Last year, I remember reading an account of a church that was taking steps to keep their outdoor nativity set in tact. Tired of having to replace their baby Jesus because of theft (pranks or otherwise), this church had put a GPS- global positioning system- in their baby Jesus, so that they could track the statue if it was stolen. Their story is not unique. All across the nation, churches are resorting to hi-tech tactics to keep people from stealing their Christmas scenery.
I wonder if we couldn't all learn something from an old Christmas episode of the TV show "Dragnet". I watched it over Thanksgiving break with my family. In that episode, the two cops were called to a Catholic Church by priests who noticed that the infant Jesus was missing from their creche. Worried that the worshippers who arrived for midnight mass on Christmas Eve would not be able to celebrate the Christ's Child's birth if the piece was not recovered, they called the police.
Suspects were interviewed. Pawn shops were visited. Hands were wrung in despair. Just when all seemed "lost" (including the baby Jesus), a small Hispanic boy entered the church, pulling a red wagon behind him. In the wagon was the missing baby. "I prayed for a red wagon," the boy explained. "I prayed very hard to baby Jesus. I promised him that, if I got one, that he would get the first ride."
A young boy's faith... A young boy's faithfulness. A young boy who understood the part of Christmas that no one can steal. Not the ACLU... Not a group of frat boys pulling a prank... It's when we celebrate Christmas in daily acts of faith, so sure of our relationship with the One whose birthday it is all about that we will keep our promises to God, and recognize God's faithfulness to us; when we are willing to give Christ the first and the best of the blessings we have... That's when we are living Christmas every day.
And we won't need a GPS to find the Christ Child in our hearts.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Can a 'Holy War' Be Justified, if Not 'Just'?
Is there such a thing as a 'just war'? In his Nobel speech, was President Obama right to speak in these theological terms about war? He also stated that 'no holy war can ever be a just war.' Do you agree or disagree?
President Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was filled with truths- some of them surprising and others difficult to hear, but perhaps none that I want to be true more than the president's statement that "no holy war can ever be a just war". Oh, how I want to believe that truth with all my heart!
The reality is that this truth is not as "black and white" as our president might like it to be. By his own arguments, there may be times when a holy war can be justified, or justifiable. The president believes that there are occasions when force can be justified on humanitarian grounds. He seems to understand that there are people of faith who believe there is no such thing as a "just war", and yet the reality is that there have always been and always will be “wars and rumors of wars… for this must take place.” (Matthew 24:6)
One definition of Holy War is "a war declared or fought for a religious or high moral purpose, as to extend or defend a religion." As a member and faith leader of the United Church of Christ, I must agree that any war fought to elevate one religion over another, or to suppress one religion in favor of another, is, as the president asserts, wrong. But what about defending a religion or religious rights?
In the past week, millions of Jews began their celebration of Hanukkah, in remembrance of the miracle that took place during just such a rebellion when the Maccabees fought to restore religious rights to the Hebrew people. Was that not a just holy war? If religious freedom were lost in this country, would that not be just grounds for fighting? It’s not simple enough for a blanket statement such as the one President Obama offered in his speech. I suspect he knows that.
Holy war is also defined as "any war fought by divine command or for a religious purpose". It would be safe to say that the truth the president spoke "lives" in dichotomy with a number of conflicting realities, not the least of which is that the Hebrew Testament is filled with examples of wars that were fought "at God's command". The president acknowledges that simply desiring peace will not be enough to achieve it, for as he says: "Make no mistake: evil does exist in the world."
The president acknowledges the hardest truth of all: “…we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations… will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
The prophet Isaiah informs us that a “new age” will come— the age of peace, when swords will be beaten into ploughshares and spears will become pruning hooks; “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)
Until that time, the world looks to its leaders to use restraint, govern with wisdom, and practice peace.
President Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was filled with truths- some of them surprising and others difficult to hear, but perhaps none that I want to be true more than the president's statement that "no holy war can ever be a just war". Oh, how I want to believe that truth with all my heart!
The reality is that this truth is not as "black and white" as our president might like it to be. By his own arguments, there may be times when a holy war can be justified, or justifiable. The president believes that there are occasions when force can be justified on humanitarian grounds. He seems to understand that there are people of faith who believe there is no such thing as a "just war", and yet the reality is that there have always been and always will be “wars and rumors of wars… for this must take place.” (Matthew 24:6)
One definition of Holy War is "a war declared or fought for a religious or high moral purpose, as to extend or defend a religion." As a member and faith leader of the United Church of Christ, I must agree that any war fought to elevate one religion over another, or to suppress one religion in favor of another, is, as the president asserts, wrong. But what about defending a religion or religious rights?
In the past week, millions of Jews began their celebration of Hanukkah, in remembrance of the miracle that took place during just such a rebellion when the Maccabees fought to restore religious rights to the Hebrew people. Was that not a just holy war? If religious freedom were lost in this country, would that not be just grounds for fighting? It’s not simple enough for a blanket statement such as the one President Obama offered in his speech. I suspect he knows that.
Holy war is also defined as "any war fought by divine command or for a religious purpose". It would be safe to say that the truth the president spoke "lives" in dichotomy with a number of conflicting realities, not the least of which is that the Hebrew Testament is filled with examples of wars that were fought "at God's command". The president acknowledges that simply desiring peace will not be enough to achieve it, for as he says: "Make no mistake: evil does exist in the world."
The president acknowledges the hardest truth of all: “…we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations… will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
The prophet Isaiah informs us that a “new age” will come— the age of peace, when swords will be beaten into ploughshares and spears will become pruning hooks; “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4)
Until that time, the world looks to its leaders to use restraint, govern with wisdom, and practice peace.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't...
This week's question:Christmas decorations at the White House include a crèche in the East Room (despite reports that White House social secretary Desirée Rogers suggested that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas.") Should the White House, whose residents serve all Americans, display a crèche or a menorah or any strictly religious symbols during the holidays?
The President may as well follow his heart and his conscience on this one. He will not be able to please us all. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
The Obamas are a devoutly Christian family. President Obama may serve “all Americans” in a public and professional sense, but as a Christian, he serves God first. As a Christian leader, I would be sadly disappointed if he felt compelled to “hide” his faith “under a bushel”. I would be disappointed if any governmental leader felt that pressure, whether they were of the Christian faith or not.
But that isn’t the main issue here.
“A man’s home is his castle”. If that old saying is correct, then isn’t it also true that America’s “castle”- The White House- is also a home? As such, The White House reflects not only the values of the people, but also of the family who lives there.
Is it his home or isn’t it? I’ve wondered the same thing about my own home from time to time, which, for the past twelve years has been in a church-owned parsonage. We have refrained from posting political signs in our yard, so that there can never be a question of the church’s tax-exempt status. However, anyone who was entertained in our home in the months before the last presidential election would have seen a political bumper sticker attached by a magnet to our refrigerator.
I make no apologies. It’s our home. The White House is a home, too.
The White House may belong to the people of this country, in a figurative sense, but it is not our “home”. Our president and his or her family have a right to choose which, if any, religious beliefs are to be represented in their home. If they are going to be criticized either way (and likely they will), they should be true to their faith.
The President may as well follow his heart and his conscience on this one. He will not be able to please us all. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
The Obamas are a devoutly Christian family. President Obama may serve “all Americans” in a public and professional sense, but as a Christian, he serves God first. As a Christian leader, I would be sadly disappointed if he felt compelled to “hide” his faith “under a bushel”. I would be disappointed if any governmental leader felt that pressure, whether they were of the Christian faith or not.
But that isn’t the main issue here.
“A man’s home is his castle”. If that old saying is correct, then isn’t it also true that America’s “castle”- The White House- is also a home? As such, The White House reflects not only the values of the people, but also of the family who lives there.
Is it his home or isn’t it? I’ve wondered the same thing about my own home from time to time, which, for the past twelve years has been in a church-owned parsonage. We have refrained from posting political signs in our yard, so that there can never be a question of the church’s tax-exempt status. However, anyone who was entertained in our home in the months before the last presidential election would have seen a political bumper sticker attached by a magnet to our refrigerator.
I make no apologies. It’s our home. The White House is a home, too.
The White House may belong to the people of this country, in a figurative sense, but it is not our “home”. Our president and his or her family have a right to choose which, if any, religious beliefs are to be represented in their home. If they are going to be criticized either way (and likely they will), they should be true to their faith.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Swiss Have Lost Out
It seems that the assumptions made by many journalists may be right: The decision to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland was based in fear and prejudice. The Swiss people have, in my opinion, lost respect, ground and have lost the right to be called a "center for diplomacy".
If this decision had been made for the purpose of protecting the cultural heritage reflected in the architecture of the country, one might see some sense in the decision. But, the examples I have viewed of the minarets that have been built in that country do not tower over or detract from the cathedrals of Europe.
Some say the decision reflects the fears held by the Swiss that their country is being inundated by Muslim immigrants and that simply it mirrors attitudes from around the world fearing Islamic extremists. I have read the rhetoric of a variety of news reports, most of which see this decision as a major error in judgment on the part of the Swiss nation, calling it discrimination and bigotry.
Even the Swiss Bishops issued a statement from the Vatican saying that the decision presents "an obstacle to interreligious harmony".
Whatever the case, one thing is certain. The decision has moved the Switzerland out of its usual "neutral position" and into "reverse". This is surprising from the country that has been considered by many to be a "center for diplomacy". Since 1919 when it became the seat for the League of Nations, the city of Geneva has been "home" to the headquarters of international agencies, including departments of the United Nations and the Red Cross. Geneva has been the site for numerous "Peace Talks" and the Swiss government has maintained a "neutrality" in foreign relations for hundreds of years.
From personal experience, I can attest that it is not always easy to keep a neutral position, as the Swiss government lays claim to. When we moved to our small town of 300, I told our children that the parsonage we live in is "Geneva"- neutral territory. My intention was to stay out of the politics of feuds between families or organizations in this town. On a professional level, we take no sides. On a personal level, it's more difficult.
It would appear the same is true in this case. The Swiss government may be able to remain neutral about things, but clearly the Swiss people cannot. This decision is anything but neutral!
When I fail to remain neutral in town politics, I "lose ground" in the effort to move my community forward in their thinking. The Swiss have lost ground and lost respect in this maneuver.
If this decision had been made for the purpose of protecting the cultural heritage reflected in the architecture of the country, one might see some sense in the decision. But, the examples I have viewed of the minarets that have been built in that country do not tower over or detract from the cathedrals of Europe.
Some say the decision reflects the fears held by the Swiss that their country is being inundated by Muslim immigrants and that simply it mirrors attitudes from around the world fearing Islamic extremists. I have read the rhetoric of a variety of news reports, most of which see this decision as a major error in judgment on the part of the Swiss nation, calling it discrimination and bigotry.
Even the Swiss Bishops issued a statement from the Vatican saying that the decision presents "an obstacle to interreligious harmony".
Whatever the case, one thing is certain. The decision has moved the Switzerland out of its usual "neutral position" and into "reverse". This is surprising from the country that has been considered by many to be a "center for diplomacy". Since 1919 when it became the seat for the League of Nations, the city of Geneva has been "home" to the headquarters of international agencies, including departments of the United Nations and the Red Cross. Geneva has been the site for numerous "Peace Talks" and the Swiss government has maintained a "neutrality" in foreign relations for hundreds of years.
From personal experience, I can attest that it is not always easy to keep a neutral position, as the Swiss government lays claim to. When we moved to our small town of 300, I told our children that the parsonage we live in is "Geneva"- neutral territory. My intention was to stay out of the politics of feuds between families or organizations in this town. On a professional level, we take no sides. On a personal level, it's more difficult.
It would appear the same is true in this case. The Swiss government may be able to remain neutral about things, but clearly the Swiss people cannot. This decision is anything but neutral!
When I fail to remain neutral in town politics, I "lose ground" in the effort to move my community forward in their thinking. The Swiss have lost ground and lost respect in this maneuver.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Woman in the Mirror
The former Miss Argentina died yesterday following plastic surgery. The surgery was an elective procedure, reportedly on her buttocks. If it weren't so tragic, there would surely be any number of tasteless jokes being bantered about... There probably are some anyway.
For some reason, this 37-year-old woman felt that she needed to change her looks, and that it was worth whatever minimal risk was involved. She is not alone...
In March of 2008, the awareness of just how dangerous plastic surgery can be was raised when a Florida teen died after corrective breast surgery due to a rare reaction to anesthesia meds given during the "routine surgery".
A fellow blogger- a "nurse turned writer" named Marjike, points out that while complications from plastic surgery are "rare", they do happen. The problem, she says, is that people don't take plastic surgery seriously.
She writes on her blog: "Many people don’t see plastic surgery as “real” surgery. The thing is, it is very real surgery. It involves anesthetic, which has risks of its own, and the procedures – all of which have some risk. Is it worth it? Is this search for never-ending youth worth it? Some people think so."
This, for me, is the crucial question. In 2004, ABC News reported that some 9 million Americans had gone under the knife for some form of plastic surgery during the previous year. Some of those procedures were possibly not just "elective" surgeries, but still, the number is staggering to me. Really? 9 million people who are not happy with the way they look?
Oh, I believe that there are many, many more of us out there who aren't really happy with the way we look. We look in the mirror and see those extra pounds screaming at us, or the wrinkles laughing... Even "beautiful people" sometimes have a difficult recognizing their beauty in the reflection that stares back at them. Any 12-Step program or therapist worth their salt will tell you that you have to become content with the inner beauty or it won't matter how you look... You'll still feel ________________. (Fill in the blank: fat, old, dowdy, worthless...)
As for me, I don't like the extra pounds, and have taken many of them off in the past two years. There are many more still juggling there in the mirror's reflection, but they don't scream quite so loudly. I have come to accept the wrinkles that are laughing at me, although, yes, I use face cream much more regularly these days as the 50th birthday quickly approaches.
Most of all, I am trying to recognize the beautiful woman that God created... the child that He/She "wonderfully and fearfully knit" in my mother's womb. (Psalm 139) For, as the Psalmist says, "God's works are wonderful."
I am the mother of a young teenage girl. So far, when we watch reality shows on TV that feature models, such as "Project Runway" or "America's Next Top Model", we are able to appreciate the way that the "right" hair or makeup can enhance what a woman already has, and talk about how the pressures of that "perfect" body image are a bit ridiculous and somewhat impossible to attain. That's how it is so far, anyway.
And we celebrate how beautifully God has created her, inside and out. God's works are wonderful. Let's help our young girls (and boys) learn that. As the song of my childhood goes: "Jesus loves the little children... red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in His sight..."
When we look in the mirror, may we see that we are each a child of God, and oh, so very precious.
For some reason, this 37-year-old woman felt that she needed to change her looks, and that it was worth whatever minimal risk was involved. She is not alone...
In March of 2008, the awareness of just how dangerous plastic surgery can be was raised when a Florida teen died after corrective breast surgery due to a rare reaction to anesthesia meds given during the "routine surgery".
A fellow blogger- a "nurse turned writer" named Marjike, points out that while complications from plastic surgery are "rare", they do happen. The problem, she says, is that people don't take plastic surgery seriously.
She writes on her blog: "Many people don’t see plastic surgery as “real” surgery. The thing is, it is very real surgery. It involves anesthetic, which has risks of its own, and the procedures – all of which have some risk. Is it worth it? Is this search for never-ending youth worth it? Some people think so."
This, for me, is the crucial question. In 2004, ABC News reported that some 9 million Americans had gone under the knife for some form of plastic surgery during the previous year. Some of those procedures were possibly not just "elective" surgeries, but still, the number is staggering to me. Really? 9 million people who are not happy with the way they look?
Oh, I believe that there are many, many more of us out there who aren't really happy with the way we look. We look in the mirror and see those extra pounds screaming at us, or the wrinkles laughing... Even "beautiful people" sometimes have a difficult recognizing their beauty in the reflection that stares back at them. Any 12-Step program or therapist worth their salt will tell you that you have to become content with the inner beauty or it won't matter how you look... You'll still feel ________________. (Fill in the blank: fat, old, dowdy, worthless...)
As for me, I don't like the extra pounds, and have taken many of them off in the past two years. There are many more still juggling there in the mirror's reflection, but they don't scream quite so loudly. I have come to accept the wrinkles that are laughing at me, although, yes, I use face cream much more regularly these days as the 50th birthday quickly approaches.
Most of all, I am trying to recognize the beautiful woman that God created... the child that He/She "wonderfully and fearfully knit" in my mother's womb. (Psalm 139) For, as the Psalmist says, "God's works are wonderful."
I am the mother of a young teenage girl. So far, when we watch reality shows on TV that feature models, such as "Project Runway" or "America's Next Top Model", we are able to appreciate the way that the "right" hair or makeup can enhance what a woman already has, and talk about how the pressures of that "perfect" body image are a bit ridiculous and somewhat impossible to attain. That's how it is so far, anyway.
And we celebrate how beautifully God has created her, inside and out. God's works are wonderful. Let's help our young girls (and boys) learn that. As the song of my childhood goes: "Jesus loves the little children... red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in His sight..."
When we look in the mirror, may we see that we are each a child of God, and oh, so very precious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)