Big Picnic

     I kind of like it when the story of Jesus feeding the multitude comes up on a communion Sunday like this week!  It is a nice parallel, one lovingly discussed by about a million preachers and commentators.  But for some reason it avoids being trite; it is that deep and fundamental.  Both the spiritual and the bodily intersect at the communion table and in the physical parable.  God feeds us both ways.

     Lee Bristol (whose family’s little drugstore in Clinton NY grew into Bristol Meyers Squibb and built the Bristol Campus Center at Hamilton College) wrote a little book meditating on the ways Jesus shared meals with his followers, such as on the road to Emmaus, the Upper Room, and this event which gave the book its title: The Big Picnic.  He, like many others, noted that always when Jesus broke bread with others something else was going on beyond the food shared.  Jesus shared his very presence in a deep and meaningful way; he was for them the Bread of Life while sharing life’s bread.  Grace and wonder and hope and salvation were passed from one to another along with the crusts and crumb.  It was the pointing beyond the baked goods that make these meals miracles, make them holy encounters with God.  That is still the miracle we experience on communion Sundays.  We really meet and experience God’s grace, support, hope, and salvation when we together share bread and cup.

     But it goes both ways.  It is not just that the church celebrates spiritual nourishment; we are reminded to share physical nourishment.  I am wary of those who “spiritualize” bread too much and neglect (I think) the clear, pragmatic, actually feeding of the hungry.  Gandhi once said that if someone was starving, the only way God dares show up is as a loaf of bread.  The prerequisite for filling a spiritual hunger is filling the person’s stomach.  Simple as that.  Don’t get all “religious” about it and piously overlook that the person in front of you cannot afford food while claiming that bread is a spiritual metaphor.  Alleviate hunger before preaching, huh?  Donna Claycomb Sokol posted a blog about how the church is the place where all are fed.  The congregation she serves took the invitation to communion out past the sanctuary into the streets around the church to the homeless and disenfranchised.  They do both kinds of serving the bread of life.

     FCCI grasps the concept.  We have a demonstrable history of alleviating food insecurity through the different outreaches that happen between communion Sundays.  We’ve helped to feed well over five thousand through the Mobile Packs of Feed My Starving Children, the PB&J packs, supporting the UCC Neighbors in Need offering, and engaging in local political and societal efforts.  But we cannot slack off because the hardships keep coming at so many around us.  Sometimes during communion service while I hold the basket of bread, my mind drifts to the twelve baskets of leftovers in the Bible story, and then it drifts beyond the church to think of all the souls… and bodies hungering out there, reminding me there is more to do for Jesus and his least sisters and brothers.  There is a multitude to be fed spiritually and in fact around us.  Right now.

     I hope you will join us this Sunday for communion, the bread of life.

                                                                              In Christ,
                                                                           
                                                                                David


Texts for Sunday
      From the Hebrew Bible      Genesis 32:22-31
      From the Epistles               Romans 9:1-5
      From the Gospels              Matthew 14:13-21

Just War Theory

      Following up on last week’s word, today I offer a [somewhat long] primer on so-called “just war theory (jus ad bellum)” in Western thought and theology.  The main strain of determining whether it is justifiable to initiate war goes back in Christianity to St. Augustine (fourth century CE) and Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century CE); an epic tale from India discusses going to war as early as the eighth or ninth century BCE), so the issue has been around for a long time.

      Whether there can be any justification for a war is a good question.  The historic peace churches such as the Mennonites and the more modern peace movements of the 20th century say flat-out, no war, indeed no violence is ever justified.  At the other end of the spectrum are people who feel that talking about whether a war is or is not moral is a silly exercise when confronted by the reality of war on the ground.  Tactics and effectiveness are the focus— not philosophical debate— to practitioners of realpolitik.  The famous photo of the soldier in Viet Nam with “kill them all and let God sort them out” on his helmet is from this perspective. “Just war” proponents are between “pacifists” on one hand and “realists” or “militarists” on the other.

      But most people believe that violence and even war are sometimes necessary, so the discussion is under what circumstance is it morally permissible to initiate war.  Mostly it comes down to self-defense and the protection of non-combatants.  In short, limit the killing and destruction to the minimum required to achieve a good solution and only then when absolutely necessary.  Most US mainline denominations subscribe to just war theory while supporting both their conscientious objectors and their military personnel. It undergirds much military preparation and the charter of peacekeeping organizations and the United Nations.  There are situations when military force is morally warranted, but under constrained conditions.

      The best place to research the doctrine probably comes from Stanford University (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2), but Wikipedia and Google will give you some good references.  The argument for war must be made by those in power who wish to initiate it, whether in government or if placing themselves in opposition to a government, by the leaders of a rebellion.  This is why the American Declaration of Independence was written, to justify civil war and to explain the standing of the colonists to do so.

       I would summarize the elements for a case for going to war (or other use of military force or even police force within a country) this way: at root, war is a large-scale example of justifiable homicide.  It is homicide, but it may be justified.

      The classical categories have been around a long time, although the words change.  Just war must not be initiated for self gain but only as a defense against evil.  The good to come out of beginning hostilities must be greater (I would say far greater) than the evils resulting from it.  Also, the evil done to the nation or the community of nations leading to the declaration must be overwhelming and obvious.  Only legitimate sources can declare war (this ranges from the US Congress now, back to monarchs, back to the priests presiding in ancient Greece and Rome).

      War must be a last resort after all other options are exhausted. All other means of stopping the evil or aggression must have been ineffective or impractical.  The evil possible for not going to war must be grave, certain, and lasting. There must be a clear chance of success to outweigh the evil done in war.  The effects of the weapons must not be worse than the problem, and some weapons are immoral in and of themselves (such as chemical weapons).  The lethality of current weapons should be making this a very stringent consideration now.  The rights and safety of non-combatants are paramount, and in the conduct of war they must be protected and not subject to reprisals, torture, rape, confinement, displacement, or death, even by deprivation or neglect.  Prisoners of war are likewise to be protected once they are no longer engaged in combat.  The conduct of the war by the war-makers must be within moral standards (jus in bello), hence war crimes trials.  More recently have been added categories about after the war, demanding consideration of rebuilding the infrastructure, the political systems, the economy, and such and of the well-being of the populations.  In other words, before you start a war, you have to prepare for after the war, too.

      So the hurdle is set rather high to articulate and get assent for beginning the widespread violence and destruction that is war.  It requires a just and thought-out cause, such are defending oneself or one’s allies or stopping crimes against humanity.  It must protect non-combatants, and it must meet the test of proportionality, that the harm caused by war is less than the good preserved.  And, no matter how noble the ends, some means are not acceptable.

       Those of you playing at home may wish to hold these categories up against such conflicts as the American Revolution, the US Civil War, World War II, Viet Nam, the first and second Iraq wars, the current battles between Hamas and Israel, and the situation in Ukraine.  Remember, not everyone believes that you must make a moral or spiritual case for going to war, just an expedient or political case.  Many wars are started over territory or resources with no pretense of being morally just.

      We are in a weird period of history when the wisdom of the long-standing moral theology and moral philosophy of war is both incredibly important and sadly neglected.  Just war theory provides a context and structure for the debate even now.  Certainly, there can be differences in how different perspectives weigh evidence for and against one factor, and that may tip the balance one way or another.  For example, how many casualties might be inflicted on civilians in an operation might be too high for one person at 1% and acceptable to someone else at 10%.  The advantage of the theory is that you have to stop and assess collateral damage.

      Regardless of the theoretical calculations around the violent conflicts we witness in the world, I believe that the power of prayer and love and hope and the healing, binding, reconciling power of God’s Holy Spirit is ours to share.  So I will continue praying for the world, especially those caught in wars, and extra-especially those undertaking them.  I fear sometimes it is the prayers of the faithful that minimizes the suffering around the globe. I hope you will join us this Sunday in the Spirit of the Prince of Peace.

                                                                                                   In Christ,
                                                                                               
                                                                                                   David

Texts for Sunday
     From the Hebrew Bible            Genesis 29:15-28 
     From the Epistles                   Romans 8:26-39 
     From the Gospels                  Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52 

Borders

      One of my bigger pet peeves is choosing to be morally inconsistent.  When it involves selective readings of Scripture, I get troubled enough to write a pastor’s column about it! (Disclaimer: as a Presbyterian and a bit of an old-school Calvinist, I take the Hebrew Bible quite seriously, and I am clearly on the progressive side of things.)

      The concept of “protecting national borders” as we understand it is a relatively recent thing, only since the rise of the modern nation-state.  Sure, there were kingdoms and territories and such, and countries and monarch would go to war over sections of land with distressing regularity, but the idea of fixed borders and travel control is much more recent than the Bible.  Territories were important for taxation and defense, and if an army approached the frontier it was a big deal, but nobody really took the movement of individuals as a problem.  Given nomadic life, even fairly large groups of people like the exodus from Egypt were not a big deal passing through unless the idea was to conquer a territory, like it was when Joshua led the tribes into Canaan.  Up through the times covered in the Biblical era, people went were they wanted to, pretty much.  Borders were largely permeable to civilians in the ancient Mideast and through much of western, European history.

      The Mideast in the last couple of centuries has been the site of massive political and population issues, and they seem to keep getting worse since WWI.  The establishment of the modern state of Israel has made it unimaginably more complicated and violent.

      The current round of shelling brings that to mind.  And commentators are weighing in all over the place.  Both the UCC and my Presbyterian Church (USA) have long debated divestment in companies doing business with Israel.  The mere fact many all it the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza shows a strong perspective (which can be argued both politically and theologically).

      The Biblical flashback is, of course, the treatment of Arab populations by the state of Israel in the areas Israel controls.  The Hebrew Bible is pretty clear that [biblical] Israel has certain religious obligations toward people within their lands, to not oppress them, to allow them the right to live and work and earn.  Ironically, often connected with “because you were exiles in Egypt.”  Many passages of the Hebrew Bible speak of the rights and need for beneficence toward the sojourner or resident aliens in Israel’s lands.  Both from history and as part of the covenant, Israel had responsibilities to the people intermingled with it.  I believe it still does.  Certainly indiscriminate military actions affecting civilians runs against the biblical mandate and moral behavior (see just war theory at minimum).

      For many to give the Israeli military and government a pass on the violence they rain down on civilians in territories they claim is bad history, bad theology, and bad politics.  To be consistent, the care and protection of Arabs is necessary, and I’m glad many denominations are weighing in on the side of the victims.

      Likewise I believe those parts of the Bible and many in the Christian Testament speak to our ongoing civic discussion about immigration.  (Oh, that it was a civil discussion as well!)  I find it disingenuous for some to ignore Jesus’ reminders to take care of the poor and the down and out and the rootless in society.  I am particularly appalled at the dehumanization of children along the US-Mexican border right now.  I realize that Jesus saying “let the children come to me” was not intended as immigration policy, but I commend the thought!

      How you translate the words for the non-nationals in ancient Israel makes a difference.  Some translations use “stranger” within your borders, some sojourners, some aliens or more recently “resident aliens,” some sojourners, or some more recently, “immigrants.”  Right there, the Bible forces a more nuanced and humane conversation.  Many have pointed up that Mary and Joseph and their son were refugees during Jesus’ early years.  In general we have felt that “there was no room at the inn” was a bad thing, but now we are leaving the impression that there is no room at our border.  Several provocative writers say we have at the moment a refugee crisis, not an immigration crisis.  Actually, biblically speaking, the way to handle either one is with justice and compassion.

      The U.S. government and many church types demanded that various countries open their borders to refugees from natural catastrophes or violence as a humanitarian imperative, yet resist doing that with the children from Central America now along the US border.  I believe that is choosing moral inconsistency and deciding that some number of God’s children are not to be afforded human protection.  That is bad democracy and bad theology.

      Clearly, this is my position and not many peoples’ so I don’t expect all that many of you to agree.  But I do want you to add some Biblical and Christian perspective to your thoughts and discussions about both the interchange of violence in Israel and the humanitarian and children crisis on the US-Mexican border.  Our faith contributes to our discussion and behavior.  But we have to be conscious about doing that.  Let’s keep the discussion going.

      And no matter where you come down on this discussion, I hope to see you Sunday!

                                                                                                  In Christ,
                                                                                               
                                                                                                   David

Texts for Sunday
    From the Hebrew Bible        Genesis 28:10-19
    From the Epistles                Romans 8:12-25
    From the Gospels                Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

Gardening Theology

      Even from early on, followers of Christ had to explain to themselves why, if the Gospel was so life-changing and powerful, some people didn’t get it.  Why didn’t everyone become Christian?

      Good for us, Jesus has one of his parables to explain it.  In Matthew 13 Jesus tells his disciples about how the same seed grows— or doesn’t grow— differently depending on where it lands.  You might notice that later in the chapter he goes ahead and explains it in less poetic terms to the somewhat slow-on-the-uptake disciples and readers.

      It is the same seed which the sower casts widely.  Interesting that the generous sower flings it all over, even in unlikely directions.  It is not just carefully metered out within the confines of the field… or is that the confines of the church?  God’s stand-in heaves it all over the place, even places he suspects it won’t flourish.  Because it just might!

      The parable does cover most of the ways the raw information about the Gospel might be received.  Happily but shallowly.  Promisingly but overwhelmed by circumstances.  Hopefully but choked out by either the cares or the preoccupations or temptations of daily activity.  Or graciously in soul soil where it roots and grows and produces its own fruit.  Most of us have examples in the people we know to match each category, and some of us have different times in our own autobiography when we didn’t quite let faith take root in us before it did.  It’s a pretty good metaphor, even now.

      Unlike ancient Palestine, we live in an era when we can adjust the dirt in our yards and gardens quite a bit.  We can put up bird nets (or deer fences!), fertilize and irrigate, even break up hard-packed pathways and till in topsoil, adjust the strain of seed to the situation, and in general make more ground more amenable to more seeds.  We don’t have to keep doing things the way our grandparents did, not even church.

      So I’d like to see churches put some thought and preparation into how we broadcast the seeds of faith.  Maybe we have to first water and fertilize and break up the hard patches so our neighbors and friends and family are more ready to hear about God’s love in Christ.  Or maybe we need to work on the strain of the seed so it is more appropriate to modern hearers, for instance, using different images or terms or channels of communication.  Perhaps we need words more sensible to millennials than GI generation listeners, more social media, more technological than agricultural.  Sorry, Jesus, not many people resonate to some guy tossing hands full of seed along a hillside when most people open shrink-wrapped food.  Or even when most people think of huge tractors pulling seven-bottom plows and seed drills at planting and humongous harvesters.  But even here, we are used to seeing the signs marking the different hybrids and varieties of wheat or corn, custom tailored for best yield for those fields.  (Back to adjusting our appeal to our modern listeners.)

       So the next time you are at Home Depot, Agway, Tru-Value, Lowes, or your local garden place, think of the parable of the seed planter, but with some modern sophistication.  As you look at the backs of seed packets saying “good for shady or semi-shady areas” imagine how we can tailor the good news to “academics” or “professionals” or “young couples with children” or “older living alone.”  What preparation would help them to receive the Gospel?  What weeds or pests need to be kept at bay to give the seed time to mature?  What fertilizer of faith should we apply (and forgive my immediate thought of Miracle-Gro^®, my mother’s answer to everything!)?  When should we ignore and when should we cultivate?  How do we help the sower of grace?  And may we always remember to trust God for the real growth.

      Every time you are at a garden center, think of the parable of the seeds and contemplate the lessons for the church.  And Sundays, when you are in church, imagine it as a garden center for souls.

      See you Sunday!

                                                            In Christ,
                                                                  
                                                                           David

Texts for Sunday

      From the Hebrew Bible        Genesis 25:19-34
      From the Epistles                Romans 8:1-11
      From the Gospels               Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23

Amplification Arguing

      If you ever feel that “social media” is an echo-chamber for obstreperous arguments that go back and forth with little purpose and a tendency to react negatively to whatever was the last statement, perhaps our reading this Sunday from Matthew 11 will reassure you that, when it comes to human nature, there really is nothing new under the sun.  [Jesus said:] “But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market-places and calling to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.’ “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!’” It’s the same reflexive complaining about John and Jesus that we get about all sorts of people and situations today from twitterstorms and talking TV heads.  Sometimes it seems all we want is childish arguments; any topic will do. 

      We’ve seen the usual “they said” / “they said” flurries this week about celebrities and events, some just silly, others deadly as we see the escalating retributions over the deaths of three teens in Israel and the mass murders between Shiites and Sunnis.  I admittedly have a somewhat progressive political position, but honestly, I have totally lost the thread on Benghazi as voices clamoring for aggressive action before now object once a suspect has been captured and… oh well, I get confused.

      Another reflexive pile-on has been the Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby’s case.  Some circles celebrate how it protects religious convictions, others call it an unwarranted establishment of religion, and we’ve heard all of the church and state arguments we’ve had for two hundred years again.  Of course, that’s the nature of competing values: it’s never really settled, we just find a balance for now.

      We will be discussing (I hope discussing and not just arguing! Or flinging broadsides at each other.) the nature of corporate responsibility, of governmental mandates, of workers’ rights, of owners’ rights, of contraception and abortion and women’s health.  As the immediate flare up died down, a couple of theological commentators have started asking about “The Adjective,” that is, what does it mean to say a “Christian” company?  Is there something distinctive about a company whose owners espouse religious values?  The corporate personhood issue comes into play here; “can a corporation be baptized?” is a popular meme, but perhaps too simplistic.  Are there ways a corporation can declare and then act on certain religious principles?  If so, and we like the way one company is eco-friendly because of its religious perspective, can we object to one not wanting to cover contraceptives that may be considered abortifacients.  Is there a difference between closely-held companies like Hobby Lobby and publicly-traded corporations?  That is significant in this case, but it may limit the applicability in other situations, although clearly not the inflammation.  I have a running conversation in my head wondering if I accept some practices because I like them but object to others because I don’t share that perspective or dislike some of the people who hold them.  Or I dislike some of the positions some of those people have, so I reactively dislike all of their positions.

      My concern is consistency of positions, not just childishly saying you didn’t dance twisting into you didn’t grieve, John was ascetic and you didn’t like that and Jesus is gregarious and you don’t like that either.  Letting your arguments being something other than against whatever the last person said is somewhat harder work; I hope we are up for it in the coming days.

      Part of the problem with democratic discourse— which we celebrate this Fourth of July, ironically enough— is that it is messy and takes work to reach consensus and takes work to keep from deteriorating into yelling at each other.  On the other hand, that human tendency to speak and behave ungraciously goes all the way back to the Bible.  The good news is that God loves us anyway.  And can help up communicate with each other and learn from each other, and not just talk past each other!

      Hope to see you Sunday!

                                                             In Christ,
                                                          
                                                              David

Texts for Sunday

      From the Hebrew Bible       Genesis 24:34-38, 42-49, 58-67
      From the Epistles               Romans 7:15-25
      From the Gospels               Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30