God as the Clockmaker: Thinking Through Deism and an Active God

Next week, I travel to Lincoln, NE to attend a Candidacy Summit for ordination candidates in the Great Plains conference. This will be a great opportunity to learn and fellowship and connect with others who are on the same journey I am on right now.

In order to afford the expense of this trip while living on a single income, I set up a GoFundMe page to raise money. Earlier today, I easily rolled past the goal I had set. The gifts I received from so many are wonderful and gladly accepted. It's heartening to know all the support I have as I begin this new phase of life.

I want to meditate here for just a minute on the blessing from God that this money really is, and how I reconcile that in my mind.

My understanding of the active nature of God generally falls along the "Clockmaker" line of thinking. (I have in fact self-identified as a deist in the past.) In my view, God set up an orderly, rational universe that moves according to the laws of nature as initiated by God. God wants us to understand the world around us, so that we might not live in fear and darkness, so he lets the world run according to nature. He may not cause hurricanes, but he doesn't stop them either, and he has given us brains and abilities to be able to avoid and survive the worst nature has to offer.

(I don't, however, subscribe to the traditional clockmaker doctrine of predestination. God set the world into motion, but gave us free will to act. We have bearing upon the operation of the clock, and can but positively and negatively influence it's operation. "Clock" refers to the world we live in. This is convoluted, I know. I'm not the most coherent theologian yet. I'll get there.)

Let me explain. I don't say this to mean God is uninterested and checked out on human kind. Quite the contrary. I believe he is intimately concerned with us and our actions. But I don't think God actively interferes in the day-to-day happenings of out lives. I don't think God magically "heals" the sick from heaven, or pushes our car a little farther forward to avoid the oncoming semi. I think a God who would do these things is a sick God. Because everyday millions of people suffer and die from illness, car wrecks, poverty, war, and a million other reasons. Thus, a God who chooses to save some but refuse to act in the case of others is a cold-hearted God who is anything but "all-merciful."

So in the past, I abstained from crediting any earthly happening to the hand of God.

But I'm starting to acknowledge some nuance in my view.

This money that I have received is truly an example God providing, of God making something that seemed impossible, possible, in an active way. Without these donations, I could not go to Lincoln and continue on my journey of ordination. But, through trusting in the goodness of others inspired by the spirit of charity that God imbues in us all, I can make the trip. Through this, God has led me to the proper path for my life.

Think of it in contrast to past attempts at fundraising on my part. As many of you know, last year, I briefly campaigned for elected office in Oklahoma. "Campaigning" mostly consisted of making phone calls asking people for money. I was terrible at this. I didn't raise much money at all. I was awkward and uncomfortable and needless to say, didn't pursue campaigning for very long. Fundraising in that way is not a gift I have.

And that is a commentary on God leading me in life. I was created and born with certain gifts and abilities. As I grow and learn and realize who I am, I awaken to those gifts and abilities and recognize my proper place in the world. And that has lead me to ministry.

To say that God played no active part in this guidance is to deny the existence of God.

God may not have reached into people's bank account and moved money. He didn't whisper in my ear saying "You should go into ministry." But God's mark is all over my journey. And that is the true essence of a "Great Clockmaker." Even in things that seems completely disassociated from any mention of God, God's touch is still present in the very existence of those things.

Thanks again to everyone who donated, and keep an eye out here for my thoughts and experiences during the Candidacy Summit next Friday and Saturday in Lincoln.

How Do Methodists Stay "United" in the Face of Action on the LGBT Question? Examining Brian McLaren's prescription for the UMC

Rachel Held Evan's most recent "Ask..." featured Brian McLaren, the great Christian author and thinker.

Brian touched on a lot of great issues, which I may or may not comment on more in a future post. But for now, I want to focus on the last question and answer. Here is the question:

From Cindy: As my denomination (United Methodist) continues to tear itself apart over how we will or won't receive LGBTQ people in our midst, I despair that the losers in our struggle will be the poor and other marginalized people, who Jesus called us to be in ministry with. If you got to set a course for how we (and other denominations) could navigate through these choppy waters, what would it be?

Brian's answer is good and thought out, and basically amounts to: gay people are here, and they aren't going anywhere, and they are born to conservatives and progressives and Episcopals and Methodists and Baptists and simply closing our eyes and refusing to accept that fact will change none of this.

But I want to focus on his prescription for the UMC specifically going forward. Here is what he suggests:

But if I "got" (or was held at gunpoint and forced) to set the course, here's one approach I would consider. From the start, I'd propose at least four or five options, not just two. When people are forced to choose between two options, they often fail to see the full range of consequences because they are only afraid of avoiding the opposite choice's consequences. So options might be …
A. We accept LGBTQ people as equal, and accept that a significant percentage of people will leave, especially older and more dedicated donors, which will have results in closing seminaries, stopping mission to needy people, spending millions on lawyers, etc., etc.
B. We keep our conservative position but make allowances for congregations or conferences that differ, knowing that we will lose some people who will be against any compromise.
C. We accept a progressive position but make allowances for congregations or conferences that differ, knowing that we will lose some people who will be against any compromise.
D. We refuse to accept LGBTQ people as equal, and accept that a significant percentage of people will leave, especially younger and more educated people, which will have results in closing seminaries, stopping mission to needy people, spending millions on lawyers, etc., etc.
E. We allow current conservative regulations to continue and we create a mechanism for people to violate those regulations to remain, knowing that some people on both sides will leave because they disapprove of this option.
Then, I would institute a brief but intense study period to estimate the consequences of each option. I would spend the money on professional researches to conduct surveys so the results would be data-based.
Then, I would develop a way for the denomination to make a choice among options … with the estimated costs and benefits clearly articulated. I would also build in a review period with an opportunity to make corrections to whichever path was chosen based on unforeseen consequences that must be addressed.
I should say that I would consider a completely different line of approach as well. In that approach, I would invite the denomination not to solve this problem, but to see this problem as a symptom of much larger and deeper problems. In that light, I would invite the denomination to consider a historic restructuring - no, more radical than that, a historic re-founding.
Because at the end of the day, denominational structures are all under stress, even considered completely apart from this issue. Post offices, record labels, publishing companies, book stores, TV networks, travel agencies, education systems, economic systems, even governments are all under stress because they have transformed the conditions under which they were created. The church is not alone in facing these epochal shifts in culture. Almost all (maybe all?) institutions are in a period of stress, which is the critical ingredient of evolution … or extinction. 

This is what I really like about Brian. He does a really great job of analyzing something from all points of view, and articulating those in a way that people on all sides can understand.

I want to run through his options here, but first, let me unequivocally state: I am strongly, strongly against the idea of schism within the UMC. I think unity is an essential part of carrying the message of Christ into the world. And one of the wonderful things about Methodism is we have historically been a "big-tent" denomination. You can see the diversity of our church not just at the General Conference level, but also with Annual Conferences and even Districts. There is no problem so difficult that it transcends our bonds as brothers and sisters in Christ.

That said, I know Methodists on both sides of the debate disagree with me, and believe that separation is the best way to preserve the calling of our consciences on this, and other, issues. And despite the best efforts and best intentions of those of us in the "unity" camp, we simply can't force anyone to stay. So this conversation of how to we move forward is unavoidable and extremely necessary.

With option "A", McLaren suggests we accept LGBT people as unequivocally equal. Personally, I believe this is the best way forward for the church. Accepting LGBT persons into the life of the church with no distinctions made between them or you or I is the only way to accurately reflect the radical equality and hospitality lived by our example, Jesus. LGBT people should be allowed to marry their partner, because loving, committed monogamous relationships are what we should be encourgaing. They should be allowed ordination. There should be no minority groups or people with suppressed rights in the church, as we are to reflect the egalitarian, love-filled kingdom of Christ on earth.

Option A, however, is probably a long shot for the UMC right now. The worldwide church membership is moving towards a fully-inclusive position quickly, but there is still a powerful and loud minority in opposition both at the leadership level, and at the congregational level. And, contrary to the stated beliefs of some, this opposition isn't anchored primarily in Africa. There is a powerful contingent right here in North America that we are going to have to contend with going forward.

So the remaining four options are, I believe, much more likely. But not equally so. I want to tackle in order of what I see as the least likely to the most likely course of action for the General Conference to take.

Option D basically amounts to inaction. Not gonna happen. The issue has been discussed and dissected and argued and grappled with from all angles. Open letters have been written, ideas presented. The fact is, something is going to change at General Conference. Standing pat is an option no one, not even conservatives, will be happy with.

Not only is it highly unlikely, I think doing nothing would be irrevocably damaging to the church. Taking a pass on action would signal to many that the church is unwilling to speak relevantly and responsively to the needs of it's membership. Trust in our ability to grapple with tough issues would be seriously eroded, and the four years following 2016 would see even more acrimonious bickering, and almost certainly, major schism, probably on the part of progressives who feel the church is abdicating it's responsibility. I think their attitude would have merit. The UMC's days as a unified denomination would certainly be numbered.

Let's pray and pray that no matter what happens, the church takes some action on the LGBT question.

I place Option E next. I just don't know how we would square the circle, so to speak, of turning a blind eye to regulations still on the books. We've seen with the actions of people like Frank Schaefer over the last few months that no matter the intentions or situations, there is a hard-core, devoted group who will search out and publicize every inclusive action taken by progressives on LGBT issues and make it a denomination-wide issue. And frankly, if we take the Book of Discipline seriously, the having a "wink, wink, nod nod" attitude to the flouting of regulations is no solution at all. Institutional acceptance of these actions moves us forward in no way. Right now, when people like Rev. Schaefer act, it acts as a stimulus to spur the church towards action on a justice issue, even as it violates our Discipline. If we leave the regulations in place, but refuse to enforce them, we are weakening the church by refusing to take a stand both on LGBT issues and on our ability to police ourselves. Option E is an easy way out, but certainly not a good one.

That leaves with us two options that are mirrored opposites of one another. We can either affirm a conservative stance on the issue theologically while allowing local polity's to handle specific situations in a way best for them, or we can affirm a progressive theology while taking the same action. It's basically the same move, but it will come down to a tug-of-war to see which side can move enough votes to not only affirm their position, but strike down the other.

So which do I see as more likely? Being the eternal optimist I am, I think the church will affirm progressive theology while allowing local autonomy on this issues. I think this is about numbers and trends. It's clear which way the winds are blowing in both our denomination, and in our culture at large. Our church knows it needs to respond in a effective way to the majority of members who now accept LGBT equality. But if we are to maintain unity, we can't do it in a way that ignores our more conservative brothers and sisters or leaves them behind.

Like I said at the outset, I think full equality is our future, as it rightfully should be. But we have to get there in a way that preserves the UMC and nudges those who need nudging in the right direction. Affirming equality would place the church in the correct place theologically speaking. But allowing local congregations who are not there yet to come along at their own pace is crucial to any diverse and broad coalition. We can't force this on people who feel they are following the dictates of their conscience (and thus God.) That will only drive them away. But allowing them to come to us, and showing them that equality is an unmitigated positive that doesn't destroy churches, is the only choice we have.

That said, a theology of equality demands that we present that face to the world. Thus, I would strongly suggest a companion amendment that condemns openly-homophobic or anti-LGBT statements and actions from UMC member churches and clergy. This shouldn't be construed as a gag order in any way, but merely a confirmation that no matter what one's views on homosexuality and gay marriage are, any statement or action that hurts or damages the humanity and well being of others is not Christian in nature. You can abstain from participating in LGBT marriages, and be unwilling to host an LGBT minister, but you don't need to be flooding the airwaves with out and out homophobia under the Methodist banner.

As Brian says, this won't placate everyone. People will still leave. As you can see in his options, this happens no matter what action is taken. The key is, what action can we take that absolutely minimizes the bleeding that will occur?

Like Brian, I think the refusal of many to accept LGBT equality is symptomatic of a larger ill at work in the Christian faith. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to emulate his example in the world, and that means radical inclusivity, hospitality, and equality. We have to recognize that if we are going to be His hands and feet in the world, then welcoming all into our embrace is essential. Otherwise, we are failing in our Christian duty to affirm the worth of all people, and the image of God they were created in and carry in them.

Brian wraps it up with a compelling statement on the need of the church, like any other institution to grapple with tough issues and evolve in a way that is true to both the shareholders involved and the traditions embodied in any such institution. The key word he uses is "Evolution." As much as I would like to see this church take a completely open and affirming stance right now, the pragmatist knows that evolution doesn't happen in large, sweeping actions, but instead in grinding, inevitable baby steps.

The UMC is too forward thinking and relevant to not "get there" on equality. Whether or not it will happen is not the issue. It all revolves around the how we do it, the timeline it takes, and whether we can still be "United" Methodists when we come out on the other side.

Not One More

I really feel for Richard Martinez. His reaction is what I believe my own would be in his situation: abject grief and anger at the insanity of our gun and violence culture. Watching him break down and cry is almost too much for this father to handle.

CNN

Mr. Martinez lost his son Chris in the UCSB shooting this weekend. Since then, his words of grief and anger have become the face of the reaction to this tragedy.

“I don’t care about your sympathy. I don’t give a s--- that you feel sorry for me,” Richard Martinez said during an extensive interview, his face flushed as tears rolled down. “Get to work and do something. I’ll tell the president the same thing if he calls me. Getting a call from a politician doesn’t impress me.” 

Saying that “we are all to blame” for the death of his 20-year-old son, Martinez urged the public to join him in demanding “immediate action” from members of Congress and President Obama to curb gun violence by passing stricter gun-control laws. 

“Today, I’m going to ask every person I can find to send a postcard to every politician they can think of with three words on it: ‘Not one more,’ ” he said Tuesday. “People are looking for something to do. I’m asking people to stand up for something. Enough is enough.”

This father shouldn't have to be mourning his son. In a sane world, he wouldn't be.

We have to do something about these all-too-common mass murders. It's not just about banning guns or improving mental health services. It's about changing a culture that accepts violent weapons and gun violence as necessary components of a "free society." We have to make people, and especially children, understand that violence is wrong and weapons are not glamorous. We have to change the overwhelming cultural acceptance of violence as something that is routine and normal, instead of insane and rare. It means we have to reduce the influence of guns, of violent media, of "tough guy" machismo parenting and child rearing. We have to teach peaceful resolution of conflicts, and help young men and women understand that violence gets you nowhere. We have to withdraw media attention from the shooters, and turn it on people like Richard, and on the memories of those who unfairly lost their lives.

I remember the day of the Sandy Hook shootings, less than a month after the birth of Julian, of the very real fear and anger I felt while watching the news that innocent children had been gunned down. Feeling so sad for their parents and almost in tears thinking about if I was in their shoes. Feeling that it was unfair that one day, I will have to worry about Julian and Evelyn when they are at school, not because they are struggling with a test or having a hard time making new friends, but because they might not make it home that day. Feeling shaken and angry that our nation appears to feel the need for action, but then just shrugs and moves on. No parent should have to experience what Richard Martinez is going through. No parent should have to get a phone call from a grade school telling them their kindergartner has been shot to death. No new parent should have to watch the unfolding news of 20 dead children and fear for their child's future. Something needs to change.

Stepping Back and Reassessing

You may have noticed a certain silence here recently.

I know you're all very perceptive like that.

There are several reasons for the silence, all of which I hope you agree are valid ones. First and foremost, I started a new job. During the time when I was blogging regularly, I was unemployed. Which meant I had lots of time to sit around and type. Not so much anymore. I have a job that I love that keeps me very busy, and in the free time I do get, I like to spend time with the wife and kid.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I was getting particularly unhappy with what I was posting here. Not that I didn't think it was good; I did and do. But I think in the drive to post on a regular schedule, I was forcing things a bit. I've had this problem in the past. I force content to drive traffic, but sacrifice saying things insightful or organic. It becomes more of job. It's a fine balance as a blogger, you know. You want to post regularly to keep your readers informed and involved, but you don't want to become stale in the interest of just being here. I crossed that line I think.

So I want to change course a little bit. I am evolving spiritually in my life. I want my writing to reflect that. I'm not necessarily just interested in the intersection of politics and religions. My interests far exceed that. I have been thinking a lot about heaven and hell, about the historical Jesus, about what form God's justice takes, about the meaning of Easter, about atheism. I have been reading CS Lewis and Robin Myers and thinking about Wendell Berry and Albert Schweitzer. The places where I am in my head, that's where I want this blog to be. Because writing is cathartic for me. It's a way to get all these thoughts that are bursting my brain out and to get feedback and to develop.

Forced writing doesn't do that.

In light of all that, here are some things that are changing. First, the name. I've left it alone for now. But I am trying to think of something a bit more apt for what I want to do here. I am open to suggestions, and once I make a choice, I'll be sure to explain the context.

Next, I'm not going to guarantee a schedule. You might not hear from me for a couple days, the I may blast you with six posts in a day. Sorry in advance about that. I'll try to spread stuff out. But expect more authenticity and spiritual musing and passion. Posts may become much more stream-of-consciousness based, much more devotional, or much shorter. I may just throw raw thoughts out for kicks. What I'm saying is, I'm gonna keep you on your toes. Keep checking in to see what's new, and please, please participate. I want feedback and disagreement and criticism and discussion. It builds my arguments and my faith, and I'm confident it will do the same for you.

I'm planning on continuing the Sermon on the Mount series, though the focus may shift a bit. But hopefully you all continue to find it enlightening and thought-provoking.

Thanks for you patience, and your loyalty,

-Justin

The Sermon on the Mount in Our World, Part 7: Blessed are the Peacemakers

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God." -Matthews 5:9

The dove represents the Holy Spirit. The sword, spear, pruning hook and plowrepresents Isaiah 2:4 "They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears intopruning hooks." The olive branch and olives represent peace.

American history pop quiz:

Since World War II, what is the longest the United States has gone without engaging in a military action?

No cheating. Think about it.

OK, give up? Eight years. From 1953, the end of Korea, to 1961, with the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Korea started in 1950, five years after the end of WWII. Vietnam ran from 1964 to 1973. 1980 was the botched attempt at saving the hostages in Iran. We were in Lebanon from 1982 to 1984, Grenada in 1983, and Panama in 1989. Then the Persian Gulf conflict in 1990. Somalia was 1992, Haiti was 1994, and various involvements in the Balkans lasted from 1995 until 1999. After 9/11, we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, and two-and-a-half years ago, we sent troops into Libya.

It has been a little over 72 years since the attack on Pearl Harbor, in December of 1941. America has been involved in an armed conflict for 47 of those 72 years.

Is this what a Christian nation looks like?

Jesus' blessing of the peacemakers in the world is the easiest one to relate to the modern political world. Jesus' whole message of love and service to others revolves around the idea of being peaceful. Jesus addresses it multiple times. He urges us to turn the other cheek, to put away our sword, to love our enemies.

Jesus' world was a very violent world. Rome conquered all of the Mediterranean basin and Europe through the power and efficiency of it's armies. The people of Israel were one of those overrun by the legions, the latest in a long line of violent takeovers of their country. They believed the only way to free their nation from the yoke of Rome was through a violent uprising, led by a warrior-king Messiah, in the model of David, the greatest warrior-king of all.

So violence was ingrained in the people of Palestine. Which makes Jesus' blessing of peacemakers, his shunning of violence as a way to lead his people, all the more amazing. How in the world would they ever escape the clutches of Rome, if not through a war? How would turning the other cheek, or loving you enemy, make this happen?

We see the same mindset today. Many people believe the only way America can maintain its place in the world, the only way our lifestyle can be sustained, is through force and a willingness to use that force at any time to protect our interest. In the face of terrorism and radicalism across the world, they don't see how America has any choice but to counter with violence and rule by fear.

And we've maintained that over the last 73 years by using our armed forces to impose our will on the people's of the world. We've appointed ourselves the world's police, and used both conventional and unconventional warfare to maintain the status quo and snuff out anything we don't like.

America has become a country of perpetual war.

We are a country that scoffs at the idea of compromise, of international action and unity, of dialogue with nations we disagree with, of mistrust for other countries. We throw around our weight, use bluster and hubris in our relations, and incite fear and hatred in foreign peoples through our military presence and tendency to use that military to advance our interests at the expense of the rights of other peoples to choose their leaders and policies.

And we have the gall to call ourselves a "Christian nation?"

"Realists" look at the idea peace and shake their heads knowingly. Naivety, they think. Peace sounds great, but its not realistic, right? Talking to other nations solves no problems, only buys the bad guys time. The UN and arms reductions and treaties all sound good in theory, but any SERIOUS THINKER knows that stuff is all unrealistic, and yes, naive.

And therein lies the radical nature of Jesus' call for peacemakers. Jesus understood then what we still have failed to grasp now. Jesus looked at the long line of "messiahs" who had led his people before, and saw a line of men who were crushed in their rebellions by the overwhelming force of Rome. He realized that the use of violence was hopeless. And so he taught them what it would take: peace. Love. Understanding. Nonviolence.

It's a message we need to take to heart today. Instead of throwing our weight around, of using our force to impose our will, of ruling with fear and causing anger, what if we led with peace? What if we relied on our statesmen, on the UN and treaties, and trust? What if we allowed other peoples to determine their own path, to pick their leaders and style of government and policies? What if we stood for universal human rights and freedom and religious liberty and equality everywhere, and abandoned those who ruled with a closed fist and persecuted their people? Imagine the world we would live in. And imagine the high regard we would have around the world.

We revere peacemakers in history. Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Dr. King, Bishop Romero, Mother Teresa. And we look for them in our time as well. Think of the Orthodox priests in Ukraine a few weeks ago, standing between the clashing lines of protestors and police in Kiev. OR Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, who for decades has tried to bring democracy and peace to her country.

As followers of Christ, we have a duty to oppose conflict and violence anywhere is arises. We must stand against the use of force to settle differences, no matter the reason. Jesus in his example showed us the path of nonviolence. Even at the point when one would think violence was most warranted, in the Garden when the guards show up to arrest Jesus and take him to his death, he implores his disciples to put away their swords.

It is impossible to live out Jesus' requirements for our lives if we make violence a part of our lives. You cannot practice love and forgiveness and mercy and acceptance if you are practicing violence. The ideas are fundamental opposites.

And the transformative thing about peace and nonviolence, the thing Jesus showed us, is that if we each sincerely practice it in our own lives, it will spread! If we are peaceful to those around us, and to the world around us, it will rub off on others, and begin to spread. If we show love for others and accept them, they will feel compelled to live the same. And eventually it will spread to our institutions, to our governments, across the planet.

We Christians knew this once. We spent the better part of three centuries practicing peace and spreading it across the Mediterranean. And then, we got sidetracked. Constantine decided to use Christianity as his standard in battle, and we bought in. We liked the feeling it gave us to be the one's in power now, the ones wielding the sword, rather than those feeling it's bite. And we've been off track ever since, trying to equate Christ with battle and armies and guns and a violent culture. Everything He was against. Everything He taught us not to be.

Now, in America, Christianity has stood behind preemptive wars. It has been used to add a sheen on respectability to assassinations and torture and coups. It has been enveloped in our gun culture, wrapped around armed revolution and the need to use violence to "protect" one's self.

It's our duty to return Christianity to its original form. Jesus showed us that nonviolence would protect us, would make us respected, would make us leaders. We have a duty to show to world again what He taught. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is essential to Christianity. It is at the heart of who we are. Let's show the world we can live with peace.

Read Part 1: Blessed are the poor in spirit. 
Read Part 2: Blessed are those who mourn.
Read Part 3: Blessed are the meek 
Read Part 4: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
Read Part 5: Blessed are merciful  
Read Part 6: Blessed are the pure in heart

The Sermon on the Mount in Our World, Part 6: Blessed are the Pure in Heart

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." -Matthew 5:8

The Holy Trinity, the heart, hand and lily, represent the pure in heart. The doves represent purification.

Now here is a tough one. I took a look at this verse, and said, "how in the world am I going to find a link to policy and government?" If there is any part of the Sermon that can stump this series, this verse is surely it.

We have to look closely at what Christ meant by the "pure in heart." Many scholars believe Jesus was referencing Psalm 24:3-5, which reads,

"Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?
And who shall stand in his holy place?
Those who have clean hands and pure hearts,
who do not lift up their souls to what is false,
and do not swear deceitfully.
They will receive blessing from the Lord,
and vindication from the God of their salvation."

"Clean hands and pure hearts."

"those who...do not swear deceitfully."

I think I'm finding some ground to stand on here.

Jesus often quoted the Psalms, so it's quite plausible that was the reference he was making here. The Psalmist here was identifying the people who would inherit God's kingdom, who would take up residence in God's house. Obviously, he was speaking of the Israelites at David's time.

The ancient Israelites considered themselves a people set apart from the others in the ancient Middle East. And in many ways, they were. There were very possibly the only monotheistic people around, not to mention the only people who preached a personal relationship with their god. They had been one of the last to come to a monarchy, and had a very unique and distinct set of religious practices and customs. And their God constantly told them how special they were, how he had a special plan for them and regard for them over all other peoples.

This was still the prevailing notion at the time of Jesus. Despite the Roman takeover, the Israelite people still considered themselves in God's favor, and believed it only a matter of time until they threw off the yoke of Caesar and rebuilt their kingdom centered on Jerusalem. This explains the popularity of various "Messiahs" who popped up in Palestine during the occupation. The people knew that there destiny wasn't as a Roman province.

At the same time, there were definite cracks in this facade. Their "King" was now a puppet installed and supported by the Romans. The presence of Roman legions and governors and customs had become commonly accepted, and even the Jewish religious leaders openly cooperated with the Roman authorities. While many Jews felt a special place with God, they were also coming to a slow acceptance of dominion under a foreign power. Some even felt declaring an allegiance to Rome would ease their troubles and allow them to maintain their culture in peace, far enough from Rome to maintain some independence, but fully enveloped in the perks that came from being in the Caesar's good graces.

And then here comes Jesus. People on all sides of the debate expected another prototypical "Messiah" who would lead an uprising against Rome militarily. They expected a declaration against Rome, and a reiteration of the special place Israel held in God's heart.

And in one way, Jesus did just that. He rejected the idea of allegiance to Rome, of the idea that the Empire was something compatible with God's kingdom.

But he didn't go into the other camp either. Because when Jesus blessed the "pure in heart" and referenced the Psalms, he was painting with a very broad brush. He wanted his followers to take no oaths, to swear no allegiance. He not only pushed back against the Romans, but also strongly pushed against Herod and the leaders of the Jewish faith in Jerusalem. He did this because he wanted his followers to understand something way outside of their cultural heritage:

God's kingdom is bigger than Israel.

God was no longer favoring just the Israelites. His message wasn't just for them. His message was for all humanity. I didn't play favorites. It didn't lead them into war with other peoples and their gods. It didn't stand behind their sports team against the other sides. God's kingdom as envisioned by Christ was all-encompassing. He didn't instruct his followers to go and make disciples of the Israelites. He said to them, go out into the whole world and make disciples of all men!

The pure in heart, in Jesus' reckoning, were those who were purely in God's camp. They didn't conform to worldly allegiance or national boundary. They loved all people and accepted all people and cared for all people. These people who maintained a pure heart would see God and His kingdom right there, in the open and inclusive love they were practicing in the world.

A lot of modern-day Christians need to take a good look at this teaching. Some many Christians today equate Christianity and God's kingdom with America and the veritable religion that has sprung up around American symbols and ideas. We are told that God "blesses" America above others, that we are the modern "Chosen people of God." We are now encouraged by church leaders to pledge our allegiance to the American flag that they prominently display in God's temple and that the work of America is the work of God on earth.

Watching some of the things our country does makes me, and many others, very leery of equating America's actions with God's will.

Now, this isn't to say that America is bad by any means. America is a nation that has done more to extend the hand of freedom and equality than any other nation on the earth. It's a nation where we are free to practice our religion, to say what we think. A nation where we are accorded affirmative rights that no one, not even the government, can take away.

But America has a tendency to do a lot of bad things too. From our long acceptance of slavery and institutionalized racial discrimination, to our ill-conceived foreign wars that lead to death and suffering for millions of innocent people, our nation is far from "Christian" in the things it does.

This is why Jesus emphasized a kingdom above all others, that preempted nationalism and borders and allegiances. Because associating God's kingdom with any one nation puts the sins of that nation under the banner of God. And God is above and beyond any sins were commit here.

As Christians, pure of heart, we are also to be above petty allegiances and boundaries. We are supposed to be open and welcoming and inclusive of all people. We are supposed to respect the different peoples and nations, but to let them all know that God's kingdom encompasses it all.

In God's kingdom, national identity is unnecessary.

Christ is not represented in an eagle, or a star-spangled flag, or in a national anthem. Christ is represented in the purity of His church and the work it does to bring about His kingdom on Earth.

Read Part 1: Blessed are the poor in spirit. 
Read Part 2: Blessed are those who mourn.
Read Part 3: Blessed are the meek 
Read Part 4: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
Read Part 5: Blessed are merciful 

Why the Debate Between Evolution and Creation is Unnecessary

So tonight is the TOTALLY EPIC, EARTH SHATTERING DEBATE between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism or evolution is the one, true story of the mankinds' beginning.

I'm not watching tonight.

I'm not watching because I don't think the ideas of creation and evolution are incompatible.

I've laid out previously why I think creationism is a mistaken idea. In short, I think the creation story as laid out by the Book of Genesis is allegorical, a story told to explain our existence in the context of all creation and God. I think the ideas and themes contained therein are much, much more important than whether or not the Garden of Eden was in modern day Iraq or Iran. The story of Adam and Eve was one created by a people long, long ago to help them understand their existence in a world before science. It was a world before Galileo and Darwin and da Vinci.

God created a rational, ordered universe. He made it that way because he wanted us to understand the universe, to understand what is going on around us. He created laws of nature and physics. He gave us the ability to understand those laws. Who is to say that God didn't use natural phenomena like the Big Bang or evolution to create life on earth? We think hundreds of billions of years sounds so long, but to a God outside of time, it is but a blink of an eye. I think God absolutely used these methods to create our earth, and gave us the ability to discover that and understand it.

As progressive Christians, we are doing ourselves a disservice by allowing a debate between these worldviews. As we are called to always do as followers of Christ, we should be uniters. We should bring together these two supposedly incompatible worldview and show people that they can coexist. We should show them Christianity doesn't require us to reject science, and being a believer in science doesn't require us to reject faith. The two are always in harmony, and the idea that they aren't is a danger to our faith.