Goldsworthy, Evangelical Christianity, Franklin Graham, Glenn Beck, immigration, Latinos, Liberty University, Mormons, Muslims, racism, social concerns

Okay, not really, it’s pretty much the usual short takes, which I haven’t done in a while, but it does lend to the idea that I’m really letting others do the talkin’ for me. Sometimes, (rare, I know) others actually say it better.

The weather is lovely in terms of the sun, but way cool, only 61 at the max today. Tomorrow I must shop before the next deluge which is due sometime Thursday or Friday.

I’m otherwise occupied with the usual stuff.

Actually, I’m not a bathroom hermit myself. Never have been, and never figured out how people can read in the darn place. My butt would get cold sitting there. I go in there for a reason, and get ‘er done.

So here goes, hope you find a thing or two worth your attention.

My first inclination is to say that such a beautiful sunset shouldn’t be wasted on a bunch of elderly dried up old prune faces, but that would be mean. My second inclination is that the entire state could easily be scraped into the Grand Canyon with room to spare.

But if you want to read a rather thoughtful  post about current issues in Arizona and Israel, slip over to read Matty Boy’s take on racism–yeah, now I got your attention don’t I?

I’m an adult, I know we usually take baby steps to correct the wrongs of the world, but for liver-lovin’ sake, has Arizona lost it’s mind? And beware sanctimonious remaining 49, it’s an infectious disease, make sure you get your immunization shots soon.

***

And if that only whetted your interest, then read on. Dusty, never one to parse a expletive when needed, offers some background into the admittedly racist history of those who pushed forward this ugly piece of law.

***

And then there is the political angle that this is all really a ploy to stop the rise of Democratic voting Latinos from living in the state and disrupting the Rethuglican look of things. Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast researches and brings you that story.

***

I’ve mentioned more than once my concerns about the rather blatant racism that is espoused throughout America against other Americans, namely Muslims. Not to say that we should reserve that for Muslims who are not Americans of course.

I was happy to hear that the Pentagon rescinded it’s offer to Franklin Graham to speak at the National Prayer Day ceremonies. The Reverend, son of the famous Billy Graham, expressed the usual racist claptrap in the name of God no less.

While VJack at Atheist Revolution was “disturbed”and “disappointed” that the President visited the elder Graham and also met Franklin, I pointed out in a FB entry that, well fundies would would have been just as disappointed and disturbed had Obama visited Dawkins or Hutchens. The point being, I guess intolerance is something that both fundies and atheists can have in common.

I’ve just started reading Sharp Iron, an admittedly evangelical conservative blog. I was pleased to see that Christian Beyer seems to agree that the Pentagon did the right thing.

Interestingly, Franklin claims that Muslims have a different God than his. That argument always seems odd to me, coming as it always does, from a  monotheist. If there is only one, well, however defined, the Muslim God is indeed the same God as the Christian God, and the Hindu, and the Shinto, and well, you get the picture.

***

I’ve been a believer that nature is God’s canvas upon which he creates the most beautiful of art for us, free of charge. Andy Goldsworthy, seen here in one of his creations, seems to agree. In fact he works in tandem with God (okay that’s my opinion of course) in creating some really beautiful pieces.

If your soul has been battered lately by personal or civic problems, then do stop by and take a look. I promise that you will come away feeling lighter and more at peace. Beauty is a gift of God, at least that is how I see it.

A H/T to Experimental Theology.

***

Liberty University, love child of the late Jerry Falwell, is back in the news as we mentioned a few days ago.

It seems they have invited the renowned intellectual and all around great expounder of Christianity, the one and only, Glenn Beck to be their commencement speaker.

You might remember Liberty from the fact that the Bushites enlisted a goodly number of their law graduates into the Justice Department, where they soon got in hot water by mixing their Repuglian politics with doing their jobs. We are guessing that ethics don’t play a big part in Liberty’s law curriculum.

Anyway, we pondered the incongruity of Beck, who is an avowed Mormon, being asked to speak at a ultra conservative evangelical university. You know, they often claim that said Mormons are not really Christians at all, and if you don’t believe me on that just ask Mitt Romney.

It all seemed mighty crazy, in any event. And I figured, crazy is as crazy does. Beck has called for a boycott of any church that does social justice ministry, and well, we figured Liberty must agree with all that anti-Jesus stuff too. (My Jesus is not their Jesus I would guess.)

Matt Kelley, pastor and blogger has a take on the issue, well worth your reading. And the usual H/T to Prof. James McGrath at Exploring Our Matrix for this link.

That’s it for today. A first–all links are to regular bloggers and I’m as always just amazed at the talent out there. Hope you find something to read!

Rushing to the Abyss

Tags

American people, fundamentalism, government, History, intellectuals, Obama, obesity, social concerns

If you regularly peruse a number of blogs, or heaven forbid, watch any of the mainstream media, then you are filled to the gills with explanations of the debacle in the Haaaabor. That’s Massachusetts talk.

There are parodies of all sorts, jugular distorting cries for  revenge, and all manner of “analysis” guaranteed to ‘splain it all to ya.

I think Jon Stewart came closest when he parodied Obama’s interview with George Steph. Fundamentally, the wonder Messiah misunderstood the Merikan folk.

Yes, even those of us who are relatively well educated, of sound mind and having souls, were duped into thinking that the great Obama had the magic to actually accomplish what we knew we all needed. We believed. Oh most of us knew it would not be as easy as we hoped, but we believed it would happen. Now? oh, we have regained our senses such as they were and are.

Talk logically with adult words? This was thought to be such a novel idea that surely it would work. America did not build the greatest house since the one Ruth built with nothing. We must have some basic innate intelligence, while rusted shut by years of neglect, would awaken to the melodious tones of one Barack H. Obama.  We would hear the logic, we would understand the progression of  if this then that. And we would “do the right thing.” And if there were those who had some vested interest in not doing it, well we would shame/threaten/make fun of, all those too.

But no, we were too optimistic, naive?, or just plain not evil enough to see the truth. Merika is NOT logical, intelligent, or even particularly good. It has been corrupted to a degree that may not be recoverable. We, I admit, give like there is no tomorrow in times of tragedy, but that seems to be our salve to our “faith” and then it”s back to lookin’ out for number uno.

Let me enumerate a few “facts.”

• We watch television shows like “Ax Men” and “Ice Road Truckers”.
• We spend most of our disposable income on big screen tv’s to watch this swill on, along with game systems and games.
• We try to exercise by playing virtual tennis in our living room.
• Close to half the country doesn’t believe in science, unless it be the microwave, said big screen HD tv, or computers, cars, ad nauseum other devices. Nearly half of us believe in creationism and a flat earth.
• The average person cannot correctly name the three branches of government.
• We hold with regularity opinions that are directly contradictory to others. Case in point, the teabagger who said “no bank bailouts” and then said “support free markets”. Do you need be Einstein to see the contradiction?
• People actually vote for a candidate based on who would be the best bud at the bar with ya. Sharing a beer is the best way to evaluate a president, doncha know?
• Most citizens can’t pass the test given to new prospective citizens.
• We murder people in the name of “justice” and don’t consider it “cruel and unusual.”
• We give corporations citizenship “personhood” while we don’t (not that I disagree on this) give it to biological embryos who become human beings.
• I get more hits on my blog for inserting the names of Johnny Depp or Adam Lambert into it than all the discussions I have regarding health care, evolution, and poverty combined.
• Fully 1/3 of our youth are obese and given to sedentary pursuits. We are falling far behind in math and science so they can’t be reading science books.
• We are the most powerful military machine yet assembled, yet we are far behind most of the civilized nations in infant mortality, and services granted automatically to citizenry by their government. Meaning health care, housing, education, and the like.
• We are the most self-reporting “religious” people, yet we house the world’s largest array of prisoners, execute them with regularity, love our guns, are homophobic, sexist, and ethnically racist to extreme levels.
• We to a great degree hate intellectuals largely because we are both jealous and don’t understand the big words.
• We have the attention span of gnats, and demand constant “feeding” lest we shuck it all and go off following the next feel good guru whose name might be Palin, or Hannity.
• We have a perverted sense of history, gleaned from a lousy primary education which was intended to support our imperialism and keep us as good lambs with “proper patriotism” and basically law abiding proclivities. We are not supposed to “rock the boat.”
• We suck at the public teat of big business by being the world’s best consumers all the while being gleefully raped by said corporations. A perfect symbiosis of must have product coupled with bull crap rhetoric is eaten up with the chicken wings at a good NASCAR event.

In other words, we reap what we sow, we get what we deserve, we are being called upon to pay the piper. It’s enough to make a sane person insane.

So, my suggestion to Obama. Stop with the adult talk. You gotta get down brother and preach to the masses who are holding a taco in one hand, while wiping the grease from their mouth on their sleeve. Analogize to Jack Bauer, they will GET that. Talk about Jesse James, they will relate. Talk about the sweet joy of drawing a bead on that soft spot behind the shoulder of that buck innocently munching your corn drop while you sit warm and cozy in your blind with the high powered scope aching to be utilized. (Leave the carcass, just take the antler rack for show–it will look mighty fine to the boys on the wall of the “family room.”)

I know you can do it Obama. Just dumb it down. Then we can maybe get it.

When is Enough, Enough?

Tags

Barack Obama, charity, earthquake, fundamentalism, Haiti, Pat Roberson, racism, Rush Limbaugh, social concerns

The news, from all sources is filled with stories about the sad plight of Haiti trying to dig out from the catastrophe of a major earthquake. Not only that, but virtually all news organizations give people directions and advice on how best they can help in the relief effort.

It seems that planet earth is never short of natural disasters in one form and another. And yet, the spirit of the human race never ceases to dig a little deeper and give a little more. We never get “disastered” out thank goodness.

As usual, the American people give generously. Although personally devastated by financial difficulties, most people can see that their situation is blessed in comparison to that of others in far worse circumstances. The rest of the world also gives  from the heart as well, and there is no basis, it seems to me, to make claims of who does more or not as much.

Yet, here in the states we are plagued by the ugly people who cold-heartedly assess the situation according to their favorite world view scenario and spew forth invective and lie, slur and hate.

You no doubt already know whom I address. The favorite sons of the fundamentalist crowd, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Roberson, stand forth as bastions of hatred, arrogance, elitist right, and deep felt lack of compassion. Each in his own way tarnishes the fabric of American generosity and empathy. It is a shame.

If you had not heard, Limbaugh, using the time of dawn itself as reason to rail against the man he hates more than anything, Barack Obama, manages to turn the Haitian tragedy into some “Obama boon.” Rush claims that this event gives Obama the opportunity to “appear” the humanitarian and to shore up his street cred with “light skinned and dark skinned” blacks. Later he suggested that people should not donate to the Red Cross through the White House link, because Obama would be somehow skimming money for his campaign or otherwise using the donors as new contributors to court.

He also claimed that the American people had already aided Haiti in their taxes. The clear implication is that Limbaugh Americans should not contribute to any relief. And no doubt plenty of red-neck, fundamentalist, trailer trash will nod approvingly. Somehow in their pea brains, they will associate this with being really really Christian along the lines of one of my most favorite nut cases from high school, because Jesus made it clear that not all are worthy of help.  Yeah, right.

Pat Robertson on the other hand, takes a different though just as cold approach. This, he claims is but another example of God’s wrath on people who refuse to follow him, at least as Pat believes they should. “They made a pact with the devil” he claims, and God is set on destroying this people. He said similar things about 911 and about Katrina. Pat likes  a punishing God. Everyone Pat hates will get theirs in the end, and he is gleeful at this prospect.

I guess one of the thoughts that comes to mind as I sadly view these two men, is where are those that control their access to the public in all this? Is it so much and only a matter of cold hard dollars of profit?

Rush has a radio show. I don’t know what idiotic right wing corporation owns his radio network. There are plenty of ultra conservative choices. However, Rush moves well beyond conservatism. He moves to the lowest common denominator as it relates to the public. He seeks the haters  and those who are living the American dream and don’t want to share any of what they have. He tells them their hatred, their racism, their homophobia, their selfishness, are all right. They are somehow the American way, part of real freedom and equality and especially patriotism.

Pat does the same thing. He encourages his constituency, such as it is, that it is right and proper to judge and to rebuke those who disagree with you. He counsels that they are right and others wrong, and anything just short of violence is good and allowable to make others get in line with their agenda.

But both of these men have forums they don’t own. They are not in control of whether or not their filth enters the national airways. That decision is made by corporate CEOs. The decision, unfortunately, is made by those who view dollar signs before integrity or truth. And they seem to care less that absolute and utter lie and hate is being preached here. They condone and are implicated in that preaching.

They can of course claim that they are merely making good business decisions based on their responsibilities to share holders. But we know that that is another lie. The banks made the same claims, yet made horrific decisions designed only to line their own pockets with gold. In the end, these people make decisions on what will get them the most the fastest. Even if you are ultimately fired and never work again, you have more money than Midas to soften the blow as you sip margaritas on your own private island in the Caribbean.

And, I, in my usual, naivete, wonder anew, just when is enough, enough, and how do these people sleep at night?

Opening our Arms and Hearts

Tags

Anglican, Catholic, Episcopalian, faith, ritual, social concerns, theology, worship

It’s funny to me how a church picks me. Yes, you read that correctly, a church picks me. I don’t believe I pick it. I simply come into it and wait, with patient hope. Is this the one?

Plenty have not been the one, and I have tarried a few weeks, seldom longer before moving on. Sometimes I know it at the first step inside the door. This is not my place. God doesn’t speak to me here. I listen. I act. There are plenty of places to wrangle about truth and comfort. I follow the Spirit on where to church myself.

Similarly, the attributes of a church are not always apparent early on. Much must often be worked through, experienced and digested before the finer points of a congregation and its structure can be realized for the precious pearl that it is. Such has been my experience anyway.

I could write volumes day after day of the joy I find in Christ Church. Most of it, I was unaware of until months had gone by. As I become more and more a part of this family, I learn new things that make my choice (the Spirit’s choice) to reside here among these people of faith, the right thing for me.

One thing I realized recently is that Christ Church is a radically open atmosphere in which faith is tenderly received and nurtured. For those of you unacquainted, an Episcopal church is often referred to as “Catholic light,” meaning that we look a lot like a Roman Catholic church in ritual. Dogmatically we are not so much alike.

That means there is a rather extensive list of physical actions that are available. There is genuflecting,  deep bowing or head bowing, curtsying, kneeling, sitting, standing, crossing. There is worship with heads and hands uplifted, or not. There are those who sing during communion and those who don’t.

All of these are practiced in my church. Everyone does “their thing” as it were. Most anything is acceptable, though I suspect anyone dancing down the aisle speaking in tongues and waving snakes might meet with some shocked looks and sharp intakes of breath. But you get my point. Rituals are broad, and people execute them as they see fit, more or less.

We in a word, tolerate, some significant differences in our congregation and the means by which they wish to worship. (We actually have two rites, one much more conservative than the other.) Yet we are one family, and we come to, I believe, rejoice in our differences. They cease to be matters of tolerance and become the beauty of the diversity that we are.

We are told each week, that Jesus calls us to the table, not the church. He calls us whether we have been “good” or not so good. The church provides the facility for God’s call and serves in the capacity of “hands” for God.

While this is all well and good as is, there is more to this type of openness I believe. By supporting and upholding us all in our varied personal ritualistic practices, the church draws us toward being more tolerate of each other’s theological differences.

Indeed we have theological differences. And some of them are deep and painful to us. Some of them you know for they are published by article and lawsuit. Yet, we have come to find in the faces of those with whom we disagree fundamentally on some issues, more places where we are able to agree.

I don’t want to make more of this than there is. The disagreements, as I said, run deep. Yet, we are able to still look upon each other as persons with sincere feelings and beliefs. We are not judging each other as evil or intentionally mean spirited. We see the humanity, the face of Jesus more clearly in the faces of those whom we have difficulty understanding.

I have concluded that the openness of our worship practices, the willingness not to be stultifying in our routines, stretches us in ways that pay off when we are called to work out the real issues that divide our faith tradition. It may not make the critical difference, but it helps.

It is another of the many reasons that I find myself so happy in Christ Church. Last Sunday, we were asked to group together in small numbers and discuss briefly why we are here, in this place, in this church. Joyously, I laughed as I turned and realized that my conversation would be with a couple of “visitors” from Minnesota. I was so happy to share my joy with them, and I could see from their faces that my words had an impact.

They are not contemplating driving from Minnesota every weekend of course, but I suspect they will take something home to their parish. Joy spreads, and the reasons for it become known. New ways of seeing and relating are explored. Opportunities become available. We must and should take advantage of each one in furthering the mission of Jesus.

Jesus was about compassion, forgiveness, and in including those who have so often been denied and turned away. We are a welcoming church. We welcome you, should you ever find yourself with nothing to do on a Sunday morning in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Just My ‘Magination, Runnin’

Tags

conservatives, happiness, liberals, life in the meadow, psychology, social concerns

Those of us who live in the country, are very conscious of our fashion. You may have guessed this already from plenty of pictures which show us in fine farmer garb–the one piece denim bib is a great example. Functional and oh so elegant. Just a bow tie clip-on for the t-shirt and you are ready for any dinner party.

The other day, I was fashionably clad in my rubber muddies, walkin’ through the watery muck of the lane, when my brother-in-law caught up to me on his backhoe. He had been hauling some hay to the cattle who did  not have have benefit of the corn silage, since the fields were still not done due to crap weather.

As he shut off the motor and opened the cab, I saw that he too was clad in rubber muddies and but for the size, no doubt, they were identical to mine.

I mused on this fine sense of  the fashionista shared by us both, when I realized upon heading back down the hill into the timber that the trees were indeed nearly bare of leaves. “Damn, it seems he was right again!” This to mean, the Contrarian, who but a few short weeks ago had predicted in Nostradamus fashion, “I think we are going to lose our leaves this year.”

Not to be all depressed and such, since last early spring, he confidently predicted that we would have leaves this year, and of course, that too transpired.  The Contrarian is proving himself to be quite good at this prognostication business. One is tempted to say the same of many things in the bible, until one learns that often, the book in question with its “prediction” was written well after the event in question happened. At least the Contrarian announces his predictions well in advance.

Anyway, such thoughts give rise to still more ideas and sneaky partially worked out theories. I’m always happy when I see that I’m not alone in devising such philosophical questions of the month. This morning, Charlie Gibson, late of GMA and now nearly late of the Nightly News, was interviewing John Irving, the writer. Gibson in one of his better moments, asked, “Do you think one can find real happiness in one’s own imagination?”

What prompted this jaw dropping, stop in the street kind of question, is anyone’s guess. Yet it seemed to me, worthy of some thought. I think that you can, and in fact some people do. Then again, some can’t and some don’t.

Do you construct day-dreaming scenarios of lives unlived? I mean do you have a dream house/job/spouse/hobby/you name it, that you construct delicately and with precision, making it all just perfect? Is it your place to escape the cares and turmoils of the day? Is it a place where Johnny Depp falls in love with you, forgetting that you are nearly though not quite old enough to be his mother? Does Halle Berry hang on your every word while sipping Dom Perignon?

I can see how such worlds could be happy. Truly I can. I rather suspect that liberals engage in such mind play more so than Republicans. Just a guess. No polling or scientific evidence. But there is evidence that liberals are more unhappy than Republicans. We tend to take on the woes of the world and grouse about them. We have guilt as to what we have, given that so many have almost nothing. We can’t compartmentalize as well it seems as Republicans apparently can.

We probably drink more and drug more and sex more, though that last may truly be wrong. Republicans with their public stance on morality and their dirty little minds creating all kinds of kinky plays which they all too often cannot help but attempt to act out, may in fact engage in more sexual naughtiness than liberals. I dunno.

But escapism is escapism as they say, and so I suspect more liberals have a fantasy get away that allows them to unwind from the mean little world that we inhabit every day. And perhaps there, we do find the happiness we are so prone to deny ourselves in reality.

Someone the other day suggested that liberals “talk a good game” but that somehow we don’t live it. Actually, I think its the conservatives who act rather differently than they talk. The evidence seems on our side. I have a ton of liberal friends (Facebook proved that) and a huge number of them are very actively engaged in regular service to their communities through food pantries, homeless shelters, health care clinics, and such. They aren’t paid, they just do it, because they have to do something to help. Our unhappiness at the state of affairs in the world forces us to engage and make a difference, no matter how small that might be.

I’m not suggesting that conservatives don’t do charity work, but I suspect they see it somewhat differently than liberals do. I could be wrong on that. I’m wrong on a lot of things. But I feel comfortable in saying it. I hear way too much about how we “have to have  the poor” as a means by which the rest of us can perfect our salvation, to think any differently. And then there is the failure of most conservatives to agree to anything that smacks of redistributing wealth in this country to make life reasonable for ALL. They start raising words like, lazy, and pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps. (I checked, and my muddies don’t have any boot straps by the way.)

Just so ya know, this is what you get when I’m sun deprived. It’s SAD isn’t it?

Those That Have Ears–HEAR!

Tags

Bartimaeus, bible, faith, gospels, healing, Jesus, Mark, poor, social concerns

 

Image shamelessly stolen from MadPriest at "...I could be wrong"

I love going to church every Sunday. I seem to always find peace and a certain enlightenment there week to week. I deeply appreciate the congregation I am a part of. So many dedicated and hard working people.

I admit I am blessed to be in it. And yesterday’s liturgy had powerful teaching for us all.

The other day, I focused on Job, one of my favorite books of the bible. Today, I wish to revisit Mark’s treatment of the story of Bartimaeus, in chapter ten.

Mark is an interesting gospel. Written perhaps around 70 CE, and perhaps from the environs around a just fallen Jerusalem, his audience must have lived in some fear. The Romans were overrunning everywhere, and a small band of Jesus followers threatened no doubt that Empire even more than the traditional Jews with their strange practices.

Mark prepares his audience for further sacrifice, in fact making it clear that their lot in life may well be harsh and dangerous. They may only get their reward in death. Here we find the suffering servant at it’s best. Some suggest that Mark is the most reliable gospel we have, arriving first and before other gospel writers started to tailor their writings to reflect the emergent church and taking into account the realities of the day.

I tend to think that might be true, and that makes the story of Bartimaeus somehow more urgent, more real to us. Poor Bartimaeus, a man apparently not born blind, but certainly now so, begging for his food and shelter, unwanted, unclean, marginalized in a society built on class. Bartimaeus was the bottom of the barrel, just the kind of person Jesus tended to seek out.

He is helped or manages to find his way to the roadside where he has heard presumably that the faith healer Jesus will soon pass along. He hears the crowd approaching, and when he is sure that it is indeed him, he shouts out–“Jesus, Son of David, have pity on me.”

The  crowd jostles him, and urges him to be quiet. We must assume that at least some of these are followers. Some indeed are disciples. We are close to Jerusalem,  close to the end, and these disciples have been with Jesus nearly three years at this point. No voice is heard in opposition to the stern words to Bartimaeus. Until Jesus, hearing, calls him forth. Then the crowd turns on a dime and also calls encouragement to the blind man.

This is the focus of the periscope. There have been a number of stories about blindness in Mark, both literal and figurative. Jesus has been telling his disciples of his coming passion and death. He has tried to explain to them that the they must serve–that is their greatness. They don’t get it. They never get it, not until the end. They remain on this road to Jericho, blind too.

They are insiders, privileged to be with the Master all this time, learning and watching, listening and one would hope, meditating on the wonders they behold, from this man/God. Yet, they raise no voice against the crowd “quieters.” They are serious, about the business of travel. They wish no slow down by some beggar along the way.

Until Jesus, once again radicalizes the scene. He stops, he calls, he heals, and then he moves on again toward his destiny.

Bartimaeus, asks to be made whole. Don’t we wish we were? Why are we ready to deny wholeness to another because it is inconvenient, time consuming, bothersome. We are asked to get our hands dirty. The poor don’t dress well, don’t smell very good, they are often unattractive.

Did Bartimaeus become blind because of sin? Certainly most in his society believed that he must have. Perhaps the disciples still did as well. But Jesus knew better. He asked Bartimaeus no questions of “qualification.” He didn’t call Bartimaeus to meet some standard of worthiness. One can argue, no doubt, that Jesus knew the answers, but that but begs the question. If Jesus has nothing to tell us about our humanity, then his teachings are worthless, mere platitudes to mere humans.

So we must conclude that such things did not matter to Jesus. What mattered to Jesus was one thing: do we have faith? If we do, then we deserve our healing. And perhaps, even when we don’t. There were other healings, many in fact, wherein no question was posed about faith. No all the healed were conscience at the time. But even when they were, Jesus never stated faith as a prerequisite. It merely made his job easier. Perhaps in reality, Jesus sought sincerity.

As Church, as people, we must ask the question of ourselves. Are we as insiders putting up stumbling blocks to the outsider who comes in need? Do we establish standards of entitlement? Are we turning away Bartimaeus on a regular basis because we have concluded he is unworthy of our charity? Do we have the right to ask at all? Is this not up to our God to fathom–the one who has known us in the womb, and knows our every thought? Who are we to judge?

Jesus radically turned upside down nearly everything he touched. He gave us a new way of looking at the world and relating to it and to each other. That is and should always be our focus. I am told that yesterday ONE BILLION people went to sleep without adequate nutrition. We grow enough for everyone, but ONE SIXTH of our population is hungry.

How many Bartimaeus’s out there are we turning away and denying? How many are you?