Mercy, Not Justice

Recently, I went to pray with the family of a deceased elderly patient. I'd met one of the children a few days previously when I went into the room to introduce myself to the patient and this particular (middle aged) child. The patient was polite but firm, no that patient didn't need a Chaplain. So, here I am a few days later with all the children praying with them upon the - not unexpected - death of a parent.

"Tell me about your parent" I asked. The children told me that the parent had been angry with God on account of the tragic death of another one of their siblings a number of years ago. Then one of them asked me a question that I've been asked once before in my short tenure as a Chaplain: could God accept their parent into heaven if that parent had been angry with God over the death of that child? And then one of them said "We want you to pray for mercy, not justice."

Justice? I passionately believe in God's justice. But I'm not so sure that God's justice has a lot to do with the "sending to hell" of a person whose heart is broken. And that's what I said: "I don't think that God condemns a person to hell for having a broken heart." Now, I have no idea if this particular individual was "going to heaven" but I'm certain in my own heart that they aren't going to be "sent" to hell against their will for not being able to get over their grief.

I also noticed that, when I said that, all the children started crying and they all thanked me afterward.

Here is one place where I think popular notions of salvation and what it means to be a Christian do Jesus and Scripture a disservice. Popular Christianity has turned "faith in Jesus" into some kind of an intellectual assent that has nothing to do with Justice. So, we name people as "just" who assent to certain ideas about Jesus. And they don't even have to actually try to change their lives according to Jesus' teachings; all they have to do is assent to certain ideas about him. And we name as "unjust" people who don't assent to certain ideas, even those whose heart is broken. And we are certain that such people are "unjust" even if they visit the sick and imprisoned and feed the hungry.

This accounting-version of what it means to be a Christian also does a disservice to the concept of "Justice". Any honest reading of Scripture on the subject of "justice" will demonstrate that the biblical concept of justice is not some kind of complicated, abstract, doctrinal mental Olympics. Scriptural justice is very similar to plain, straightforward, everyday justice: don't harm others. Don't steal, don't exploit, don't take advantage just because you can. And it's also more than that: God's people are called beyond the don'ts into the realm of the do's: Do help, do give a hand up, do empower.

Faced with an unjust person whose soul cries out to God: "I harmed, I killed, I stole, I was self-centered, and I'm proud of it. I don't want anything to do with repentance and I don't want anything to do with You. Eternity in Your presence would be hell" I believe that God will grant the person's wish to be outside of the Kingdom for all eternity.

I do not, however, believe in a God who sends a broken-hearted parent unwillingly to eternal torture on grounds of "justice".

If God's mercy is ultimately smaller than the best mercy that we humans can conceive of, then ours is indeed a very small god.

A Thought on Immigration

Just a thought inspired from a snippet I read this morning. It's "interesting" how people get worried about immigration and "all those people coming into our country to take jobs away from us."

My husband is a UK citizen with a British accent living in the US. For 21 years, I was a US citizen with an American accent living in the UK.

Maybe people were too polite to say so, but no one ever complained to me that I was taking a job away from a native-born British citizen. Quite the opposite. A number of times, people complained to me at length about immigrants and then when I'd point out that I was an immigrant they said "Oh, but I don't mean you!"

In the same way, no one has yet challenged my husband about his immigration status to the US. OK, it's relatively early days, but I bet they don't mean him - that nice white man with a British accent - when they are worried about all those people coming over here and taking our jobs.

However, the ironic thing is that we were and are the people who are coming over here and taking away jobs from the native born. We are not doing the hard-grafting work that most immigrants do because native born sons and daughters don't want to do such hard work.

I'm pretty sure that it helps being white.

Sunday 30 May 2010 - The Servant King

I was asked to supply-preach this morning on the general subject of "Memorial Day". I chose to use the assigned Epistle reading from the lectionary, Romans 5:1-11 but I departed from the lectionary for the Gospel reading and chose the story of Jesus washing the disciples' feet from John: John 13:1-9

The sermon can be found on my sermon blog.

Swine Flu and Theological Reflection

The new Vice President of Methodist Conference, who is a GP (General Practitioner) by profession, has posted an excellent reflection on the subject of responding to swine flu

Here is a flavour:

There are though for Christians many ethical aspects to a flu pandemic that we should consider. In Britain we have a well developed health service, and enough money and forethought to buy large amounts of anti-viral medication and vaccine. This though means there is less or even none for those with less well developed plans or limited resources. Yet again the rich developed world will be able to protect its population at the expense of the poorer developing world.

The True Meaning of 'Eldership'

Wow, what a fantastic idea: The Elders

I just came across the existence of this group from a statement made by Jimmy Carter that was carried in The Guardian on the subject of The Words of God do not Justify Violence Against Women

But it's not even the rights of women I really want to highlight here.

Instead, I was taken with the following statement:

But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

I wonder whether what this doesn't say is more powerful than what it does say?

What's implied here is that if you are a person in the prime of your life who wants to 'get ahead', you'd better not challenge the way things are done too much. Diplomacy is the better part of advancement.

On the positive side, what a liberation to be able to put Truth first!

An inspiring thought, I think, for both senior citizens and not so senior citizens. We can all make a difference by shining a light on Truth and by speaking out against injustice. This is true freedom.

It's My Husband's Fault

OK, here's a post that's got me so angry that it's managed to kick me out of my no-blogging funk.

Who would have credited it? A man who advocates male-headship who reckons that, if something goes wrong in a marriage, it's usually (not always, but usually) the husband's fault: Marriage Counseling: It's His Fault.

But wait. Perhaps there is a point here. The underlying thesis of the post seems to be that if a man sufficiently 'sacrificially loves' his wife, that the marriage will not have problems.

I have a huge 'problem of justice' here. There are three underlying assumptions that I don't agree with. One, that the husband is most likely to be the selfish partner. Two, that the wife is most likely to be the unselfish partner. And the third: that even if the wife is the selfish (abusive, addicted) one, that it's somehow the man's job as head of the family to 'cure' her by his sacrificial love.

Trying to 'fix' other people by the force of our own will or behaviour is normally called co-dependency and anyone who has tried it will tell you that, not only doesn't it work, but trying this methodology as a way to maintaining a relationship with an addicted/abusive partner is simply a recipe for heartache.

If I were a Christian man whose wife was abusing him, I'd want to stay a hundred miles away from such counsel. My heart aches for the husbands who won't be heard because the nature of their concerns doesn't fit with their pastor's preconceived ideas. Just as my heart aches for all the Christian women who are told that if they are just more submissive, their husbands will stop abusing them.

Justice demands that the true nature of what is happening in any situation be discerned. Truth is not served by assuming that women are usually 'good' and men are usually 'bad'. I despair - in either a conservative or liberal ideology - when people make claims for female moral superiority. Each one of us - no matter what gender - is capable of the most dastardly evil and the most glorious good.

The last paragraph in this post sets out where I disagree with male-headship:

1) That, to quote: the husband gets commended when it is going well and he gets the heat when it is not.
Sorry, no. If a wife is mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband is not responsible. And if a marriage is going well, it's because both partners are playing their part.

2) A happy, holy wife is a wonderful endeavor for a husband.
So, the wife is, in some sense, the husband's 'project'? This reflects what I call the attitude of male headship that a woman is never quite a full adult.

3) A husband must learn to keep the pulse of how his wife is doing (spiritually, emotionally, physically)
Again, this assumes that a husband somehow 'has control' over his wife.

Both Christian egalitarians and advocates of male-headship often present themselves as believing that husbands and wives are called to put their spouse first. The difference in the two attitudes isn't really even about 'what women are permitted to do in Church'. The big difference is the attitude of male-headship that women and our lives can be controlled and led by men. That we are not and never will be full adults. And that co-dependent relationships - with the man responsible for controlling his wife's mental, emotional and spiritual responses - are What God Wants.

Don't protect gays from discrimination

This is utterly appalling. How does a person find the words to react appropriately to this news item?:  Vatican attacked for opposing gay decriminalization

Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalize homosexuality....Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

If I write my true feelings it's going to sound like a rant.

I repeat my statement that I have made elsewhere on this blog here, here, and here: It is one thing to hold that homosexual acts are sinful for a Christian. It is quite another thing to condone or support the imprisonment of gay people in civil law, particularly in the knowledge that, in many countries, imprisonment for homosexuality means that a person's life is at risk.

Again, I ask the question that Cecilia asked: How is love made to grow by these actions? And I'm not talking about romantic love between two people either. I'm talking about the kind of love that says 'This is simply wrong'. The kind of love that builds the New Creation and works for justice and peace?

For the life of me, I do not understand this argument that many Christians, including the Vatican, are using that gay rights undermines heterosexual family life. But lets look at the practical outcome of this: We are saying that we are ready to deprive gay people of their civil rights and that we are even willing to deliberately place them in situations where their lives are at risk, for the sake of 'family values'? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this?  (If you're a Girardian, this is a great example of the scapegoating mechanism.)

Hat tip to Sebastian for the Reuters article.

Day of Prayer for Zimbabwe

I have just received this from a Zimbabwean friend:

ON SUNDAY 27TH April, 2008.

A desperate cry from the hearts of Zimbabwe screams across the world.

It calls upon all Christians of every denomination in every nation to focus their prayers, in churches, halls, homes or elsewhere, on Sunday 27th April, 2008 on the critical situation in Zimbabwe, a nation in dire distress and teetering on the brink of human disaster.

Let the cry for help touch your heart and mind. Let it move you to do what you can immediately to ensure this DAY OF PRAYER takes place in your country and neighbourhood.

Please pass on this message right now to all the churches and Christian organisations known to you and to the media as well as to everyone anxious to rescue Zimbabwe from violence, the concealing and juggling of election results, deceit, oppression and corruption, and to bring about righteousness, joy, peace, compassion, honesty, justice, democracy and freedom from fear and want.

May a continual strong stream of prayer and supplication flow up to the Lord on behalf of all the people on this DAY OF PRAYER, exhorting His divine intervention throughout the nation.

"It is by making the truth publicly known that we recommend ourselves to the honest judgment of mankind in the sight of God." ( 2 Corinthians 4:2)

SOME ADVICE TO ZIMBABWEANS
"Who so putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." (Proverbs 29:25)
"Stand fast, and do not let yourselves be caught again in the yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1)
"Make no mistake, you cannot cheat God." (Galatians 6:7)
"Do not be overcome by evil but overcame evil with good" (Romans 12:21)

Bob Stumbles. Chancellor, Anglican Diocese of Harare. 19.04.2008.

Local Elections - May 2008

The Black Country Churches Engaged have issued some useful election guidelines for Christians ahead of the local elections in May. In some areas, candidates are standing from the British National Party.

The Guidelines are as follows:

• Do you and does the candidate, recognize the innate dignity and equal value of all human persons?
• Can you be confident that the person you vote for is able to represent, and make judgements on behalf of, all the local community, regardless of their race, colour or faith?
• Will the person elected work for the common good of all, not just one section of like-minded individuals?
  
• Will his/her policies promote harmony, justice and social cohesion, so that no individual or group or faith is marginalized, demonised or treated unjustly?
  
• Do his/her policies feed on the fear of one group over another?
• How will his/her policies promote the rich diversity of cultures living within the community?
• Do his/her policies serve to promote good race relations, respecting the culture, language and faith of all?

What strikes me, in writing these out is the question: 'How many of our churches would be unelectable if they were a political candidate' on this basis? Do we always 'work for the common good of all, not just one section of like-minded individuals'? Do we always 'promote harmony, justice and social cohesion, so that no individual or group or faith is marginalized, demonised or treated unjustly'? If we were being honest, I think we'd have to say 'no' to both questions.

How to be a Christian?

The issues raised in this post along with a few other remarks I've seen in the media this week have got me thinking.

In the Anita Roddick interview, she talked about being surprised at a Greenbelt festival to find out that this Christian festival is'big...organised....joyful...free'. She said I have fallen for the zeitgeist that says anybody who has a religious inclination has no sense of rationale or intellectual understanding and therefore should be dismissed. She talked of her surprise in finding that Christians were involved in trade justice.

Separately, I was struck by a comment on this post on the New Statesman blog (HT to Methodist Preacher) that: Many people find that a pre-scientific, Biblical world-view is incompatible with an acceptance of a scientific account of human origins and the history of planet Earth.. This suggested to me a wholesale writing-off of Christianity on the basis that it demands the acceptance of an ancient cosmology.

Maybe in this culture, the first Good News we have to proclaim as Christians is that we are passionate supporters of trade and ecnomic justice and that Christian faith is compatible with modern science? Just thinking out loud.

Atonement, Justice and Reciprocity

I am currently reading Stephen Sykes' book: The Story of Atonement. There has also been some discussion on Christian discussion groups and in the Christian blogsphere about theories of atonement on the back of Jeffrey John's Lent Talk on BBC Radio 4.

John talked about growing up being told the following about 'how God saves sinners'. I'll bet you'll recognise the idea. I know that I was told that this is precisely what salvation is all about. John was taught that:

God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.

In his book, The Story of Atonement, Sykes talks about how much of popular Christian theology is based on the idea of reciprocity - and on the idea that justice is reciprocity. So, the idea is that if I do something good, God will/should reward me with something good and when you do something bad, God should punish you. When this does not happen, we become outraged. Hence the idea that many people express "What have I done to deserve this tragedy?" or "I cannot believe in a God who would let such bad things happen."

Sykes points out that this idea of reciprocity is NOT part of Christian tradition; Christians do not believe that God rewards good behaviour with good things and bad behaviour with bad things. On the contrary, Christians believe that there is nothing that we can do that is 'good enough' to gain our salvation or other rewards from God and therefore we have to rely on the grace of God. 'Reward for good behaviour' may be hard-wired into the human psyche (as any parent of a two-year-old will tell you), but it is not a Christian idea.

Grace, the popular saying goes, means getting something good that you don't deserve. Well, amen to that.

But where does that grace come from? I think we get into trouble when we start saying that God's 'justice' means that he is not capable of being gracious until he has received some kind of payment. In the event of God receiving a payment, grace is not grace but is rather a quid pro quo reward for good behaviour. It makes reciprocity more important than grace.

But the worst thing about these popular versions of salvation is that they turn Christianity into just another system of those who are in with the in-group and those who are out. There is a reason that the Christian church orginally called itself 'catholic' (which just means 'universal'); because Christianity is not about defining which categories of people are not offered the grace of God. Christianity is about God's universal offer of grace to all people.

We are always in debt to God. There is no system of reciprocity involved in our relationship with God. God does not 'reward' us for believing in him and punish other people for not believing in him. The whole point of Christianity is that the love of God is a free gift.

To quote Sykes, faith is not something that we do; faith is a being present when a revelation takes place. By faith, we enter a realm of the mutuality of love through grace; by faith we are the recipients of unimaginable generosity.

[Edited on 21/4/07 to correct the spelling of Jeffrey John's surname as pointed out to me by Peter Kirk in the 'Commments' section.]

Dignity, Justice, Peacemaking

Over at the God’s Politics blog, Diana Butler Bass writes an interesting post: Paying Respects to Anna Nicole Smith.

The following text really caught my attention:

Christian tradition connects justice and peace with the practice of respecting the dignity of every person. The idea that every creature is dignified, related to God, formed in love, and connected to the whole of the universe forms the center point of Christian theology and ethics. Respect for each person in the web of creation supports the work of justice and peacemaking. Without a profound spirituality of human dignity, practices of justice and peacemaking may slide into the realm of power politics. The baptism liturgy strongly implies that without respect for human dignity, there exists no motive to strive for God’s justice and peace.

I agree with Bass that the dignity of every human person is somehow central to Christian theology. I am aware that some will think that this sort of idea risks going down the slippery slope to secular liberalism, but I think there is a good Christian case for the essential dignity of every person and Bass makes that point well.

On Micah

All of the text below is quoted directly from Biblical Literarcy - the most important people, events, and ideas of the Hebrew Bible by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. (Harper Collins, New York, 1997, pp 326-327.)

======

In an effort to convey to his fellow Israelites in simple, direct terms the sort of life God expects them to lead, Micah speaks of three essences:

He has told you, O man, what is good.
And what the Lord requires of you.
Only to do justice,
And to love goodness
And to walk modestly with your God (6:8).

The insistence on justice follows from the Torah's admonition, "Justice, justice you shall pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). Tzedek, the Hebrew for "justice," is the root of the word tzedaka, which is translated as "charity," but which literally is a derivative of "justice" (from the biblical perspective one who does not give tzedaka is not merely uncharitable, but unjust.)

Micah's injunction "to love goodness" recalls Deuteronomy 6:18, "Do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord," and Proverbs 2:20, "So follow the way of the good, and keep to the paths of the just."... (PamBG: I have omitted here some supporting arguments the author makes from the book of Jeremiah.)

Micah's final demand is "to walk modestly with your God." The sort of faith that leads one to believe that he or she knows exactly what God requires in every situation can make a person arrogant. This passage demands humility of believers.

The pursuit of justice, an obsession with doing good deeds, and humility, these are what constitute for Micah a godly person. As Rabbi Hillel (first century B.C.E.) remarks after offering a similar ethical statement of Judaism's essence: "All the rest is commentary" (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a).

Valuing the Other

The following statement on the Preaching Peace website resonated so much that I just have to share it:

Mimetic spirituality operates out of fear. Fear of divine retribution. It does not care about the concrete consequences expressed in relation to ‘others,’ except as they attract or repel this retribution. In short, it is self-centered and its predominant approach to God is that of ‘do ut des’ (I give in order to get). John implicitly tells the crowds that their expectations that run high for deliverance include deliverance ultimately from negative mimesis and its social effects. Then as now self-worth equaled net worth. The ‘crowds’ were exhorted, in short, to value the other. Mother Teresa is an excellent contemporary example of someone who understood this aspect of the prophetic message.

If the above seems like jargon to you, let me attempt my own translation and paraphrase. Christianity is not a religion whose primary goal is for "me to stay out of hell"; it is not a religion based on the fear that "God is going to get me and you if we don't toe the line". The goal of Christianity - like Judaism - is to love God and to love others - all others, whoever they may be.

Focussing on "staying out of hell" makes a person self-centred and it can also make him or her self-righteous. Focussing on the good of other people - because we rejoice in God's valuing of us as human beings - can have far-reaching, positive social effects. Social justice and tolerance is something the world sorely needs at the moment.