Saturday Night Theologian
6 June 2010

1 Kings 17:8-16, (17-24)

The flotilla of boats were loaded with food and supplies for the oppressed people of Gaza, 90% of whom are dependent upon international aid because of Israel's blockade of their country. The boats set sail from the island of Cyprus, guided by crews and peopled by activists for peace and justice from many different countries. The flotilla publicly announced its intent, and it sailed in the light of day on the Mediterranean Sea. Suddenly, in international waters, Israeli helicopters sped toward the boats, and heavily armed soldiers descended ropes onto the boats. When the civilians on one of the boats tried to defend themselves with boards and pipes, the only weapons they had, the soldiers opened fire on them, killing nine. The outraged international community immediately protested, especially Israel's formerly most supportive Muslim neighbor, Turkey, which lost several of its citizens. Only the U.S., which lost one of its citizens as well, was subdued in its criticisms, though the White House did voice its concern. What had started out as a peaceful humanitarian act turned into an atrocity, a massacre. Today's reading from 1 Kings tells of another humanitarian mission, this time to a starving widow and her son in the village of Zarephath. God sent the prophet Elijah to stay with this family, and his presence with them preserved them from certain death. After some time the boy died, but Elijah's pleas to God restored him to life, and the family survived the famine. Providing aid for the poor and destitute is a value shared by all three of the major Abrahamic religions. It is a major theme of the Israelite prophets. It is a centerpiece of the teaching of Jesus and the activity of the early church. It is one of the five pillars of Islam. And yet there are those in the Israeli government (as opposed to a majority of Israeli citizens) and on the right fringes of U.S. society who attempt to justify Israel's slaughter of aid workers as an attempt to secure their borders and/or oppose terrorism. That this attempt is insincere is proved by the fact that all the surviving civilians have been released from Israeli custody and most of the food and other materials have been delivered to Gaza. Those who uncritically support Israel's actions, no matter what they do, say that the flotilla wanted to do more than just deliver food: they also wanted to break the blockade. And they're right. The purpose of the flotilla, which the participants have never denied, was to focus international attention on the tragic circumstances of those imprisoned in Gaza by Israel. Just as Homer Plessy boarded a railroad car in 1892 to challenge the unjust "separate but equal" laws, and as John Scopes purposely taught the theory of evolution in violation of Tennessee law, and as Martin Luther King encouraged people to boycott busses and strike against unfair working conditions, so those who participated in the flotilla were protesting an unjust situation. Has the Israeli government learned its lesson, and will the blood of these nine people secure the freedom of the inhabitants of Gaza? Time will tell, and perhaps very soon. Another flotilla of peaceful protestors is gathering, and it will soon set sail again for the shores of Gaza. One of the boats in this fleet is named after Rachel Corrie, the U.S. citizen who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer several years ago while acting as a human shield between the Israeli military and Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Elijah, whose presence preserved the life of a poor widow and her son, would have approved.

Psalm 146 (first published 12 November 2006)

In the wake of the U.S. elections this week, the British newspaper The Guardian printed an editorial entitled, "Thank You, America." The editorial said, "On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences." It goes on to speak of the many positive effects that the elections will have on U.S. relations with the rest of the world. I hope that the author of this editorial is right about the positive consequences, but Christian supporters of the Democratic resurgence should not be too anxious to put their trust in any political party. We must remember that the Republicans also came to power in 1994 in the wake of Democratic scandals, and they too promised to clean up government. Before long, however, they were enmeshed in innumerable scandals involving money, power, and sex. The psalmist reminds us where our trust lies. "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. . . . Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God." We may identify ourselves with a political party whose platform and performance approximates our own understanding of proper behavior, but we must never forget that our ultimate trust lies only in God. Having said that, however, one way in which we should determine which candidates or political parties to support is to see which ones hew to the example set by God, as detailed by the psalmist. "[It is the Lord who] executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free; the Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down; the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin." If you can find a candidate who advocates policies that reflect God's attitude, as expressed in these verses, vote for her!

Galatians 1:11-24 (first published 10 June 2007)

Over the past couple of years several books critical of religion have hit the best-sellers list: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great; Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation; among others. One of the primary critiques of religion in many of these books is that religion tends to turn people into fanatics, ready to oppress, imprison, and even kill in the name of God. This critique of religion is not new, and in fact people of faith have lodged similar warnings about religion, such as Charles Kimball, When Religion Becomes Evil, and Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God. Christians tend to think of the evils wrought by Muslim fanatics, such as those who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or the trains in London and Madrid. Jews might think of Palestinian suicide bombers (Muslims) or Nazis (Christians). Muslims in other nations often think of the evils done to them by Christians, not just in the Crusades and in their expulsion from Spain and Portugal, but more recently in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran and the abuses in Iraq during the ongoing war there. The fact is that religion--any religion--sometimes leads people to do terrible things. But that's not the whole story. Christians usually look at Paul's conversion experience, which he references with few details in today's passage in Galatians, as a move from Judaism (his old religion) to Christianity (his new religion). However, his conversion was something more than just changing his beliefs and acknowledging Jesus as messiah. A profound change occurred in his behavior as well. Before, Paul was so fanatical about his religion that he persecuted those who disagreed with it. Now, Paul is promoting his religion by means of persuasion rather than the sword. I'd like to be able to say that it is the nature of Christians, because of their encounter with Christ, to be loving and to eschew violence as a means of communicating their message, but the history of Christianity unfortunately teaches otherwise. Members of religious minorities often decry the harsh treatment they receive, only to mete the same out to members of other religions if they ever attain majority status. What accounts for Paul's change in approach? Maybe his newfound minority religion status forced a pragmatic change, but I suspect it was more than that. Maybe Paul was humbled by the realization that his previous violent actions were an indictment of his own flawed character, not a statement of faith. Maybe his understanding of Jesus' teachings, and the example of Jesus' death, led him to renounce violence as an appropriate evangelistic tool. It does seem odd to say, "I have wonderful news for you; accept it or die!" Yet that's the message that Christianity has too often proclaimed to the world, through its actions if not its words. Rather than accuse Muslims of being terrorists or atheists of misunderstanding Christianity, Christians should commit themselves to having a conversion experience like Paul's, which was not a commitment merely to follow Christ but a commitment to follow the example of Christ in all we do, loving others, doing good, and actively opposing violence, especially if perpetrated by others claiming the name of Christ.

Luke 7:11-17 (first published 10 June 2007)

Today's readings have focused on the boundary between life and death and the threat that death poses to life. The last account, from the Gospel of Luke, preserves a story that is found only here, though it might preserve echoes of other stories, such as the raising of Lazarus. There is certainly an allusion to the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath. The parallels to the Elijah story are striking. Both involve a widow, her only son, and a prophet of God. In both cases the prophet restores the son to health through the power of God. The differences between the stories, however, are interesting. In Luke's story, the young man is apparently an adult rather than a young boy. This difference may be meant to emphasize the fact that the woman was dependent for her survival on her son, not the other way around as in the Elijah story. Another difference is that the healing involving Jesus takes place in public, where everyone can see it. Whereas Elijah began by acting publicly and was now forced to hide to avoid execution, Jesus began by acting privately, but his fame grew ever greater, and he would eventually face execution himself. The fact that the young man had already died heightens the miraculous nature of the healing, since the son of the widow of Zarephath might possibly have still been alive. Finally, the results of the healing are different. After Elijah raises her son, the widow's faith in God is strengthened. After Jesus raises her son, the faith of both the widow and the townspeople is strengthened. As Luke tells the story, Jesus is a prophet even greater than Elijah, and he is just getting started. For Christians, Jesus was a prophet and even more, but it's important to remember that he was a prophet, speaking the words of God but also doing the work of God. As prophetic Christians, we are called to do the same.