A man walked into a bar (a coffee bar, if you're a teetotaler) late one Saturday afternoon and sat down on one end. The crowd hadn't arrived yet, so it was just the man, the bartender, and another gentleman who was sitting on the opposite end of the bar. On the big-screen TV was a college football game, where Ohio State was soundly thrashing Notre Dame. "Good!" the man said. "I hate Notre Dame! Always have, always will!" "I'd keep my voice down, if I were you," said the bartender. "Father Mike down there went to Notre Dame, and he's about the biggest Notre Dame fan I've ever seen." The first man glanced at Father Mike, who had a hang-dog expression on his face. He just couldn't resist getting in a barb or two. "Hey, Father Mike!" he said, smiling. "Notre Dame really took a beating today. I've seen lots of pathetic Notre Dame teams, but I don't think I've ever seen one that was this bad!" "I thought I told you to keep it down!" said the bartender in a frantic voice. "Didn't I tell you that Father Mike is Notre Dame's biggest fan?!" "What's the big deal?" the man asked. "What's a priest going to do, not pray for my soul?" About that time Father Mike stood up and began walking slowly down to the other end of the bar. He was enormous, six foot eight inches tall, weighing at least 350 pounds. "When I said Father Mike was their biggest fan, I didn't mean the most enthusiastic," said the bartender. "Allow me to introduce Father Mike. He's a professional wrestler." The moral of this story is, it's always a good idea to know your audience. Haman was a Persian royal official who suffered from a bad case of egotism. He wanted praise from the king, and he was jealous of anyone else who superseded him in the king's esteem. When Mordecai got honor that he thought he should have had, he was determined to get even. He convinced the king to issue a decree condemning the Jews throughout the Persian empire, and he planned to hang Mordecai from a gallows he had constructed especially for that purpose. However, as Robert Burns said centuries later, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley." It turned out that Queen Esther was a Jew as well, and in the king's presence, she accused Haman of plotting against her and her people. As punishment, the king condemned Haman to be hanged on the very gallows that he had built for Mordecai, and he delivered the Jews from their enemies. It's easy for us to condemn Haman, because his egotism is so blatant in the story. Moreover, he's an enemy of God's people (from the perspective of the author), the Jews. Of course he deserves everything he gets! Readers tend to identify with Esther, or perhaps Mordecai, whom God blesses for their faithfulness. All too often, though, a little bit of Haman creeps into us, or rather, creeps out of us. When a coworker badmouths us to the boss, we think of ways to get even. When our son or daughter isn't chosen for the team, or doesn't win the award, we deride the whole process as unfair, and we disparage the coaches or judges. When we're up for a promotion at work, we try to help our case by implying that our chief rival for the position isn't really qualified. In all these ways we put ourselves first, stepping on the bodies we've figuratively piled in front of us on our way to the top. Haman in the story is a caricature, an exaggeration of selfishness, almost a clown, but the egotism within us is very real. We have to be constantly on guard against it, because when we promote ourselves and our own interests at the expense of others, we are incapable of bearing witness to a loving, just, and merciful God.
I am Mesha, son of Chemosh-[. . .], king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab thirty years and I became king after my father. And I made this sanctuary for Chemosh at Qirchah, a sanctuary of salvation; for he saved me from all the kings and let me see my desire upon my adversaries. (Mesha Inscription, 9th century B.C.E.)It has been common practice since the dawn of civilization to attribute military victories to divine intervention. The Moabites had suffered under Israelite occupation for many years, until King Mesha revolted against his overlords, an event reflected from a different perspective in 2 Kings 3. The psalmist in Psalm 124 attributes Israel's victory over its enemies as a sign of more than just God's help: their victory signifies that they are God's special people. What nation hasn't felt this way after victory over their enemies? The allies after World Wars I and II and the western democracies after the Cold War ended in 1989 felt justified in attributing their success to the justness of their cause in the eyes of God. Thanking God after a military victory--or any other kind of success--is the right thing to do, but does victory necessarily imply that the victors are God's chosen people, while the losers are not? Would Americans make that claim after their defeat in Vietnam? More often, of course, the victors are those with more money and military might. Does the British victory in the dispute over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands suggest that God sided with the British? Does the American victory over its opponents in Grenada imply that God was on the American side in the conflict? It is dangerous and theologically invalid to draw such conclusions. In the recent war on Iraq, was God on the side of the Americans and British, who won the war? Yes! But God was also on the side of the Iraqis, who lost. It is a mistake to think that God takes sides in such conflicts. It is tempting to point to a leader who oppresses his people, like Saddam Hussein, and think that God must be against him. But one could with as much justification evaluate George W. Bush and point out his support for a war which killed thousands of innocent civilians as evidence that God must be against him (as, indeed, many Muslims believe). The fact of the matter is that God is opposed to all forms of oppression, whether of one's own people or of the citizens of another country, and God sides with the oppressed of all nations. Look again at Psalm 124. It is important to note that Israel is portrayed as the victim of the enemy's assault, and God came to the rescue of a people that was oppressed. The lesson of this psalm is not that God must have supported the victor in battle (what about the Romans at Masada, or the Chinese in Tibet?), nor that God favors one group of people in every circumstance (for example, Jews or Christians), but that God sides with the oppressed, whether they win or lose, and no matter which side they are on--sometimes both. Whether we are on the winning or the losing side of battle, "our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth."
While on a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean with a cargo of African slaves, John Newton had an encounter with God. The ship was accosted by a fierce storm, and Newton, one of the mates on the ship, a man who had had little use for God in his life, prayed for God's deliverance. The ship was saved, and although Newton continued in the slave trading business for several years, his experience that night at sea began to change his life. After abandoning his life at sea, Newton decided to study for the Anglican ministry, where he came under the influence of the Methodist reformers John Wesley and George Whitefield. Over time, he began to see the evils of slave trading, and he wrote an influential book entitled Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade. He became a strident abolitionist, and he encouraged William Wilberforce to fight the slave trade in the British House of Commons. Wilberforce succeeded in abolishing the slave trade in 1807, and before the end of his life, he saw slavery ended and all slaves liberated throughout the British Empire. The conversion of John Newton, his growing opposition to the slave trade, and his influence on the great abolitionist William Wilberforce, all illustrate the truth of the concluding words of the book of James: "Whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner's soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." John Newton ruined the lives of many Africans during the earlier part of his life, but the touch of God, both through circumstance and through the influence of people like Wesley and Whitefield, not only converted John Newton but also saved countless others from lives of slavery. The "multitude of sins" that conversion covers are not limited to those of the individual sinner who repents. Who knows what positive effect that person may have on the lives of others? When we see a brother or sister living a life of sin, if we think that they're only hurting themselves, we're not seeing the big picture. Someone's personal sins all too often affect others as well. Furthermore, a person who has been through a conversion experience can exert a positive influence on others that can counteract the effects of his or her previous sins. Conversion is not only an individual exercise, it also has a corporate aspect. James also urges his hearers, "Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed." Gustavo Gutierrez calls for Christians to recognize the structural sins in which they are involved--such as repression of the poor--and repent as a group. Finally, conversion is not a one-time experience; it is something that followers of God must do over and over, both individually and corporately. Let us learn to recognize our own sins first, then those of people around us, and let us have the courage necessary to repent and to call for others to do the same. The world today is in desperate need of conversion.
The prevailing theme of many of the speeches delivered to the United Nations' General Assembly this week was multilateralism vs. unilateralism. The presidents of Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, and other countries, as well as U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, all put forward a vision of a world in which all countries work together as equals to resolve global conflicts and improve the conditions of the poor. In particular, these leaders stressed the need for a multilateral approach to the problem of terrorism, involving not only a military response but a strategy that involves social and economic development as well. The president of the United States presented a view of the world that was more unilateral. He listed various initiatives in which the U.S. is involved, including the continued occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, and he invited other nations to join the U.S. in its efforts. Missing from the speech was an acknowledgement that most nations in the world opposed military action against Iraq, nor was there any hint that the U.S. is ready to bow to the collected wisdom of other nations on any matter of international importance. As the president has stated earlier, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." This "us and them" dichotomy is a constant theme running through much of human history. Jesus encountered it on a smaller scale in the incident described in today's reading from the Gospel of Mark. The disciples observed someone trying to do good things in Jesus' name, and they tried to stop him because he didn't have the right credentials. "Don't try to stop him," Jesus told them. "Whoever is not against us is for us." Jesus didn't insist that everyone who did good works in his name also leave everything behind to become a disciple. Perhaps the individual in question had heard Jesus speak before, or maybe he had witnessed the manifestation of God's power through Jesus. He was apparently "casting out demons" in Jesus' name not for his own glory but for the benefit of those who were afflicted. Many in today's world are afflicted medically, economically, or politically. The solution to their problems that may seem obvious to me may not be the solution that you would recommend. The two of us can spend time arguing over which solution is better, or we can work together to meet their needs. But it's not enough for those who are on the outside to come up with ways to meet the needs of the world's afflicted and underprivileged. To the greatest extent possible, we must involve the needy in the decision-making process concerning the solution to their problems. Rather than tell the poor in Latin America that we've figured out ways to improve their socioeconomic conditions, we need to sit down with them to arrive at a solution that fits their needs and desires. Instead of telling African nations that we know how to solve the AIDS pandemic that is afflicting so many of their citizens, we first need to listen to their ideas for how to combat this scourge. Rather than dictate from the outside the political solutions to the problems in the Middle East or in South Asia, we need to listen to those who know more than we do, and follow their lead. The vast majority of the six billion people on this planet are people of good will, people who want to live peaceful, free, dignified lives. They are intelligent, thoughtful people, regardless of their levels of education. They are compassionate, loving people who harbor no innate hatred of their neighbors, though their common history may indeed make them suspect their neighbors' intentions. It is with these people that we need to work to make the world a better place for all, especially those who are the closest to the bottom on the economic ladder. In this way we can demonstrate our commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.