The Democratic National Convention was held this week in Denver, and politicians were on display everywhere. The day after the convention, Senator John McCain announced his rather surprising choice for his vice presidential running mate. Politicians are always in the news, but in a presidential election season, they are even more prominent. One of stereotypical behaviors associated with politicians of all stripes is pandering to their audience, telling them what they want to hear. While there are certainly exceptions to this generalization, it seems to be true that some--many--politicians will say anything, promise to do anything, that will get them elected. Even if we find that marginally acceptable behavior for politicians (or at least expected behavior), it should not be the characteristic behavior of a prophet, someone who claims to speak for God. Jeremiah was given a difficult message, one he didn't want to deliver, because it proclaimed the destruction of his own people. He complained to God about it: "Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail." Those are harsh words to direct to the Almighty, but that's the way Jeremiah felt. He had grown tired of delivering the message, and he was ready for God to assign him something else to do. But God wasn't finished with him yet. "If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall serve as my mouth. It is they who will turn to you, not you who will turn to them." God's word was not susceptible to compromise, and if Jeremiah wanted to be God's prophet, he would have to tow the party line. When we observe politicians flip-flop on issues, or say one thing to one audience and another thing to a different audience, it should remind us that that is not the path God called us to take. We are not to compromise our message in order to mollify the crowds. Our theological adversaries rarely hesitate to state the truth as they see it, and as progressive Christians, neither should we.
As the conflict between Russia and Georgia continues on a somewhat
less overtly belligerent note this week, I have noted the numbers of
U.S. politicians streaming to Tbilisi to consult with the Georgian
government. John McCain says, "Today we are all Georgians," a somewhat
ironic imitation of the French newspaper headline after the 9/11
tragedy, and reminiscent as well of President Kennedy's "Ich bin ein
Berliner" statement. While there is no doubt that the Russians were
aggressors when their tanks rolled across Georgia's borders, it is not
at all clear that the Georgian government itself was free of blame for
its extended mistreatment of the Russian minority in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. Regardless of the level of Georgian culpability, however, it
is clear that the Russians overreacted and perhaps were even waiting for
an excuse to invade their neighbor, much as the Bush administration used
the 9/11 attack as justification for its already planned invasion of
Iraq. One remarkable thing in all this bluster from U.S. politicians of
both parties is the fact that, so far, no one in a position of
leadership has thought it worthwhile to sit down and talk with the
Russians. Yes, they are the aggressors and have undoubtedly killed many
innocent people, but if our goal is a truly peaceful solution to the
crisis, the U.S., EU, and NATO should be talking TO them, not ABOUT
them. The psalmist is proud that "I do not sit with the worthless, nor
do I consort with hypocrites; I hate the company of evildoers, and will
not sit with the wicked." If by "sit with the worthless" he means "join
in their deeds," then he is right to abstain. On the other hand, it is
sometimes necessary to sit with the wicked in order to try to get them
to listen to reason, to stop the madness of war. The fact of the matter
is that there is plenty of wickedness to go around in this world. The
Russians were wrong to invade Georgia, just as the U.S. was wrong to
invade Iraq, and just as the Georgians were wrong to oppress ethnic
Russians in the two regions involved in the current conflict. Violence
is never a good answer to problems, whether of a personal or an
international nature. If the choice is between sitting down with the
wicked and shooting at them, surely sitting with them is a better
option.
Romans 12:9-21 (first published 28 August 2005)
Pat Robertson this week called for the assassination of Venezuelan
president Hugo Chávez. Although he later retracted his statement
and apologized for it, one has to wonder from what dark corner of the
Christian religion he drew his inspiration for his remark. Certainly not
from today's reading from Romans 12, which contains a litany of ethical
charges for Christians, not one of which has anything to do with the
cold-blooded, calculated murder of another human being. On the contrary,
Paul offers admonitions like these: "Love one another with mutual
affection. . . . Live in harmony with one
another. . . . Do not repay anyone evil for
evil. . . . If it is possible, so far as it depends on
you, live peaceably with all. . . . If your enemies are
hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink."
The people of God should be distinguishable from the people of the world
on the basis on their behavior. It's not enough to believe all the
"orthodox" doctrines. In fact, it may be a detriment, if it leads to
pride: "Do not claim to be wiser than you are." If orthopraxy doesn't
accompany orthodoxy, than the orthodoxy is worthless. A so-called
Christian leader who calls for the assassination of an enemy is no
different from a so-called Muslim leader who issues a fatwa against
someone like Salman Rushdie, who expressed opinions that some too to be
anti-Muslim. Both the Christian and the Muslim who call for violence
richly deserve the condemnation of the faithful, and they should be called
to repentance. Robertson's religion seems to be focused more on the
centrality of the American gospel of capitalism than on the Christian
gospel of love. The two are not the same, and to a large extent they are
incompatible. Paul's list of suggested behaviors presents a Christian
ideal that is far from the Christianity of most Western Christians today,
but it is something toward which we must strive. Abraham Lincoln said,
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my
idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the
difference, is no democracy" (quoted from Aaron Copland's Lincoln
Portrait). Similarly, as people of faith we need to say, "Whatever
differs from this ideal, laid out by Paul, to the extent of the
difference, is no Christianity." All of us have said things that we wish
we could take back, and Pat Robertson is no exception. However, it is
incumbent upon those with a public platform, like the 700 Club, to
take great care not to profane the name of Christ or sully the cause of
Christianity. Robertson has made many such outrageous comments before,
and many consider him more of a caricature of right-wing Christianity than
a serious, thoughtful Christian leader. His missteps should cause us to
evaluate our own lives to see whether some of our words or deeds reflect
poorly on the Christian faith. How willing are we to show hospitality to
strangers? Do we live in harmony with one another, or is it more like
cacophony? Do we associate with the lowly, or do we stick with our own
socioeconomic class? Above all, do we make every effort to live peaceably
with one another? If we will live up to the ideals that Paul sets forth
in his letter to the Romans, we will do more to advance the cause of
Christ than even the most thoughtless televangelist can undo.
Matthew 16:21-28 (first published 28 August 2005)
There's a Wizard of Id cartoon that shows the cowardly knight Rodney about to go on an undercover mission. The courtiers make sure he has his armor, his disguise, and his spear. Then one of them offers him a suicide pill to take in case he's captured. "Don't bother to give him that," says that Wizard. "He'll never be captured." Like brave, brave Sir Robin in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Rodney is the type who will run away at the first sign of danger. We're often a lot like Rodney and Sir Robin. We're fearless when planning our battle strategy, but when it comes to implementing it, fear sets in. Jesus' disciples were just like we are. They liked the idea of following a royal messiah, but they didn't want him to become a suffering servant, primarily because of the implications for them as disciples. Jesus understood their hesitancy, but he was never one to beat around the bush: "If any want to become by followers, let them deny themselves, take up their cross and follow me." Jesus doesn't call us to carry his cross but to carry our own crosses. The Christian walk is characterized by joy, but it's also fraught with danger. It's easy to live parts of the Christian life, particularly in a country that thinks of itself as Christian. It's hard, however, to be a Christian when our co-workers are ridiculing us or when our neighbors are questioning our positions on burning social issues. But Christianity isn't about partial commitments or half-hearted obedience. As Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." It is probably that few of us will be called upon to die because of our beliefs, though it is possible, but it is quite likely that our beliefs, when they are translated into action, will make us unpopular or perhaps even hated. If we're not ready for that, we're not ready to follow the call of Christ.