Day 1505 - You have to serve somebody...

This is a time of raw emotion, regardless of political persuasion. An intended short response to a few friends has gone long.

My comment on Facebook after the Women's March on Saturday, January 21, 2017, following the inauguration of the POTUS created some question by one of my good friends about whether I advocate a totally pacifist position concerning "politics" and how my present position fits with my past position(s).  His is a legitimate challenge and I realize I was ambiguous speaking from my Christian perspective.  This is my response.

I must say at the outset that my perspective is shaped by my experience, theology and as much as I hate to admit, my selfish interests.

The issue seem to be how one approaches a political reality that one opposes and how one expresses that opposition within the bounds of "governance" and ethics or conscience.  This is my thought on the issue:

Premise:  Ultimately every institution depends on the trust, or fear, of its members. When trust in the institution of a democratic government is lost, or rule is accomplished by instilling fear of the governed, the moral capital of governance is lost. Without moral capital the ability to govern relies upon coercion and power, which is usually the anthesis of justice. (In other words, forget, but don't forget the debate between Jefferson and Hamilton.)

This premise offered above places the total obligation for democratic governance on two parties, those who govern and those who are governed.  The Civil War, AKA The War Between the States, and the coincidental circumstances around the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr,  the protests against the war in Viet Nam and abdication of President Nixon are two examples that come to mind where the country teetered on the very edge of loss of moral capital. Perhaps the almost complete economic collapse of 1929 and 2008 rank up there with them. A newly elected President wealthy with moral capital bridged the chaos and saved the day in those four cases.

Today, we are entirely too close to events to know whether again we stand that precipice - whether we are a moth flying around a candle - or simply have sore egos.  After all, Marshall McLuan said we drive into the future with pedal to the metal and our eyes staring into the rear view mirror. We never have the perspective of our own history until it is history.

A failure by both the governed and those who govern in current affairs seems obvious.  The presence of surreptitious deceit, as the Russian fake news effort within the United States that favored Donald Trump for obvious reasons, and the blatant lies, as in K.A.C. advancing easily disproved "alternate facts" as an apology or argument for the POTUS undermines the moral foundation of government. This Russian effort, at the minimum, sowed discord leading to loss of public trust and thereby achieved its end. Both Government and Press have an obligation to identify and repudiate lies whether from external or internal sources. Yet both seem to walk on pins and needles to avoid speaking against lies.

What about internal matters? Governance relies on the humility of leaders to recognize the limits of power and the fact that there as always a dramatic majority who object to policy but whose support is ultimately needed in the absence of exercising absolute power. (See below, between 25% and at best 41% of the voters elect presidents). The objections of the 60-75% will pinprick ego, but a humble and effective leader recognizes criticism is a part and parcel of a democratic institution and always asks if there is substance to the objections. A fastidious leader with moral capital searches for compromise. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

Governance also relies on the responsibility and moral capital of the electorate, not only to evaluate and choose leaders, but to do it wholesale; that is, to accept and believe absolutely that the right to vote is an irresistible obligation to ensure trustworthy governance, it is a demand, not an option. When leaders are elected by a significant minority of the public due to lack of participation, or  by diversion of third parties, the prospect for loss of trust is great. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

In the USA, between 1828 and 2016, the percent of eligible registered voters in presidential elections ranged from 48.9% to 81.8% (See this UC-Santa Barbara study).  This means that roughly 25-41% of registered voters selected the president over the last almost-two centuries. In the last election  about 57% of the registered voters voted, and significantly over half of these rejected the person who won the electoral college vote, rivaled only by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 when 81% of the voters voted.  Rutherford Hayes won by 1 electoral vote. As I see it, the POTUS received less votes than Mitt Romney in 2012.  The reader should not doubt how fragile is the democratic institution and how much its stability relies upon the trust of roughly 75% of registered voters who did not vote or voted for the loser.

When governance becomes tedious, arbitrary and unjust regardless of the best effort of public election, public discourse and opposition is justified. My position is that the only recourse is non-violent opposition, and I walk behind the advocacy of great leaders as M. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Non-violent opposition carries a heavy burden of personal responsibility. It cannot be any other way. If an issue or action of government is worth opposing, then so is the price paid for opposition. Non-violent opposition is the only alternative when the ballot box fails, or when the public fails to vote its convictions, but this means it is also a threat to the institution and it should not be undertaken lightly. It can be as dangerous as the loss of public trust.  Are you ready to sit in a jail cell, to have your "friends" make you a pariah?  I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

So how does all this "theory" apply to the state of the Union in 2017?

I said in my Facebook post that non-violent opposition is the only alternative when the ballot box fails. When large-scale non-violent opposition emerges, the question is, "How well did the ballot box represent public consensus?" I leave the answer to that question to those who did not vote or who cast futile and ultimately subversive votes for third party candidates with no whimper of a chance to win.

Concerning lies.  It is one thing for government to lie surreptitiously, even mistakenly,  about circumstances. It is insidious, and if effectively used and ignored by the press, very dangerous to the republic because it undermines trust.

More dangerous is the circumstance when the government asserts directly disprovable lies, now called "alternate facts," as truth to confuse the electorate or sooth ego. To assert an obvious lie in place of truth sways and confuses the public that trusts the leader, if not showing the leader has abandoned any sense of moral character.

Even more dangerous is a two-fold problem. On one hand, a government institution may attack the press to undermine public credibility and enhance its own. The press is the only effective social mechanism to resist and inform the public of facts on a widespread basis because such governmental action creates loss of confidence in all institutions. On the other hand, an equivalent danger is when the press fails to take the responsibility faithfully to call out lies, but rather uses events and public hysteria to enhance readership. We get the same end, an abdication of moral responsibility. The press becomes too little, too late.

A creative, intelligent leader could use attacks on truth and the press to establish a fascist or otherwise repressive state; however, in our current case, David Brooks, a pressman, tends to convince me the more likely consequence in America is a descent into chaos in governance - a paralysis.

The consequence of such chaos in America has world-wide implications, both moral and existential.  In such case, the USA, as fait accompli loses its moral authority and becomes endangered by external forces - quite ironic in the face of the POTUS' political claim to make America great. It also endangers the very stability and confidence in the nation of its international peers.

The country-wide marches last Saturday were an impressive display of the voice of the people. If folks put politics aside, it is hard to deny that the several million people marched as a dramatic, repudiating statement. There can be no avoidance that consensus in this election is not at hand.

If we dispense with the street theater and character assassination (that diminishes moral credentials), we can see many millions of people are concerned over the disrespect the POTUS has towards women and other issues. Character assassination and vilification gives the protester some degree of short term satisfaction but only alienate those who might otherwise find a path to stand with the protestor. It sends the message that person has no higher moral standard than their estimation of opponent's.

When a cynical mood hits me, I can only think, "Boy! If all those folks had voted we's see a different outcome." Perhaps less than a 100,000 votes over 50 states determined this election.

Yes, in the late 60's and early 70's I was the angry young man who tossed the word, "Tricky Dickie," and cheered the House and Senate committees who investigated Watergate, and was vocal in my opposition to the war in Viet Nam and said voting for Nixon was a good way to disrupt and wake up the system. Today, I will encourage committees that are sorting out the facts about financial conflicts of POTUS relative to the emollients clause of the US Constitution, for example, solely for the public good. I will encourage people to get out and vote in 2018.

 But as much as I chew nails rather than admit it, songs such as Bob Dylan's Dream and a poem I wrote when a friend turned 50 sober me:

Piss and Vinegar

(To a friend’s 50^th)

                   When we were young and full of piss and vinegar,

                   We ran head-long into trouble around every corner.

                   But half the time we couldn’t have cared less,

                   Being preoccupied with a comely, young lass.

                   The money, the friends, the bliss

                   flowed like water through our fingers.

                   Now the years have rolled on, and

                   while the heat of that spirit lingers,

                   angling for a fortune and friends have gone hither.

                   Now, it’s all we can do to stave off

                   becoming a sour puss and hold our piss.

                        Copyright 2005 Henry Paris

I've been around long enough, and head-butted enough issues of the 60's/70's with my Dad - we loved each other dearly and unconditionally - to realize finally harsh words seldom change minds. What changes minds is the realization that the acts or politics one has supported damage the things one treasures the most. Those valuable things may be comfort, security, being "right" about political opinion or holding on to a lasting friendship. My Dad willingly risked his life in Europe in WWII for this institution we call the USA and made it through, even though a forward observer seldom lasted more than two weeks. He and his peers paid the price paid for my ability to vote today.  I will say to this day I know every harsh word my Dad and I exchanged is a regret I carry to my own grave.

At this point in my life, I value my relationships with others more than most anything. I've learned that I want to go out of the way to cling to and uphold those who can look beyond personal opinion to the value of the other person. I hope the power of my relationships is a more effective impetus for change than invective, in both me and the other person. I've stumbled into places that are "on fire" with this idea of friendship, probably only due to a power greater than I.

A lot of people who are intensely upset about the current state of affairs were also similarly upset over President Obama's effort to find compromise to achieve incremental change rather be unbending to  seek radical change. They were offended by Secretary Clinton's apparent moral ambiguity. Many I know either did not vote or went third party contributing to the present result. They disliked that President Obama might say his opponents may have something constructive to say.  They must decide if what they got in return is worth the vote they spent, or is frivolous.

Make no mistake, I, for one, highly respect President Obama and his family.  I respect his accomplishments, integrity, insight, grace and the parental love he clearly has. The color of his skin, his idea that we can be greater as a community than we are as individuals scared some and they felt getting beyond him could not happen soon enough. Some may say everything he did is being undone. I'll wait for them to see the error of their ways.

For the fearful I can only ask you look beyond yourself to the "opponent" who would stand before and with you. To the naysayers, I can only say that giving up and eschewing compromise for polemic is a self-fulflling prophesy of failure. President Obama may one of the rare wise persons who graced our presence. He spoke to the truth. The one thing he said about the present as he and his wife departed DC is this:
                                                                             ","

Last Saturday is meaningless and President Obama's "comma" becomes a "period" unless the energy and commitment of Saturday persists to the mid-term elections and beyond. No idea whose time has come can be suppressed. Time will tell if you are a dust devil or the wind. Time is all I have, and little of it.

It is time for some self- honesty.

 If you were among the crowd that marched, I hope you voted. If you thirst for justice but tossed your vote, realize your foible, you'll never see total justice in a human institution, no matter what your political perspective. Seek constant, irreversible, incremental change and remember one thing, your opponent is your brother or sister.  Love them that way. Vote.

Justice is a higher order, transcendental thing. If my politics determine whether I love you, I am lost. I'll let the reader figure that out.

As for me, I want to get back to working on relationships because few friends will subvert the other for a contingency.

Grace and peace,
Henry

Day 1503 - The prophetic voice of grace

Many just and true things have been spoken over the last two days but among the ink spilt so much of it is splenetic hate and lies by people on both sides of the political spectrum that the voices calling for grace and patience are muffled to silence. If God weeps, surely a tear is in the eye.

In these two days, I have gnawed my tongue until it is raw and hit the delete key on my Mac until I think I've broken it getting rid of things I thought I'd say or post but waited a few minutes and mostly thought better of it. (I wish I'd deleted more.) When I hit the delete key, it is because I remember judgment and hostility serve one purpose, alienation - that drives people away. Grace on the other hand, is a call to unity and fellowship that says we are all brothers and sisters on this ride together. They may not get on the bus, but they know the invitation is there. That is what changes my mind.

Most people I know, including me, take a degree of pride in their claim on being a source of grace - but as it is written, no one deserves a reward for doing their job, for that is what they are called to do. 

Most people, often me, have a hard time coming to terms with two realities about grace. First, we look at the world through the lens of our own experience which means we do not have a unbiased view. Second, we find it hard to accept the idea that we seldom discover the best reward for doing what we ought to do - knowing the person who sees our actions (or words) and decides our grace is worth modeling, and shares their grace with another.

Grace is a double-edged sword. Grace can be feeding someone when they are hungry. Grace can be speaking up for some one who is abused. But in both cases grace focuses on the aggrieved, not on the power that aggrieves. The power that aggrieves cannot defeat grace, rather grace will always win even when the good result is not evident. 

But, you may get bruised, or worse.

Grace does demand we speak out against injustice by human institutions but also to endure the consequences of our speech (or actions/inactions). Human institutions and rulers only have power as a tool to supress. Both the best and the worst human institution in your opinion will disappoint you in due time.

That is why one can never rely on a human institution or ruler for grace - and the reason why even our best effort at grace will not be perfect. Power that aggrieves cannot defeat grace. That is the essence of the empty cross.

So whether your politics are extreme on one side or the other, or miraculously fit the middle, always ask yourself, "Am I succumbing to the urge to be graceful or to exercise judgment?" Is anger getting in the way of grace?

Judgment is the futile effort to grasp power. Striving to model grace among the living is a righteous act in the only Kingdom that matters.

Grace and peace.

Day 1497 - Sanctuary

A sermon given on January 15, 2017 at First Presbyterian Church, Spring City, TN.

Isaiah 66:1, 2

John 2:13-22   

What is a sanctuary? is it a place of refuge, a place of worship, or both? Sanctuary and worship are major issues in the scripture from its beginning in Eden to the end of the Revelation of John.

Genesis tells the story of Jacob, son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham. Isaac sent Jacob back to Isaac’s homeland to find a wife. Jacob stopped for a night of sleep in a place using a rock for a pillow. He dreamed of angels and the Lord standing by his side. The Lord gave him the same a blessing he gave Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations. Jacob said surely God is in this place. He placed the stone pillow in a prominent spot and named the place Bethel which means the Lord’s house.

Many, many years later, the judge Samuel called all Israel together after they had repented of straying from the ways of the Lord. Their mortal enemies, the Philistines, saw the gathering and attacked to destroy them, but the Lord confused the Philistines and Israel routed them. Samuel set a stone in place near the battle acknowledging the power of the Lord. He named it Ebenezer, a Hebrew word for cornerstone that signifies God's watchfulness. The Hebrew prophets always marked special places where God revealed his power and steadfast love with stones or stone pillars as sites for worship and refuge in the Lord. 

The idea of a Temple came much later. King David wanted to build a temple as a house for the Lord but the Lord said he needed no house. Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem. For centuries, it was considered the house of the Lord, a place that every penitent Hebrew came to worship.

Generations later Temple worship became a time of social celebration and festival giving only lip service to the Lord and Law. Isaiah tells us the result. The anger of the Lord destroyed the Temple and Judah except for a small remnant. 
In the two verses above, Isaiah describes to this remnant the Lord’s creative power and lack of need for a house. “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool, what is this house that you would build for me to be my resting place? I have made all these things and so they are already mine, including you. I look to the one who is humble and penitent, the one who knows who I AM.” The Lord’s place of rest is the humble and penitent person who knows God. 
These had to be strange words for the Israelites who placed such great value on the Temple in Jerusalem. They turn the Hebrew world upside down.

It puzzles me that for over two thousand years people have not grasped the importance of these short two verses. This temple and Jerusalem was the focus of everything before the exile yet God diminished its importance as a place of worship afterwards. The Hebrews are returning from captivity to a desolate (theologically)place where God destroyed everything of the past and the Temple. Is God saying the most important thing for the Hebrews (and us) is to look seriously at what worship and sanctuary mean to our relationship to the Lord?

Jesus says something similar to Isaiah about worship in John’s account of the cleansing of the Temple during Passover.

The Temple in Jerusalem was a very large area enclosed by a wall. A curtain divided the inner area into a large courtyard for the people and sacrifices, and a much smaller area in the rear where the true Ark of the Covenant and priests rest and offer special sacrifices.  The Law (See Numbers, Leviticus) says that people should bring gifts from their possessions, either sheep, or birds, or grain. The expectation is that these are personal gifts from their own possessions, but it was permissible for people who traveled great distances to bring money and procure a sacrifice, and for poor to buy inexpensive sacrifices.  If you had to buy such a sacrifice, the clear implication of the Law is that you buy and bring it to the Temple with you.

The people seem to have adopted this permissible option as the routine and enterprising merchants had set up their shops in the inside the temple court selling all these things as a business. If you've ever been to Mexico on vacation, or some small touristy shop in Florida like Ron John's Surf Shop, or a roadside store such as Stuckey's,  and you can see all the trinkets and items made in China and can imagine this courtyard might have been similar.

Looking over this courtyard where hundreds, maybe a few thousand people milled around looking to buy animals as their required offerings angered Jesus, not that the people are trying to follow the law but perhaps because both the worship and courtyards been turned into an open-air market for merchants where someone is making money of the activity. The Temple and Passover had become festive opportunity to make money where, for many, worship took a back seat.

The disciples remembered these words about Jesus, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”  This can mean two things. We already know the end of the story so he could be saying his zeal to worship the Lord will lead to his own death and resurrection. However, it can also mean his zeal to worship the Lord will occupy every moment of his existence.

Perhaps his answer when the authorities questioned him is the important thing, “If you destroy the temple (one can argue they have already done this to the physical Temple), I'll rebuild it in three days.” Without saying it directly, Jesus says that he will teach us a new way of worship and shall become the temple used to worship the Lord.

If that's the case, what is this new way of worship? Think about it this way. Jesus is Emmanuel, God is with us. The name, Jesus, means The Lord saves us. Jesus said, see and believe me, and if you want to follow me you must walk the path that I walk. He gives a double-edged message about getting grace, (1) see and believe, and (2) walk in the world as I walk. After all, God did say through Isaiah, “The earth is my footstool.” The way to worship is to live in the world as he did, spreading grace.

There's a question with no simple answer often posed in theology class, "Is the church a hotel for saints or a hospital for sinners?" The answer is probably both and more.

I am convinced of two things. First, if we are able to do more than sit in our pews on Sunday and sing hymns, pray and share the sacraments but do not do more, we are missing the full power and benefit of being a believer. Second, while compassion is powerfully honorable, if we look at someone in distress feeling even the deepest compassion and if able do not get up from the pew and offer to help them, we are missing something serious about grace. There is no more powerful a force for change than to stand shoulder to shoulder, face to face, and help someone climb out of a hole.

My days in Mississippi rebuilding after Katrina hammered that message home to me every single day. I was humbled every time I knocked on someone’s door to work and was invited in to a meal given to us solely as an act of grace and thankfulness for us being there. They did this over our protest, insisting on a luncheon feast when they barely had enough money to buy food for themselves. It's a powerful and transforming experience to look at the world through another person's eyes, to be treated graciously by the one who is suffering as if we are the one who needs compassion.  

To look at the world through the eyes of the other person requires the hardest thing, "suspending judgment."  It is hard even for someone who claims to be nonjudgmental.  Suspending judgment does not endorse their situation but creates a bond of fellowship, a trustworthiness in us as a friend by looking at the world through their eyes.

What we want to do is judge the world with our own eyes. We think, “That person only needs to get serious about a job. All they need to do is stop doing alcohol, coke or meth, and start worrying about their children, not themselves.” But an alcoholic or meth-addicted person or a person from a generation or more of poverty cannot take control of his life without great effort and support of others. We cannot appreciate another person’s life until we walk with them and look at the world the way they do. Our fellowship empowers them to work against an addiction, towards going back to school and getting a HS diploma, an associate’s, bachelor's or graduate degree, or recovering from disaster so they can put food on the table for their family and help others do the same. You can’t fake it, you have to be “all in.”

One thing I've noticed, and you probably, is that it is very hard to pull the wool over someone's eyes for very long about not being judgmental. Someone comes up to you all cozy and friendly but it doesn't take long before you see through a false facade if it's there.  If you can get past your own facade to embrace a person as an equal, it is very obvious to them. When you stand shoulder to shoulder as an equal and look at the world with their eyes, your life will be changed forever.

You learn something about yourself, and about God. You learn that working hand in hand with God's children makes you a living example that God is God of the living. You, the sick sinner (are we looking for a hotel for saints or a hospital for sinners?), are spiritually healed, and at the same time are glorifying the Lord with all the other saints! Glorifying God is worship; experiencing healing grace is worship - the building where we do it is often God’s green earth.

So I challenge us  to write our story by our worship.  It is an act of worship here at First Presbyterian Church Spring City  when we open our food pantry and when we begin other activities that have yet to create. “Walking among the living” spreads grace and compassion. We testify to the glory of God to a large group of people, everybody in Spring City, even to our friends worshipping over at the Piggly Wiggly, to our friends who worship across the Presbytery of East Tennessee,and perhaps even to our friends in the PC(USA). Actions that testify to the glory of God are the most important things we do.

A few weeks ago, after a Sunday service, one of our young people posed to me a question, "How do you know who God is?" You know God by experience. You know God when see a person who is hurting and know them as another one of God's children and offer them your helping hand regardless of their station. Your act of grace gives you the tiniest glimpse of our gracious God. The thought may pass your mind, "There but for the grace of the Lord goes I," or you may feel a powerful sense of humility that moves you to see your blessings as something to share with the world as your glorification of the Lord.

Worship of the Lord does not need a building with fancy chandeliers, gold gilded altars, ornate baptismal fonts, 1000 watt sound systems with audiovisual projection systems, a great basketball court and an enclosed, heated swimming pool. You only need to stand on his footstool, the earth, and share the grace the Lord has given you with all God's children.

Perhaps, just perhaps, that's the message about worship Jesus was giving us when he cleaned out the temple in Jerusalem.

Thanks be to God. Amen