Last week the Bush campaign announced that it was asking church members who support the president to send in church membership directories, so that the Bush campaign could use them for soliciting support. This blatant breach of the separation of church and state was criticized even by many Bush supporters, including Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. He said it was wrong "for a partisan campaign to come in and try to organize a church" in favor of a particular candidate. Despite his strong support for the president over the past three and a half years, Land recognizes that if a political party is able to control a church, that church is no longer able to function as a prophetic voice for God. Amos faced a situation in Israel in which the government didn't just try to control the religious establishment, it actually did control it. Amos was an outsider, a native of neighboring Judah, who believed that God had sent him to Israel with a warning message. He saw a vision of God standing before a wall with a plumb line, a device that uses gravity to ensure straightness in building. Once a wall is built, a plumb line can be used to tell if it deviates from the vertical, and if so, by how much. God called Amos to measure the nation of Israel with an ethical plumb line, and God also calls us to measure our nations and our world by the divine standard. In other words, God calls us to be prophets. Amos denied that he was a prophet, because too many who called themselves prophets had sold out to those with political power. If the government succeeds in infiltrating and corrupting the church, turning it into a recruiting ground and cheerleading squad for one particular political party, will we similarly have to stop calling ourselves Christians? While individual Christians may identify more closely with one political party over others, we must not make the mistake of identifying Christianity with that party. In the U.S., the party of Lincoln freed the slaves but also has a record of favoring the rich over the poor, while the party of Jefferson and Jackson took a strong stand in favor of civil rights but has all too often sold its soul to big business and wealthy donors. Both have spent trillions of dollars on the ability to make war and only a pittance on peace. In these dark times, the U.S.--yes, the whole world--needs a boatload of Amoses to stand up and say, "Hear the word of the Lord!"
At first glance, the beginning of Psalm 82 makes little sense, particularly in Hebrew. First, the word elohim, a plural word that can be translated either "God" or "gods" (Hebrew has no capital letters, so only context can dictate the proper translation), is used twice in the first verse, as is the similar singular word el, which can mean either "God" or "god," depending on context. Thus, the first verse reads "elohim has taken his place in the council of el; in the midst of elohim he holds judgment." Assuming that the first elohim refers to the God of Israel and both the second reference and el refer to other gods, a second problem arises: if the Bible teaches monotheism, who are these other gods? The solution to the first problem lies in the fact that Psalm 82 is part of the so-called Elohistic Psalter, a group of psalms (42-83) that was edited in ancient times--before inclusion in the present book of Psalms--to replace most occurrences of the divine name Yahweh with Elohim. Thus, the first verse originally read, "Yahweh has taken his place . . . ." The solution to the second problem is a simple acknowledgement that the Bible is not as consistent as some people might wish with regard to the issue of monotheism, particularly in the earlier parts of the Bible and in poetry. One can argue that the reference to other gods here is poetic license; nevertheless, it is clear that the psalmist is drawing on language that worshipers will understand when he refers to a heavenly council consisting of many divine beings. The statement in verse 6, "I say, 'You are gods,'" probably refers to the divine beings who were thought to be in charge of various nations. Yahweh is accusing them of favoring the wicked over the righteous and failing to support the cause of justice in the world. As a result, Yahweh condemns them to the place of the dead and asserts control over all the nations. If we can get past the non-monotheistic statements of the psalm, we will find two teachings that are as revolutionary today as they were in the psalmist's day. First, God expects rulers, whether divine or human, to give justice to those who are the weakest in society. Second, all nations belong to God. One implication of these claims is that caring for one group of poor while wreaking havoc on another group of poor is not an option. If flying planes into buildings and killing innocents in one country is a sin, so is dropping bombs on innocents in another country. Perhaps that greatest sin of all is when one claims to be committing these atrocities in the name of God. The psalmist has a message for those who flaunt their power in wicked ways: "You have neither knowledge nor understanding, and you shall suffer the fate of all humans."
When I was a pre-teen, the father of one of my church friends decided that he would no longer go to Sunday School, because he had learned all that the teachers had to teach him. I've remembered that incident over the years as I've examined and worked in the adult education programs of various churches. Although I don't agree with his solution to the problem, I think that his analysis of the problem was probably correct: he had learned all that the teachers in that church had to teach him. Typical adult educational curricula in the churches with which I'm most familiar offer lessons on a set number of biblical passages--the Prodigal Son, David and Goliath, Elijah and the Prophets of Baal, etc.--then repeat them after two or three years. Even programs that offer more variety often restrict their audience's exposure to the biblical text and perhaps some classic devotional works of years past. Some publishers of educational material offer much more, and individual churches, or particular adult classes within a church, take advantage of the wealth of potential educational material at their disposal. In verse 10 of today's reading from Colossians, the author prays that his readers "may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God." This verse contains three important goals of every adult education program. First, adults should be taught to lead lives that are worthy of the Lord and fully pleasing to God. In the context, perhaps the emphasis here is a negative one: true disciples will avoid getting caught up in the sins and cares of the world. If so, the second goal in the following phrase is positive. Disciples should bear fruit in every good work. The Christian life is one both of separation and of engagement. A good adult education class will help believers determine those points at which they should separate themselves from their surroundings and the ways in which they should interact fully with others. The final goal is growth in the knowledge of God. There is much that can be learned about God from the Bible; in fact, I would venture to say that the Bible is an almost inexhaustible resource for knowledge of God. However, it is by no means the only resource, and in certain circumstances other material, when used properly, may offer a more penetrating or striking presentation of some divine truth. Contemporary and classic books, both fiction and nonfiction, are potential educational resources, as are movies, TV shows, drama, field trips, and encounters with people of other faiths, just to name a few. Every church should have a quality adult education system, one in which no one can ever truthfully say that he has learned all that the teachers had to teach him.
My neighbor across the street is a really bad guy. Last week I saw him beat up his wife and his son, so I called the police to report him. They responded by sending a helicopter carrying a large fire bomb. They dropped the bomb on his house, killing him, his wife, his son, his next-door neighbors on either side, and sending the neighbors who lived behind him to the emergency room with missing limbs. I guess that will teach him! Of course this story is completely made up, and we know that it is because our police wouldn't respond to a domestic situation in a way that threatened the lives of an entire city block (at least not since the MOVE incident in Philadelphia in 1985). That's not how we deal with our neighbors. However, there are many religious people who have no qualms about dealing with people in other countries in just such a manner. How many wedding parties have we crashed--literally--in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past year or two? How many innocent civilians have died? How many children have been killed or maimed? Why is a child killed in America a tragedy, while one killed in Iraq is just "collateral damage"? The lawyer in today's reading wanted Jesus to clarify for him just who his neighbors were, perhaps so that he could feel better about ignoring the plight of others who were not his neighbors. Jesus, however, turned his question around. The issue is not who your neighbor is, Jesus said. The issue is being a neighbor to everyone you meet. When we view an Iraqi child as our neighbor, we won't drop a bomb anywhere near her home or school--in fact, we probably won't drop any bombs on her country. When we view a village of Ugandans suffering from AIDS as our neighbors, we'll find a way to get medicine to them, regardless of the cost or the loss of profits to large international conglomerates. When we view a Haitian peasant as our neighbor, we'll ensure that his children can attend school in peace. When we view a homeless man on the streets of New York as our neighbor, we'll do our best to meet his medical needs and find him housing and employment. The world is full of people waiting for us to be their neighbors. Are we ready?