Hardly a week goes by without another story appearing about a black citizen, often unarmed, who is killed by the police.
Botham Jean
The latest story concerns the death of Botham Jean. Mr. Jean was shot in his own apartment by an off-duty police officer, Amber Guyer.
Amber Guyger
According to officer Guyger, who lived in the same apartment complex, she mistakenly entered the Mr. Jean’s apartment after dark. Seeing a menacing black man standing in what she believed was the front room of her apartment, she shot him.
Pause for a moment and see how many obvious questions that very odd scenario raises in your mind.
A neighbor, however, reports that he heard banging on Mr. Jean’s door and then a conversation between Jean and Guyger. Ms. Guyger is alleged to have yelled, “let me in.”
The Texas rangers are investigating.
Call me kooky, but forgive me for not trusting the police to police themselves.
Mr. Jean’s mother.
Mr. Jean’s family describes him as a Christian man, active in his local church. He had never been arrested, nor had he ever had a run-in with the police, that is until officer Guyger shot him dead.
Ms. Guyger was arrested briefly and released on her own recognizance after only a few hours. She seems to have used some of that time to scrub her computer. I wonder why. Oddly, she forgot to erase her Pinterest page which contains a good deal of hateful, violent and racist material.
Mr. Jean, on the other hand, has suffered from post-mortem character assassination. The police quickly obtained a warrant to search his apartment. Apparently, in Dallas, Texas being the unarmed, black victim of a police shooting — in your own home, no less — is reason enough to be suspected of criminal activity.
The police didn’t discover any weapons but reportedly uncovered a bag of marijuana.
Excuse me again if I take another moment to pause and wonder if that bag was planted by the officers conducting the search. After all, for some police departments, planting evidence is more common than shooting unarmed people in their homes (see here and here).
Only in the twisted world of Fox News is the ex post facto discovery of a bag of marijuana relevant to the killing of an unarmed man with no criminal record.
But, of course, we can’t forget that Mr. Jean was black. Neither can we
NYC action in solidarity with Ferguson. Mo, encouraging a boycott of Black Friday Consumerism.
forget that this happened in America.
Several recent studies reveal that black Americans are 2.5 to 2.7 times more likely to be shot by police than are white people. The disparity becomes even more striking when we turn to the shooting of unarmed people.
People of color compose about 37% of the US population, yet they make up 62.7% of the unarmed victims shot by police.
Another study investigating police killings from 2014 to 2015 concluded that:
“The disproportionate killing of black men occurs…because of the institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system’s targeting minority communities with policies—like stop and frisk and the war on drugs—that have more destructive effects.”
Demonstrators march in protest against a grand jury’s decision on Monday not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in New York. The grand jury’s decision has inflamed racial tensions across the U.S. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Obviously, something has gone dangerously wrong in the way America’s police officers are being trained and the atmosphere in which they do their jobs.
All lives do not matter in America today. All lives are not equal here. Some lives count more than others. Mr. Jean’s death and the behavior of the Dallas police department is only the latest evidence.
Many who sneer at the Black Lives Matter movement are moral posers, pretending to a superior moral judgment by pasting “All Lives Matter” (the moral universalists) or “Blue Lives Matter” (the ethical particularists) bumper stickers on their cars. Tragically, such protests simply reveal how very, very deep are the wells of ignorance and incipient racism in white America.
To insist that “all lives matter” is to fain innocence while whispering behind a raised hand that “black lives don’t matter.”
Such reactionary slogans are rhetorically camouflaged “f**k you” bombs, equivalent to the old segregationist signs directing “Negroes to the Back of the Bus.”
Honestly, to insist that “all lives matter” in response to a movement led by African-Americans working to change a society where people who look like them are shot, killed, and arrested by police at wildly disproportionate rates is a stunning display of white privilege in and of itself.
It is a bold-faced lie to say that all lives matter in the United States.
That is why, as a Christian, an evangelical, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a citizen of God’s kingdom on earth, and the grandfather of a precious little black girl, I believe that every follower of Jesus must stand up and say, YES, BLACK LIVES MATTER.
In part 1 of this series, What is Worship, we performed a few word studies covering the New Testament vocabulary translated by the English word “worship.” If you haven’t read that piece yet, I encourage you to go back and look it over. It is foundational to everything to come.
The basic observation made there is that the language of “worship” is very, very rarely used to describe the things Christians do when we gather together in groups, doing whatever it is Christians do when they gather in groups. Although the one or two exceptions we found indicate that it was possible to use worship vocabulary in that way, it is painfully obvious that the New Testament writers did not like to talk that way.
Large group gatherings, where Jesus’ disciples met to sing songs, pray and study scripture together, are not described as “worship services.” Surprising, perhaps, but true.
This conclusion raises two important questions: First, what types of activities are described as Christian “worship” in the New Testament? If not gatherings, then what? Second, how do the New Testament authors describe Christian gatherings?
This post will answer only the first question. We’ll save the rest for another day.
Some readers may have noticed that the answer was already hinted at in our previous word studies. Christian worship occurs in and through obedientliving, not in church, not (necessarily) in groups, but in day-to-day (secular) life.
For the New Testament, worship is a lifestyle.
In saying this, I do not mean to describe a person that listens to praise music while driving to the market, punctuates every sentence with “praise
No, not this. Though it’s ok.
the Lord” and “hallelujah,” or hums the latest Christian top-20 wherever they go. It’s not that kind of lifestyle. While those activities might be fine, it is not what the New Testament refers to when describing worship as a lifestyle (and not simply because the early Christians did not have cars or radios).
Worship, first and foremost, isa life lived in continual obedience to our heavenly Father. We realize that God’s gift of salvation, abundant life now and in eternity, is wholly and exclusively the product of His mercy shown in Jesus Christ. So, we offer all that we are back to Him in perpetual – day by day, moment by moment – gratitude. That is New Testament worship.
The clearest expression of this sentiment appears in Romans 12:1-2. Paul says,
“I urge you, brothers/sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable/understanding (logikē) worship (latreia). Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”
First, notice that worship is offered in view of God’s mercy. It is an offering of thankfulness, gratitude, and appreciation every single day for all the undeserved gifts of divine love made available to us in Jesus Christ. Doing full justice to this component of worship requires a study in the New Testament language of “thanksgiving” and the many injunctions to “always give thanks, at all times, in every circumstance.” Perhaps, we will look at that element of Christian faith in the future.
For now, let’s focus on the ways that worship is defined as each believer’s daily obedience to God, given up because we understand (logikē) the magnitude of all that Christ has done for us.
Also notice the accumulation of cultic/temple language in Paul’s sentence: “living sacrifice,” “holy,” “pleasing/acceptable to God,” “worship,” all liturgical vocabulary piled on top of each other, jumbled together. In other words, a life lived in a continually responsive understanding and appreciation of divine grace is the New Testament equivalent of offering “worship” in the “holy place” of the Jerusalem temple with a “blood sacrifice”.
Whoa Nelly…
THAT, my friends, is a dramatic and shocking statement – at least it would have been shocking to a good many of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries. What Israel used to do in the temple cult with the assistance of priests, goats, sheep and other sorts of “offerings,” Christians now do on their own by (a) understanding how much they owe to God and (b) self-consciously devoting all of life to His (c) service.
Yes…wow.
Paul begins his letter to the Romans by describing his own life in this way. He says in Romans 1:9,
“God is my witness, whom I worship/serve (latreuein) with my whole being in preaching the gospel of His Son, how I constantly remember you in my prayers.”
In other words, Paul worshiped God by preaching the good news of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. Why? Because that is what God has called him to do with his life. In fulfilling his life’s purpose, Paul was giving worship to God.
Paul revisited this idea at the end of Romans in 15:16,
“…God gave me the grace to be a servant/priestly worshipper (leitourgon) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty (hierourgounta) of proclaiming the gospel of God so that the Gentiles might become an acceptable offering to God…”
Paul again deliberately takes the worship vocabulary traditionally reserved for the Levitical priests offering sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple, and he uses it to describe his work as an evangelist to the Gentiles. Obeying God’s call to be an apostle is the way Paul worshiped his Lord, every day, all the time.That is Paul’s offering of the daily “living sacrifice” which is his “acceptable, understanding worship” as described in Romans 12.
He simply did what God called him to do. Period.
Here are a few additional examples that you can explore on your own:
Philippians 2:17, “I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service/worship (leitourgein) coming from your faith…”
Philippians 2:30, “Epaphroditus almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help/service/worship (leitourgia) you could not give to me.”
Philippians 3:3, “We are the circumcision, we who worship/serve (latreuein) by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh…”
[In the example above, we could easily substitute the word “live” for “worship.” In other words, true worshipers are those who have received the Holy Spirit by believing in the gospel of grace and now live in light of that gift.]
2 Timothy 1:3, “I thank God whom I serve/worship (latreuein), as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience, as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day.”
Paul also refers to worshiping through our finances and generosity:
Romans 15:27, “If the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it them to share/serve/worship (leitourgein) with them in their material blessings.”
2 Corinthians 9:12, “The ministry of this service/worship (leitourgia) is not only supplying the needs of God’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.”
So, don’t stop singing songs to the Lord while driving, if that is what you enjoy. Just keep your eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, please. But don’t ever be misled into thinking that special “churchy” activities are the principle ways to worship. Far from it. That way of thinking is very, very wrong.
You worship when you talk to your friends about the way Jesus is working in your life and then share the gospel with them.
You worship when you make a change of some sort in your lifestyle because you know the Lord wants you to do it.
…even when it means standing alone.
You worship when your discipleship creates difficulty or hardship, but you move forward anyway because you want to obey Jesus more than you wish for a comfortable life.
You worship when you share your stuff with the poor – especially when you don’t worry about receipts.
You worship when you make yourself “one of the least of these” and sit at the lowest end of the table, without expecting any recognition or reward, in order to serve hurting people in need.
In other words, you worship spontaneously as you surrender the shape of your life to the radical remolding of God’s kingdom revealed in the ethical teaching of Jesus Christ.
After all, that’s how Jesus worshiped his heavenly Father every moment of every day. He came to be our model.
Terry and I stepped off the bus and walked to the small gathering area beneath a few shade trees. It was still morning but you could already feel that it was going to be another hot day.
We sat on one of the village’s shaded benches and waited for others to arrive. It did not take long. Soon we were joined by a handful of international supporters who came, like us, to link arms with the residents of Nabi Saleh, a small Palestinian village in the central-western portion of the West Bank. (A great deal has been written about Nabi Saleh, much of it malicious and false. For some introduction, check out here, here and here).
Every Friday morning a small group of villagers, together with whoever else wants to come along, attempt to walk down the narrow, one-lane road
Do these people look like dangerous terrorists to you?
offering the only access to their homes. It is also the only paved access to the nearby spring that historically served as the village’s primary water supply.
The spring is owned by the Tamimi family, an extended network of men, women and children who compose a sizeable portion of the village. The spring at the foot of the hill has been in their family for generations.
Not anymore.
The Nabi Saleh spring
A Jewish settlement now “occupies” the Nabi Saleh spring, making it inaccessible to their Palestinian neighbors across the road.
The settlement is called Halamish. It now occupies the neighboring hillside, easily overshadowing the village of Nabi Saleh only a stone’s throw away.
According to international law, settlements like Halamish should not exist. They are prohibited by the international convention on apartheid. But people who build such illegal, fortified settlements and then live in them
The illegal settlement of Halamish
while stealing the neighbors’ only water supply obviously do not care about such niceties as international law or anti-apartheid conventions.
Israeli-Jewish settlers often don’t even care about Israeli law, since the Israeli supreme court has, on rare occasions, also ruled against these West Bank settlements. In fact, Jewish settlers in the West Bank are notorious for committing the most egregious, violent acts against Palestinians with total impunity.
On this particular Friday morning, our march began with 30 to 40 people, mostly villagers, including many children and young people. Our only armaments were flags and banners, though a few teenage boys eventually pulled out their sling-shots and began throwing rocks after the Israeli soldiers arrived and began pelting us with tear gas.
This march has happened every Friday for years. The goal is very simple. The villagers want to walk down to their spring, affirming their right of access. The village leaders want to talk with the people of Halamish and ask them by what right they not only took over their water supply but now exclude Palestinians from using it.
That goal has never been achieved, to my knowledge. What happened to us happens every week. In fact, we got off easy. We hadn’t walked more than
Soldiers begin to block the road
20 yards before several military vehicles appeared from nowhere, sped onto the village road and blocked the intersection about 75 yards away. Dozens of soldiers armed with automatic rifles and tear gas launchers jumped from armored personnel carriers and fanned out in a long line. Troops not only blocked the road but watched us from the nearby hills ensuring that we all were targets wherever we went.
Soon the tear gas canisters began to fall among the unarmed, peaceful
Shooting tear gas
demonstrators who only wanted to walk to a spring. In Israel it is a crime for Palestinian villagers to visit and take a drink from their only source of drinking water, a spring that refreshed their parents, grandparents and great grandparents as far back as anyone can remember.
For Zionist Israel, Palestinians pose a threat by their mere existence. Israeli’s commonly refer to them as the “demographic” or the “existential” threat to Israel. For political Zionists, Israel can only exist as a purely Jewish state. Thus, all Palestinians must go, one way or another. Allowing them to drink from a traditional pool of water is, apparently, a slippery slope to another Holocaust. Or so it would seem.
The march came to a halt. I suspect that we got just about as far as it has ever gotten. We were barely out of the village. Yet, we had been quarantined as if we were a dangerous band of Typhoid Marys threatening to unleash an unstoppable epidemic among the Jewish population beyond.
Who is David and who is Goliath now?
I decided to walk forward in order to talk to the soldiers. Behind me teenage boys began to swing their slingshots at the soldiers in the same way that David felled Goliath. The villagers knew how to protect themselves against the gas. Most of the younger children returned to their homes. There were no guns or weapons of any kind, except those carried by the Israelis.
When I was close enough I shouted out to the soldiers, “Why? Why are you doing this? They only want to walk to their spring!”
The soldiers, including this boy with peach fuzz, act as if I am invisible
After first shouting at me to go back, they all decide to ignore me. No one so much as turned his head to look when I yelled. I suspected that these soldiers had plenty of experience in ignoring western visitors coming to protest the grotesque inhumanity they show towards their fellow human beings. It was my own up close and personal experience of the stone-cold poker face Israel has cultivated over the years as it consistently ignores the numerous protests, boycotts and complaints lodged against it by members of the international community still possessing a conscience.
The tires begin to burn
I am certain that had I not been such an obvious western visitor, one of these soldiers would have shot me in the head or chest without a second thought. The families of Nabi Saleh have grieved many times over the dead and wounded loved ones who have been shot on that single-track
road leading to Halamish.
Chest and head shots are the soldiers’ favorites.
It wasn’t long before a few young men had set tires on fire in front of the marchers, masking them from the line of fire. The black smoke obscures the soldiers’ vision so that, hopefully, fewer tear gas canisters hit their target.
Slowly the marchers began to disperse. I turned back to the village. The soldiers eventually climbed into their armored vehicles and drove
Soldiers and a manned sniper tower keep watch over the only road into Nabi Saleh
away, though the small installation with its sniper tower at the end of the road remained occupied, guns always pointed at the people of Nabi Saleh.
I also knew that the villagers who marched that day would steel themselves against the threat of after-dark raids by these very same soldiers. Who might be arrested or shot or thrown into the back of a truck conveying them to the local military prison for interrogation?
(Below is a film showing a military night-raid in Nabi Saleh. Protesters are arrested and removed from their homes while a skunk wagon sprays skunk water into their homes).
It happens regularly.
While waiting for our bus Terry and I met Bassem Tamimi, one of the village leaders and the father of (now internationally known) Ahed Tamimi, whom I will write about another day. Mr. Tamimi kindly invited us into his home for tea where he talked about his life, his wife and children, his village, and his commitment to continued peaceful resistance against Israel’s military occupation and continued theft of his property.
I wondered how many of the residents of Halamish kept their binoculars near the window sill in order to watch Mr. Tamimi’s weekly efforts to visit his family spring. I suspect that the struggles of Nabi Saleh makes for interesting sport among these settlers.
Do they cheer when the soldiers arrive, screeching to a halt in their massive gray machines?
Did they root for the men shooting at us?
Do they shout when someone is hit and injured, as so many have been in the past?
Does anyone in Halamish ever stop to ask themselves, Why did we take their water away from them? Why can’t we share it with Nabi Saleh, or even give it back to the villagers outright?
Does anyone in Halamish have conscience enough to see their neighboring Palestinians as people no different than themselves?
These are some of the questions I pondered as I sat with Terry on Bassem Tamimi’s couch, waiting for his wife to finish making our tea. We enjoyed a friendly conversation that day with a generous man and his wife whose primary concern in life is ensuring that his children and grandchildren will have a safe, peaceful future to look forward to in the family village.
Why does that make him a criminal in his own land?
Why should asking for a safe, peaceful future in his own home put his family at risk every Friday morning in the Occupied Territory of the West Bank?
Take a moment to watch Ahed Tamimi describe her life in Nabi Saleh, a tiny Palestinian village under Israeli military occupation:
Had I ever become a seminary professor, I would have made all my students read For Self-Examination and Judge for Yourself! by Sǿren Kierkegaard. Either book is a good place to begin for anyone who is unfamiliar with my favorite “melancholy Dane” and wants to start reading Kierkegaard on their own.
Both books, published in 1851, only 4 years before his death at age 42, are a clarion call to genuine Christian living. Kierkegaard particularly focuses on the centrality of Scripture, not simply as a book to be read or studied, nor as a source for Sunday sermons, but as a compelling Word from God that must be obeyed.
The only sufficient goal of all Bible-reading is personal transformation, and transformation only happens for those who surrender to God’s instructions by DOING what scripture says. Reading without response is like a single person pretending to be married while eating alone every night.
Here is Kierkegaard’s advice (from For Self-Examination) for anyone whose Bible-reading has stalled because of its many difficult, hard to understand passages:
“…perhaps you say, ‘there are so many obscure passages in the Bible, whole books that are practically riddles.’ To that I would answer: Before I have anything to do with this objection, it must be made by someone whose life manifests that he/she has scrupulously complied with all the passages that are easy to understand; is this the case with you?…
“In other words, when you are reading God’s Word, it is not the obscure passages that bind you but what you understand, and with that you are to comply at once. If you understood only one single passage in all of Holy Scripture, well, then you must do that first of all, but you do not first have to sit down and ponder the obscure passages. God’s Word is given in order that you shall act according to it, not that you shall practice interpreting obscure passages. If you do not read God’s Word in such a way that you consider that the least little bit you do understand instantly binds you to do accordingly, then you are reading God’s Word.”
Perhaps you know the parable. How do you boil a frog alive?
Don’t throw the frog into boiling water. It will jump out. Rather, turn a stove burner on to low heat. Fill a kettle with water at room temperature. Put your wiggling, green frog into the kettle. Set the kettle onto the burner. Wait…
Supposedly, as the water temperature slowly rises, the frog – being a cold-blooded creature – will enjoy the sauna without alarm. Eventually, the cooperative frog allows itself to be cooked alive without ever objecting to the rising water temperature.
I have enough of a conscious that I’ve never tested the truth of this parable (have you?), but it serves as a popular warning against the dangerous allurements of compromising one’s conscience. How many compromises does it take before principle and morality become waterlogged labels tossed by deceased idealists into the world’s pragmatic stew called “the ends justify the means?”
I don’t know. Maybe Michael Gerson could tell us.
Gerson, now a columnist with the Washington Post, has become one of president Trump’s most vocal, conservative critics. And I admire him for taking up the cause of repeating out loud that this president has no clothes.
Gerson prints what few other Republicans are willing to say out loud (except behind closed doors). He appears to be working as a conservative conscience (in a kinda, sorta way) for an otherwise fetid Republican party that misplaced its public service conscience years ago – undoubtedly lost in the fancy parlor of some corporate contributor.
A graduate of Wheaton College, Gerson is noteworthy because he claims the mantle of “evangelical Christian” while openly condemning the boot-licking, brown-nosing antics of those religious-right leaders and their millions of followers who boast about their elevated status on Trump’s White House guest list.
In this regard, Gerson certainly has his head screwed on straight. Perhaps he learned a lesson or two from his own time of service in the Bush White House.
GWB : 1630 : Speech Preparations – State of the Union. Oval Office
Gerson was chief speech writer for George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006. From 2000 to 2006 he was also a White House Senior Policy Analyst and a member of Bush’s White House Iraq Group.
The primary purpose of the WHIG was to advance the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan “to sell” the American public on the imaginary threat of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMD program. In other words, Gerson was on the president’s marketing team charged with candy-coating one of the most catastrophic, illegal, immoral wars in the history of American foreign policy.
Everyone on that team knew exactly what they were doing.
Here is Paul Waldman’s assessment (in a very cogent article published in
President George W. Bush speaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, January 4, 2006. Standing with Bush from left are National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque – RTR17RZC
This Week) of the work accomplished by Gerson and his associates in the WHIG:
“What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history.”
That’s what Gerson helped to accomplish.
Gerson is widely regarded as the author of the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” fear-mongering metaphor that became the most effective rhetorical trick used by Bush officials in promoting the Iraq War. (Check out Gerson’ Wikipedia page for some interesting anecdotes told by his fellow speech-writers [with citations]).
I have always wondered what happened to Gerson’s Christian conscience during those crucial years in the Bush White House.
In 2012 Gerson gave a public lecture at Calvin College. I was there. As he often does, Gerson talked about the formative influences of Charles Colson and Senator Jack Kemp, two Christian leaders with whom he worked closely as a young man. He credits them for positively shaping his Christian social and political conscience. He also talked briefly about his years with George W. Bush, but had precious little to say about his work in the White House.
When it came time for the audience to ask questions, I took my place in the short line forming behind a public microphone. I don’t recall my exact words, but this is essentially what I asked Mr. Gerson:
Torture at Abu Ghraib prison
“You have talked a lot about how your Christian conscience has directed you through your life in politics. Yet, your political career includes working for an administration that legalized and carried out the torture of other human beings. Your White House also violated our Constitution with its warrantless, mass surveillance of the American people. When asked, the president you worked for knowingly lied to us about that fact.
The man packed in ice is Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner who died while being tortured in Abu Ghraib prison
“How did you, how do you, reconcile all of that with your ‘Christian conscience?’ How could you do that? What do you have to say?”
Gerson’s answer was a disheartening example of double-speak and evasion. He never answered my question, not really. And I was surprised that he didn’t have a more polished response. Certainly, he had been asked this question before?
I have no idea if Mr. Gerson has ever answered that question within himself. If he felt ashamed or had experienced any regret over his years of deliberate, knowing collusion in clearing a path for one of the greatest American crimes of the 20th century, he gave no indication of it.
Though I strongly disagree with almost all of Gerson’s policy positions, I am pleased to see him take up the pen and use his position with the Washington Post to shed some sensible, moral – perhaps even somewhat Christian – daylight onto the sweaty, belching, obnoxious, moral turpitude that is the Trump administration.
Apparently, the water temperature in this current White House is too hot even for Michael Gerson. But his previous ability to flourish at criminally high temperatures causes me to bite my tongue as others commend him for his Christian cajones.
My understanding of Christianity says that redemption first requires confession of and repentance from sin. Public sins demand public confession. We may have learned a little about Gerson’s tolerance of the current heat in Washington, D.C.
I am not convinced that his current opposition to Donald Trump tells us anything at all about Gerson’s Christian discipleship.
I am still waiting to hear a public confession of his past, political sins.
Like most authors, I always appreciate receiving feedback from my readers. I am especially grateful whenever I hear a story about how my work has stirred positive transformation and been encouraging to someone, especially when that someone is trying to follow Jesus faithfully.
Thank you, pastor, for taking the time to be an encouragement to me:
“At the recommendation of [a] long-time friend and former parishioner… I just finished reading….for the second time…your book, “I Pledge Allegiance”. All I can say, David, is THANK YOU!!! You’ve helped me find some renewed sense of balance in what it means to live in this country at this time as a follower of Jesus. Having just recently retired from parish ministry… I’m aware of how often I waffled, especially in my preaching. There are times when I experience guilt and wish I could begin again to deal in a better way with the influences of congregants. And then there are those times when I’m grateful that I made it through without getting kicked out. The events of this past week put me into an even deeper depression. However, your insights and reminders have helped me immensely. Again, thank you!! And, please, keep writing. David”
In response to this man’s last sentence, let me say that I am trying to continue my writing. But I am facing a few obstacles. I mention this because, if you are a praying person, I could use your prayers about my next (possible) writing project.
I want to write a book about both(1) the theological problems of Christian Zionism and (2) the human suffering entangled with American evangelicalism’s blind support for the nation of Israel. The book will be half Biblical theology and half real-life stories.
The theology sections will explain the serious errors of “Christian Zionism” (i.e. those who believe that modern Israel is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in need of the church’s, and America’s, wholehearted support).
The real life stories will describe graphic instances of Palestinian suffering and abuse that I have witnessed first-hand during my visits to the West Bank area (captured by the Israeli army during the 1967 war and kept under military occupation ever since).
My proposal for this book has now passed over a number of publisher’s desks. One publisher said (I am paraphrasing), “Dave, we think this would be a good book, but your previous books haven’t been great sellers for us. We don’t think we’d make much money from this one, either.”
Four other well-known publishing houses have all said something similar, “David, we like and agree with your proposal. We think this would me a good book, but we can’t figure out how we would sell it. Sorry. Good luck.”
Needless to say, I am a bit frustrated and disappointed. So, I would very much appreciate your prayers as I try to figure out where next to send the proposal. I firmly believe this book needs to be written.
Otherwise, perhaps I am at the end of my writing career. I hope not, but who knows.
Real Christians trust in the eternal, heavenly Father of the resurrected and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ. There is a difference, a BIG difference between these two deities.
Trusting in God does not require anything of us, because God-trusters always make God in their own image.
The generic God of the God-trusters is a God of convenience. And what is America today if not the wasteland of endless, ad nauseum convenience?
Idolatry’s promise of religious convenience is at the heart of why God-trusters embrace their ever-convenient God. Like all idolatry, trusting in the God of American civil religion is easy-peasy religion, because that God is always on our side. What’s not to like?
Who wouldn’t want to be on God’s side when you already think you know that God’s side is always your side?
The angel of American manifest destiny
He is always, predictably, the God of our nation, our history, our wars, our empire, our manifest destiny, our foreign policy, our political party, our consumerist lifestyle, our race, even our skin color, if and when appealing to such racial niceties becomes necessary.
How nice it is to believe in an agreeable God who wants for your nation what you do, who believes in the rightness of your cause just as you do, who excuses the world-wide bloodshed caused by your country for the same reasons you do.
How insufferably convenient to embrace a religion of such logical redundancy. Clear-headedness is never expected of anyone.
This is always the way with idolatry.
This In-God-We-Trust God emerges from our own selfish desires, hopes and priorities. For even when we fail to achieve our desires, this God of the God-trusters is flexible enough to adopt failed outcomes as the deepest desire of his heart. So, America can do no wrong, even when she fails abysmally and wreaks havoc among those who suffer from her miscalculations.
On the other hand, if there is one thing the Bible tells us about the one, true God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the eternal Father of Jesus of Nazareth: God is never convenient.
Following Jesus of Nazareth is not convenient, not at all convenient. That’s why so few people really do it, consistently, day in and day out, for a lifetime.
When Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) devoted a chapter in his book, The Social Contract (1762), to the centrality of civil religion in the modern nation-state, he emphasized the civic dangers of Christianity. In fact, he believed – rightly, in my opinion – that the gospel of Jesus Christ, when embraced by true believers, posed the single greatest threat to the long-term survival of any modern nation-state. He even went so far as to insist that the Roman Catholic church (the only form of Christianity he knew) be outlawed if the nation-state hoped to survive.
Rousseau’s fears can be boiled down very simply: The Christian God was not controllable. The Christian God is neither predictable nor convenient – at least, not from a human point of view.
Jesus Christ can never be relied upon to cast his vote for “my side.” And he always demands an allegiance transcending national, political and social loyalties.
The atheist Rousseau understood Christianity better than most American Christians.
If we understood the import of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Christians would be the first to ask that idolatrous phrases like “In God We Trust” be erased forever.
We would abandon the silly, meaningless conflicts over state-sanctioned “prayer” in public schools.
We would shun idolatrous ceremonies demanding that we “pledge allegiance” to a flag.
We would laugh hysterically whenever we hear the next televised nattering nabob boast about winning some war over saying “merry Christmas” in the public square.
We would speak up and declare, “No, I do not trust in your God of convenient nationalism. I trust in the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ; Savior of ALL people everywhere; King of the universe; the Lord whose kingdom of righteousness makes public inconvenience a hallmark of the faithful.”
This post revisits one of my pet peeves: the misunderstanding and misuse of Biblical vocabulary. Today I want to begin looking at how we commonly misuse the word “worship.”
OK, I may be a bit like Scrooge, but I wish that Christians would use Biblical language the same way it’s used in the Bible. Doesn’t that sound sensible to you? Instead, we often redefine Biblical vocabulary (without realizing it) and then use it in ways that are totally disconnected from its original meaning.
For example, in a previous post I explained how we do this with the word “praise.” Christians commonly talk about “praising God” when their actions, whether it be clapping and raising their hands, or repeating the words “praise God” over and over again, actually have no connection at all to the Biblical notion of praise.
Language certainly can evolve and change over time. That is natural. But for Christians – who have an unchanging, authoritative Book taken as “normative” (in one way or another) in its descriptions of God and human existence – using words from that Book in ways that are unrelated to their original significance becomes very misleading. It is far too easy for us to import ourmodern(mis)understanding of those words back into the Bible without understanding the mistake we are making. Such unconscious habits all but guarantee that we will misunderstand the Scriptures whenever we encounter those misunderstood words.
No one is thinking clearly or understanding Scripture accurately when that sort of linguistic confusion is going on. Our modern use of worship vocabulary is one more pesky example of this common, Christianese word mangling.
So, I had been planning to write a series of posts about Christian worship for some time, but I was finally pushed over the edge last Sunday morning at church. The congregation was coming to the end of the final song when the music leader shouted out, “Come on. Let’s give God some worship.”
The crowd burst into applause.
Oh, my goodness. I had to pick my eyeballs up off the floor. I hope I didn’t groan too loudly.
So, let’s begin with a few word studies. The word study is an important research method that every serious Bible reader needs to keep in his/her tool box, for one simple reason: Words do not have meanings as much as they have uses. Words mean what we use them to mean. And word usage changes over time. That is why dictionaries are regularly reissued in new, updated editions, because we don’t use all of our words the same way today as we did yesterday.
Ponder the very different ways we have used the English word “gay,” for example. In 1934, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made a movie called “The Gay Divorcee.” Astaire played a randy, young heterosexual male who spends most of the movie chasing after a lovely, young lady – certainly not the plot-line this movie title congers up for theater-goers today.
So, the question becomes: whose understanding of a word is being read into a text? And is it an appropriate understanding or not?
Now we need to do something called a word study. Open a good concordance. Your concordance will list every appearance of every word in the Bible, verse by verse. A good English concordance (like the NIV Exhaustive Concordance) has sections to help you deal with the complications created by the different English translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
Now, open your Bible and read every instance of the word(s) you want to understand. Look at the wider context of each sentence. This may take some time.
Look at how the word is used in its literary context. As you progress in your research, you will notice that the same word is often used in different ways in different contexts. That is why dictionaries can often list several different definitions for a single word. You will also notice that a variety of Greek and Hebrew words can be translated by the same English word. (This may sound confusing, but it will sort itself out as you become more familiar with your chosen vocabulary.)
The New Testament uses 4 different Greek word groups that can be translated into the English word worship.
First, proskunien/proskunētēs – to bow down, prostrate oneself; to kiss; to do obeisance.
Originally, this word meant to show submission or respect to a superior. The precise significance of the homage rendered depended upon the status of the one being honored. For example, at numerous points in the synoptic gospels various people “bow down” before Jesus, not to worship him as divine but to honor him as someone able to do great things (like heal their leprosy, Matthew 8:2).
When the object of such homage is divine, then giving appropriate honor becomes “worship,” as people acknowledge God’s worthiness of honor, submission and obedience (John 4:23; Revelation 7:11).
But, there is something very interesting about this word: with the sole exception of John 4, the New Testament never uses this particular word to describe what Christians do for God, whether individually or collectively. In other words, New Testament believers are never described as giving worship (proskunien) to the Lord. Odd, but true.
The ONE place where Paul uses this word in connection with an earthly gathering of Christians, it describes the response of a visiting unbeliever who is convicted of God’s presence by observing the spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:25).
We will come back to the importance of this observation later.
Second, latreuein/latreia – to serve.
Originally, in the Greek Old Testament (called the Septuagint, abbreviated as LXX), this word was used as a synonym for the “service” rendered to a master by a servant or slave – service of any sort at all. Eventually, it became more narrowly applied to “one’s service of God.” Most often it described the specifically sacrificial service offered by an Israelite worshiper in the temple cult where gifts, offerings, prayers and sacrifices were made. Such temple service was an act of obedient sacrifice (Luke 2:37; Romans 9:4).
St. Francis worshiping with a congregation of birds.
Let’s note a few developments in this piece of vocabulary. Worship is made an act of service offered in obedience; to worship God and to serve God become synonymous activities. Worship is an obedient service, and obedient service can be worship. Thus, the word could be extended to include the broader life of obedience. For instance, see Deuteronomy 10:12 (in the Greek text), where the Israelites are told “toserve (latreuein) the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.” Here latreuein/worship becomes a lifestyle of faithfulness.
An especially interesting aspect of this particular word in the New Testament, is that – unlike proskunein – latreuein is frequently used to describe Christian activities, but never to describe what Christians do when gathered together. Hmmmm…
We will need to revisit this important fact about New Testament worship/latreuein before we finish.
Third, leitourgein/leitourgia/leitourgikos/leitourgos – to serve (a particular constituency). The English word “liturgy” is derived from this Greek word.
Originally, in the Greek Old Testament, it meant “to offer a service” (similar to latreuein), but leitourgein quickly became more specifically applied to the cultic services of the priesthood. For the Old Testament, leitourgia is the specifically ritual-oriented tasks performed exclusively by priests.
The New Testament retains this sense, for example, in Luke 1:23, “When Zechariah’s time of service/worship was completed, he returned home [from the temple].”Also, check out Hebrews 10:11, “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties/worship/service.”
Two important points call for our attention in summarizing the New Testament’s use of the leitourgia word group.
One: it is never used for any particular Christian “office” such as apostles, bishops, elders, etc. In this New Testament era, offering up leitourgia to the Lord is every believer’s privilege. There is no such thing as a special Christian priesthood, because the New Testament insists on the priesthood of ALL believers. Everyone who follows Jesus is now a genuine priest standing before God’s throne. You don’t have to wear a dog collar or fancy vestments.
A Quaker “worship” service
Two: this word group is often applied to the whole of the Christian life, much like latreuein. Only once does it (feasibly) describe what Christians do when they are gathered together in a group. This single exception appears in Acts 13:2, “While they [the church at Antioch] were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’”
Otherwise, the leitourgia word group never describes what Christians do when they gather together in groups. At the fear of sounding like a broken record (does anyone use that metaphor nowadays?), this is another curious observation that will demand more attention before we finish this study.
Fourth, thrēskeia – religious service, religion, worship.
For the NT, this is the word used when debating the differences between true and/or false religion. It is most often used to describe false religion (see Acts 26:5, “the strictest sect of our religion”; Colossians 2:18, “the worship of angels”; Colossians 2:23, “self-imposed worship”; James 1:26, “his religion is worthless”).
On one occasion thrēskeia describes true worship in James 1:27, “Religion/worship that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” This single exception is most likely explained by the context of debate and the word’s previous appearance in verse 26.
So, one last time…let’s notice something very interesting about this word. As we have noted elsewhere, thrēskeia is never used to describe the things that Christians do together when they gather collectively. In the only instance where this word is used positively, thrēskeia describes an obedient, holy lifestyle demonstrated by generosity to the poor.
These are the essential puzzle pieces necessary for understanding how the New Testament uses the vocabulary of “worship.” Now that they are all out on the table, see what you can make of trying to fit them together.
Next time we will begin the process of fitting it all together and synthesizing the New Testament sense of what it means to “worship the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“’This Is an Attempt to Intimidate Certain Voices’: Group Says Meetings Between Trump, Faith Leaders a Violation of Law”
The story concerns a letter (fully documenting its assertions) sent by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State asserting that president Trump’s so-called Evangelical Advisory Board is violating federal law. Below is the substance of their complaint. I have highlighted the essential clauses:
“…the Advisory Board is subject to, but has failed to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. It is clear that the President’s Evangelical Advisory Board is doing substantive work with the Trump Administration behind closed doors—without any sunlight for the public to understand how and why decisions are being made. We respectfully request that the Advisory Board cease meeting and providing advice to the President unless and until it fully complies with FACA, and that you produce to us certain documents relating to the Advisory Board.
“FACA applies to ‘any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof . . . which is . . . established or utilized by the President . . . in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.’ The Evangelical Advisory Board’s activities are well within FACA’s scope.”
The gist of CBN’s reporting, particularly in its online interview with Advisory Board spokesman, Johnnie Moore, blatantly misrepresents the
Johnnie Moore, graduate of Liberty University
AUSCS letter. Describing it as one more secularist attempt to “intimidate” evangelical voices in government, both CBN and Johnnie Moore distort the real complaint beyond recognition.
As anyone who reads the letter can see, the problem is not that Trump hangs out with evangelicals – although given the cataclysmic demise of evangelical integrity these days, they certainly can’t be anything but a corrosive influence on a president in dire need of both spiritual and practical advice. (I would warn the president about the dangers of associating with “backsliders,” but I don’t think he is familiar with the term.)
The problem is not that Trump converses with evangelicals but that he hangs out with them in lonely back alleys, in the dead of night, where they talk in low whispers, without anyone taking notes or keeping a record of their conversations. Such behavior would be unremarkable if these paragons of Christian virtue were swearing fealty to The Donald in the crushed velvet, over-stuffed chairs of Trump Towers. Politically aware followers of Jesus have come to expect such treachery from the mammon-loving leaders of their mega-churches and other televised “ministries” lusting for more TBN airtime.
But the president is a public servant, at least in theory, not merely the crime boss he was before winning the election.
The American people have every right to know, as a matter of public record,
The recent dinner for evangelicals at the White House
with whom the president is meeting, from whom he is taking advice, and whether that advice is affecting the rest of us who pay the president’s salary.
American’s United is simply asking the president and his evangelical bed-fellows to obey the law. That’s it.
Didn’t the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, cite Romans 13 not very long ago as an ominous reminder of just how law-abiding all Americans were supposed to be? True evangelicals ought to be jumping at the chance fully “to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2.”
Of course, good ‘ole boy Johnnie (any grown man who insists on being called Johnnie has got to be a good ‘ole boy) insists that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council. CBN reports,
“’From the very beginning we’ve made it clear that there is no evangelical advisory council at the White House…I don’t know how many times I’ve said that. I think everybody just needs to recognize that this is an attempt to intimidate certain voices, and voices that will not be intimidated,’ said Moore.
While there is no doubt that Sessions was trying to “intimidate certain
Rev. Paula White opens the evangelical dinner with prayer
voices” with his immigration policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, under the aegis of Romans 13 no less, I confess that the intimidation factor in the American’s United letter escapes me completely.
Johnnie’s bald-faced insistence that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council reminds me of the Monty Python “Dead Parrot sketch.” After his recently purchased parrot dies, the disgruntled customer tries to return his now dead parrot to the pet shop, only to be faced with the recalcitrant owner who insists – contrary to all the evidence – that the bird is not dead, only resting. Classic Monty Python.
Well, Johnnie Moore. Monty Python disbanded long ago. Your attempts to resurrect the group with a new Evangelical Council sketch won’t work. It’s not funny.
After all, there is a stable collection of “evangelical” church leaders who periodically gather collectively with the president in Washington D.C., providing him with counsel about issues dear to their hearts, urging him to adopt policies favorable to their concerns. The recent White House dinner for evangelicals was a gathering of the usual suspects.
Johnnie Moore’s denial and complaint is only the latest example of evangelicalism’s pathetic sense of entitlement and bogus victimization.
Paula and Franklin Graham say ‘cheese’ for the White House photographer
You, first, demand special treatment – why do we have to make a public record of our meetings with the president? It’s not fair! – and then you cry the crocodile tears of “religious discrimination” when a public service organization calls you out for trying to play by your own rules.
Why can’t evangelical leaders willingly abide by the same standards applied to every other lobbying group? Why the skulduggery, followed by another “stop picking on me” burst of tears? It’s pathetic.
Sadly, this story, which is paradigmatic of the many reprehensible ills afflicting evangelicalism today, is one layer of dishonesty on top of another, and another, and another…
If you will, allow me to paraphrase the apostle Paul’s lament over mortality as I close. Paul says, “Oh, my God, who will deliver me from this body-politic of death?” (Romans 7:24).
She unexpectedly bumped into another friend while they both were marching in a local protest demonstrating against president Trump’s immigration policies.
She passed along these kind remarks:
“…(my friend) mentioned that the men’s book club had finished reading I Pledge Allegiance this morning, and found it really good and deeply challenging in all the right ways – and also that he had been in touch with you to say how superb he finds the book. I’m really glad that he took the initiative to contact you!! He and I have been talking a lot about it recently, and how we need to keep it close by to help us to navigate the insanity.”
I could not be more pleased. She describes everything I hope would happen when disciples wrestle with God’s word while considering the arguments found in my book.
I am pleased as punch.
If you haven’t yet read I Pledge Allegiance, please join the crowd of those who have and ask the Holy Spirit what He wants you to be doing for the kingdom of God in this world right now.