Last Tuesday, May 1, saw several large, pro-immigrant marches held
around the country in places such as Los Angeles and Chicago. Though not
as big as last year's rallies, the marchers represented a much larger
segment of the population that agrees with their basic premise: all
immigrants, documented or undocumented, have the right to live and work
peacefully and legally. If jobs are not available in their countries of
origin, or if the social situation there does not permit a life of peace
and security, they have the right to emigrate to other countries, just as
most of our ancestors did. I'm always amazed by those who are the most
outspoken critics of undocumented immigrants to the U.S., because they
apparently have no understanding of their own family histories. Or if
they do, they're simply being hypocritical in their bigotry against
today's generation of immigrants. Peter was a bigot himself, at least
originally, because he was raised in a culture that taught him that
Gentiles were unclean and thus inherently inferior to Jews. He eventually
came to realize, however, that no group of people is inferior to any
other, and all are recipients of God's love. Furthermore, and perhaps
more importantly as a practical matter, all are worthy of respect from
other people. The Jewish Christians who looked upon the Gentiles as
unworthy to join the church have been mirrored throughout history by
"orthodox" Christians who persecuted "heretics," by Catholics who
persecuted Protestants, by Protestants who persecuted Anabaptists, and by
Christians of all sorts who persecuted Jews. Today the tradition is
carried on by whites who look down on people of color, and even by people
of color, who may themselves be only first or second generation Americans,
who despise more recent immigrants. That racism, bigotry, and xenophobia
are present in the world is not a shock, but it is a disgrace and harmful
to the cause of Christ when people who claim the name Christian rank
racial purity, linguistic exclusivity, or nationalism as more important
than their commitment to Christ. For true Christians, nothing is more
important than our commitment to Christ, and our consequent obligation to
love all our fellow citizens of the world.
Psalm 148 (first published 9 May
2004)
The May 2004 issue of Scientific American contains an article
that proposes that the earliest point in time might not have been the Big
Bang some 13 to 15 billion years ago. The author suggests that string
theory provides an alternative history of the universe, one that goes back
beyond the Big Bang in possibly measurable ways. As science expands our
knowledge of the universe, exhortations to the natural world to praise God
may seem quaint to some people. Where are the heavens, where the angels
dwell? Where are the highest heavens, which contain the sun, moon, and
starts? Where are the waters above the heavens? What do we in the modern
world mean when we talk about God as creator? It is true that many have
abandoned the idea of God, preferring to think of a universe based
entirely on measurable scientific principles and observable data. A
corollary of abandoning the idea of God is that the world no longer has
any real meaning; it only has meaning that humans may arbitrarily assign
to it. Other modern inhabitants of the world reject scientific principles
such as the Big Bang theory and evolution, believing them to be
contradictory to belief in God. These are not stupid people, any more
than Galileo's antagonists, who refused to believe that the earth revolved
around the sun, were stupid. The problem is not that they don't
understand science; many don't, though the same can be said of many
believers who accept the findings of modern science. No, the real problem
is that they don't understand God. I believe in the scientific principle
that has given rise in the past century and a half to theories such as
evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Big Bang. I
also believe in a God who somehow exists beyond the universe yet at the
same time infuses the universe. My idea of God may not be the same as
that of my more conservative brothers and sisters, but it is just as real.
I don't reject scientific theories because they conflict with my theology.
Instead, I hold a theology that is big enough to embrace science--all
fields of science, whether biology, cosmology, physics, or whatever other
area--while at the same time continuing to accept the existence, indeed
the praiseworthiness, of God. When many Christians during the Middle Ages
were wallowing in ignorance, Muslims were making great strides in
mathematics and science, yet they continued to hold a strong belief in
God. Modern Christians can be full citizens of the scientific, postmodern
world, while at the same time joining with our Muslim neighbors in
proclaiming Allahu Akhbar: God is great! We can also join the psalmist
the psalmist, who says, "Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his
name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven."
Revelation 21:1-6 (first published 9 May
2004)
My daughter is reading the book Alas, Babylon in her high school
English class, so we've been talking a little bit about various
representations of the postapocalyptic world in literature and movies.
In this book, nuclear war breaks out between the U.S. and the Soviet Union
(the book was written in 1959), and the book chronicles the efforts of a
small Florida town to survive the aftermath. Most postapocalyptic books
portray a world that has been decimated by human warfare or foolishness
(e.g., the environmental destruction of the planet). They offer a bleak
picture of the future, with hope--if there is any--only in the distant
future. The earliest Christian portrayal of a postapocalyptic world is
the book of Revelation. Like most modern books touching on the same
theme, the devastation of the world is caused largely by humans, though
Revelation also offers plenty of examples of divine judgment as well.
Unlike modern tales, however, Revelation offers a decidedly rosy picture
of the time beyond the apocalypse. In today's reading, the author
describes a new heaven and a new earth that God sends down from heaven to
replace the old, damaged copies. It is a world of beauty and perfection,
where God dwells with people, and sorrow and death are exterminated.
"See, I am making all things new," says God from the throne. This is such
a beautiful picture of the future that many Christians anxiously long for
the end of the world, which they assume will be brutal (but only for those
who are "left behind"). Imagining a blessed time in the future where life
is better can be a good thing, as long as it doesn't cause those of us
living in the present world to neglect our present circumstances or--much
worse--hope for the violent destruction of the present world as a prelude
to the new world. If we can dream of a better world, we can work toward
shaping our present world in that direction. If our idealized future
world is one without violence, we should reject violence as a tool of
international diplomacy now. If our idealized future world is one in
which no one lacks any basic necessity, we should support policies, and
policymakers, that offer plans that alleviate poverty and inequality in
the distribution of wealth, access to health care, and so forth. If our
idealized future world is a world of beauty and majesty, we should stand
against exploitation of the planet for economic gain on the part of the
few, and we should take measures to protect our fragile environment. The
new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21 are idealized representations of
the way we think the earth should be. Let us commit ourselves to moving
our present earth in that direction.
John 13:31-35 (first published 9
May 2004)
If you try to nail down what Buddhists believe in a series of simple, straightforward propositions, you will have a hard time. The same is true for Hindus, Taoists, and even modern Jews. Of course there are general principles to which the vast majority of adherents to a particular faith assent, but a systemized list of beliefs is another matter. A good example of a simple set of core beliefs is present in Islam, which requires every believer to assert: "There is no other God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet." In contrast to the followers of many other religions, many Christians see their religion as based on a set of fundamental assumptions, whether they are the Fundamentals of the Faith that gave rise to the name Fundamentalism, various creeds with which members of certain churches are expected to agree, or pronouncements of ecumenical councils and papal decrees. Members of the Christian Right distribute flyers that rate political candidates on the basis of their beliefs in relation to a fixed set of "orthodox" views. Catholic bishops proclaim that politicians who disagree with certain church teachings should be refused communion (though the bishops are often quite arbitrary in deciding which violations of the Catholic faith justify excommunication and which do not). Is Christianity, then, such a complicated religion that its most basic tenets cannot be summarized in a simple manner? In fact, the early church had two simple standards, one doctrinal and the other ethical: it confessed Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9), and it advocated love (John 13:35). Although Jesus was well-known as a teacher, he is never pictured as teaching anything like a fixed set of doctrines to his disciples. He simply asks them, like he asks us, to love one another.