Immigration reform has been a hot topic at my school this week. Students, faculty, and administrators are all buzzing about it. One of our administrators said that he thinks that the immigration issue will become the civil rights movement of the twenty-first century. When momentous events are happening around us, what is our reaction? Do we jump on the bandwagon of significant social movements? Do we instinctively resist movements of change? Are we so caught up in our own circumstances that we are unconcerned about the ebb and flow of public opinion on the critical social issues of our day? Are we so focused on other matters that we're oblivious to what's going on around us? In today's reading from the Gospel of John, the author describes Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, then he remarks, "His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him." The slogan, or perhaps battle-cry, of Progressive Theology is "Exegete the World!" College professors are sometimes accused of living in "ivory towers," where they deal with imaginary problems and are unaware of what's really important. This criticism is sometimes valid, but unfortunately it also applies to many Christians (and others) in all professions, who go about their daily lives with an apparent lack of awareness, or worse, a lack of concern, for great contemporary social issues. We know all about Nick and Jessica, Brad and Jen and Angelina, Tom and Katie, or our local sports team (or, locally, a combination of sports and celebrity, as in Tony and Eva). Are we also cognizant of the really important matters facing people locally and globally? Exegeting the world requires four things: (1) we must be aware of the world and the people around us, their needs and their struggles; (2) we must have a sufficiently developed philosophical and theological framework by which to evaluate the structure and events of our world; (3) we must have the courage to overcome long-held, traditional beliefs and attitudes if the evidence leads us to do so; (4) we must care. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, his disciples weren't prepared to handle the adoring crowds, nor were they ready for the suffering they would face in the coming days. Later, however, upon reflection, they were able to put events into proper perspective. The challenge that lies before us who think of ourselves as progressive Christians is to grow in our understanding and compassion for the world, then do what we can to improve it from the wealth of intellectual, financial, organizational, and spiritual resources we have at our disposal.
A few years ago I was in Tegucigalpa on Palm Sunday, and I had the opportunity to attend service in the cathedral in the center of town. On the streets outside, children were selling small bundles of palm leaves, tied up with smaller strips of palm leaves, for the equivalent of a few pennies apiece. Many worshipers bought the palm leaves and entered the church carrying them, in commemoration of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on the original Palm Sunday. Psalm 118 is an antiphonal litany, piece of dramatic dialog that involves at least three different speakers, or groups of speakers: the worship leader (probably a priest), a group of priests, and the congregation. Performance of this psalm also involved parading from one place to another, either around the city of Jerusalem itself, or perhaps just from the outside to the inside of the temple compound (an entrance liturgy). At one point in the ceremony, the people said, "Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may enter through them and give thanks to the Lord." The priest responded, "This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter through it." This passage reminds us of the importance of coming before God with "righteousness." What exactly is righteousness? In a Pauline sense, righteousness is forensic, something believers have by dint of Jesus' redeeming work on the cross; it is not ethical, based on behavior, though for Paul forensic righteousness should lead to ethical righteousness. The Old Testament equivalent to the Pauline version of righteousness is ritual cleanness. In the Hebrew Bible (and the rest of the New Testament), however, the words translated "righteousness" are consistently used in an ethical sense. For the psalmist, only those whose lives are worthy may enter God's temple to worship. That they should be ritually clean goes without saying. That they should also be righteous is significant. Worship is not something to be engaged in lightly, a point the prophets regularly emphasize. In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney (or, as our Catholic friends would say, Roger Cardinal Mahoney ;-) told parishioners two weeks ago that if the House version of the immigration reform bill became law, they should disregard those portions that criminalize aid given to undocumented workers, since to fail to serve them would be a violation of the biblical mandate to care for the poor and the alien. Several of his constituents were quoted as saying that they disagreed strongly with the cardinal, because he was advocating breaking the law. Yes he was, an unjust law that is contrary to the Bible, not to mention church practice from time immemorial. Mahoney's detractors don't understand the true, biblical meaning of righteousness, for they have promoted obeying a human law over obeying a divine command. Even Paul, with his emphasis on forensic righteousness, would also argue that Christians should live lives of exemplary moral righteousness. In fact, Paul would argue that because we have been made righteous through no merit of our own, our righteousness (i.e., behavior) should be even more meritorious than if we were trying to reach God through righteous behavior. As we enter our churches to worship this weekend, let us examine our lives and commit ourselves anew to live lives than can truly be characterized as righteous.
For other discussions of this passage, click here, here, or here.
Prior to about thirty years ago, politicians for high office in the United States said little or nothing about their religious beliefs. Politicians would occasionally allude obliquely to God or providence in a generic sort of way, but one's personal religious beliefs were not considered a subject for political discussion. The situation changed in 1976, when Jimmy Carter ran for president as a self-identified, "born again" Christian. In 1980 Ronald Reagan made much of his Christian beliefs (ironically, since he was not a regular church-goer) and drew widespread conservative Christian support at the polls. After Reagan, it seemed that everyone seeking high elected office was either asked about his or her beliefs, or else they volunteered the information. Although his father always seemed uncomfortable speaking in public about his religious beliefs, George W. Bush has made much of his Christian belief system, even naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher in a televised debate in 2000. It is almost unthinkable now that people running for president or any other high office could avoid questions about their religious beliefs, or that they would even want to avoid the questions. On the contrary, many politicians play up their faith, because they know that doing so will translate into a certain number of votes in the election. In our reading from Philippians, Paul says that Jesus "did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited." In other words, even though Jesus had a special, even unique, relationship with God, he did not take advantage of that relationship to avoid tough situations in his life. Wouldn't it be refreshing if people today who have or seek higher public office would follow Jesus' example and not use their relationship with God as something to be exploited? Too many candidates cynically pander to their religious constituents on the basis of their own personal religious beliefs, real or invented. Rather than emphasize their views on achieving peaceful international cooperation, they tell people about their conversion experience. Instead of giving the electorate their ideas about addressing poverty, they share their ideas about intelligent design. When confronted with questions about their practical experience, they fall back on their reliance in God's guidance. It's not that a strongly felt, personal faith is detrimental to a politician's ability to govern. On the contrary, deeply held religious convictions can provide a compassionate worldview and a strong moral compass for decisions that must be made. The problem comes when a politician uses his or her religious beliefs to win votes. Doing this constitutes a clear case of exploiting one's supposed relationship with God. To my mind, though, the fault that lies in the politician who uses religion as a campaign tool is not nearly so great as the fault in the voters who fall for this nonsense. I know many very good Christian people who have no business being in public office, because they are unqualified for the job. Voters should choose wise leaders who understand the intricacies of international diplomacy, who know history and economics, who are adept at dealing with a wide variety of people, and who can handle both the stress and temptations of public office. Their relationship with God should be something that provides them with inner strength, not something that they exploit to get votes.
For others discussion of this passage, click here, here, or here.
The question "Who is Jesus?" was a central question during Jesus' own lifetime, and it remains important for Christians today. The question has more than one possible answer, and more than one correct answer. Jesus often referred to himself as the Son of Man, an Aramaic expression that meant nothing more than a human being originally but which came to have greater meaning as early Christians reflected on Jesus' life. The multitudes knew Jesus as Teacher or Rabbi, one who instructs people in the ways of God. His followers called him Lord or Master, indicative of the master/pupil relationship present between a teacher and his disciples. His enemies saw him as a troublemaker and revolutionary. After observing his death on the cross, Luke has the guard at the foot of the cross say that Jesus was an innocent man, one who was not guilty of the charges levied against him. In Mark, however, followed by Matthew, the centurion who observes Jesus' death says that he is the Son of God. For Mark this appellation is especially significant, since it appears again only in 3:11, in the words of the unclean spirits who alone are able to recognize Jesus, and perhaps in 1:1, though its presence in the original text of this verse is questionable. Regardless, Mark 15:39 contains the only record in the gospel of a person recognizing Jesus as Son of God. The uniqueness of this reference is significant in Mark for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that even after Jesus' ignominious death, his true nature was recognizable to those who carefully observed him, because of the aggregation of his life, ministry, and death. Second, it is interesting that it is a Roman soldier, rather than one of his disciples, who first figures out that he is Son of God. This fact reminds us who think of ourselves as well-versed in religion or the ways of God that sometimes the deepest insights come from those who are not professional theologians or teachers. We should always be willing to learn from laypeople, from children, and even from people who are outside the company of the faithful.