A PARABLE

There was this white, red-state Christian going down from Oklahoma City to Dallas.  And he was pulled over by robbers who beat him up, stole his car and left him half dead along the side of the freeway.

Now along came a presidential candidate, who when he saw him, stopped his car, got out, made a speech about the need for stronger penalties for criminals, then got back in his car and went on down the freeway.

Then along came a televangelist who saw him, stopped his car, got out preached a sermon on the need for seed faith to be healed, then got back in his car and went on down the freeway.

But then a gay, black, Muslim, undocumented alien came up to him, stopped, felt compassion, got out of his pickup, gave him first aid, put him in his pickup and took him to the ER where he forked over 2 days' wages to get him taken care of, promising to settle in full when he returned.

Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the guy who got mugged?  Luke 10:30-36 (Bill's Loose Paraphrase).

FRANCIS & CHARLIE

I have been observing Pope Francis over the two years he's been in office and have admired him almost from the beginning.  The other day I finally sat down with my yellow pad and wrote out some thoughts which Uni and I discussed.  Uni types them and publishes them on the blog.  She had not yet done so when not long after this, she awoke me from napping during the evening news.  She informed me that I might not want to publish the post I had written; Francis had just said some things I may not like.

Well we got online and found his comments about the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.  Though he had previously condemned the act of violence, he now apparently felt that he needed to do a little "blame the victim."  And though he seemed to be attempting to be congenial, he rather came across as crude.

Some of his talk:  "You have an obligation to speak openly.  We have that freedom.  But without causing offense.  It's true we cannot react violently, but if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend, would say something insulting against my mother, a punch awaits him.  But it's normal ...  You cannot make provocations.  You cannot insult people's faith.  There is a limit ..."

So is Francis correct?  If so, is he justifying the behavior of the Islamic terrorists?  Is he making the religious views of others off limits for satire?  Much of our humor in America seems to be composed of just that.

Perhaps he has forgotten that many Christians, including Roman Catholics are suffering, even being put to death in Moslem lands.  Their crime?  Blasphemy - insulting the Prophet Muhammad by claiming that Jesus is greater than he.

Or has he forgotten that during the Middle Ages and the Reformation, those of his own church tortured and put many to death for speaking out against them?  Is he justifying their actions?  And yes, Roman Catholics suffered at the hands of zealous Protestants?

Or perhaps he has not read of the Old Testament prophets who mocked the competing "faiths" of their day?  Isaiah draws a verbal cartoon that is definitely a lampoon of the idol worshippers of his day:

          "The ironsmith takes a cutting tool ...  The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil.  He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass.  He shapes it into the figure of a man ...  He cuts down cedars or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak ...  Then it becomes fuel for a man.  He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread.  Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it.  Half of it he burns in the fire.  Over the half he eats meat ...  And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol and falls down to it and worships it.  He prays to it and says, 'Deliver me, for you are my God!' ... No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, 'Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten.  And shall I make the rest of it an abomination?  Shall I fall down before a block of wood?'"  (Isaiah 44:12-19 - ESV)

There are plenty more where this came from!  Of course, the prophets frequently suffered the same kind of holy wrath that the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo suffered.

Move into the New Testament.  How about John the Baptist referring to the religious people of his day as a "nest of snakes"?  (Matthew 3:7)  Wasn't he mocking their faith?

And then Jesus used that same expression at least twice on those same religious people (Matthew 12:34; 23:33).  In fact, the first 33 verses of Matthew 23 are filled with scathing pictures of those religious people of Jesus' day - the same religion that Jesus belonged to!  The hyperbole and metaphors He uses bring up pictures in the readers' minds that could be perceived as cartoons.

          " ... they make their phylacteries (Scripture boxes they wore on their foreheads and wrists) broad and their fringes long" (Matthew 23:5).
          " ... you travel all over land and sea to make one convert and whenever he converts you make him into twice the son of hell you are" (verse 15).
          " ... blind guides ... " (verse 16).  Elsewhere He says, " ... if the blind guides the blind, they'll both fall in the ditch!"  (15:14).
          " ... straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" (23:24).
          " ... you clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence!"  (verse 25).

And of course we know where this kind of sarcasm got Jesus.

I've been warned by nice people of all persuasions - fundamentalists, atheists and others in between - that sarcasm and satire should not be used, that it signifies a weak argument or that it is hurtful.  Sometimes I simply reply, "Tell it to Jesus" or "Read the Bible" or "Read any good literature."

Our American culture is filled with sarcasm, satire and lampooning.  Admittedly much of it may seem crude and tasteless, though you may want to read Ezekiel 16, where Israel is compared to an old whore who is so undesirable that she has to pay her "lovers."

In many ways the cartoonists and late-night comedians of today fill in the space that was once occupied by the prophets.  They point out to us the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of our politicians, pundits and preachers.  Most of their sarcasm is spent not on our faith but upon its practitioners, and much of the time we deserve it and could even learn from it.  Sometimes they seem to understand the requirements of our faith better than we do.

I even attempt satire at times, though apparently I'm not succeeding very well; I've received no death threats!

A DIALOG WITH JAMES

A fragment of an ancient manuscript, probably dating back to the 1^st century, has recently been discovered, which contains a large portion of the ancient New Testament epistle of James – the first 13 verses of the second chapter.  However, this manuscript differs considerably from all other copies of James’ epistle, in that other words are interspersed among the words of the canonical epistle.  It appears that while our canonical epistle contains only the words of James himself, this newly discovered document also has the words of the persons whom James is addressing.  It seems to be a dialog and I will attempt to translate it below as such.  Though it seems clear who the parties are in the dialog, I have labeled the two speakers with a Jas for James and an Int for interlocutor.

Jas:  “My brothers don’t have your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with favoritism” (verse 1).

Int:  “We agree brother James, favoritism is a no-no.  It would be incompatible with that Law of Love that Jesus was always talking about.”

Jas:  “For if a man wearing gold rings and flashy clothes enters into your assembly … (verse 2a),

Int:  “Ah, yes, brother James.  Doesn’t happen often.  You know, those rich folks are very busy people.  But when it does happen we will be sure to show him the love of Jesus.  We’ll actually love him more than ourselves.”

Jas: “… and a poor man wearing filthy clothes also enters” (verse 2b),

Int:  “Yes, that does happen.  You know our assembly isn’t located in exactly the best neighborhood.”

Jas:  “and you look at the one wearing the flashy clothes and you say, ‘You sit here in a good place’ and you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there’ or “You sit here under my footstool” (verse 3),

Int:  “Yes, yes!”  That’s exactly what we’d do.  You can never be too careful about people like that filthy smelly guy.  We get quite a few of those.  You have to put them somewhere you can keep your eye on them.”

Jas:  “haven’t you discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?”  (verse 4)

Int:  “James, you apparently don’t understand.  That rich guy deserves preferential treatment.  After all, he earned his money.  He worked hard for it!  And we here in this assembly can sure benefit from a guy like that.  We’re not the wealthiest congregation you know.  We could use a little trickle down.  And as for that poor guy, for one thing he could clean up a little to come to church.  Soap is cheap!  And besides he probably doesn’t even have a job.  Lazy.  Probably on drugs.  Welfare.  Food stamps.  He looks like he could even be an illegal!  If he doesn’t like where we tell him to sit, he can just find another place to worship – with his own kind.”

Jas:  “Listen my beloved brothers, didn’t God choose the poor of the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom that He promised to those who love Him?  But you have dishonored the poor!”  (verses 5, 6a)

Int:  “I thought that that just meant the spiritually poor.  You know, those people who know they need Jesus.  I don’t think that means worthless people like this guy.  We’d never dishonor someone who’s really spiritually poor.”

Jas:  “Aren’t the rich the ones who oppress you and personally haul you into court?”  (verse 6b)

Int:  “I wouldn’t call their actions oppression.  And those of us who get hauled into court probably deserve it!”

Jas:  “Don’t they blaspheme the beautiful Name that is called on you?”  (verse 7)

Int:  “Well, yes – but aren’t we supposed to love them as ourselves like Jesus said?  Aren’t we fulfilling His Royal Law?”

Jas:  “If you really fulfill the Royal Law according to the Scripture, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself, you’re doing fine.       But if you practice favoritism, you’re committing sin and are convicted by the Law as transgressors” (verses 8, 9).

Int:  “I don’t understand.  I did love the rich guy as myself.  Isn’t that enough?  Do you

expect me to treat that other worthless bum in the same way?  Aren’t there limits to this love business?”

Jas:  “For whoever keeps the whole Law, but stumbles in one point has become guilty of the whole thing.  (For He who said, ‘Don’t commit adultery’ also said, ‘Don’t commit murder!’  Now if you don’t commit adultery, but do commit murder, you’ve become a transgressor of the Law) (verses 10, 11).

Int:  “Let me get this straight.  You’re saying that the Law of Love is kind of like the Law of Moses.  If those under that Law broke one rule they were guilty of breaking the whole thing.  Are you saying that if I don’t love every person I meet in the same way that I showed love to that rich guy, I’m guilty of breaking the Law of Love?   Wow!  That’s bizarre!”

Jas:  “So speak and behave as those who are going to be judged according to the Law of Freedom!        For judgment is merciless to the one who didn’t show mercy.  Mercy triumphs over judgment” (verses 12, 13).

Along with this discovery there was also a smaller fragment containing a few more verses, with the same format.

Jas:  “If a brother or sister is without clothes and in need of daily food …” (verse 15).

Int:  “I’d say to him, ‘Get a job!  Then you can feed and clothe yourself!  Why should you come to me?’  God helps those who help themselves.”

Jas:  “and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and fed and you don’t give them what they need for their body, what good is that?”  (verse 16).

Int:  “Like I said … “

The remainder of the fragment is missing.  However, now that this document is published, it should change our thinking about how to deal with the “poor.”

JESSE JAMES RIDES AGAIN

I saw a movie a while back called The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid, based on an actual event that occurred in the late 19^th century.  As I pondered the present situation in our country, I couldn’t help but notice some parallels and contrasts between the two situations.

The original story as I recall it goes something like this:

Jesse James and his gang were running out of places to rob in his home state of Missouri.  Add to that the fact that Jesse’s reputation as a great Robin Hood sort of hero was getting a bit tarnished.  People were getting somewhat weary of losing their hard-earned savings as well as friends and family members who happened to be collateral damage during Jesse and company’s exploits.

The James brothers along with the Younger brothers and their combined associates decided it was time to expand their enterprises into the northern states.  It came to their knowledge that the quiet town of Northfield, Minnesota had a number of banks just awaiting their business.  What’s more, the town and its environs were populated with peace-loving farmers who would undoubtedly be unable and uninclined to resist the gang’s efforts.

So the gang came riding furiously into the peaceful town with six-guns blazing and proceeded to go about their trade of plundering and murder.

However, the outlaws had underestimated the good German and Scandinavian farmers of the town and its surroundings.  These sturdy folks did not consider Jesse and company as Robin Hoods, but as robbing hoods.  They grabbed their shotguns and hunting rifles and anything else they could find and set up a heavy resistance, such as the James gang had never encountered.

Anyway when the smoke cleared, the gang was (literally) decimated.  A number were killed, others captured (some to be hanged later).  Jesse and his brother Frank slunk off in defeat, Jesse himself dressed as a woman.  (According to the movie, he murdered a sweet sympathetic old lady to acquire this disguise.)

In today’s version as I would imagine it, matters are a bit different.

Jesse James, his family and associates are respected citizens of Northfield.  They are engaged, however, in a similar business.  Only now Jesse James owns the banks.  He still plunders people of their life’s savings, but he does so in a less violent fashion.  He forces the farmers off their farms and throws people out of their homes.  He doesn’t do an awful lot of shooting and killing.  The economy does not look good for Northfield, however.  People are homeless and wander the streets begging.

The good citizens of Northfield are concerned.  But they do not take up arms.  They have elected a City Council to attend to these matters.  The council and the newly elected Mayor act swiftly.  They reach into the tax coffers and donate the funds to the banks.  Mr. James and his associates, in gratitude to the people of Northfield, take a great amount of this money for themselves as performance bonuses for their hard work.

Somehow, the townspeople do not understand and complain that the members of the Council have not done enough.  The Council, of course, blames the Mayor, who in turns blames them.  The Council decides to hold a series of hearings and invite Mr. James and associates.  Many people assume that the Council will treat the bankers harshly, which of course, the Council could not do.  After all, they’re not a group of 19^th century farmers!

So at the hearing the Council members question Mr. James as to what can be done to spur the economy of Northfield.

Council:  “Mr. James – do you mind if we call you Jesse?  A number of the good people of Northfield feel that you and your associates are at least partially to blame for our present slump.”

Jesse James:  “Yes, you may call me Jesse.  All my friends do (especially those to whose reelection funds I have contributed).  I am deeply saddened by the feelings of some malcontents in the community who seem to be engaging in class warfare.”

Council:  “Some of our constituents – those whom you’d refer to as malcontents – are actually saying some radical things, such as that you and your associates should actually pay taxes.”

Jesse James:  “As you know, I and my associates have contributed a great deal to the community.  (Wink)  I actually like to think of myself as a ‘job creator.’  After all, some businesses have actually been hiring of late.  The coffin factory has done quite well.  I saw an ad posted for funeral directors.  The soup kitchen is just bursting at the seams.  And those little buckets that the beggars use – I actually am working on a contract to have them imported from China.”

Council:  “Jesse, uh Mr. James, we apologize if anything we’ve said has been perceived as hurtful to you and your family.  What do you feel we, as a Council can do to make things better for you and your business?”

Jesse James:  “Well, there’s one thing I believe that needs to be taken care of.  There are just too many regulations!  Just think about it.  If I didn’t have to contend with all these rules I could go about my business in a much more efficient manner.  I wouldn’t have to worry about whom and when I could kill or whom and when I could rob.  And I wouldn’t have to hire all those lawyers.”

Council:  “Thank you Jesse for your time.  We know you’re a busy man, while we have very little to do except get ourselves reelected.”

Jesse James:  “I’ll see how I can help with that.”  (Wink)

And so the people of Northfield reelected their Council and everyone lived happily ever after.

(NOTE:  My apologies to the good people of Northfield, Minnesota and to those readers who don’t appreciate my attempts at satire.)

A NEW HOLIDAY

As the American Civil War divided families and friends, so has our latest conflict.  I am grieved to have friends on both sides of it.  Because of this I have sought for ways to alleviate the tensions before they lead to actual bloodshed.

I have, on the one hand, many friends who feel that their enjoyment of the current holiday season is lessened by an incursion of the enemy into their sacred territory.  This is known as “The War on Christmas.”  As evidence, they can point out that one can walk all through any shopping mall and note that while it is decked out with all the trimmings of the holidays – elves, red ribbons, greetings of every sort, 40% off signs, a fat guy in a red suit – yet, nowhere can be found the word “Christmas.”  I can attest to the truth of this assertion, having conducted such a search on my own.  (It should be noted, however, that the music on the PA does occasionally use the word:  “Holly, Jolly Christmas,” “Blue Christmas,” “White Christmas,” etc.)  This is perceived by my friends as an attack, not only on them, but also on Jesus and on the American Way.

I have also a few friends who consider any religious overtones to be offensive, not only to them but to those of other religious persuasions who do not recognize the person referred to in the first six letters of the word.  They believe that we must be tolerant of all views.  To promote one religious view on the holiday would be an attack on all other views as well as on the American Way.

I believe I have a solution which would, or at least should, satisfy those on both sides in this strife.  I propose that we rename the holiday – the whole season – with a name that I believe will be inoffensive to all.

Syncresmas!

I arrived at this new name by combining words:

n  Syncretism, which Mr. Webster defines as “the combination of different forms of belief or practice.”  This word is related, of course, to the verb syncretize, which Mr. Webster defines as “to attempt to unite and harmonize, esp. without critical examination or logical unity.”
n  Christmas, defined by Mr. Webster as “A Christian feast on December 25 (or January 7) that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday.”

I had originally thought of calling it Syncretismas but after some thought realized that the shortened title sounds a bit closer to that originally used of the holiday (the title under attack).  Perhaps some could even be allowed to capitalize the C in the middle of the word.

The new holiday name would fit within our traditional songs of the season, replacing the former name without altering the rhythmic structures of the songs.

I also propose that we use this title for the entire season, which would officially begin in November on Black Thursday (formerly known as Turkey Day, formerly known as Thanksgiving) and run through the middle of January, thus including all the holidays of the season, including my birthday.

This should satisfy all celebrants, not only those of the secular persuasion, but also those who are worshippers of a Deity, by whatever name they choose:  Jesus, Yahweh, Allah or Mammon.

Of course, there are a number of minor details to be worked out, such as the use of the word “Merry” to precede the title when used as a greeting.  Many see religious significance in the word and its non-use is perceived, as to some extent, blasphemous.

I realize that it is too late to start using the new name during the current season, but if we begin to work on the changes, perhaps we can have them made by next year.  I urge any readers to petition their congressmen to take action quickly, which they of course are in the habit of doing.

I also realize that even if my proposal is adopted, there will still be some (relatively few) who will continue to celebrate in an outdated manner, who will worship the One whose birth is observed at this time – the Man who is also God, who came to “save His people from their sins.”  But they will be few and their numbers will undoubtedly diminish rapidly as time passes and the advantages of the new holiday become more and more evident.

Have a Joyful SynCresmas!