2 Samuel 18:5-9, 15, 31-33 (first published 10 August 2003)
Over the past couple of decades, politicians have learned how to take
advantage of polling data for their own political advantage. Do the
voters of my district support tax cuts? Then so do I! Do they want
increased spending on roads and bridges? That's what I'm for, too! Will
they support military action against a foreign power? So will I! For
many in elected office, the focus is no longer on what's right but on
what's expedient. This approach to life is not limited to politicians, of
course. A similar scenario plays out in corporate hallways and
boardrooms. Have those in power shown an inclination to support Project A
over Project B? If so, then I'll support Project A as well, even though I
really think Project B is the way to go. If my boss happens to support
the losing project, then so much the better for me. Maybe I'll get her
job. Joab was a politically astute general. During Absalom's revolt
against David, David had asked his generals not to hurt his son Absalom,
but when Joab found out that Absalom was hanging helpless in a tree, he
didn't hesitate to kill him. He reasoned that David was too emotionally
involved in the situation to see straight. If I don't kill Absalom, he
thought, the people will turn against David, he will be driven from power,
and so will I. Joab realized that it was expedient to kill Absalom, and
he had no compunction about doing so, striking him down while he was
helpless. David, on the other hand, was willing to forgive his son.
After all, Absalom was his own flesh and blood, and he loved him. To
Joab, Absalom was the enemy; to David, Absalom was his beloved son. The
holy war ethic loudly proclaimed in the book of Joshua, and practiced by
David on occasion (e.g., his dealings with Saul's sons in 2 Sam 21:1-9), counseled the slaughter of one's
enemies, particularly the leaders. However, David was unable to think of
Absalom as an enemy, despite all that he had done. David loved Absalom,
and he wanted to forgive him and treat him with mercy. Jesus said that
his followers are to love our enemies. How does that apply in a war-time
setting? First, it suggests that we must see our nation's enemies as
people, not ideologies or objects. Most of the people who fight in a war
are there because of loyalty to their country, or perhaps their leader,
not because of their hatred of the enemy. Hatred of the enemy dehumanizes
us, moving us further from the ideals that Jesus taught. Second, loving
one's enemies dictates that war be something that we enter into only
grudgingly, when it is forced upon us. Cowboy rhetoric and comments that
seem to glorify war and slaughter are un-Christian. Third, though war
inevitably brings death to people on both sides of the conflict, we should
not rejoice over the deaths of our enemies. The bragging and preening
that followed the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons--and his 14 year old
grandson--were disgusting and far from the example of behavior laid down
by Christ. It might be overly simplistic to characterize most wars as
nationalistically motivated mass murder, but it's not far from the truth.
If only we could view our enemies as human beings, even as people worthy
of love, how would that change our world? In the meantime, we must resist
the temptation to do what's expedient rather than what we know to be
right, and we should demand that our leaders do so as well.
Psalm 130 (first published 10 August 2003)
In May 1978 Martha McKinney's 22 year old son Brian was kidnapped and murdered by a faction of the Irish Republican Army. For years she suspected that he had been killed, and her anger grew. In June 1999 Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams came to McKinney's house and promised to help find her son's body. After searching a bog for several days, Brian's body was found, and Martha and her husband were able to bury their son. Martha continued to feel immense anger toward her son's killers, but then she attended a conference at Stanford University designed to let victims of violence meet other victims from the other side of the conflict. She met other Catholics who had suffered, and she met Protestants who had suffered as well. Gradually she was able to overcome her anger and to forgive those who had killed her son. Why should we forgive other people when they've wronged us? For one thing, we can't live happy, productive lives if we're full of anger against another person. When people do something against us, they hurt us, but when we refuse to forgive, we hurt ourselves. A second reason to forgive others is that in doing so we are following God's example. Forgiving other people for egregious wrongs done to us is difficult, but when we remember our own sins and that God has forgiven us, it makes it a little easier to forgive others for their sins against us. The psalmist in Psalm 130 speaks in a voice of desperation, crying out to God for forgiveness. All of us have done things that hurt other people at different times, and we know what it's like to ask for forgiveness. When we consider our own shortcomings, we realize that we are unworthy of God's love. Nevertheless, the psalmist reminds us, with God there is forgiveness and steadfast love. God doesn't hold our past against us, because God loves us and wants to have fellowship with us. When we think about how much God has forgiven us, how can we continue to withhold forgiveness from someone who has wronged us? Some sins have greater consequences than others, and it would be wrong to suggest that it is always easy to forgive another person. It's not always easy, but it is always possible. Furthermore, it's always beneficial, both for ourselves and for the one we forgive.
This weekend Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan as his choice for a
running mate in the 2012 U.S. presidential elections, and his choice of
a VP candidate will undoubtedly fill the next several news cycles, maybe
more. Prior to this announcement, however, one of the dominant recent
stories concerning Romney's candidacy has been his failure to disclose
how much he paid in income tax over the past few years. Few people
believe that Romney's tax returns would reveal anything illegal, but
many think that the payments Romney made, though in strict accordance
with the U.S. revenue codes, would show that he paid an embarrassingly
small percentage of his income in taxes, in comparison with the majority
of U.S. citizens. Romney, of course, is hardly alone among the rich in
using the tax code to his advantage, and in some circles tax avoidance
schemes are considered not only perfectly acceptable but also almost
virtuous. After all, the goal of our capitalist system seems to many to
be characterized by this maxim: "Maximize your income, minimize your
taxes," or its equivalent: "Get all you can, can all you get, and sit on
the lid." The idea of sending the smallest legal amount of money to the
federal government, while maximizing one's personal holdings, is hailed
by many as a noble sentiment. If so, it flies in the face of the early
church's understanding of fiscal responsibility as revealed in today's
reading from Ephesians. Verse 28 says, "Thieves must give up stealing;
rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to
have something to share with the needy." "This passage doesn't apply to
us," many of the rich would claim, "because we're not thieves. We came
by our money honestly!" To which I respond, legality is not the same as
honesty. It may be legal in many states to discriminate against gays,
but that doesn't make it right. The state of Texas may execute the
mentally disabled while the U.S. Supreme Court stands mutely on the
sidelines, ignoring its own rulings, but that doesn't make it moral.
People, even those with insurance, may legally be refused life-saving
treatment because of their inability to pay out of pocket expenses, but
it's still immoral. Similarly, tax codes written by the rich to favor
the rich, like those that tax investment income at a different rate than
income earned from labor, may be legal, but they are far from ethical.
The verse in Ephesians sets forth two principles regarding payment for
work. First, people should come by their income through honest work. I
don't believe this statement completely rules out the validity of
investment income, but it does prioritize income based on labor. One
implication of this principle is that the owners of a business are not
morally entitled to get rich off of the labor of their workers, while
the majority of their employees see little benefit from their work.
Second, at least some of one's excess earnings should be channeled to
those in need. Since the federal government is by the far the biggest
benefactor of the needy through programs such as Medicaid, Medicare,
SNAP (food stamps), TANF (a weak replacement of the superior AFDC),
USAID, and Social Security, stealing from the government--even if it is
legal--takes money out of the hands of those who need it most, forcing
them to do without food, medical care, and other basic needs. Throw in
the ridiculously bloated amount of money the U.S. spends on its military
every year--a form of thievery built into the structure of our
society--and it's no wonder the U.S. ranks 23rd out of the 35 richest
countries in terms of the Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index
(i.e., standard of living). It's my understanding that Mitt Romney
gives 10% of his income to the LDS Church, some of which is used to
provide humanitarian aid to people around the world, so he does more
with his money to help the poor than many people do. The problem is not
with Romney himself, or with any other specific rich people, but with
laws and tax codes that allow the rich to reduce their contributions to
the common good, hide their wealth in offshore tax havens, engage in
business practices that enrich the already wealthy by gutting the assets
of corporate takeover targets, and fail to provide ordinary workers with
a proportionate amount of a company's annual profits. Laws, customs,
and the attitudes of individuals need to be adjusted to achieve the
goals of honest work, sharing with the needy, and promoting the general
welfare of the country, as well as those beyond our borders.
John 6:35, 41-51 (first published 10 August 2003)
In T. H. White's story, The Once and Future King, "The Wart" grew up in the shadow of his older brother, Sir Kay. His father, Sir Ector loved him as much as Kay, but it was clear to all that Kay had the makings of nobility. Someday he would be a powerful knight in England; perhaps he would even rule. One day Sir Kay was participating in a tournament, and the Wart was serving as his squire. However, in the midst of all the excitement, the Wart left the boarding house without Sir Kay's sword, and since the house was now locked, he was unable to retrieve it before the tournament. Desperate to find his brother a sword, he remembered seeing an old sword stuck in a stone in a churchyard, so he went and pulled it out of the stone and brought it to Sir Kay to use in the tournament. When people heard what he had done, they were amazed, and they soon recognized him as king of all England. The boy, who was called Wart because it rhymed with his real name Art, was crowned King Arthur. His friends and neighbors had all thought that they knew his background and family. He was the son of Sir Ector, after all--everyone knew that. It turned out, though, that everyone was wrong. He was in fact the son of Uther Pendragon, the former king of England. The gospel of John contains no birth narratives, but it clearly presupposes that the readers are aware of the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. Thus, when the people say of Jesus, "Isn't this the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" there is an implicit irony: in fact, the people do not know the truth about Jesus' background, so their rejection of him on these grounds is spurious (see also the following chapter). Jesus goes on to confound his audience further by claiming to be the bread of life, offering the people something more substantial than the manna their ancestors ate in the wilderness. Physical food is essential for existence, but spiritual food is necessary for life. Animals eat, but they don't think abstractly, nor do they experience the divine, at least not in the way that it is possible for humans to do. We can feed our bodies, and we can exercise our minds, but we also need to get in touch with our spiritual natures. There is a great longing today for spirituality, as people seek the divine in a wide variety of ways. Some look for God in the stars, others through meditation. Some look for God in nature, and others seek God in religion. The truth is that God can be found in all these places, and others, because God is everywhere. Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." There is an allusion here to the mystery of the Eucharist, but in a larger sense, Jesus is saying that to commune with him is to gain eternal life, that is, life in the presence of God, beginning in the here and now. Although we may encounter God in nature or through meditation, we can be sure that we will encounter God through Jesus Christ. In this sense, Jesus is truly the bread of life, a sure access to the divine that is available to all who would believe, even today.