Monday Morning Music Ministry

10-28-12

The near coincidence of the presidential election and Reformation Sunday offers an opportunity for us to execute a gut-check. As Christians, as American citizens — to put a precise point on our roles: as Christ-followers, and as patriots and voters — let us see where we stand in the Year of Our Lord 2012.

Approximately 500 years ago, the Catholic monk Martin Luther, who was repelled by corruption in his church and who agitated for reform, was called to account by that church. Among his reforms were a new way to view the pope and the powers of the papacy (he regarded his views not as new, but as old, biblical perspectives). He translated the Bible into the language of the German people; he militated against aspects his day’s prosperity gospel, such as buying “indulgences” from priests to assure places in Heaven.

Luther was more than called to account. He was threatened with excommunication, and in fact was defrocked and kicked out of fellowship. He was chased and hounded. He was threatened with death — as many reformers over the previous century, beginning with Prague’s Jan Hus, and contemporaries of Luther himself, were being imprisoned, tortured, and put to death. He was put on trial for his beliefs.

Brother Luther was told to “recant,” literally to say he no longer believed what he believed; to renounce his positions; to deny what he wrote and preached; that is, to violate his conscience. Already his books were being burned in public places.

In one of the great moments of not only church history but human history, the beleaguered priest faced those who hated him and could easily take his life, but were in no position to judge him – a big difference. He stood, lonely, among the hostile throng, and firmly declared that it was impossible for him to deny what the Bible taught him, or abandon his devotion to the Lord. He could not, and would not, betray his conscience.

“Here I stand,” he thundered. “I can do no other!”

Luther’s astonishing stand was a historical fulcrum. Humankind’s narrative – civilization – never was the same after that scene. It was an illustration of total subjection to God’s authority; yet also was one of the mightiest seeds of individual responsibility and the democratic impulse that has ever sprouted. He used reason to defy earthly authorities, but he believed that godly revelation was superior to man’s reason.

Let us fast-forward to today. A presidential campaign – a “consequential,” generational election – is not the only point of comparison we might make between Reformation Sunday and Election Tuesday. But it can remind us of the excruciating issues that confront us. Sometimes, as when we vote, we can effect changes. Or believe that we can.

My biggest problem with democracy is not that our votes might count for little, or that voting “for the lesser of two evils” still elects evil; or whether people vote “strategically” for or against third-party candidates. The main problem with democracy is the lie that voting fulfills our civic responsibilities. That view is not just wrong; it is a cancer that corrodes, an attitude that harms more than any manner of helping.

The lie of democracy persuades us that right and wrong can be decided by majority vote. That we can think of surrendering our concerns when we lose at the ballot boxes or courts. That we “gave it our all” on some issue or other, and that we should be satisfied with the results of votes.

Voting is the least we should do as citizens. If there are no issues or candidates we care about, we should not vote, but otherwise the vote is but one of a thousand tools to press one’s case. Debates, discussions, persuasion, letters, protests, town halls, writing, calling, volunteering, even civil disobedience, are among other things.

I address this to all of us, and without regard to parties or places on the spectrum. Think of Luther when the chips were down; think of volunteers at Valley Forge who sacrificed their lives, fortune, and sacred honor for a future they could not see except in the most hopeful of their dreams. Think of pioneers and soldiers and missionaries who all said, in their own ways, “Here I stand,” not just for themselves, their faith, or even themselves; but for you and me.

To address some issues: If you believe abortion is murder, why is your conviction dissipated when a few men in robes declare it to be a “choice,” not the death of an innocent? If you think the government is committing war crimes, or practicing torture, why does your passion die when a new government practices the same old acts? If you think certain “life choices” and lifestyles are sinful, why do you not stand up for your own beliefs? – to avoid confrontation, to not lose friends, to prevent people from thinking you are… what? A Christian? If that is the reason, that is something they should already know. And expect that you will act a certain way.

Luther knew that his judges were nothing, compared to the judgment of the Lord God Almighty. Some day – you know this! – God will ask us where we stood on certain issues. Maybe they were related to elections, maybe just economic problems or social justice, but always, ultimately, spiritual. Almost everything is.

Instead of “Here I stand,” will we say, “I stood… over there, where nobody could notice me”? How do you think God will like hearing things like “I went along to get along,” or “Everyone changed their opinions” on this or that and “what was I supposed to do?” We don’t let our children act like that; why should God give us a pass? If you are tempted to think, “Well, Luther was an important guy; I’m just me,” you should remember to look at the 11th chapter of Hebrews. A “great cloud of witnesses” is always watching what we do.

On election day, and every day, we must stand with God’s clear word, and our clear consciences, and act. We can do no other. God help us.

+ + +

A dramatic clip from 1953’s acclaimed film “Martin Luther,” the moment Dr. Luther makes his defense and confession before accusers, defenders, and enemies at the Diet of Worms. The actor portraying Luther is Niall MacGinnis.

Click: Here I Stand

11-22-12

“Have a seat!” “Help yourself!” “What would you like to drink?” “Feel free to have a second helping!” Every society through history has constructed grand halls for meetings, and decorated lavish living rooms for entertaining, but common to every culture – indeed to every family – is the dining table, even the kitchen table, for conviviality. It is where we bond, relate, and confirm friendships.

Shared meals have always been the signs of sincere respect between host and guest. It is said that sleepers never lie, and perhaps that is so. But it would seem as likely that hearty hosts and welcome guests, over a prepared meal, cannot stay suspicious or hostile for long. “Ess, ess, mein kind!” “Mangia!” “Bon appétit!” “Guten apetit!” “Buono apetito!” – all the world’s invitations to the table are first marinated in friendship.

If these practice,s and customs, are parts of humanity’s DNA, then it is no surprise that we find the recipe, so to speak, in God Holy Word. Many essential points of doctrine, teaching, and examples are related to food, to dining, to hospitality, to eating, to sharing.

The Lord could have couched His warnings and conditions in the Garden in any terms, but it was eating, of the tree of knowledge amid so many other offerings, where humankind met its first test. Of all the challenges to the Hebrew children, wandering the desert for 40 years, sustenance was the most obvious – but the Lord miraculously provided manna. Jesus’ first recorded miracle was at a wedding feast, turning water into wine. A later, celebrated miracle was feeding five thousand from a few loaves and fishes. Where did Christ take leave of His disciples and ordain the possibility of receiving Him as an indwelling presence? The “Last Supper.”

And so forth. This is not a Bible Bee – these are only a few of the many examples God has used to confirm the spiritual significance of nourishment, beyond physical requirements of eating.

When we think of the imagery of a feast prepared for us in Heaven, we can recall these examples and others, ranging from the celebratory feast prepared for the prodigal son, to the signification of the Host – “Take, eat; this My body, given for you.” But we would starve ourselves, so to speak, if we do not fully appreciate the table prepared for us over yonder, in Heaven.

God does not have a simple table setting, or a mere meal, waiting for us. It will indeed be a banquet table. A buffet table is how I see it. To visit various cultures again, think of a smorgasbord, a tapas menu, a dim sum experience, a churrascaria offering. Unimaginable varieties of surprises and blessings.

In fact, we would even more starve ourselves, spiritually speaking, if we restrict the visions of a blessed banquet table to Heaven, where indeed it awaits us. But we should remember that Jesus is the Bread of Life. We have communion now. The Lord does not just promise a spiritual feast sometime later: He IS a spiritual feast. Christians can behold the buffet – there is salvation, here is healing, there is forgiveness, here is comfort, there is wisdom. All prepared for us, sweet to our taste, nourishing to our souls.

Have a seat! Help yourself!

+ + +

A video clip of a moving performance of the classic Ira Stanphill gospel song associated with Gov. Jimmie Davis and many other singers, “Suppertime.” Here it is sung by the beloved Southern Gospel singer George Younce, surrounded by friends. George was undergoing dialysis at the time, and this was his last public performance.

Click: Suppertime

10-15-2012

Reprinted by request during the presidential election run-up.

Election Day is upcoming. Which of our presidents was the most religious — anyway, the most observant — is a topic that has relevance, perhaps more so when “social issues” inhabit headlines. Lest we judge, lest we be judged, we should acknowledge that it is an open question with no definitive answer, yet a fit topic for discussion. It is interesting to view the historical evidence and consider verifiable records.

I addressed the topic last President’s Day, and it proved to be the most popular –- or at least the recipient of the most “hits” and reactions -– in the several years I have been blogging and writing devotional essays. Are people hungry for intellectual “parlor games”… or wanting to connect the dots between political leaders and Christian faith?

In my case I hold Theodore Roosevelt in particular regard. A year ago my biography of him, BULLY! (Regnery History, 440 pages, illustrated entirely by vintage political cartoons), was published, and I devoted a chapter to TR’s faith. (Indeed, I am working on a full book on the theme.) One thing I have come to appreciate about TR is something that largely has been neglected by history books. That is, the aspect of his fervent Christian faith. In some ways, he might be seen as the most Christian and the most religious of all presidents; and by “religious” I mean most observant.

This is (admittedly) subjective; it is difficult to compute and compile lists of factors. TR’s name at the top of the list of religiously observant presidents might surprise some people, yet that surprise would itself bear witness to the nature of his faith: privately held, but permeating countless speeches, writings, and acts. (A step out of character for this man who otherwise exhibited most of multi-faceted personality to the world!) His favorite verse was Micah 6:8 -– “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

He was of the Dutch Reformed Church. He participated in missions work with his father, a noted philanthropist. He taught weekly Sunday School classes during his four years at Harvard. He wrote for Christian publications.

He called his bare-the-soul speech announcing his principles when running in 1912, “A Confession of Faith.” Later he closed perhaps the most important speech of his life, the clarion-call acceptance of the Progressive Party nomination that year, with the words, “We stand at Armageddon and we battle for the Lord!” That convention featured evangelical hymns and closed with “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

He titled one his books Foes of Our Own Household (after Matthew 10:36) and another, Fear God and Take Your Own Part. He once wrote an article for The Ladies’ Home Journal, “Nine Reasons Why Men Should Go To Church.” After TR left the White House, he was offered university presidencies and many other prominent jobs. He chose instead to become Contributing Editor of The Outlook, a relatively small Christian weekly magazine.

He was invited to deliver the Earl Lectures at Pacific Theological Seminary in 1911, but declined due to a heavy schedule. Knowing he would be near Berkeley on a speaking tour, however, he offered to deliver the lectures if he might be permitted to speak extemporaneously, not having time to prepare written texts of the five lectures, as was the school’s customary requirement. It was agreed, and TR spoke for 90 minutes each evening -– from the heart and without notes -– on the Christian’s role in modern society.

… and so on. TR was not perfect, but he knew the One who is. Fond of saying that he would “speak softly and carry a big stick,” it truly can be said, also, that Theodore Roosevelt hid the Word in his heart, and acted boldly. He was a great American because he was thoroughgoing good man; and he was a good man because he was a humble believer.

Remember Theodore Roosevelt on his birthday, Oct 27, days before the election. Remember him every day -– we are not seeing his kind any more.

+ + +

A clip from a memorable movie of the 1970s, starring Sean Connery and Candice Bergen, depicting Theodore Roosevelt handling a terrorist situation in north Africa during his presidency. Brian Keith as TR.
Click: The Wind and the Lion

10-8-12

A provocative blog this week by my friend Craig Bubeck on the site Internet Monk addressed the role of Christians in the political process. Drawing upon his own reassessments, he dealt especially with this season’s hot buttons: the role of morality in civic affairs; loyalty to nation and party; and the legitimacy of coerced charity as practiced by government.

He makes the point that too many Christians automatically reject state-mandated charity, when (recalling Jesus’ admonition to show love “to the least of these”) believers should applaud charity, no matter what the source; and that “values voters” tend to compartmentalize acts of love and charity. The church’s domain, many think.

Craig’s essay did provoke thoughts. I believe I have fairly stated his theses, and my own thoughts are based on his, not the second round of debating-points. I think that a lot of sincere citizens – sincere about their love and country and love of God, including therefore love of fellow men – do not often enough admire or support acts of charity when committed by government agencies.

However, the “other” side of the question (and it IS a foundational question facing Christians and all Americans) concerns how many governmental acts of charity are acts of love. That is to say that Jesus’ bedrock challenge, the element of love, should be the yardstick by which we formulate national policy and our own responses. Long-term, does the state’s co-option of charitable impulses – picking winners and losers, deciding between those in need, attaching strings to aid and comfort – assist the least of these amongst us solely? Or does it, ultimately, interfere with the prerogatives of churches and individuals? Is it a distinction with a difference?

The widow was praised for giving a mite, all she had. The rich man, in the parable, is not praised for, at least, giving something. There is nothing in Jesus’ story about mandating that the widow give, or setting her donation level, or rejecting the rich man’s donation. Love, in the heart, was the Lord’s determinant. Likewise it is evident, even to the extent of using a Roman coin in another of the Lord’s lessons, that “giving unto Caesar” meant the things of Caesar’s – first amongst them money and taxes. Surely the “things of God’s” meant the currency of love, deposited in the heart.

“The poor you will always have with you.” Many Christians do not dig deeply into yet another verse. It is not easy so to dig; my suspicion is that the parables and admonitions of Jesus seem to meet us less than halfway in order to oblige us to think a little harder than usual.

The statement about the poor is some times, at least subliminally, regarded as a reminder that “there are always those who are less fortunate than ourselves.” Perhaps a sanctified defeatism, that poverty will never be totally eradicated? Yet St. Augustine viewed Christ’s words not as a statement of fact or a statistical view of society, but a command, a challenge, a commission from God Almighty.

In the Augustinian view (in his “Confessions”) Christ was saying that no matter how severe the relative poverty — or, that is to say, also the relative comfort-level — of our neighbors, we must retain the spirit of charity. We believers, that is. In the original tongue, “charity” meant “love,” the act of Christian loving and compassion.

It would seems clear that such an impulse, a holy command rather than a feel-good, do-good suggestion, would find little fulfillment in the cultivation of systems that would transfer personal responsibility, and personal commitment, to others. In fact when governmental agencies assume the impulses and instincts toward charitable impulses – and sometimes virtually outlaw them, by sanctions against churches and faith-groups – we witness a war against religion.

A giant step in my political and ecclesial maturity was when relatives from Europe (where in many countries three per cent of citizens attend church, and where “state churches” are a matter of course) told me that many people attend church three times in their lives: baptism, marriage, and funeral. When the clergy is paid by the state, the Bible recedes to a book on the shelf among driver’s manuals and counselor’s handbooks; and the clergy is relegated to a list of state-supplied counselors you may call on, or not.

My own relatives in America, my grandparents, shared Great Depression era stories with me. A propos cheering “charity” when dispensed by the government, I recall that my grandmother, who sold cookies (not apples, as in the common images) on street corners, frequently confronted by “block captains” that government assistance for her family was tied to registering and voting with one of the two political parties. Render unto Caesar – Washington – indeed.

Simply: it is seems to me that if Christians perceive that there are problems in society, they ought to act more Christian than, perhaps, they previously have been acting; and should encourage fellow Christians and churches and faith-groups to respond better. That includes monetary gifts and it certainly includes physical involvement.

But when Washington says it can do such things better than Christians can – but moreover, and increasingly, attaches conditions regarding Christians’ freedom of conscience about things like abortion, homosexuality, reliance on the Bible’s instructions and God’s commands – we ought to reconsider the extent of “rendering unto Caesar.”

Surely Jesus did not categorize conscience and liberty, much less the charitable impulse, as things that are primarily the government’s domain.

+ + +

“Be Thou My Vision,” a beautiful Irish hymn of the fourth century, associated with St. Patrick, seems appropriate to hear in relation to this message. This version is by the trip Selah:

Click: Be Thou My Vision