Dissident Veteran For Peace

I have long felt uncomfortable hearing people say, "There but for the grace of God go I". I realize that most people who say it have good intentions. They mean it as an expression of sympathy for someone who has, to their mind, fallen into misfortune or sin. They may also mean to convey a sense of humility to the effect that only God's grace, and not their own merit or efforts, prevents them from likewise falling.

Good intentions notwithstanding it seems to me that there is an implied arrogance and judgmentalism in the phrase. The problem is in the idea that you can look at the external circumstances of another person's life, discern the presence or absence of God's grace, and assert that somehow explains the situation. Then, too, there is the implication that God's grace has formed a hedge keeping you from descending down into the same condition. Given this how do you imagine someone who is experiencing what is perceived as misfortune or sin would feel about learning that another has assessed their situation and declared, "There but for the grace of God go I"?

It's worth also noting the phrase is not biblical. Rather, it is attributed:

to the English evangelical preacher and martyr, John Bradford (circa 1510–1555). He is said to have uttered the variant of the expression - "There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford", when seeing criminals being led to the scaffold. He didn't enjoy that grace for long, however. He was burned at the stake in 1555, although, by all accounts he remained sanguine about his fate and is said to have suggested to a fellow victim that "We shall have a merry supper with the Lord this night".

In the case of Bradford the expression may have had a markedly different meaning than in modern times. It is possible that Bradford meant to suggest that those facing death were in some measure the beneficiaries of God's grace. There, after all, was a time when Christians more commonly understood suffering as a powerful means of identification with and faithfulness to the cause of Christ (Phl 1:29;  2Th 1:4,5; 1Pe 4:12-16). I have no conclusive evidence that this is what Bradford had in mind but I think it is from far inconceivable.

There is though considerable cause for doubt that the expression originated with Bradford. As one source states, the earliest appearance in print of any version of the saying goes back only to 1771. In any case, as I have already said, the expression is not biblical. Although there are numerous references to the grace of God in the Bible there are none I am aware of that hold up God's grace as a reference point for interpersonal judgment or comparison.

The Greek New Testament phrase most frequently translated as "grace of God" appears only once in the Gospels. It appears in Luke 2:40 to describe Jesus' spiritual maturation while still a child. In considering "There but for the grace of God go I" four other biblical passages come to my mind.

First, there is Jesus' admonition to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Mat 7:1; cf. Luk 6:37). I do not take this as a blanket exhortation to never judge any thing or any actions but to refrain from making judgments about the spiritual conditions of others. Taken in context, it seems to me that Jesus is saying, among other things, that spiritually judging others is an example of false piety and that we are really in no position to make such judgments. It follows then that we likewise should not presume to know where God's grace is to be found.

Second, in John 9 there is the blind man whom Jesus sent to wash in the pool of Siloam. Jesus' disciples ask, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answers, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." So, in this instance, it would appear that the man was born blind—something many sighted people would consider a misfortune—by the grace of God.

Third, there seems to be a special place reserved for sexual sins/sinners in the working of God's grace as is apparent from the genealogy of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both describe the paternal lineage of Jesus. Unlike Luke, Matthew's version (1:1-18) includes, among the many men, four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Including Mary, an unwed mother, there are five women listed in Jesus' family tree.

Tamar "played the harlot" in order to deceive her deceased husband's father into impregnating her (Gen 38:15-24). Rahab didn't pretend to be a prostitute; she was a prostitute (Jos 2: Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25). Tamar and Rahab are also both reckoned by scholars to have been Canaanites. Ruth was a Moabitess, meaning she was a descendant of Lot, who engaged in incest with his eldest daughter (Gen 19:36, 37) and part of a group who worshiped Chemosh (Num 21:29; Jer 48:7, 13, 46). And Bathsheba, as you may recall, was the mother of Solomon by King David who first impregnated her (with another son) in an act of adultery. In order to try to conceal that adultery, David essentially murdered Uriah, Bathsheba's husband. As if to underscore this, Matthew makes specific mention of Uriah in verse 1:6.

Finally, there is the fact that Jesus was repeatedly judged a sinner. For example, by strict (mis-)interpretation of the Law he was indeed a sinner for, among other things, aiding and abetting the violation of the Sabbath after he healed the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda as recounted in John 5:

Jesus said to him, "Get up, pick up your pallet and walk." Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.

Now it was the Sabbath on that day. So the [Judaeans] were saying to the man who was cured, "It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet." But he answered them, "He who made me well was the one who said to me, 'Pick up your pallet and walk.' " They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Pick up your pallet and walk'?" But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you." The man went away, and told the [Judaeans] that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason the [Judaeans] were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

For this reason therefore the [Judaeans] were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

The mandate to keep the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, along with, for example, the prohibition on murder. Thus, violating the Sabbath was a very serious offense, as is evident from the text below (Num 15:32-36).

Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Through his life, death, and resurrection Jesus completed the Law and finally terminated its claim on the lives of humans. We are under grace, not the yoke of the Law (Mat 5:17; Jhn 1:17; Rom 6:14; Gal 3:13). Jesus also challenged and overthrew the false understanding of the Law, declaring, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" but more importantly from Matthew 22:

But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend [lit. "hang"] the whole Law and the Prophets."

The Old Testament and the Gospels make clear that this is not a novel idea but Jesus, by his actions and his words, repeatedly challenged Pharisees and others stuck in legalism to go beyond a shallow, intellectual understanding of this important truth and to incorporate it in a meaningful way in their lives, practices, and doctrines.

I think this understanding of the Law is important when considering judgments about God's grace in the case of those who seem to be fallen not into misfortune but into sin. The point being that even sinfulness is not always so easy to discern when thinking about God's grace or its absence.

Labels: Christianity, Jesus, religion

I recently received a copy of a hoax chain e-mail with the subject line: "General Eisenhower Warned Us." Below, with some minor edits, is the response I sent to the more than two dozen e-mails addresses listed as having received or sent it before I received it.

The "General Eisenhower Warned Us" message below is a sad example of anti-Muslim fear-mongering. This hoax chain e-mail is based upon an earlier 2007 hoax chain e-mail that said, "Recently, this week, UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum ... " (see Snopes.com). The current version (below) says, "This week, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred."

This sweeping generalization or stereotype, even, is absurd on its face. It claims: "[The Holocaust] 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred." As a press release for a 2006 scientific poll of UK Muslims noted: "There is no universal, monolithic Muslim opinion - there is as much variety as among non-Muslims." Regarding the holocaust and Muslims, it reported, "2% denied it happened entirely." The same poll found that a plurality of Muslim respondents believe the Holocaust happened "as History teaches".

Moreover, there is no evidence that the UK ever "debated" removing "The Holocaust" from its curriculum. The 2007 report that apparently elicited the Islamophobic frenzy, "Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19," is available online and you can read it yourself. Nowhere in it is there any debate about not teaching about the Nazi holocaust.

The report notes the holocaust is one of several controversial subjects for some students and references on page 15 "a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education] coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils." The GCSEs apply only to students aged 14 to 16. So, what you have here is one department in one city not selecting one topic for students aged 14-16 because of an unfounded or founded (we do not know which) fear of confronting "anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial" (whatever these mean) among SOME "Muslim pupils." That's all.

When the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth (Ynet is their online edition) covered the story in 2007, they reported:

" 'There is no evidence that schools are not teaching the Holocaust.' Orla Delegray of the Dept for Children, Schools and Families said.

" 'We have made clear there are certain, non-negotiable subjects which will be protected in schools and that includes the Holocaust,' she wrote. According to her, the British Education Ministry has even invested millions of pounds this year in subsidizing programs through which British students visit Auschwitz.

" 'The suggestion that the Holocaust is being dropped from the UK national curriculum is entirely false,' said Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust."

As for the bit about "Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' ..." that's a hoax, too. Calling the holocaust a myth is not Iranian state policy. The president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--who is second-in-command after the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei--has been accused in the West of holocaust denial but so has Norman Finkelstein, son of two holocaust survivors and the author of The Holocaust Industry. I've read several of Finkelstein's books, including The Holocaust Industry and he is no holocaust denier.

But to return to Ahmadinejad consider the testimony of Shiraz Dossa: "... Ahmadinejad has not denied the Holocaust or proposed Israel’s liquidation; he has never done so in any of his speeches on the subject (all delivered in Farsi/Persian). As an Iran specialist, I can attest that both accusations are false. U.S. Iran experts such as Juan Cole and UK journalists such as Jonathan Steele have come to the same conclusion."

So, now ask yourself with US troops occupying two predominantly Muslim countries, with Iran in the cross-hairs of Israel and US Neo-cons, and with predominantly Muslim Palestine under the thumb of US-backed Israel, who benefits from spreading lies and distortions that cast Muslims is such a very bad light. Who gets hurt?

If you are a Christian and you passed this "General Eisenhower Warned Us" garbage on to other people or failed to challenge it then shouldn't you ask yourself if you have sinned? Leviticus 19:16 says "You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbour: I am the Lord." Christians are not under the Law but that is no license to harm our neighbors or spread falsehoods.

According to Jesus: "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles. ... what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person ..." They didn't have keyboards and computer mice in Jesus' day but it seems to me the principle is timeless and not restricted to one form of communication.

Perhaps the most offensive and most revealing part of this hoax is the closing. It says: "God Bless America!"

See also: Turning Muslim Children into Zionists
-----Original Message-----

Sent: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:44 am
Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: General Eisenhower Warned Us]

Labels: Christianity, critical thinking, Empire, holocaust, Iran, Islamophobia, Jesus

All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants' windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
They'll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all god's graces
And the birth of the rebel Jesus

Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But they've turned the nature that I worshipped in
From a temple to a robber's den
In the words of the rebel Jesus

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgment
For I've no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

Labels: Christmas, Jesus, resistance

The Birth of Jesus the Messiah

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel’,
which means, ‘God is with us.’

When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

The Visit of the Wise Men

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, ‘Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.’ When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:

“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who is to shepherd my people Israel.” ’

Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ‘Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.’ When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure-chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

The Escape to Egypt

Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’

The Massacre of the Infants

When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

‘A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.’

The Return from Egypt

When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.’ Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’

Source: Matthew 1:18-2:23

Labels: Christmas, Jesus, resistance

I had thought about naming this post "Merry Exmas," with the "Exmas" being a reference to the C. S. Lewis' fable "Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus," (see text also here) because this is primarily a post against what Richard A. Horsley, in Religion and Empire: People, Power, and the Life of the Spirit, calls "Christmas, the Festival of Consumer Capitalism." However, in opposing that Christmas, or Exmas, my goal is to uphold a Jesus-centered Christmas--one focused on love, justice, and peace. And, so, in that spirit, I wish you a merry Christmas, for there is nothing merry about Exmas.

In keeping with this theme, it is illuminating to read what a couple of atheists have to say about Christmas ("An Atheist Can Believe in Christmas" by Randy Kennedy, NY Times, 12/17/06). According to Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation:

"It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas — giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it — all of that has been entirely appropriated by the secular world," he said, "in the same way that Thanksgiving and Halloween have been."

The God Delusion author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says:

So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

It is probably not too difficult to find folks who still take exception to "Merry Christmas" because, to them at least, it does have "religious significance." But it is telling nevertheless that two militant atheists such as Harris and Dawkins perceive Christmas as they do. So, what is a follower of Jesus to do?

I think Lewis, Horsley, and the folks behind Buy Nothing Christmas (BNC) are on the mark in pointing the finger at consumerism. Horsley also situates "consumer-capitalist Christmas" within the mistaken and pernicious "Christian-determined understanding of religion as personal belief." He continues, "The modern religious fetish of religion as belief ... prevents recognition of the consumer capitalist holidays as the imperial religion that constitutes power relations today."

BNC has a study guide to help youth get "off the treadmill;" here are the "three easy steps" covered in the guide:

Session 1: Take a risk, don't conform to those in the spending spree. Mary, the unwed mother of Jesus, went against the grain. Think about it.

Session 2: The best gifts come in no packages. The Christmas story is all about flipping the system on its lid.

Session 3: Image is everything? Well, don't get pegged as a mindless consumer, be a rebel this Christmas.

It is also telling that the self-styled Christian, conservative, pro-Israel, and anti-gay American Family Association (AFA), through their "Project Merry Christmas," has invested considerable time and money in lobbying and boycotting corporations that don't include Christmas in their advertising. Consciously or not, the AFA recognizes consumer-capitalist Christmas as an imperial holiday and, for all their hollow protestations of piety and "family values," they like it that way and will fight to keep it so. In truth, the "Exmas Rush," to return to C. S. Lewis, and its associated advertising blitz is little short of sacrilege.

See also:

• Christmas Unwrapped: Consumerism, Christ, and Culture, edited by Richard Horsley and James Tracy
• What Would Jesus Buy videos
• Rev. Billy of the Church of Stop Shopping on the Glenn Beck show
• WWJB Movie Trailer
• Interview with WWJB Director Rob Van Alkemade

Labels: Christianity, Christmas, Dawkins, Empire, Jesus, religion

Below is a slightly altered version of an article I wrote almost three years for the Michigan Indymedia Center under a pseudonym.

A November 27, 2003, Salvation Army (SA) press release notes, "In a dazzling nationally televised half-time performance during today's Dallas Cowboys' annual Thanksgiving Day game, country music superstar Toby Keith helped kick-off The Salvation Army's 2003 Red Kettle Campaign." That same week I kicked off my second annual seasonal boycott of businesses that host the SA's Red Kettles.

You see, what the press release doesn't tell you and you wouldn't learn from the half-time show is that the Salvation Army (SA) is a conservative church organized in a military structure and operating on "war" footing. Among other things, its official doctrine states:

Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

If you do not "accept and abide by" these and other doctrines--for example, total abstinence from the use of alcohol and tobacco--then you cannot be a member of the SA "church body." By contrast, Jesus maintained a fellowship that welcomed the socio-religious outcasts of his day; some of these persons were deemed impure in their very being. Yet, Jesus violated the purity codes and communed fully and openly with them. The Gospels record that when Jesus sat down at the Last Supper, he ate and drank with Judas, knowing that he had already agreed to, and would, betray him; with Peter, knowing that very soon he would deny him thrice; and, with his other disciples, knowing that while still at the table some would quarrel over 'which of them should be accounted greatest.' Jesus did not eschew communion with the betrayer, the denier, or the self-aggrandizing quarrelers. Would God that the SA and other 'traditionalists' and 'revisionists' should follow Jesus' example of, yes, the inclusive table.

The SA doesn't depend solely upon their faith in God; they are also active in politics. SA leaders saw George Bush's "Faith-Based and Community Initiative" as an opportunity for increased funding and to "allow us to integrate social services and spiritual services more." So, in 2001, according to a SA memo obtained by the Washington Post, the SA offered the administration its financial and other support for lobbying efforts to increase the flow of federal taxpayer money to religious organizations. In return, the SA asked for a pass from the White House to permit them violate local and state employment non-discrimination laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

The SA eventually got much of what they wanted in December 2002--just in time for Christmas--George Bush signed Executive Order 13279. According to the official press release, it "amends a previous Executive Order to ensure that religious organizations receiving Federal contracts are able to take their faith into account in making employment decisions." Since LGBT people do not have any federal protections against discrimination, they are the people most adversely affected by this change.

In November 2001, the Western US territory of the SA decided--at least partially in response to local and state nondiscrimination laws--to start providing health benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of its employees. In explaining the decision Col. Phil Needham wrote:

I cannot conceive of the God of agape love saying to us: "Yes, provide needed health care access to these sinners, but not to those." Do I support the gay lifestyle? No. Do I think that refusing to provide access to benefits to a gay partner of an employee will serve to alienate us further from gays in general and confirm further the perception by probably most gays that Christianity is not for them? Yes.

After a weeklong onslaught of anti-LGBT criticism from the so-called Religious Right, including a funding boycott led by the American Family Association, the national headquarters reversed the policy.

While I support the rights of the Salvation Army and its members to freedom of religion and expression, until they change their policies, I will not knowingly support them or any business that supports them; I am also opposed to them (or any other religious organizations) receiving public funds. Charity is important but the good that the Salvation Army does must be balanced against the harm they do to LGBT people by their promotion of baneful "religious" doctrines. More importantly, in most places there are nondiscriminatory alternative organizations to which people who normally give to the Salvation Army can divert their money.

If you are offended by the presence of the SA's Red Kettle at a business you support then I encourage you to explain your concerns to the management. You can let the SA know by dropping an $3 bill or a Soulforce voucher (PDF) in the Red Kettle. Finally, don't forget to express your gratitude to businesses that don't permit the SA to solicit funds on their property.

Note: Col. Phil Needham's statement quoted above no longer appears on the Salvation Army web site. You can read excerpts of it here on the web site of the right wing Concerned Women for America.

See also:

• Gay activists blamed for Salvation Army ban
• Salvation Army "Kettle Protest"
• Another March to the Right for the Salvation Army

Labels: Christianity, Christmas, Jesus, LGBT, religion