Saturday Night Theologian
13 November 2005

Judges 4:1-7

When Rosa Parks died two weeks ago, she was hailed by all Americans as a courageous leader, and she was called the Mother of the Civil Rights Movement. She even became the first woman to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol. In addition to being a leading figure in the Civil Rights Movement, she was also an important reminder that men, who comprised almost the entire leadership of the movement at the beginning, were not the only ones who could make a valuable contribution to the cause. One of the strongest critiques of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s is that it did little to advance the cause of women at the same time that it was advancing the cause of people of color. Patriarchal and male-dominated societies often give lip service to the contributions of women, but they rarely acknowledge the full extent of that service, nor do they allow women to play as large a role as they might like. Like Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt, Queen Elizabeth I of England, and Catherine the Great of Russia, Deborah was praised by both contemporaries and later generations as an outstanding leader, one who was especially noteworthy because she was a woman. And that's the problem. Israel had exactly one female judge. Egypt had one queen who served as pharaoh. England has had only a handful of queens who were supreme monarchs. Despite the admittedly exemplary service of these women, other women were rarely allowed to take the mantle of executive office. Why not? Tradition in these societies dictated that a man be promoted to places of authority if at all possible, a tradition that was reinforced by many men's desire to retain authority over women. The situation has improved today in many ways, but women have hardly achieved parity with men in many significant areas. In the U.S., men still far outnumber women in the House of Representatives and especially in the Senate. No woman has ever been president or vice president, and in fact only one woman has ever represented a major party on the presidential ticket (Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrats' VP nominee in 1984). The number of women CEOs of major corporations is increasing but still far less than the number of men. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and (most) Southern Baptist churches still refuse to allow women to serve as pastors, priests, or bishops, and in those denominations that do allow women senior pastors, their numbers are still relatively small. We would do well, then, to remember the story of Deborah and think of her as a successful leader, not merely a successful female leader. It is high time that we stopped behaving like many early Christians, who diminished the role of Jesus' female followers (the first ones to whom the risen Jesus appeared) and amplified the role of his male disciples. Until we get to the point where women and men are considered equally when leadership positions are available, we will not be worthy to claim Deborah as our ancestor in the faith.

Psalm 123

In A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn traces the course of U.S. history from the point of view of the ordinary citizens, the poor, and the marginalized. He concludes the book by stating that according to the Declaration of Independence, "the future of democracy depended on the people, and their growing consciousness of what was the decent way to relate to their fellow human beings all over the world" (p. 682). Unfortunately, as he documents extensively, the people of this democracy are often led to support policies and even cast votes that are opposed to their best interests, swayed by powerful lobbies and rich corporations, and by the politicians who serve as their mouthpieces. Is it just by chance that New York, a strongly Democratic city, has just re-elected a billionaire Republican as its mayor? Perhaps he was the best candidate in this particular case, but it is a fact that the rich and well-connected (usually both) win far more races than they lose. Politicians of all stripes pledge to do their best for their constituents, and many are undoubtedly well-intentioned, but for all these good intentions, nearly 50 million people in this country continue to live in or near the poverty level. About 45 million people in the U.S. have no health insurance. 18 million adults are either unemployed or underemployed. Why, then, do so many continue to support candidates who offer no real solutions to their problems, and who sometimes seem downright hostile toward the millions of unfortunates just described? The psalmist describes a similar situation. "Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy upon us, for we have had more than enough of contempt. Our soul has had more than its fill of the scorn of those who are at ease, of the contempt of the proud." The rich and powerful in ancient Israel treated the poor with contempt and looked down their noses at them. Not only the Psalms but also the prophets make this claim, and the Law strictly forbids the rich to trample the poor. The kings apparently gave lip service to protecting the poor, but the evidence suggests that their efforts were meager at best, just like so many of our modern politicians. Is it because they don't really care? Is it because they lack the imagination to come up with workable solutions? Is it because they're truly unaware of the magnitude of the problem? Is it because they're beholden to their rich campaign contributors? Regardless of the reason in each specific case, the problem is that millions of Americans are suffering, and our representatives are doing nothing to address the problem. Even worse, those who are suffering the most, and those of us who care about them, aren't doing everything we can do, either. It's time for creative solutions to the problems of poverty and affordable health care. It's time to stop worrying about labels like "socialized medicine" and "liberal." It's time to search for leaders who speak for the most desperate members of our society, who aren't afraid to stand up to big business and to party bosses and say, "I stand with the poor." The psalmist looks to the Lord for help. In our democracy, where we can change the situation with our votes and our commitment, what are we doing to make a difference?

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

The early church talked a lot about the Parousia, the expected Second Coming of Christ. For the earliest generation of believers, the Parousia was imminent. They were living in the last days, and the Lord's return was just around the corner--maybe this year, maybe next, but surely within the lifetime of that first generation. In 1 Thessalonians, the earliest book of the New Testament, Paul reflects the concern of the church at Thessalonica concerning Christ's return. Paul urges Christians to prepare themselves for that day, which would come suddenly and unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. Paul never makes any explicit prediction about the timing of the Parousia, though like other believers he apparently thinks that it will be soon (see Romans 13:11). Why was the early church so anxious for Christ to return? What changes did they expect him to make? Other than saying that Christians would be "with the Lord," Paul says very little about what he expects the reign of Christ will be like. However, if the book of Revelation is any indication of general expectations, Christians were looking for a time of peace, relative prosperity, safety, and comfort. In this their picture of the Parousia closely matches the prophetic vision of the eschatological kingdom, where the faithful "shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid" (Micah 4:4). If we approach the question of the Parousia from a sociological rather than a theological perspective, one of the questions we will ask is what kind of people long for the world to end soon? If we leave aside those who so desire the end of the world that they are willing to take their own lives (e.g., the Branch Davidians or the Heaven's Gate community), we are left with people for whom the present realities of life are difficult and who look for a more equitable future. Eschatology aside, I believe that if the gospel is really the "good news" that we claim it is, it should address the deep longing of the poor and the marginalized in our world for peace and justice. The gospel does not offer fabulous riches or eternal youth to all believers (hence the term "health and wealth gospel" is an oxymoron), but if we remember the words of Jesus' inaugural address in the Nazareth synagogue, the gospel does speak of peace and justice. The gospel portrays a world in which people's most basic needs are met. It is a world where justice, though tempered with mercy, is the rule, not the exception. It is a world in which all can claim to be recipient's of God's favor. That idealized world may never appear this side of the afterlife, but it is something Christians should imagine and work for. The problem of the delayed Parousia is not a problem that disappeared in the first century. It remains an issue for all those today who suffer from lack of food, who die before their time because of lack of access to medical care, who cannot get treatment for their mental illness, who have no roofs of their own over their heads. Parousia literally means the arrival, or even the presence, of a person. It's time we preached the Parousia not as an event in the indeterminate future but as something for which we can strive in the here and now. For Christians, Christ is with us, and in us, so in a very real sense we can proclaim the Parousia to those who are hurting and most in need of the good news that God cares.

Matthew 25:14-30

The Peter Principle states that in a large organization, every person will eventually rise to his or her level of incompetence. The idea is this. A person excels at her job, so she is promoted to the next level. If she does well at that level, she will be promoted again, until eventually she attains a position for which she is not prepared, where she will stagnate in incompetence. We have perhaps all known people who had positions of authority for which they were ill-suited. They may have been wonderful at other jobs, but they're just not cut out for the one they have now. Some of us may have found ourselves in such a position, and when we realized it we asked ourselves, how did I get here? How do I get out? Of course, in many cases a person is able to grow into the new position, but that's hardly a universal truth. The parable of the talents talks about the distribution of resources to three employers. Two turn a profit with an investment, while the third does nothing with it. When the landowner returns, he takes the talent from the one who did nothing with it and gives it to the one with ten already. I used to think that was unfair. Why take from the one who has little and give it to the one who has much? If we were talking about taking from the poor and giving to the rich (a la regressive taxes, for instance), it would be wrong, but I think the parable is talking about something entirely different. The parable is about good management techniques. The landowner in the story is a good manager, because he recognizes the ability to get something done and rewards it. His initial distribution of talents in the beginning indicates that he doubted the ability of the third servant, and he was proved correct in his assessment. (I'll avoid going off on a tangent about low expectations and save it for another time!) Good managers realize that they have limited resources--money, time, personnel, ability--and it is their job to maximize the desired output. Aside from the obvious applications for us in the workplace, there are applications in the area of ministry as well. A church is supposed to minister to its community, but it cannot possibly meet every need or be involved in every type of ministry, so it has to decide how to allocate its resources in order to minister most effectively, according to its understanding of God's call. Individuals, too, can apply this parable in their management of their own time and resources. A good education is a vital part of one's preparation for ministry. So it spiritual preparation and hands-on experience with ministry. I'm not just talking about people who feel called to full-time Christian service of one sort or another, for we are all called to be ministers to those around us who have needs. If we find we have an interest in one area but no real aptitude, its better to invest little or no time in that interest and focus on other areas in which we have both interest and aptitude. The good thing about the parable is that we're all capable of being the servant who was given five talents. We just have to figure out those areas of our lives and ministries that yield the greatest return on investment and spend our time there.