One of the reasons I decided to join the Mennonite Church was its emphasis on peaceableness. More than the Evangelical Friends Church which I grew up in who focus on traditional evangelism which relies more on apologetics than action, the Mennonites have created many programs, books, curriculum, and everyday opportunities for its members to actively engage in peaceable and nonviolent activity. Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Conciliation Services, International Conciliation Services, and Christian Peacemaker Teams, to name the major arms of Mennonite peacemaking, can be found all over the world working to disseminate violence, oppression, and injustice in a variety of ways. I thank G-d for this, and in no way do I want this to end. Nevertheless, I am dissatisfied with it, and here is why.
When I first learned about the early Anabaptists, they mystified me. At the time, and still currently, I believed strongly that Christians need external identifying markers which display whose kingdom they belong to. Logically, these markers would be simple dress, plain living, loving attitude toward all people, operational practices of forgiveness, and dissension toward the state. The Anabaptists fit this mold perfectly, and the Mennonites are the direct descendants of the Anabaptists. Naturally, for reasons that just the above, I joined them. I partook in their practice of adult baptism. In two days I leave to work with Christian Peacemaker Teams, and I have applied to work as a pastor in the Mennonite Church. I have become a decent Mennonite in my own estimation, yet the baggage that comes with committing oneself to the Church (and it is the reason why I believe people need to be in Church) is the onus of responsibility for those within the Church. Thus, for example, whether we like it or not, the Catholic priest scandal effects us, and we are responsible for them. I am responsible for the Mennonite Church. This is the problem I see.
The early Anabaptists were killed in droves. Their martyrdom resulted from the incendiary practices I mentioned above. They lived in the middle of Christendom where "everyone" was a Christian, yet they claimed with reckless abandon that Christian faith could not be so oppressive, violent, and extravagant. Following G-d meant forgiveness, peace, and simplicity. Moreover, it meant G-d and G-d alone is the ruler of the world. Therefore, in there system of princes, barons, and Holy Roman Emperors, only G-d's rule mattered. Essentially, Anabaptists declared the state illegitimate, and since the state does not bear the sword for nothing, they were massacred. Since they believed G-d ruled the whole world, G-d loved even those who put the Anabaptists to death. Their commitment to nonviolence spawned from their belief in G-d's overarching sovereignty and love. This came along with simple living, distinctive dress, and many other practices which now seem all but forgotten by all descendants of the Anabaptists except the Amish. In short, the Mennonite practice of peaceableness was salvaged from Anabaptism and elevated into our consciousness as the distinctive Mennonite and Christian practice.
Why has pacifism become the defining belief of Mennonites? Why is our insistence on believer's baptism, simple living, radical dissension toward the state, and forgiveness no longer causing the waves they once did? These are the questions of a somewhat dissatisfied Mennonite who joined the Mennonite Church expecting one thing and finding another. I am going to attempt to answer the first as a way toward the other.
When the Anabaptists suffered massive amounts of persecution under the hand of German princes and other feudal lords, they became more and more sectarian as they became persecuted out of society. They kept to themselves and lived in simple ways upon the land. They earned the nickname "The Quiet in the Land". They worshiped and lived without much interaction or association with the outside world they found to be sinful and corrupt. In the early 20th century, with the advent of World War I leading World War II, the question of patriotism and commitment to a government deeply entrenched in conflict was at the tip of everyone's tongue. Mennonites, who dared not pledge their allegiance to a flag or recite the national anthem, became a scourge in the eyes of the war-driven nation. The draft ripped "The Quiet in the Land" from their homes and coerced them into serving in various capacities. Suddenly, the Mennonites were no longer able to keep quiet and to themselves. Engagement with the violent infant empire became necessary.
Many men returned from their conscripted service changed. They brought back a new perspective, and the Mennonite emphasis on peaceableness no longer remained under the shackles of inaction. Pacifism grew into nonviolent direct action against those who oppress others with the sword. Requisite in this new perspective was a greater interaction with those outside Mennonite circles. Consequently, Mennonites compromised their own distinctive practices in order to become peacemakers. The Vietnam War only exacerbated the issue. As young men faced a draft once more, they came into a head-on collision the possibility of being forced to fight and kill other people in the name of a country attempting to usurp the throne of G-d. The Mennonite's refusal to do this centralized pacifism as Mennonite distinctiveness. To be Mennonite meant pacifism.
The reason Mennonite equaled Christian pacifist did not derive from a holistic Church experience. It derived from men's fear of being drafted. In a way, men have been the sole producers of Mennonite belief. Peacemaking and pacifism came into the forefront from male experience. Peacemaking is not bad, but we have thus far let it override our original ideals. I believe if we look closely, it might even infringe on what women would like to see in the Church. Certainly, many Mennonite women I know affirm peacemaking, but could they in fact have their own experiences to contribute to the discussion that would help us be G-d's people in the world beyond simply peaceable activity? Perhaps, with a reduced patriarchy we could recuperate some of our original distinctiveness, or perhaps, we could claim new practices rooted out of the controversial belief that G-d is sovereign and loving. I do not want the end of peacemaking, but I do want the input of female voices. Up until now, male voices have drowned out all others with a cry for peace. The cost has been a loss of identity and a confusion as to who peace is made for. I believe it is possible for us to become the Mennonites, not of old, but of new without forsaking our roots. Have we forsaken them? Maybe not yet, but soon, they will be all but forgotten. I pray we can once again be the persecuted faithful trying to spread G-d's love in the world. Peace!
Agnus Dei
How G-d rules the world!
10 May 2010
07 May 2010
Why Christian Faith and Patriotism/Nationalism Are Incompatible
One day, my father said to me, "In an age in which we possess pictures of the world from space, we know that actual national borders do not exist. We decided where they are. So I do not see how one group of people has the right to tell another group of people where they can and cannot live based on borders that are imaginary." I think about this a lot. His insight implicated to me the fundamentals of culture and the nation-state. By reflecting on my father's statement, I hope to show that patriotism cannot coexist with resolute Christian faith.
Nation-states are comprised of people. They rely on social contracts. In these contracts, people decide which cultural groups will make up the nation-state. After the borders of the nation-state are drawn, people from within those borders erect a system of rules under which everyone within those borders must abide by. If these rules are not followed, the people who created the system, or their inheritors, will coerce the people to abide by them. This coercion may be a police force or an army. Of course, this means there must be some level of agreement on what must be punished and what must be accepted. People then decide whether on what is allowed. Whatever is decided makes up the code for identifying the nation-state. A nation-state is the laws enforced upon people within certain (imaginary) boundaries.
Who creates these boundaries? A person of meager living with few possessions and little influence will have both little need of creating boundaries and little power to do so. Only those who have much will require the safety net of a nation-state and the security it promises. Not only that, those with substantial means are the only ones viable to provide the resources necessary to build a system of government. Thus, all governments develop by the elite and for the elite. Patriotism becomes the way into maintaining the wealthy and their power.
By convincing people to believe that the legal code within the imaginary boundaries that encapsulate their living space is the most supreme and just legal code, the wealthy elite who created the nation-state grasp the loyalty of all those within the imaginary borders. Hence, those who have little need of the nation-state become its most loyal subjects. Why? Because if they resist the new order, if they say no to the financially powerful, they will be coerced into complicity, for the ones at the top of the heap rely on those at the bottom to give popular support to the nation-state's system of protection. The truth of all this became painfully obvious in the First World War. In it, almost an entire generation of men in Europe died in a massive attempt to maintain the sovereignty of people over the imaginary borders they ruled.
The nation-state serves to protect the interests of those who possess the resources to govern it. Its make-up derives from pretend borders decided by those strong enough to enforce such borders. How then is patriotism incompatible with patriotism or nationalism?
Christianity affirms G-d as the ruler of the entire earth. Moreover, Jesus, the ruler of this earth, suffered a disgraceful death and a triumphant resurrection. This is the good news: G-d presides and no one else. Borders, therefore, have no meaning. G-d's king did not establish national boundaries but obliterated them (Acts 10). Paul understood this quite well, and he became notorious for preaching it unabashedly. If G-d's presiding authority extends beyond imaginary boundaries (since they do not in fact exist upon the earth), those who live under the presidency of Jesus cannot, in good conscience, claim loyalty to something as pretend as nation-state borders. Furthermore, Christians do not believe that Jesus presides over those who have faith in him; Jesus presides over everything whether they like it or not. We all are residents in G-d's nation-state; some just want to believe they belong to a different one. If we begin to affirm this, we will understand a little better Jesus' call to love our enemies. How could we kill another citizen? What needs to begin in Christianity is an abandonment of any type of ethnocentrism and the promulgation of true globalization (see this link http://www.newleftreview.org/A2368). Perhaps then we will finally see what peace, reconciliation, and the healing of the nations (Revelation 22.2) is all about.
Nation-states are comprised of people. They rely on social contracts. In these contracts, people decide which cultural groups will make up the nation-state. After the borders of the nation-state are drawn, people from within those borders erect a system of rules under which everyone within those borders must abide by. If these rules are not followed, the people who created the system, or their inheritors, will coerce the people to abide by them. This coercion may be a police force or an army. Of course, this means there must be some level of agreement on what must be punished and what must be accepted. People then decide whether on what is allowed. Whatever is decided makes up the code for identifying the nation-state. A nation-state is the laws enforced upon people within certain (imaginary) boundaries.
Who creates these boundaries? A person of meager living with few possessions and little influence will have both little need of creating boundaries and little power to do so. Only those who have much will require the safety net of a nation-state and the security it promises. Not only that, those with substantial means are the only ones viable to provide the resources necessary to build a system of government. Thus, all governments develop by the elite and for the elite. Patriotism becomes the way into maintaining the wealthy and their power.
By convincing people to believe that the legal code within the imaginary boundaries that encapsulate their living space is the most supreme and just legal code, the wealthy elite who created the nation-state grasp the loyalty of all those within the imaginary borders. Hence, those who have little need of the nation-state become its most loyal subjects. Why? Because if they resist the new order, if they say no to the financially powerful, they will be coerced into complicity, for the ones at the top of the heap rely on those at the bottom to give popular support to the nation-state's system of protection. The truth of all this became painfully obvious in the First World War. In it, almost an entire generation of men in Europe died in a massive attempt to maintain the sovereignty of people over the imaginary borders they ruled.
The nation-state serves to protect the interests of those who possess the resources to govern it. Its make-up derives from pretend borders decided by those strong enough to enforce such borders. How then is patriotism incompatible with patriotism or nationalism?
Christianity affirms G-d as the ruler of the entire earth. Moreover, Jesus, the ruler of this earth, suffered a disgraceful death and a triumphant resurrection. This is the good news: G-d presides and no one else. Borders, therefore, have no meaning. G-d's king did not establish national boundaries but obliterated them (Acts 10). Paul understood this quite well, and he became notorious for preaching it unabashedly. If G-d's presiding authority extends beyond imaginary boundaries (since they do not in fact exist upon the earth), those who live under the presidency of Jesus cannot, in good conscience, claim loyalty to something as pretend as nation-state borders. Furthermore, Christians do not believe that Jesus presides over those who have faith in him; Jesus presides over everything whether they like it or not. We all are residents in G-d's nation-state; some just want to believe they belong to a different one. If we begin to affirm this, we will understand a little better Jesus' call to love our enemies. How could we kill another citizen? What needs to begin in Christianity is an abandonment of any type of ethnocentrism and the promulgation of true globalization (see this link http://www.newleftreview.org/A2368). Perhaps then we will finally see what peace, reconciliation, and the healing of the nations (Revelation 22.2) is all about.
23 April 2010
Two Part Sermon Series on Revelation: On the Side of the Lamb Part 2
In Part 1, I introduced the central theme of Revelation and gave a little background. The book "reveals" to us the life-changing truth of Jesus; that is, it reorients us toward viewing history from the perspective of the innocent, those slain by the powers that be. Further, it claims that this is G-d's perspective. Revelation accomplishes this task using language from 1st c. apocalyptic literature, the Hebrew Bible, and Greek astrological images. Before I continue, I think it would be prudent to offer you a useful analogy in order to better explain how all these images in the book operate.
For us, the most common form of media comes in movies. I brainstormed which movies best reflect Revelation's story-telling style. There are many candidates: The Matrix, Dawn of the Dead, or the newly released Avatar. However, none seemed quite so fitting as Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. I do not know if you have seen Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, but it is a an incredible movie. The American Film Institute named it the 2nd greatest comedy of all time. Dr. Strangelove is relevant to our discussion in this. The movie portrays the U.S.'s leaders in the midst of the Cold War. They appear to have complete control: a massive war room, B-52's ready to strike with tactical nuclear weapons at a moment's notice, the leading ex-Nazi scientist, and the most advanced technology. As the movie progresses, we see that the Pentagon leaders are completely out of touch, totally irresponsible, and, in the case of the rogue general who orders a nuclear strike on the USSR, entirely insane. We know for good fact that politicians and military leaders are most likely very responsible, sane people; nevertheless, Dr. Strangelove presents them involved in a situation where their activities are crazy. This is identical to the behavior of the leaders in Revelation. We know rightly that the Roman emperors had very good intentions. They wanted to bring prosperity and well-being to the world, yet the cost of their pride in believing they were the ones who could bring peace and tranquility was a massive disparity between the rich and the poor; oppression of people who refused their imperial cult; a massive military which consumed tax dollars, land, and manpower (sound familiar); and a global hegemony not amenable to those who are different.
Thus, in the same way Dr. Strangelove presents admirable leaders as completely insane, Revelation shows them to us as beasts: hideous and evil. It should be of no surprise to us, then, to see the same logic working in reverse. If the "practical", "good" leaders are monstrous beasts because of their involvement with such an insane system, then the actual leaders, the ones who rule with justice and without compromise must do so in a manner entirely opposite to the beast. Therefore, the one who is worthy to rule is not a destructive predator but an innocent, slaughtered Lamb. It is to this Lamb I now turn.
The chapter of Revelation we read today, ch. 5, is our introduction to the Lamb. Structurally, this chapter is incredibly important as it follows ch. 4 which is our introduction to the one who sits on the throne. In ch. 4, we find G-d sitting on the throne of heaven surrounded by 24 other thrones and the 4 living creatures. G-d reigns supreme in this heavenly court. The chapter describes a normal scene of political power. Just like today, with the president constantly guarded by secret service agents and surrounded by advisers and cabinet members, the Roman emperor hosted entourages of people. Similarly, G-d in G-d's throne room has an entourage. This entourage is fully subservient to G-d and G-d alone. Those subservient to G-d are significant in their number and symbolic representation. The 24 elders signify the 12 tribes of Israel plus the 12 apostles. The four living creatures signify all of creation. Four was a number representing the earth; thus the four living creatures represent the earth and everything on it. They are a lion, considered the greatest wild animal; the ox, considered the greatest domestic animal; a human, considered the greatest living thing; and the eagle, considered the greatest living bird. G-d is established here as the only one worthy of praise from both the people of G-d and all creation. This praise is rooted in G-d's separate or holy nature (v. 8), G-d's eternalness (v. 10), and G-d's creation activity (v. 11). Furthermore, John joins in the respect paid to G-d by not describing the one on the throne; rather, John tells only what the one on the throne is like: jasper and carnelian with an emerald rainbow around the throne. In ch. 4 we can only know G-d by what John describes as occurring around G-d. Lightning, thunder, and seven flaming torches which are the seven spirits of G-d surround and emanate from the throne. Thunder and lightning conjure many Hebrew Bible texts in our minds, especially Sinai and the receiving of Torah. Seven is a number which always means wholeness or completion. That there are seven spirits of G-d implies the fullness of G-d's spirit(s). All these things are important as they will resurface again in ch. 5. Ch. 4 ends with the 24 elders claiming G-d's worthiness to receive "glory, honor, and power" (v. 11) since G-d created all things. Keep this last part in mind as we proceed to ch. 5.
When ch. 5 begins, we are still in G-d's throne room. Held out in G-d's hand is a "scroll". The word for "scroll" here is biblios, the same word from which we derive Bible. It means "book". The common translation "scroll" is misleading. Held by the one on the throne in this scene is a fan-folded book. These books commonly held imperial decrees. The way in which they were folded made it possible to read only part of it by breaking one seal. Again, seven seals implies completeness or wholeness. This decree from G-d is the completeness of G-d's decrees or G-d's rule in the world.
Now, pay close attention to the language, a mighty booming angel asks who is worthy to open the book. "Worthiness" does not have to do with moral worth but with social prestige. For example, if the emperor handed out an imperial decree, an ordinary Joe-schmoe on the street would not be the one to read it, and certainly, only someone of high government status would be able to execute the decrees. Hence, when no one is worthy to open the book, John cries. G-d's kingdom decrees, it appears, will go unrealized. This is a full frontal assault on imperial Rome and emperor. Even though Caesar rules the whole "world" not even he is worthy to execute the plans of G-d by breaking the seals. Nor is a mighty angel worthy, so who is?
V. 5 answers the question. Caesar is not worthy to open the book, but the king of Israel, the Lion of Judah, the Root of David, is worthy. This worthiness derives from the Lion's conquering. The whole verse is odd though. The elder explains that David's Root has conquered, but who, how, when, and where this conquering happened is unanswered. Thus, we only know why: to open the book. The word "conquer" is the quintessential activity of the Lamb in Revelation. Since our introduction to the Lamb's conquest is left open-ended, we cannot take this to mean violent takeover. By implication, the conquering done late by the Lamb over the beasts must be read in light of the symbolic conquest mentioned here with no direct object.
Revelation 5.5-6 should stand out in our minds as two of the most important verses in the entire Bible. We cannot overstate the power of these verses. Moreover, their magnitude lies in the questions they create, questions whose answers are both obvious and striking.
First, we must ask, where did this Lamb come from? In v. 4, John is crying because no one and nothing in heaven, on earth, and under the earth could be found. Suddenly, this Lamb appears among the elders and living creatures. In ch. 4, John spent calculated efforts toward describing the throne room of G-d. No Lamb was there. Ch. 4 established G-d as ruler of all creation, yet nothing in G-d's creation was worthy to open the seal. Where did this Lamb come from? V. 13 gives us an idea: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" The one on the throne, G-d, and the Lamb, Jesus, are worshiped in the same breath with the same words used to worship G-d in ch. 4. Where did the Lamb come from? G-d. However, unlike creation which also came from G-d, the Lamb receives the same treatment as G-d. By implication, Revelation shows us how early on Christians considered Jesus to be divine.
Second, why did the elder lie to John? In v. 5, the elder has John (and us) anticipating either a lion or a king. Neither would be surprising since there already was a lion and lots of royal-type people sitting on thrones in ch. 4. Lions are vicious predators and David was an extremely violent king; to add onto this, the elder says the one coming to open the seals "conquered". The dramatic effect, the intense juxtaposition should not be lost. When we most expect a conquering, predatory warrior, we see, instead, a Lamb standing as though it has been slaughtered. This is the Messiah's grand entrance! This is how the one worthy to open the seals enters G-d's throne room: in a humiliated, defeated form. The Lamb appearing where, according to even the people surrounding G-d day and night, a lion or king should be must absolutely blow us away. It should make us double-take every time. Here Jesus is revealed. Moreover, Jesus reorients. No longer should we look at G-d's decrees from the perspective of those who conquer like lions and kings. Instead, we should be palpably realigned onto the side of those who stand before G-d as though slaughtered.
The following phrase locates the sevenfold spirit of G-d lodged within the Lamb reflecting a very early Trinitarianism. The final verses contain the elders, the living creatures, and countless angels praising the Lamb climaxing with all creation praising both the Lamb and the one on the throne. Yes, all creation, Revelation anticipates, will one day worship G-d. What a joy it is to have a head start!
Now, we move to the question of what this teaches us. First, the powerful and mighty are unworthy to execute G-d's decrees. Instead, G-d's commands are realized in the hands of a dead, baby sheep who lives. This means that we cannot hope for the deliverance of those who suffer to come at the hands of the powerful. The salvation of humanity is packaged, not in good legislation and practical, rational leaders, but in the communities who choose to follow the Lamb as it carries out G-d's kingdom edicts. Following the Lamb necessitates self-sacrifice, for this is the way the Lamb reigns and conquers evil. Since v. 10 states we are to reign on earth with the Lamb, we can only assume that being slaughtered as means of conquering makes sense for us as well as the Lamb.
Finally, I would like to draw us back to my original analogy. Dr. Strangelove ends with (spoiler alert) nuclear disaster. The whole world is destroyed. This is the logic of the beasts: death. Revelation commits us to a hope. When G-d rules through the self-sacrificial love of the Lamb, the beasts cannot win. The oppressed will cry out for justice and they shall be vindicated. The very nature of those who wish to rule in a way different from the Lamb, in a way which kills the Lamb, whether they be fascist, democratic, or monarchic, is the logic of the beasts: death. The power of the Lamb delivers life. So Revelation does not end in nuclear holocaust. Instead it ends with new heaven and new earth. In the end, G-d's kingdom brings life.
For us, the most common form of media comes in movies. I brainstormed which movies best reflect Revelation's story-telling style. There are many candidates: The Matrix, Dawn of the Dead, or the newly released Avatar. However, none seemed quite so fitting as Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. I do not know if you have seen Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, but it is a an incredible movie. The American Film Institute named it the 2nd greatest comedy of all time. Dr. Strangelove is relevant to our discussion in this. The movie portrays the U.S.'s leaders in the midst of the Cold War. They appear to have complete control: a massive war room, B-52's ready to strike with tactical nuclear weapons at a moment's notice, the leading ex-Nazi scientist, and the most advanced technology. As the movie progresses, we see that the Pentagon leaders are completely out of touch, totally irresponsible, and, in the case of the rogue general who orders a nuclear strike on the USSR, entirely insane. We know for good fact that politicians and military leaders are most likely very responsible, sane people; nevertheless, Dr. Strangelove presents them involved in a situation where their activities are crazy. This is identical to the behavior of the leaders in Revelation. We know rightly that the Roman emperors had very good intentions. They wanted to bring prosperity and well-being to the world, yet the cost of their pride in believing they were the ones who could bring peace and tranquility was a massive disparity between the rich and the poor; oppression of people who refused their imperial cult; a massive military which consumed tax dollars, land, and manpower (sound familiar); and a global hegemony not amenable to those who are different.
Thus, in the same way Dr. Strangelove presents admirable leaders as completely insane, Revelation shows them to us as beasts: hideous and evil. It should be of no surprise to us, then, to see the same logic working in reverse. If the "practical", "good" leaders are monstrous beasts because of their involvement with such an insane system, then the actual leaders, the ones who rule with justice and without compromise must do so in a manner entirely opposite to the beast. Therefore, the one who is worthy to rule is not a destructive predator but an innocent, slaughtered Lamb. It is to this Lamb I now turn.
The chapter of Revelation we read today, ch. 5, is our introduction to the Lamb. Structurally, this chapter is incredibly important as it follows ch. 4 which is our introduction to the one who sits on the throne. In ch. 4, we find G-d sitting on the throne of heaven surrounded by 24 other thrones and the 4 living creatures. G-d reigns supreme in this heavenly court. The chapter describes a normal scene of political power. Just like today, with the president constantly guarded by secret service agents and surrounded by advisers and cabinet members, the Roman emperor hosted entourages of people. Similarly, G-d in G-d's throne room has an entourage. This entourage is fully subservient to G-d and G-d alone. Those subservient to G-d are significant in their number and symbolic representation. The 24 elders signify the 12 tribes of Israel plus the 12 apostles. The four living creatures signify all of creation. Four was a number representing the earth; thus the four living creatures represent the earth and everything on it. They are a lion, considered the greatest wild animal; the ox, considered the greatest domestic animal; a human, considered the greatest living thing; and the eagle, considered the greatest living bird. G-d is established here as the only one worthy of praise from both the people of G-d and all creation. This praise is rooted in G-d's separate or holy nature (v. 8), G-d's eternalness (v. 10), and G-d's creation activity (v. 11). Furthermore, John joins in the respect paid to G-d by not describing the one on the throne; rather, John tells only what the one on the throne is like: jasper and carnelian with an emerald rainbow around the throne. In ch. 4 we can only know G-d by what John describes as occurring around G-d. Lightning, thunder, and seven flaming torches which are the seven spirits of G-d surround and emanate from the throne. Thunder and lightning conjure many Hebrew Bible texts in our minds, especially Sinai and the receiving of Torah. Seven is a number which always means wholeness or completion. That there are seven spirits of G-d implies the fullness of G-d's spirit(s). All these things are important as they will resurface again in ch. 5. Ch. 4 ends with the 24 elders claiming G-d's worthiness to receive "glory, honor, and power" (v. 11) since G-d created all things. Keep this last part in mind as we proceed to ch. 5.
When ch. 5 begins, we are still in G-d's throne room. Held out in G-d's hand is a "scroll". The word for "scroll" here is biblios, the same word from which we derive Bible. It means "book". The common translation "scroll" is misleading. Held by the one on the throne in this scene is a fan-folded book. These books commonly held imperial decrees. The way in which they were folded made it possible to read only part of it by breaking one seal. Again, seven seals implies completeness or wholeness. This decree from G-d is the completeness of G-d's decrees or G-d's rule in the world.
Now, pay close attention to the language, a mighty booming angel asks who is worthy to open the book. "Worthiness" does not have to do with moral worth but with social prestige. For example, if the emperor handed out an imperial decree, an ordinary Joe-schmoe on the street would not be the one to read it, and certainly, only someone of high government status would be able to execute the decrees. Hence, when no one is worthy to open the book, John cries. G-d's kingdom decrees, it appears, will go unrealized. This is a full frontal assault on imperial Rome and emperor. Even though Caesar rules the whole "world" not even he is worthy to execute the plans of G-d by breaking the seals. Nor is a mighty angel worthy, so who is?
V. 5 answers the question. Caesar is not worthy to open the book, but the king of Israel, the Lion of Judah, the Root of David, is worthy. This worthiness derives from the Lion's conquering. The whole verse is odd though. The elder explains that David's Root has conquered, but who, how, when, and where this conquering happened is unanswered. Thus, we only know why: to open the book. The word "conquer" is the quintessential activity of the Lamb in Revelation. Since our introduction to the Lamb's conquest is left open-ended, we cannot take this to mean violent takeover. By implication, the conquering done late by the Lamb over the beasts must be read in light of the symbolic conquest mentioned here with no direct object.
Revelation 5.5-6 should stand out in our minds as two of the most important verses in the entire Bible. We cannot overstate the power of these verses. Moreover, their magnitude lies in the questions they create, questions whose answers are both obvious and striking.
First, we must ask, where did this Lamb come from? In v. 4, John is crying because no one and nothing in heaven, on earth, and under the earth could be found. Suddenly, this Lamb appears among the elders and living creatures. In ch. 4, John spent calculated efforts toward describing the throne room of G-d. No Lamb was there. Ch. 4 established G-d as ruler of all creation, yet nothing in G-d's creation was worthy to open the seal. Where did this Lamb come from? V. 13 gives us an idea: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" The one on the throne, G-d, and the Lamb, Jesus, are worshiped in the same breath with the same words used to worship G-d in ch. 4. Where did the Lamb come from? G-d. However, unlike creation which also came from G-d, the Lamb receives the same treatment as G-d. By implication, Revelation shows us how early on Christians considered Jesus to be divine.
Second, why did the elder lie to John? In v. 5, the elder has John (and us) anticipating either a lion or a king. Neither would be surprising since there already was a lion and lots of royal-type people sitting on thrones in ch. 4. Lions are vicious predators and David was an extremely violent king; to add onto this, the elder says the one coming to open the seals "conquered". The dramatic effect, the intense juxtaposition should not be lost. When we most expect a conquering, predatory warrior, we see, instead, a Lamb standing as though it has been slaughtered. This is the Messiah's grand entrance! This is how the one worthy to open the seals enters G-d's throne room: in a humiliated, defeated form. The Lamb appearing where, according to even the people surrounding G-d day and night, a lion or king should be must absolutely blow us away. It should make us double-take every time. Here Jesus is revealed. Moreover, Jesus reorients. No longer should we look at G-d's decrees from the perspective of those who conquer like lions and kings. Instead, we should be palpably realigned onto the side of those who stand before G-d as though slaughtered.
The following phrase locates the sevenfold spirit of G-d lodged within the Lamb reflecting a very early Trinitarianism. The final verses contain the elders, the living creatures, and countless angels praising the Lamb climaxing with all creation praising both the Lamb and the one on the throne. Yes, all creation, Revelation anticipates, will one day worship G-d. What a joy it is to have a head start!
Now, we move to the question of what this teaches us. First, the powerful and mighty are unworthy to execute G-d's decrees. Instead, G-d's commands are realized in the hands of a dead, baby sheep who lives. This means that we cannot hope for the deliverance of those who suffer to come at the hands of the powerful. The salvation of humanity is packaged, not in good legislation and practical, rational leaders, but in the communities who choose to follow the Lamb as it carries out G-d's kingdom edicts. Following the Lamb necessitates self-sacrifice, for this is the way the Lamb reigns and conquers evil. Since v. 10 states we are to reign on earth with the Lamb, we can only assume that being slaughtered as means of conquering makes sense for us as well as the Lamb.
Finally, I would like to draw us back to my original analogy. Dr. Strangelove ends with (spoiler alert) nuclear disaster. The whole world is destroyed. This is the logic of the beasts: death. Revelation commits us to a hope. When G-d rules through the self-sacrificial love of the Lamb, the beasts cannot win. The oppressed will cry out for justice and they shall be vindicated. The very nature of those who wish to rule in a way different from the Lamb, in a way which kills the Lamb, whether they be fascist, democratic, or monarchic, is the logic of the beasts: death. The power of the Lamb delivers life. So Revelation does not end in nuclear holocaust. Instead it ends with new heaven and new earth. In the end, G-d's kingdom brings life.
22 April 2010
Two Part Sermon Series on Revelation: On the Side of the Lamb Part 1
The Book of Revelation is an unwillingness to compromise. To a society whose highest value is supposedly everything in moderation and bi-partisan, centrist politics, Revelation can be abrasive, for it presents to us a dissatisfied G-d and a Messiah who refuses to partake in the death-dealing prosperity of global empire. Instead of locating themselves with moderate footholds to reach the greatest audience, we find G-d and G-d's Messiah overcoming systems of oppression and domination from the outside in. This is why the interpretation of Revelation has been so incredibly messy.
Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the most well known theologian of all time, believed that the "1000 years" so famous in Revelation began with Jesus' resurrection; therefore, the entire medieval European community shook in trepidation at the advent of year 1000 as they waited for Satan to be set free. Obviously, there was a sigh of relief when nothing happened. Martin Luther admitted openly that he had no idea what Revelation was really trying to say, and hence, in whatever way anyone interpreted it was fine by him. Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and Hal Lindsey, on the populist level, convinced millions of people worldwide what the end time would look like with claims that we in fact live in them, defending themselves with the end times "script" of Revelation. The book has contributed to endless speculation.
Catholics identified Luther as the beast; Lutherans said the beast was the Pope. Hitler, Stalin, and nearly every president by one group or another has been labeled "the beast". While I may not wholly disagree with these estimations, for anyone to conscript the imagery of Revelation into a module for identifying who specifically John had in mind when he prophesied about the beast or the number 666 is to misunderstand the nature of the prophetic and to deny Revelation's relevance to all Christians who came before us. Folks, we will never be able to say with 100% certainty who exactly "the beast" is. In doing so, we make ourselves into an elite group of people who have the privilege of being the ones John had in mind when he wrote Revelation. If, then, we cannot identify all the symbols in Revelation on a 1-to-1 equivalency basis, how do we read Revelation? How can we 21st century, middle-class, European-Americans (I preached this sermon to Evergreen Mennonite Church who are predominantly this demographic) make sense out of such a mysterious writing?
Basic Facts
When I say "apocalypse", we all have some common ideas in mind: the "world" has ended insofar as the structures, systems, governments, and human organizations that drive the gears of production and consumption are gone. Apocalypse, however, is actually the Greek title of this book, and it means "to unveil" or "to reveal". Ironically, Revelation has a tendency to obscure or to make things blurry. I hope by the end of this sermon its message is a little more lucid.
Many people call this book "The Revelation of John", but quite clearly, it is nothing of the sort. V. 1 states right off this is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ". It is only fitting then that the main character is the Lamb who was slain. Jesus shown as a Lamb has a vast array of symbolic background; it is the dominant image for G-d's Messiah in Revelation; and it is my favorite image of Jesus.
Though this is the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, the book's author is none other than a man named John. Many people claim this "John" is John brother of James, cohort of Peter, author of John the Gospel and 1, 2, 3 John, and one of the 12, but this is most likely not true. The amount of expertise needed, particularly in the field of astronomy and astrology is hardly expected of a peasant fisherman like John son of Zebedee. Moreover, just like it is today, John was an incredibly popular name. Thus, we know very little about this John, but we do know a few things for sure. John wrote from a tiny island off the coast of modern-day Turkey called Patmos. Most likely, he was exiled there. He was a Jewish Christian. One of the oddities about Revelation is that it never explicitly quotes the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, there are more allusions to the Hebrew Bible in Revelation that in any other book of the New Testament. As a result, much of the imagery that would create and evoke powerful emotions is lost since none of us possess a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures like 1st c. Jewish Christians did. The other unique feature of Revelation is that it does not use the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This is totally bizarre since that was the standard translation of the day. Instead, the author appears to work out of a Hebrew translation. Every other New Testament book quotes the Greek, but Revelation only alludes to the Hebrew. It is said that John "spoke Bible". He was steeped so profusely in the Hebrew scriptures that it was impossible for him to avoid this level of allusions. It was in his blood.
Beyond being a Jewish Christian, John is also an astral prophet. 1st c. people firmly believed that events in the sky affected events on the earth. They believed stars were people and planets were gods. Even Christians believed this. John was a person whose vocation was to observe the sky and use it to understand past, present, and forthcoming events. As a prophet, the proclamation of the interpretation of these events was a service to the congregations. Unfortunately, he was exiled to Patmos. His statement that this vision came to him on the Lord's day (1.10), that is the day of worship, implicates that John's writing was his fulfillment of his prophetic vocation from afar. Since he would naturally speak all these things to the congregations if he was present with them, we can only assume that this book was intended to be read aloud to the congregations. Revelation was written to be read in large segments aloud to congregations of people. The intensity of its message is only amplified by this style of reading.
Social Setting
More than just being acquainted with John, we need to have a brief but solid conception of John's social world. The province of Asia Minor where the original churches who received Revelation resided was a critical and prosperous portion of the Roman Empire. Technologically advanced, the cities in Asia Minor hosted medical schools, ship ports, textile industry, and incredible construction projects including one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the temple of Artemis/Diana in Ephesus. What is more, Asia Minor was notorious for the promulgation of the imperial cult. Most emperors did not demand to be worshiped as gods, but the people of Asia Minor praised them as such. The first temple to Emperor Augustus was built in Asia Minor, and the coins circulated there showed how the Roman emperors were considered divine.
John reads and interprets the Roman Empire from the perspective of the Lamb who was slain. Revelation's lens through which it interprets history is from under the blood of the innocent. That the empire who claimed to bring peace to the whole world crucified the G-d of the universe as a Galilean itinerant preacher and miracle-worker scandalized John, and revealed to him the true nature of empire. When Jesus rose again, he conquered the death-dealing, dehumanizing powers of the empire. This is the revealed Jesus, the apocalypsed Jesus. The revealed Jesus unveiled the empire's crime: legalized murder. The revealed Jesus realigns perspective. The slaughtered Lamb forces us to lose the viewpoint of the imperial, idolatrous systems of domination because systems like these are compromise. Peace at the cost of killing G-d is no peace at all. The Pax Romana is fraudulent; G-d alone can bring peace; and peace can only come through self-sacrificial love.
With all this in mind, John's vision becomes clearer. The Roman empire becomes four warring horsemen destroying peasant people with violence and pestilence. The emperors transform into beasts from the sea, and behind it all, evil itself, the fundamental enemy of G-d, drives the gears that make the imperial engine go.
What Does It Mean?
How then should we read? Turning this book into an apocalyptic timeline risks paralyzing its explosiveness. It will serve not as a manifesto for subverting the empire through self-sacrifice, but as an excuse to be complicit with the death-dealing powers of the empire since G-d will win in the end anyway. The opposite problem of reading Revelation as a historical timeline that had cultural relevance then but not now also arrests the shattering effects of John's vision. The book calls us to convert from being on top and repent of oppression. It calls us to reorient ourselves onto the side of the Lamb that was slain with the positive belief that victory over the death-dealing powers can only come through such an orientation. John puts us face-to-face with a G-d who does not share the throne, and when powerful people rise to a status in which they claim they are sovereign, only one thing can result: the death of the innocent. Such immoral behavior in the name of progress, peace, and hope receives no toleration from G-d who locks up the beasts that possess the audacity to act with such hubris. Meanwhile, we, the people of G-d are called to rescind our participation in this fraudulent peace. Instead, G-d calls us to come and be a part of a different kingdom, a kingdom ruled by the Lamb where no more tears, sorrow, and yes, even death exist.
Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the most well known theologian of all time, believed that the "1000 years" so famous in Revelation began with Jesus' resurrection; therefore, the entire medieval European community shook in trepidation at the advent of year 1000 as they waited for Satan to be set free. Obviously, there was a sigh of relief when nothing happened. Martin Luther admitted openly that he had no idea what Revelation was really trying to say, and hence, in whatever way anyone interpreted it was fine by him. Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and Hal Lindsey, on the populist level, convinced millions of people worldwide what the end time would look like with claims that we in fact live in them, defending themselves with the end times "script" of Revelation. The book has contributed to endless speculation.
Catholics identified Luther as the beast; Lutherans said the beast was the Pope. Hitler, Stalin, and nearly every president by one group or another has been labeled "the beast". While I may not wholly disagree with these estimations, for anyone to conscript the imagery of Revelation into a module for identifying who specifically John had in mind when he prophesied about the beast or the number 666 is to misunderstand the nature of the prophetic and to deny Revelation's relevance to all Christians who came before us. Folks, we will never be able to say with 100% certainty who exactly "the beast" is. In doing so, we make ourselves into an elite group of people who have the privilege of being the ones John had in mind when he wrote Revelation. If, then, we cannot identify all the symbols in Revelation on a 1-to-1 equivalency basis, how do we read Revelation? How can we 21st century, middle-class, European-Americans (I preached this sermon to Evergreen Mennonite Church who are predominantly this demographic) make sense out of such a mysterious writing?
Basic Facts
When I say "apocalypse", we all have some common ideas in mind: the "world" has ended insofar as the structures, systems, governments, and human organizations that drive the gears of production and consumption are gone. Apocalypse, however, is actually the Greek title of this book, and it means "to unveil" or "to reveal". Ironically, Revelation has a tendency to obscure or to make things blurry. I hope by the end of this sermon its message is a little more lucid.
Many people call this book "The Revelation of John", but quite clearly, it is nothing of the sort. V. 1 states right off this is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ". It is only fitting then that the main character is the Lamb who was slain. Jesus shown as a Lamb has a vast array of symbolic background; it is the dominant image for G-d's Messiah in Revelation; and it is my favorite image of Jesus.
Though this is the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, the book's author is none other than a man named John. Many people claim this "John" is John brother of James, cohort of Peter, author of John the Gospel and 1, 2, 3 John, and one of the 12, but this is most likely not true. The amount of expertise needed, particularly in the field of astronomy and astrology is hardly expected of a peasant fisherman like John son of Zebedee. Moreover, just like it is today, John was an incredibly popular name. Thus, we know very little about this John, but we do know a few things for sure. John wrote from a tiny island off the coast of modern-day Turkey called Patmos. Most likely, he was exiled there. He was a Jewish Christian. One of the oddities about Revelation is that it never explicitly quotes the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, there are more allusions to the Hebrew Bible in Revelation that in any other book of the New Testament. As a result, much of the imagery that would create and evoke powerful emotions is lost since none of us possess a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures like 1st c. Jewish Christians did. The other unique feature of Revelation is that it does not use the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This is totally bizarre since that was the standard translation of the day. Instead, the author appears to work out of a Hebrew translation. Every other New Testament book quotes the Greek, but Revelation only alludes to the Hebrew. It is said that John "spoke Bible". He was steeped so profusely in the Hebrew scriptures that it was impossible for him to avoid this level of allusions. It was in his blood.
Beyond being a Jewish Christian, John is also an astral prophet. 1st c. people firmly believed that events in the sky affected events on the earth. They believed stars were people and planets were gods. Even Christians believed this. John was a person whose vocation was to observe the sky and use it to understand past, present, and forthcoming events. As a prophet, the proclamation of the interpretation of these events was a service to the congregations. Unfortunately, he was exiled to Patmos. His statement that this vision came to him on the Lord's day (1.10), that is the day of worship, implicates that John's writing was his fulfillment of his prophetic vocation from afar. Since he would naturally speak all these things to the congregations if he was present with them, we can only assume that this book was intended to be read aloud to the congregations. Revelation was written to be read in large segments aloud to congregations of people. The intensity of its message is only amplified by this style of reading.
Social Setting
More than just being acquainted with John, we need to have a brief but solid conception of John's social world. The province of Asia Minor where the original churches who received Revelation resided was a critical and prosperous portion of the Roman Empire. Technologically advanced, the cities in Asia Minor hosted medical schools, ship ports, textile industry, and incredible construction projects including one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the temple of Artemis/Diana in Ephesus. What is more, Asia Minor was notorious for the promulgation of the imperial cult. Most emperors did not demand to be worshiped as gods, but the people of Asia Minor praised them as such. The first temple to Emperor Augustus was built in Asia Minor, and the coins circulated there showed how the Roman emperors were considered divine.
John reads and interprets the Roman Empire from the perspective of the Lamb who was slain. Revelation's lens through which it interprets history is from under the blood of the innocent. That the empire who claimed to bring peace to the whole world crucified the G-d of the universe as a Galilean itinerant preacher and miracle-worker scandalized John, and revealed to him the true nature of empire. When Jesus rose again, he conquered the death-dealing, dehumanizing powers of the empire. This is the revealed Jesus, the apocalypsed Jesus. The revealed Jesus unveiled the empire's crime: legalized murder. The revealed Jesus realigns perspective. The slaughtered Lamb forces us to lose the viewpoint of the imperial, idolatrous systems of domination because systems like these are compromise. Peace at the cost of killing G-d is no peace at all. The Pax Romana is fraudulent; G-d alone can bring peace; and peace can only come through self-sacrificial love.
With all this in mind, John's vision becomes clearer. The Roman empire becomes four warring horsemen destroying peasant people with violence and pestilence. The emperors transform into beasts from the sea, and behind it all, evil itself, the fundamental enemy of G-d, drives the gears that make the imperial engine go.
What Does It Mean?
How then should we read? Turning this book into an apocalyptic timeline risks paralyzing its explosiveness. It will serve not as a manifesto for subverting the empire through self-sacrifice, but as an excuse to be complicit with the death-dealing powers of the empire since G-d will win in the end anyway. The opposite problem of reading Revelation as a historical timeline that had cultural relevance then but not now also arrests the shattering effects of John's vision. The book calls us to convert from being on top and repent of oppression. It calls us to reorient ourselves onto the side of the Lamb that was slain with the positive belief that victory over the death-dealing powers can only come through such an orientation. John puts us face-to-face with a G-d who does not share the throne, and when powerful people rise to a status in which they claim they are sovereign, only one thing can result: the death of the innocent. Such immoral behavior in the name of progress, peace, and hope receives no toleration from G-d who locks up the beasts that possess the audacity to act with such hubris. Meanwhile, we, the people of G-d are called to rescind our participation in this fraudulent peace. Instead, G-d calls us to come and be a part of a different kingdom, a kingdom ruled by the Lamb where no more tears, sorrow, and yes, even death exist.
14 March 2010
The Issue of Atheism
First, I want to humbly say I have not solved the problem. I only want to make this observation. From where to modern atheists derive morality? If humanity is involved in evolution and a part of evolution is the rise and fall of species, the demise of homo sapiens sapiens at the hands of our own environmental destruction could be perceived as an evolutionary dead end. We evolved the ability to kill ourselves, and we did (or we are). If our species dies because of this, there is nothing wrong with that. We, technically speaking, should die. Still, many evolutionary biologists believe, morally, the destruction of the environment is bad. Why? Where did they get the notion that peoples should decide whether or not they fatally destroy themselves if their self-destruction is evolved? I just want to know. Is our belief to protect ourselves from ourselves a simple survival strategy? If so, why would we evolve the capability to crush ourselves in the first place? I have many questions that no atheists have answered yet. Peace!
13 March 2010
The Problem With the Modern Environmental Movement and Its Brief Moral Implications
The main concept we need to keep in mind when talking about environmentalism is that the planet will survive us, but we might not survive the planet. The problem, then, is not terracide but suicide or, at the least, homicide. No matter how much "damage" we do to the earth, we will only be able to relocate resources and alter geography. What we can do by causing damage is bring about, directly or indirectly, the deaths of thousands, millions, or even billions of people. The modern, essentially pagan, environmental movement, which demands the earth be saved for the earth's sake, puts reverence into nature at the expense of humanity. Their critique, therefore, falls on deaf ears as a common person will never act radically and dangerously to protect plants and animals, but we can surely expect them to take to action in order to protect themselves and others. Peace!
-ben adam
-ben adam
10 March 2010
I Am Going to Colombia
At several moments in my life, G-d calls me in such a clear fashion it becomes impossible for me to avoid. One of these moments happened about a month ago. This is the brief story of that and the results.
A guy I know named Josh has a sister named Kait. Kait went to Azusa Pacific University and majored in Social Work. Following graduation, she moved to Vietnam to take a position with an Australian non-profit called AoG World Relief. Not long ago, she visited Seattle for a little over a week during which time I discussed the details of her work and listened to many stories of her faithful undertaking. In Vietnam, she worked doing general relief efforts while building connections with cohorts in order to begin a ministry for the liberation of women and men involved in sex trafficking. Kait spoke with passion, excitement, and fervor while she exuded the Holy Spirit. Her visit excited me.
More than excitement, I felt challenge. The trouble with people practicing radical righteousness is their tendency to expose others' lack of integrity, particularly mine. I saw in Kait a projection of everything good I wanted to do but was too afraid. What holds me back? Why do I stay in Seattle griping about rich, white people, working at a job I cannot stand, pretending as though one day I will be a respectable, Christian man who is known for his love for the oppressed. Kait's visit exposed my fear. I spent my life hesitating like those who hesitate to worship Jesus in Matthew 28 yet still receive the same command.
Laid before me was my unwillingness to go where I feared. I looked around at those whom I surrounded myself with. I thought about Kevin and Marian Neuhouser specifically. My great respect for them grew out of their experiences working among the poor and oppressed in Brazil. Those times shaped them significantly in an extremely positive way. My reflections revealed my need to partake in work amongst those who live beneath the heavy hand of empire. Still, I feared.
Finally, during the first week of Lent, I prepared a sermon on Jesus' temptation in the desert in Luke. In the sermon (which you can read below), I concluded Lent was a time in which we refuse the temptations that seem to grant us expedient relief or success and do the hard work to rid ourselves of actions that might embody these temptations. What we give up, then, must be given up forever. During the writing of that sermon, I felt the enunciation of Kait's challenge to my hesitant, complacent comfort manifest as G-d's ubiquitous command in the Bible, "Do not be afraid." The command, so clear it was unavoidable, led me to sign up with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT).
From May 12-25 I will be in Colombia working with a delegation on behalf of small artisan miners and small farmers in order to maintain their safety and livelihood in the face of a multinational gold-mining corporation who wants to mine on the 3 million acres of land where these people live. Paramilitary and Colombian military roam the region. Finally, I am stepping out. I am going to go do what I know the L-RD requires of me. Hopefully, this will lead to a full-time, 3-year placement with CPT. I certainly hope it does. In any case, I am stepping out without fear, knowing G-d will be with me. Peace!
-ben adam
A guy I know named Josh has a sister named Kait. Kait went to Azusa Pacific University and majored in Social Work. Following graduation, she moved to Vietnam to take a position with an Australian non-profit called AoG World Relief. Not long ago, she visited Seattle for a little over a week during which time I discussed the details of her work and listened to many stories of her faithful undertaking. In Vietnam, she worked doing general relief efforts while building connections with cohorts in order to begin a ministry for the liberation of women and men involved in sex trafficking. Kait spoke with passion, excitement, and fervor while she exuded the Holy Spirit. Her visit excited me.
More than excitement, I felt challenge. The trouble with people practicing radical righteousness is their tendency to expose others' lack of integrity, particularly mine. I saw in Kait a projection of everything good I wanted to do but was too afraid. What holds me back? Why do I stay in Seattle griping about rich, white people, working at a job I cannot stand, pretending as though one day I will be a respectable, Christian man who is known for his love for the oppressed. Kait's visit exposed my fear. I spent my life hesitating like those who hesitate to worship Jesus in Matthew 28 yet still receive the same command.
Laid before me was my unwillingness to go where I feared. I looked around at those whom I surrounded myself with. I thought about Kevin and Marian Neuhouser specifically. My great respect for them grew out of their experiences working among the poor and oppressed in Brazil. Those times shaped them significantly in an extremely positive way. My reflections revealed my need to partake in work amongst those who live beneath the heavy hand of empire. Still, I feared.
Finally, during the first week of Lent, I prepared a sermon on Jesus' temptation in the desert in Luke. In the sermon (which you can read below), I concluded Lent was a time in which we refuse the temptations that seem to grant us expedient relief or success and do the hard work to rid ourselves of actions that might embody these temptations. What we give up, then, must be given up forever. During the writing of that sermon, I felt the enunciation of Kait's challenge to my hesitant, complacent comfort manifest as G-d's ubiquitous command in the Bible, "Do not be afraid." The command, so clear it was unavoidable, led me to sign up with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT).
From May 12-25 I will be in Colombia working with a delegation on behalf of small artisan miners and small farmers in order to maintain their safety and livelihood in the face of a multinational gold-mining corporation who wants to mine on the 3 million acres of land where these people live. Paramilitary and Colombian military roam the region. Finally, I am stepping out. I am going to go do what I know the L-RD requires of me. Hopefully, this will lead to a full-time, 3-year placement with CPT. I certainly hope it does. In any case, I am stepping out without fear, knowing G-d will be with me. Peace!
-ben adam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)