|
Running in Faith is an electronic devotional guide written by members of Abiding Presence Lutheran Church to help readers take their Sunday faith into weekday lives. Each Devotion represents the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent Abiding Presence Lutheran Church. Permission is granted to link to this page and to use the Devotions for personal, non-commercial purposes only. Week of June 1, 2008 So [Jezebel] wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal; she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who lived with Naboth in his city. She wrote in the letters, "Proclaim a fast, and seat Naboth at the head of the assembly; seat two scoundrels opposite him, and have them bring a charge against him, saying 'You have cursed God and the king.' Then take him out and stone him to death"... Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying: Go down to meet King Ahab of Israel, who rules in Samaria; he is now in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone to take possession. You shall say to him, "Thus says the LORD: Have you killed and also taken possession?"... (1 Kings 21:8-10, 17-19a) Elijah's divine call to challenge Ahab comes in the wake of a royal plot to falsely accuse Naboth of a crime. Ahab had asked Naboth to surrender his plot of land, which abutted the summer palace of the king, in exchange for a better plot of land, or for money (v. 2). But Naboth refused to consent to the offer, citing the fact that it was his family's ancestral inheritance. Since the text does not give any indications of economic realities for Naboth, it is difficult to know with any precision whether Naboth would have relied on the vineyard for his yearly income, and did not want to risk transferring his business to a new plot; or whether he simply refused out of familial pride. But a few things can be said: first, a transfer of the business would presumably have been a great risk for Naboth economically; on his own plot of land, he could be sure that the vines were in good health, and had been properly taken care of. On another plot, there was no such guarantee. If he were to take the money, he would have had to buy a new plot of land on which to practice his agriculture, and would have lost out on at least a year's worth of harvest, if not more. When living in a subsistence economy, this option is simply not possible. It might have been that the offer Ahab made considerably underbid the value of the land: after all, it was right next to the king's summer palace. (The fact that this structure was not even the primary residence of the king is hinted at in the wording of v. 1: "Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel, beside the palace of King Ahab of Samaria". The fact is then reemphasized in v. 18: "Go down to meet King Ahab of Israel, who rules in Samaria; he is now in the vineyard of Naboth..."; my emphasis). But whatever the economic reasons Naboth may have had to hold onto the land, there was one significant social impetus for Naboth to keep his land: it was the traditional, right thing to do. The land had been transferred through his family for generations, and would be given eventually to his own children as their inheritance when Naboth died; how could he sell such a meaningful plot of land, to which he owed his very life? After learning of Ahab's dismay as the refusal of his claim to eminent domain, Jezebel hatches a plan that can only lead to Naboth's demise: he is to be set in a position of honor at a local festival, and then falsely accused of wrong-doing, of cursing God and the king, crimes punishable by death. His accusers are characterized even in Jezebel's own words as "scoundrels", the equivalent of today's "hatchet men." They carry out this royal command with immediate effect: a good and upstanding Israelite man is brought low merely by the utterance of four false words (six in English): "Naboth cursed God and the king" (v. 13). Naboth is quickly taken outside, and put to death (v. 14). We ought to find horrifying the speed and efficiency with which the central government dispatches of its troublesome countrymen. But it is not solely the national government that has brought about this heinous crime of false accusation and conviction without a fair trial. Equally terrifying (and perhaps even more insidious) is the royal use of Jezreel's local government in carrying out the offense. The "elders and the nobles" to whom Jezebel sends her instructions in v. 8 were the occupants of positions that were to be used for the purpose of true justice; it is the elders in the gate who were, in early Israel, the arbitrators of justice and fairness. Once that independent position has been compromised - either through royal intimidation or through the installation of royal surrogates in the council of elders at the local level - those who run afoul of the established authorities can no longer count on justice in the city gates. It is to speak boldly and plainly to this situation that God calls the prophet Elijah. The words that God instructs Elijah to use portray the divine disdain for Ahab's involvement - as minimal as it may have been on the level of actual practice - in the affair surrounding Naboth's vineyard: "Have you killed and also taken possession?" Jezebel's letter was sent in secret; the elders and nobles presumably acted in secret; and the "scoundrels" kept their instructions secret as long as possible. But despite this veil of secrecy, the truth has its own way of coming out. In 1 Kings God delivers the oracle to the prophet Elijah; in the modern day, subpoenas and the threat of contempt of court will eventually do the same thing. In the same way that God called Elijah to - in the old and familiar formulation - speak truth to power, God calls the modern church to do the same. In an era of government self-service and political hatchet-jobs, and under an administration in which thousands of electronic communications are "lost", it is no longer acceptable for us, the church, to simply stand by and watch as our nation's judicial system is increasingly politicized to secure more and more privilege for fewer and fewer people. As the Body of Christ, a people who claim to have a special status as the People of God, we recognize that the United States of America is not a new Israel, a holy country established solely by God and for God's glory. But we must also affirm that God has called us to speak on behalf of the oppressed, to voice our concerns on behalf of those who have no voice, to "hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate" (Am 5:15). It is our obligation, as God's people, to publicly and prophetically give voice to God's disdain for human attempts at secrecy and the manipulation of truth; for the overextension of administrative power and influence, such that it destroys innocent lives and reputations; and for the power-grab that clothes itself with a manufactured justice, the balances of which are irrevocably deceitful from the beginning (Amos 8:5). Dear God, you have indeed told us what is good, and what is your will: that we should do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly in your presence (Micah 6:8). We ask that you would give us the strength and perseverance of your prophets, so that we may not consider ourselves "at ease in Zion" (Amos 6:1), but rather that we may burn for justice and honesty and peace for all your earthly creation, as a foretaste of your heavenly kingdom to come. Amen. Week of June 8, 2008 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 (NIV) After having spent my formative years living in a bucolic village nestled alongside the Hudson River, my credentials as a "smart aleck" are impeccable. According to the accepted stereotypes, we New Yorkers can wisecrack with the best of them. Often, when someone I have consulted asks me if I have any further questions, my reply has been "What is the meaning of life?" Usually, this elicits a laugh, and a confession that an answer is something beyond their ability to answer. The people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. Matthew 4:16 NIV Without missing a beat, the doctor said that it would be his pleasure to enlighten me. He told me a story he had heard from one of his professors in medical school, who had immigrated to the United States from Greece after World War II. The professor told of his experience under Nazi control, when he was a child. There was no safe place for children to play, and no toys or games with which to amuse themselves. From a church which had been destroyed during the fighting, the boys found shards of stained glass windows. They would hide in various dark places, and use the sun's reflection on the glass to light the most remote corners. What the professor learned from his experience was that it is our mission, and our duty, to shine God's light in the darkness. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:16 NIV When the pediatrician had finished his story, I realized that through the way we live, it is our obligation to shine God's reflected light into the darkest corners. These places of desolation can be literal or figurative, and the light is always needed and welcome.
Week of June 15, 2008 This week, we are trying something different, with a paper about an issue of great concern to all Christians. The author, currently retired, taught at Stanford University and San Francisco State, was a visiting Professor at Princeton University and is a personal friend. The paper reprsents the personal opinion of the author. Introductory Comments This writer's birth in Islam has three branches: one branch is genealogical; another is educational; and a third branch is experiential. Taken together, the three branches comprise the theological tree which has created my identity and view of life. The genealogical branch is represented by family records indicating traces to the Republic of Malagasy, an Islamic island country near the Union of South Africa. Awareness of this genealogical linkage has provided a foundation which has made me perhaps more receptive to the religion of Islam than the average American. The educational branch is represented by several factors, largely because most of my life has involved educational activities - both as a teacher and student. One of my experiences as a student took the form of the training I received as a Peace Corps Volunteer soon after my graduation from Trenton State College. The training was for teaching in Nigeria, a predominantly Islamic nation on the West Coast of Africa. Nigeria was recently ranked first among all of the world's countries in a poll of general happiness in life among citizens. (While the poll made no reference to the degree of happiness being related to the country's Islamic religion, this factor is worth keeping in mind as we examine relations between Muslims and Christians in other countries). The educational branch of my personal history is also represented by my study of Arabic, the language in which The Holy Quoran is written, and also by my experiences as a faculty member of Ijebu Muslim College in Nigeria [as a Peace Corps Volunteer], and my experiences as an informal advisor to several Middle Eastern students attending the various American colleges and universities with which I have been associated as a faculty member. The educational branch is further represented by my experiences as Director of Muhammad's University of Islam, No. 26 in San Francisco, California, as well as by my experiences as Chairman of the Black Studies Departments in California (San Francisco State) and New York (SUNY at New Paltz). The third branch (experiential) logically includes those educational experiences referred to above, as well as other activities such as teaching in State Prison facilities (in California and New Jersey), and travel to several Islamic countries in the Middle East. Perhaps most importantly, the experiential branch includes that inner journey to the self known theologically by the term "revelation". Relations Between Christians and Muslims Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam in America and a teacher of Islam from the 1930's through the 1960's, taught his followers that "if you meet a true Christian, you are meeting a true Muslim." In this teaching he was reminding his followers that both Christians and Muslims (as well as Jews) were "people of the book" or "children of Abraham." He was, of course, referring only to the "true" believers - i.e., those who follow God's commandments. He reminded us that Jesus is mentioned, by name, in the Quoran just as much (if not more) than Muhammad. The major theological area of disagreement between Muslims and Christians concerns the concept of the trinity - a concept which Muslims view as anti-monotheistic. Thus, while we sometimes tend to pay attention to those areas of the world where Muslims and Christians are in conflict, this tendency should not occur at the expense of acknowledging that, in most parts of the world, in most communities of the world, Christians and Muslims are not in conflict and are living as peaceful neighbors despite theological differences. In other words, it is important that we recognize that conflict is the exception, not the rule. But why, then, does conflict occur? I think that there are two main reasons for the occurrence of recent conflict: one deals with money (economics), the other with self-identity (dominated by kinship and ethnicity). The twin forces of economics and national identity are made widely evident by the prevalence of mass media, particularly television, and by the increasing dependency of the American economy on imported natural resources, particularly oil. It is perhaps economics that is central to the conflict found in many Islamic nations today. Several of these nations, including Nigeria, have vast oil reserves and this has caused problems for the affected countries, both internally and externally. The external problems involve the policies of the United States of America - for these policies are shaped by the need for oil and a demonstrated willingness to use military force to secure access to these reserves. Our need for oil has often prompted us to support despotic leaders who have gained power at the expense of the wishes of majority of their domestic population; these 'leaders" cut deals with major American oil producers who are often not only disrespectful, but at times derisive of the religious values held by local communities. Americans, through their oil company representatives, have become "the money changers in the Temple" that angered Jesus so much. We (the Americans) have often defiled these countries in the pursuit of not only oil, but also gold, diamonds, and other precious minerals essential to the economic functioning of modern society. Unfortunately, the American public is often given an over-simplified portrayal of the conflicts which can result from this pursuit of riches. Major corporate news media have created a national self -image that has seduced Americans into believing that we are "right" and "good" and our adversaries are "wrong" and "evil." This same corporate media has further equated "right" with "Christian" and "wrong/bad" with "non-Christian." The average American consumer of mass media thus receives a portrayal of Islam from sources which are (1) secular and (2) anti-Islamic. The fervor behind this propaganda has increased in recent years - even before 9/11 -- largely because of American economic interests in many Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan (Dafur) and, of course, Iraq and Iran. A major obstacle preventing oil corporations from operating with impunity is the organized resistance of the people who live near oil reserves and who place the interests of their country above other countries; i.e., who are "patriots", often pejoratively referred to in the Western press as, at best, "nationalists" or, at worst, as "insurgents" or "terrorists". These people are largely Muslim, and since Americans are mostly Christian, media outlets use such divisions to promote conflict and thereby increase media sales and profits for shareholders. It is important to note that the corporate ownership of oil companies and media companies overlap in the important areas of kinship and religion. Defenders of the status quo have often deflected questions of Jewish ownership of American mass media as "anti-Semitic." Such is the political-economic context in which Muslim-Christian relations must, in my opinion, be examined. Historically, it has been possible for such economic exploitation to occur unchallenged and unchecked. Indeed, most of the 20th century was characterized by these sorts of relationships.1 (Cf. article, "Manifest Destiny: American Imperial Myth, Then & Now" by Michael Fitzgerald, {leftcurve.org}) As a Peace Corps Volunteer in Nigeria during the 1960's, I was frequently reminded that "when the White man came, we [Africans] had the gold and they had the Bible; when they left, we had the Bible and they had the gold." This is not, of course, the version of history that is taught in American schools. We have our own kind of "madras" form of education -- thus many of us are genuinely shocked to learn that Americans are held in low esteem in many parts of the world. The world wide web (internet) has opened up possibilities for the victims of social injustice to tell their story, often for the first time. Their stories often cause discomfort to those Americans beholden to major corporate interests and exposed solely to their version of current events. There is another element to the issue of Muslim-Christian conflict: this is related to the resource exploitation issue discussed in the above paragraphs, but includes a religious element as well: i.e., the plight of the Palestinian people and the status of Jerusalem as a unified city. The creation of Israel in 1948 occurred at the expense of the indigenous population - the Palestinians. While not all Palestinians are Muslim, those who represent the masses of the people and who are most vocal in the fight against foreign occupation and oppression tend to be Muslims. American foreign policy has tended to side with Israel (the foreign occupier), just as it supported British colonial rule in Southern Africa. The indigenous people of Australia (the so-called aboriginals) and, of course, the indigenous people of America (Indians) have also been victims of Euro-American terrorism. In general, People in other parts of world (outside of Europe) have not viewed American foreign policy as beneficial to them. This is why leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran receive accolades when they describe the American President (Bush) as "Satanic." These leaders are not talking about personalities so much as they are about the kind of foreign policy which has guided this nation's interactions with the colonized non-European world. This policy has favored the rich at the expense of the poor and has thus angered much of the world, non-Muslim as well as Muslim. Unlike most Americans, many people in other parts of the world understand why 9/11 occurred, although they do not necessarily support the attack. They recognize that America had simply reaped what it had sown; justice had been done, what "went around, came around." This is not, of course, how most Americans view the events of 9-11, so the different perceptions are a likely cause for conflict at the state or national level, if not at the individual level. Most U.S. Government officials were not interested in the answer to this question of why the attacks of 9-11 occurred or what motivated the hijackers. Government officials were more interested in how the country was attacked, not why. The immediate consequence of this lack of attention to questions of what motivated the 911 hijackers has left many Americans angry, confused and disoriented. The quest for understanding of the motivations behind such behavior were trivialized into issues concerning clothing apparel; more interest was shown in the scarf which covers the head of an angry Muslim woman than with the contents of her mind. We are led to believe that if such a woman were to take off her scarf, she would somehow, magically, forget the bombs (made in America) which wiped out her entire Palestinian family and she would become "free" - i.e., just like us and Paris Hilton. It is interesting to note in this connection that many Americans feel that there is nothing wrong in the expression of their own (Christian) religion - in the form of currency, holidays, etc., but when others, not of their religion, seek equal rights of expression, they are said to seek "special privileges." Again, issues involving clothing worn by Muslim women is not a perfect religious symbol because while no non-Muslim woman would wear a Hijab, there are many Muslim women who do not wear such clothing. The irony in the turmoil regarding headscarves is that such clothing is not mandated in Islam, and it is thus a non-issue from a theological point of view.. The Quoran clearly states that women should dress "modestly" (as should men) - but the elevation of this issue to a kind of litmus test of religiosity or political ideology is silly and symbolic of a kind of maliciousness associated with the mass media in their attitude toward Islam. I am certainly not the first to observe the Orwellian nature of current American political discourse where "right" is defined as "wrong" and "good" is defined as "evil." Most Americans have self-righteously proclaimed that "Islam is incompatible with democracy," while many Muslims would say, "and that is a good thing" (if American democracy continues to justify torture, slavery, exploitation, and tyranny - as it does in many parts of the world.) Many Christians are well-acquainted with Biblical passages noting that believers "will be hated for thy name's sake," but they are unable to appreciate the fact that the Bible may be talking about people other than them or, at the very least, a people in addition to themselves. (Referring, perhaps, to hated people named "Muhammad".) In any case it is precisely this kind of defamation which has lead to the creation of CAIR and other Islamic organizations designed to protect Muslim believers from the slings and arrows of the dominant media. This same media has managed to convince the American public that "Jihad" is something evil, while the word itself refers primarily to the personal, inner spiritual struggle which is mandated to all believers. The word "Jihad" is derived from "Jahd" or "Judah," meaning ability, exertion or power; Jihad, properly understood, refers to the exerting of one's power in repelling harmful influences. The idea that America may be a "harmful influence" is incredible to no other people except Americans. We have become victims of our own propaganda. Thus forcing, or influencing. Muslim women to adopt the panty-less attire of Paris Hilton (or the style of dress of any other American Hollywood Starlet) would result in a call for Jihad - a call for resistance to negative outside forces, not an act of suppression of internal dissent. Muslims are thus content to leave it up to God to judge whose freedom is being curtailed. The Development of Mutual Respect The Holy Quoran refers to Muslims, Jews, and Christians as "people of the book," meaning that they (we) have a common patriarch in Abraham and are believers in the various prophets written about in the Torah and Bible. A common misperception among some Christians is that Muslims disavow the Bible and view the Quoran as a replacement for it. This is not the case; Muslims view the Quoran as a supplement to the Bible, incorporating the wisdom of it and all other scriptures. The Quoran makes repeated reference to events and people written about in the Bible and admonishes the reader to "remember [what has been revealed to you in the Bible] and recall the nations that God has destroyed before you." This admonishment is designed to humble the reader and encourage rejection of any inclination to think that current knowledge is, ipso facto, superior to knowledge that preceded it - especially knowledge concerning human behavior. It is important that we recognize that writing is an instrument of man and is itself preceded by speech. The degree of correspondence between the oral version and the written version represents the "truth" of the issue at hand. Those documents (written expressions) which possess 100% correspondence between the spoken and written accounts, particularly if they are of a theological nature, are considered "Holy" or "Divine" books. The verb "remember" (in its imperative form) is used throughout the Quoran as a command from God for the reader not to deny that the truth of stories of prior generations (written about in the Bible). The Quoran notes that it is the parables of the prophets (including, but not restricted to Jesus) that are most important, since the spiritual lesson the parable is designed to illustrate transcends time, space, and circumstance. We should remember also, in this context, that print is only about 700 years old; thus it is clear that the truth of an event does not depend on whether the account of it is currently in print. In the beginning was the word, not the print or the image of the word. The founder of the Nation of Islam in America, Elijah Muhammad, frequently reminded his followers that "If you meet a true Christian, you are meeting a true Muslim." The problem, in America, in his judgment, was not that there were too many Christians, but that there were too few ("real" or "true" Christians). Of course, Elijah Muhammad, being the grandson of slaves and witness to many lynching and other terrorist actions by the Klu Klux Klan and their Christian supporters, saw little hope for reformation of the then current religion, especially since it was at the same time justifying such behavior with Biblical authority. The building of mutual trust between Muslims and Christians thus requires three things:
Week of June 22, 2008 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
My son just completed a wonderful internship in a second grade classroom. One of his observations was that the students all got along really well because there were no cliques. He also commented on how well the children did their work and would help each other. When I asked how this all came about, he said it was because the teacher listened. She told him at the beginning of his internship that he should listen to the kids and realize that each kid was different and that was OK. There was no yelling, no fighting, just acceptance.
Dear God, Week of June 29, 2008 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Isaiah 55:12 (KJV) Absolutely radiant, that is how I remember him on that warm and sultry summer evening in 1970 when I saw him perform - Ray Charles, the legendary singer-songwriter, one of the most popular entertainers of all time. A master of many genres that he amalgamated into his own unique sound, he was known as the "father of soul." He claimed to have been born with music inside of him and that night I understood what he meant. From the moment he entered the room with that resplendent smile and sat down at the grand piano, the whole atmosphere was immediately set aglow, charged with his warmth and dynamism. His dark glasses bore mute witness to the enormous challenges he had overcome - poverty, blindness, racial discrimination, heroin addiction, the premature deaths of a sibling and both his parents - but there he was in concert, looking fabulous. His presence was captivating, but his music more so. The wonderful melodies and harmonies sounded forth in waves, carried aloft by his deep, emotion-laden voice and piano accompaniment. All the while, he rocked in the rhythms and gazed above, a look of sheer rapture on his face. He was simply magnificent. If Ray Charles could make the heart soar, Jacqueline Du Pre could plumb the very depths of the human soul. Like him, she was a unique and highly gifted musician. In her performance of her signature Elgar cello concerto, filmed in 1966, she was luminous and utterly enthralling, but you would never guess from outward appearances alone what brilliance lay deep within her. Simply dressed, plainspoken, and somewhat shy, she never tried to draw attention to herself. Though her natural enthusiasm, energy, and kindly manner were unmistakable, her focus was entirely on the music. She strove for technical excellence and expressive power solely in order that she might share with her listeners the beauty, meaning, and ecstasy she felt inside her. For her, music was life itself, a force that could not and would not be denied, despite the progressive multiple sclerosis that would soon take its toll. Yet still she persisted, allowing herself to be filmed in performance even as the ravages of the disease became increasingly obvious, until her illness eventually forced her to lay down her beloved instrument for good. Even then, she tried to help other musicians. She served her muse to the very end. Both musicians, despite their widely different orientations and styles, overflowed with personal vitality and produced music of riveting quality. Both felt compelled to communicate what they experienced in the depths of their being, regardless of the rather formidable social and physical barriers that stood in their way. For they shared an understanding of what has been known since ancient times and celebrated in every culture in the world - that music is central in the life of humanity and has always been. The Church, of course, has long given music a prominent role in the worship service, both as a vehicle for the liturgy and rituals, and a means of creating an atmosphere conducive to prayer and mediation. But for us to rely exclusively on sacred music to give meaning to our spiritual lives would be to impose limits on what Martin Luther called "one of the most magnificent and delightful presents God has given us." And to use secular music only for its entertainment value would be to miss so much of what it has to offer. For music predates language and is the most basic of all the arts, reflecting as it does the pulsating rhythms, weaving harmonies, and surging melodies that live at the innermost core of the universe and at the center of human existence. It expresses both the height and depth of human feeling, echoes the order and beauty of the forms that surround us, and gives voice to spiritual truths of all kinds. Music by its very nature promotes unity, healing, and restoration, and encourages growth and transformation. It constantly brings the human being into balance, working on all aspects of our nature, providing whatever is needed. It can stimulate our imaginations, awaken our intuitions, lift our moods, advance our intellects, relax our bodies, and fortify our wills. It unites us with people of different times and places, and draws us into community with those around us. It connects us with the divine, with elemental meanings and mysteries that otherwise might have eluded us. What greater gift could we ask for to support us on our spiritual journeys? We do not hesitate to ensure that we have food for our bodies on a daily basis. Well, music is manna for the soul and just as vital and nurturing. Dear Lord, thank you for your miraculous gift of music. May we learn to understand and appreciate it in all its glory and life-giving power, daily immersing ourselves in its healing melodies, harmonies, and rhythms, that we may reconnect with the spirit of truth and beauty that dwell at the heart and soul of the universe and thus be drawn closer to God, to nature, and to one another. Amen. |