Tag: bible

three postures about prayer

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

It seems to me that there are three different postures one could take towards the activity of prayer.

One is an essentially negative posture. This posture rejects all prayer as useless and ineffective. This posture would fit most comfortably within a naturalistic worldview. “No being that hears prayer is either true or real. Ergo, prayer is pointless.” Interestingly, this posture also fits one particular type of theistic worldview: deism. Deism accepts a ‘first cause’ or ultimate being as true and real, but does not believe that this ‘god’ interacts with or intervenes within our world. Thus, again, prayer is wasted effort both the Naturalist and the Deist.

This negative posture has the appeal of being clean cut, tidy and simple. “I just don’t waste any time on that stuff.” But for me, naturalism and deism have always seemed closed minded, based on ultimate negative assumptions, and thus intellectually and spiritually unsatisfying. It also does not (indeed by definition it cannot) take seriously even one of countless stories of answered prayer. It is the quintessential example of a sweeping judgment. “Nope, it’s all B.S.”

Another (yes, at the other extreme) posture is essentially positive. This posture accepts basically prayer ‘works’ all the time. One might think that this posture is the ‘Christian’ or ‘religious’ one, but it really doesn’t sit comfortably at all within a worldview shaped by the Bible. This posture, unlike the Bible, cannot cope well with death, suffering, struggle, doubt, questions, and pain.

This positive posture is well-meaning, hopeful and at times inspirational, but can be harmful in setting up people for disappointment with life, with others, or themselves.

The posture that we will have if we are shaped by the Bible will be an essentially relational one. This posture sees prayer, not as a mechanism, but an act of relationship. And relationships are dynamic and living. Not easy or comfortable. The Bible contains a breathtaking spectrum of relational speech toward God. On the one hand, you have prayer that is so gushing and sappy it sounds almost romantic. On the other hand, you have prayer that sounds so hostile and critical toward God that it sounds atheistic to our ears. But to address God at all is to acknowledge the Great Reality behind, over, under, and active within our reality. In this sense, a relational posture can transcend the positive-negative distinction.

The Bible also transcends a hard natural/supernatural distinction. The same God who raises the dead is the same God who made the world regulated by natural laws and ‘holds all things together’. The God of miracles and resurrection is also the God of science and rationality. The Spirit who some times acts or speaks in powerful surprising ways is the same Spirit who most of the time acts or speaks through nature, law, conscience, reason, quantum mechanics and intuition.

Relational prayer, then, is not just about whether it ‘works’ or not. It’s simply what a person does in relationship to God. Whether frustrated shouts at God, passionate prayers of adoration to God, or humble sitting in the shame with God; we pray. Whether we say Wow, Help, Thanks (the more familiar ones) or Why or Sorry (the ones that balance the others out); we pray.

entirely devoted

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

The King James version of 2 Chronicles 16:9 reads like this:

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.

It’s a famous little verse, wrapped in the middle of a critique that the prophet Hanani issues to king Asa for relying on human strength instead of divine strength. Asa had a heart problem.

But what about that little word ‘perfect’? What’s going on there? Does God require ‘perfection’ in matters like this, or in general? Why would someone with a perfect heart need God to be strong for them? Aren’t they already perfect?

We could rightly point out that this is not some kind of unattainable Greek, mathematical, mechanical ‘perfection’ that is in view here. It is instead the complete, total and absolute orientation to God. Like when an Olympic athlete, skilled woodworker, tailor or electrician puts aside all distractions and focuses ‘entirely’ on the difficult task they are doing.

There are three components to the verse: The searching eyes of the Lord, the state of human hearts, and the resulting strength from God. Other translations swap out the word ‘perfect’ for ‘fully committed’, ‘blameless’, ‘fully devoted’, ‘loyal’ or ‘completely his’.

Some things in life are a spectrum like a dimmer switch, and other things are either/or, like a on/off switch. When a carpenter strikes a nail with a hammer, they either hit it or they miss (note: a miss also includes hitting it wrongly and bending the nail!). Careful, diligent focus on the nail head is required for the nail to be driven. With that kind of ‘perfect’ focus, the power of the hammer can be effective.

So then, this is less about some kind of ‘make sure you’re good so that God will love you’ kind of moralism or legalism. This is about the spiritual law that there is no transformation without our participation.

The 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous touch on this principle in step 6: “(we) Were entirely ready to have God remove from us all these defects of character.” For God to do the removing of the defects (discovered through the inventory of step 4 and disclosed to God, self and another in step 5), I must be ‘entirely ready’; and my actions must show this. God moves mountains, but I must bring a shovel.

God’s power to protect or transform is never forced upon us. It is released when we position ourselves in alignment to God and his loving purposes for his world. As Augustine said, without God, we ‘cannot’. But God ‘will not’ without us.

praying to God as friend and foe (& everything in between)?

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

I just read Job 19 for my morning devotions.

It’s a profound combination of doubt and faith. In the same chapter, Job accuses God and expresses profound hope in his Redeemer. It’s astounding.

Check out the stark protests against the Almighty…

8 He has blocked my way so I cannot pass;
    he has shrouded my paths in darkness.
9 He has stripped me of my honor
    and removed the crown from my head.
10 He tears me down on every side till I am gone;
    he uproots my hope like a tree.
11 His anger burns against me;
    he counts me among his enemies.
12 His troops advance in force;
    they build a siege ramp against me
    and encamp around my tent.

And contrast this with the profound hope – dare I say Resurrection hope! – later in the chapter…

25 I know that my redeemer lives,
    and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
    yet in my flesh I will see God;

This is a breathtaking combination. Even putting to one side the questions of how specific terms from v25-26 are to be translated… however they should be translated they speak of seeing God after the flesh, skin or body has been destroyed. Seeing God “with my own eyes—I, and not another.” (v.27)

I wish I had a faith as resilient and honest as Job’s. I feel very disrespectful accusing God. But maybe this language is there in Scripture for us all to express all of life, toxic, tragic, triumphant and technical, to our Father.

Maybe we are given resources in Scripture to pray to God, no matter how we may feel he is relating to us. With the tender intimacy of ‘Abba’ Father, or the relentless punishing violence of a cold-hearted enemy. Or any of the options in between these extremes. He may feel like a mother or a mercenary. Defense attorney or prosecuting attorney. The judge or indeed… the one taking the punishment of the guilty.

the explanation for everything, but not every thing

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

One of the common misconceptions of God is that belief in God is in some way contrary to science.

The logic seems to go like:
if a) I believe God is the explanation for X,
then b) there is no real motivation for ‘doing science’ to explain X.

This however collapses explanation into one level.

Aristotle, for example, talked about four causes for things. For example, for a coffee cup there would be:

  • a material cause – the materials that explain or cause this cup would be clay.
  • an efficient cause – the process that caused this cup to be was what we call pottery.
  • a formal cause – the identity or form of the object that resulted from materials and the process is a coffee cup.
  • a final cause – the purpose or goal of having a coffee cup is drinking coffee.

So there are many different ways to look at any particular thing (e.g. a computer), and different ways to look at the collection of things that we call ‘everything’ (e.g. Nature).

The belief that God is the explanation for ‘everything’ (e.g. existence itself) is not logically connected in any way to a belief that God is the efficient cause (so to speak) for every single thing that happens (e.g. every bank robbery, every tsunami, etc.). You can, in other words, be a theist and a criminologist; or a theist and a meteorologist. You can believe that Italian designers wanted to drink coffee from really nice cups, and still have plenty of reason to research what their coffee cups are made of, the processes involved, and why they chose the particular form or design.

Science is not in conflict with belief in God, just as a material or efficient cause cannot be in conflict with a formal or final cause. The problem comes when a material or efficient cause is mis-framed as a final cause; e.g. when ‘science’ is absolutely and dogmatically elevated ‘ to ultimate levels; in other words, to believe that everything can be explained by science (i.e. ‘Scientism‘).

So then, even if Scientism may have a problem with God, God has no problem with Science.
Indeed, God would be understood to be the final cause for all Nature – all creation; and the formal cause for the lawful and ‘scientific’ nature of Nature.

– – –

after-thought:
Note: in Pantheism (e.g. God is all; and all is God), which I do not hold, God is also the material and efficient cause for all things. Which gets very tricky making God materially and mechanically responsible for evil and suffering. God can only be ‘good’ within a worldview that makes a distinction between the eternally Free Creator and the purposefully free creation.

from the bondage of self

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

When an alcoholic is working the 12 steps using the guidance of the ‘Big Book’ of Alcoholics Anonymous, I am told that it is traditional to pray the “Third Step Prayer” found in Chapter 5 ‘How It Works’. Here is the full prayer:

“God, I offer myself to Thee—to build with me and to do with me as Thou wilt. Relieve me of the bondage of self, that I may better do Thy will. Take away my difficulties, that victory over them may bear witness to those I would help of Thy Power, Thy Love, and Thy Way of life. May I do Thy will always!’’

There is clearly much to appreciate about this prayer, but in this blog I want to do two things. First, I want to zero in on the significance of one line “Relieve me of the bondage of self”; and Second, I want to use the Lord’s Prayer to demonstrate how it is a prayer that asks the same thing.

The Self

The AA Big Book has a lot to say about an addictive focus on ‘self’. “Selfishness-self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows…” (bold and italics not in original) It says “the alcoholic is an example of self-will run riot.” In one of the appendices, there is a quote from Dr. W. W. Bauer, who observes that helping other fellow alcoholics creates an atmosphere in which “the alcoholic often overcomes his excessive concentration upon himself.”

Modern psychologists may sometimes take issue with what could seem like a negative view of the self in such language. But if we are read these quotes as intended, we can see that it is not the self, as such, that is being critiqued, but the ‘excessive’ focus upon self. ‘Self’ is not the problem, but selfishness. The AA Big Book wants the alcoholic to see that even when trying to be ‘good’ their self-will is at play. Such is the description of the ‘actor’ trying to ‘run the whole show’: “Is he not really a self-seeker even when trying to be kind?”

This wisdom about a counter-productive self-focus is behind one of my favourite lines in the prayer: “Relieve me of the bondage of self.” Through the spiritual programme of action outline in the 12-steps, the alcoholic or addict is guided through a process by which their excessive focus on themselves is relieved by the aid of a Power greater than (who?) themselves.

The Lord’s Prayer

I’d now like to translate this wisdom into Christian key. Of course, it is well known that the Christian faith was the spiritual garden out of which the principles of AA were harvested. Frank Buchman, the Lutheran minister, had his transformational experience with resentment, which led to him establishing the ‘First Century Christian Fellowship’ later known as the ‘Oxford Group’, whose 6 principles were expanded into 12 steps by Bill Wilson and the early AA fellowship.

So, although, it is not needed to re-translate any of this back into Christian faith, it might at least be interesting or useful to show how the Lord’s Prayer relates to this line from the Third Step prayer (indeed the entire prayer!); particularly given that the early AA groups used to open or close their meetings with the Lord’s Prayer (and some still do).

  • Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.
    • Right from the start, my focus on self is violently interrupted by shifting and lifting my spiritual gaze off of my self and onto another. Not just any ‘other’, but the ultimate Other. Consider how the same shift can at least be somewhat attempted in the practice of someone who does not believe in any traditional Monotheistic God. Take a practitioner of yoga (which I am neither criticizing nor commending here). Through their practice of breathing, exercise, community and spiritual worldview, they also shift their focus from their individual self onto their body, the others they might be exercising with, and indeed the Universe. Stresses and difficult mental states are at least temporarily put aside as one focuses on higher and wider things than their self. Monotheism simply takes this as far as the logic can lead – to an ultimate Other, the un-caused Cause behind all causality, the One Creator of all things.
  • Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
    • In contrast to the self-will that wants to run the whole show of life, and aggressively or passive-aggressively trying to get others to do what we think they ought to do, this part of the prayer acknowledges that there are higher laws and higher wills and a higher order of things than mine. I do not need to, and indeed I cannot live well if I persist in trying to, play God. Even the agnostic can at least sense a comparable shift when they acknowledge the vast order of natural law in the Universe. We are but a small part in the whole. Monotheism simply recognises that this higher order is not the an order characterised by ‘blind, pitiless, indifference’ as Richard Dawkins famously wrote, but rather by a purposeful, creational and ‘kingly’ or royal will.
  • Give us this day our daily bread
    • One of the basic fears that a fragile self can have is around the fear of financial insecurity. We fear not being able to secure means for ourselves, and for those who may depend on us. Food security experts talk about the difference between a ‘scarcity’ or ‘abundance’ mindset. One can base their positive affirmation of abundance on factual appreciations of the wealth of resources available to us. This prayer just rests this confidence on the ground of a generous God.
  • And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    • One of the most profound contributions of the AA Big Book is the focus on cleaning one’s own side of the street. We have many resentments against the wrongs others have done. Sometimes these resentments are essentially justified and we have truly been harmed. However, the wisdom here, is that even an innocent victim can get stuck in justified resentment. As the saying goes, “holding onto resentment is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies.” I cannot change the other person who hurt me (in my case, as a young child). I can only focus on changing myself, particularly the ways that I nourish my sense of victimhood and keep the fires of resentment enflamed. Forgiveness, in this context, has nothing to do with absolving or excusing or minimising the harm done to me; nor should it keep me from taking any appropriate action to protect myself or others from present or future harm. It is simply ‘giving’ them up out of my death grip of judgment. The wisdom here is very challenging, because never does the self feel more righteous than when criticizing another for legitimate harms done (think of Israel or Hamas). Whatever forgiveness may do for the one who is forgiven, it is undeniably transformative for the one doing the forgiving.
  • And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One.
    • Here the prayer follows on directly from the previous line. Unforgiving and merciless criticism of another person, and most of all the victim mentality too often leads to various forms of verbal, physical or military retaliation or vengeance. For others, it could lead to various forms of escapism as we feel entitled to a mental or moral holiday. We’ve been harmed, mis-represented, ignored, abandoned, so “Screw ‘them’; they have it coming.” Or “Screw ‘it’, I’m going to numb out…” with food, work, sex, drink or self-harm. Such escalations or self-harm are named here as temptations driven by a force that is malevolent, destructive, anti-creational, counter-productive, distorting, enslaving and thus ‘Evil’.
  • For Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever, Amen.
    • My life, my future, my past and present; and the history and activities in the whole world, are all subsumed within a higher order that will be ‘just fine’. This is not the well-meaning distant dualism of hoping that ‘God is watching us… from a distance.’ It is the dogged, insistent hope in the reality of a loving Father who can sort out the baddies ‘out there’, and who is constantly and compassionately available to help me with my fearful and vulnerable badness ‘in here’. God is the one who provides, rules, understands, judges and heals. I need that every day.

So then,
Father of all Creation,
today and every day,
relieve me of the bondage of self.
Make me a vessel of reconciling love
to some of your children today.
Amen.

many times each day

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

Praying regularly is the best way to perfect and improve one’s spiritual life.
We learn to pray properly by praying less than properly.

The timing and frequency of our prayers will vary from person to person.
There is no ‘perfect rhythm’ of prayer.

Popular Christian piety suggests a daily prayer, also called a ‘quiet time’.
Some Christian traditions practice twice-daily prayers: ‘matins’ and ‘vespers’ (or morning and evening prayer); and many Buddhists do morning and evening chants.
Islam requires adherents to pray five times a day.
Cistercian monks pray seven times a day; outdone by Benedictine monks with eight prayer hours.

Praying once, twice, five, seven or eight times a day is great…

But I just don’t think that is enough, at least for me…
(A good Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Monk will agree.)

I have to keep praying ‘unceasing’ prayers, processing life with God as it happens.

Recovering alcoholics who are working a programme from the guidance of the AA Big Book will heed the following advice for spiritually navigating a day:

“As we go through the day we pause, when agitated or doubtful, and ask for the right thought or action. We constantly remind ourselves we are no longer running the show, humbling saying to ourselves [in truth, it is a prayer that is said to God!] many times each day ‘Thy will be done.’ ” (AA Big Book, 87-88)

This practice, conceived by people famous for their struggles, best echoes the admonition of St Paul, who wrote that the will of God for us is to “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances” (1 Thessalonians 5:16).

Because of the simultaneous fragility and dominance of my ego, I have to pray.
All the time.

Esther, Exodus & Escalation

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

I just finished reading Esther this morning. It’s quite astonishing to read it in 2024 – with what’s going on in Israel & Gaza. There are some fascinating similarities (and important differences) between 480 BC and 2024; between ancient Persia and modern Palestine, which I wanted to reflect on here.

The Reality of Oppression

Jewish identity is shaped by many things, but among them we must include the tragic reality of being oppressed.

This is a historic trajectory that goes all the way back to Egypt. Israel under the lash of oppressive rule by Pharaoh. Making bricks without straw. The book of Exodus narrates the astounding victory that Israel experienced under God’s redemptive hand. It’s an ultimate reversal of power. The ultimate under-dog story. The little guy beating the big guy. Little Israel plundered the Big Egyptians. Their Big fancy chariot wheels got stuck before they all got drowned in the sea, and we Little guys made it through just fine with dry feet.

The book of Esther narrates the Jews under a kind of new Egypt, this time it is Persia. And this time, it is not the king that plays the leading oppressor role, but a high-ranking official named Haman. The basic story arc here is similar to Exodus, but instead of escaping with plunder, the reversal here is that the ones who were about to be entirely destroyed got to do some defensive destroying of their own.

Fast forward to 1933-1945 and the sense of victimhood has another horrific and historic chapter supporting it. This time Egypt is the Third Reich and Pharaoh is Hitler. I’ve been to Auschwitz. I’ve read Night by Elie Weisel. Utterly inhumane and horrific. Jewish folk carted in, dehumanised, starved, humiliated and systematically disposed of.

So then, in the mind of the Jewish people, the lineage of oppression and victimhood is clear and historic.
Egypt. Persia. Third Reich.
Pharaoh. Haman. Hitler.

Victims in the Present Moment

The time-span from Hitler and the WWII era to the current situation is only mere decades, but for us it feels like ages. The UN Partition Plan (1947) placed Israel officially back in the land. Without wanting (or pretending to be able) to get into a balanced summary of events, shall we say it’s not been a peaceful situation. There’s not much I want to say about the current horrors taking place. But I will risk making an observation that I think is crucially important.

Putting aside the question of what is correct or right, and focusing on the question of what motivates action… both the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) and Hamas (note: I’ve deliberately not used the terms ‘Israel’ or the ‘Palestinians’) are operating from a victim mindset… and both feel their actions are justified because of it.

Whatever you think about Just War theory, pacifism, or self-defense, we can probably acknowledge the difference between senseless, random, brutality (“let’s kill people for fun”) and the kind of violence and counter-violence at play here (“they have it coming to them”). Agree or not with the actions of either, it is useful to try to understand them.

Let’s go back now and look a little closer at Exodus, Esther, WWII and then the present…

Justifying Violence?

Lets start in Exodus. Egypt justified violence and ‘shrewd’ treatment against the Israelites, arguing that “the Israelites have become much too numerous” (Exodus 1:8-10). They feared them growing even more numerous, fighting against them, and leaving. In light of this oppressive enslavement, we see Moses justifying killing the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew (2:11-13). In the book of Exodus, there is a strong theme of God fighting for Israel (14:14; 14:25). They don’t have to wield swords, the Lord brings plagues and parts the sea. The Israelites are more numerous, but weaker in terms of political power, might and money. And through divine rescue, they conquer. The little guys (large in number) beat the big bad guys.

Next, let’s look at Esther. Here we have Haman, the Agagite, who is not only incensed that Mordecai will not bow to recognise the high standing he’d been given, but escalated matters to planning and scheming to have all Jews destroyed throughout the whole kingdom. We don’t know if the logic he lays out to Xerxes (Ahasuerus) is genuinely part of his background hatred of Jews, but his argument was that the Jews have different laws, keep separate, and don’t obey the king’s laws. Their impropriety made them, by his logic, worthy of extinction. By the time Haman had written letters in the king’s name, they contained “the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews – young and old, women and little children… and to plunder their goods.” (3:13) The order identified a single day for the slaughter, and went out to every province.

The immediate response was “great mourning among the Jews, with fasting, weeping and wailing.” (4:3) This was in addition to their existing sense of oppression as exiles. Esther (Hadassah) was not only a descendant of captives, but also an orphan. She didn’t have any wealth or power, but we learn she is rich with beauty and wisdom (2:5-7). As the story plays out (spoilers if you haven’t read it), Haman gets hung on a gallows he had made for Mordecai (7:10). Still more, although the previous order of Haman could not be undone (it carried the seal of the signet ring), the king empowered Esther and Mordecai to issue a second decree, authorised again by the signet ring, that the Jews have “the right to assemble and protect themselves, to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children, and to plunder the property of their enemies.” (8:11). Haman’s orders were literally genocidal (“all the Jews” young/old, women/children), while Mordecai’s were restricted to the defensive destruction of armed attackers. When the day came for the previous genocidal orders of Haman to be carried out, the Jews assembled “to attack those seeking their destruction” (9:2). The enemies resisted and destroyed reached as high as 75,000, and it is repeated three times that “they did not lay their hands on the plunder.” (9:10, 15, 16) The would-be victims were empowered to defend themselves, and did not escalate matters and take the plunder that the edict had entitled them to. The victims had resisted oppression without becoming oppressors themselves.

Fast forward to WWII and Hitler. Hitler was motivated by a victim mentality. He and other Germans felt that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. With his own brand of so-called scientific reasoning, he felt that the Jews were a threat to the health, strength, and purity of human progress. Such was the horrific thinking that justified such terrible tragic brutality and violence. As for the Jewish people, there was no opportunity for counter violence – and no need for justifying it. Unlike the mass deliverance narrated in Exodus, not everyone was able to escape to neighbouring countries or survive the concentration camps (better called Death Camps). Unlike the stark triumphant reversal narrated in the book of Esther, there was no great empowering act of self-defense in 1945. The war simply ended one day and survivors were freed.

Revisiting Victimhood in the Present Moment

Again, both the IDF and Hamas feel victimised.
Let’s consider some of the ways each feel victimised.

Palestinians in general – and Hamas in particular – protest displacement going back decades to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. They see this as an ongoing act of oppression. They lament the imposition of walls that were built between families that separated people and communities. They lament the responses of Israel that they would claim are consistently disproportionate.

Israel, by contrast, feels the pain of long-standing displacement and diaspora, going back centuries. They feel hated by surrounding nations. They feel the pain of being judged for what they would call self-defense. They feel misrepresented and labelled as reckless when they claim they are doing everything possible to warn innocent people to clear out.

When Justifications aren’t Just…

I’m going to risk suggesting that the victim mentality has wrongly justified violence on both sides.
That’s not me sitting comfortably on the fence, that’s trying to be even-handed in critique.

Hamas cannot justify their literally genocidal intent. Whatever the realities of ongoing colonisation and oppression, that does not justify the actions of 7 October 2023, and the ongoing refusal to return all hostages. It does not justify the tactics of hiding under hospitals and using civilians as human shields.

The IDF cannot justify its ‘collateral damage’ of civilian casualties in Gaza. Whatever the legitimacy there may be to defending yourself against a group (Hamas) that wants to end your existence, and however fair it is to take action to achieve the return or rescue of hostages, this does not justify the mass bombing. Civilians are never going to be able to clear out faster than Hamas.

A Better Way…

Jesus spoke to a group of Jews who also identified as Victims. They were under the thumb of Roman occupation. They longed for a Messianic rescue. Some of them were ready to wield the sword. Some did. The Maccabean revolt decades before Jesus. The Simon bar Kokhba revolt a century after.

Jesus instead taught these victims to pray for those who persecute them. To strive for and pray for justice, but to do that with Mercy and Humility, in line with the prophet Micah. Jesus knew then and knows now what happens when “the things that make for peace” remain hidden from our eyes.

Let us Pray for Peace and Work for Peace. At all times and places.

Nehemiah-nomics

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

Chapter 5 of Nehemiah gives a great picture of biblical justice.

The irony here is the context that the injustice develops.

Luxury in a context of hard-times

Cyrus, the pagan king anointed by God, has mercifully decreed that the Jews should return and rebuild Jerusalem. Artaxerxes, not able to bear seeing sadness in his presence, has sent the weeping Nehemiah back to rebuild.

It’s all hands on deck building the wall. Read chapter 4. The people “worked with all their heart” (4:6) and are making angeringly fast progress filling in gaps. Their neighbouring adversaries (forced to let them build) are threatening to attack and stop them. So the re-builders have to work with one hand and have a sword in the other. They roster on shifts of people working and watching.

As early as chapter 3, Nehemiah hints that the nobles are not so helpful. They “would not put their shoulders to the work” (3.5).

The Voice of the Poor

Now in chapter 5 we have three quotes from those facing hardship. This is quite remarkable. Nehemiah doesn’t just describe the challenges facing them in his own words, but in the actual voice of the poor.

One group talks about how their large numbers make their need for grain a matter of life and death
Another talks about having to mortgage their homes to get grain.
A third group talks about having to sell their children into slavery to pay the kings tax. They say “we are powerless, because our fields and vineyards belong to others.”

Economic Dominance

Nehemiah critiques the nobles for economically dominating their fellow Jews. Buying their lands and charging interest for the loans they made. The nobles didn’t have a word to say in their defense (5:8) This moment is a parallel of the Jubilee laws given at Sinai (Leviticus 25) to prepare the people to live justly in the land. Land was not to be sold permanently. It was to be seen as belonging to God. Nehemiah calls for the Jubilee reset. Give it back. The fields, vineyards, olive groves, and interest you gained.

Translating this for today…

It is a stunning picture of biblical justice and jubilee economics.

It’s important to say that it is not communism. It’s not everyone having the same. It’s not equality legislated to the max. But it’s clearly not everyone ‘free’ to do whatever they want. Be as successful as you can, make as much money as you can. Even if it causes your neighbour to starve and they end up facing the horrible decision of dying of starvation or selling their family into slavery.

No. This is neither unhindered free-market economics, nor big-government forced equality (which always seems to make room for a special powerful group who has a lot more). Neither Moses nor Nehemiah intended to control people so that nobody would ever be a bit more successful than another. What they both will not stand for, however, is gross inequity. Once you have a huge rich/poor gap, things get practically impossible for the poor, while the rich have to do practically nothing to keep their wealth.

Whatever we think about government legislation or political policy, the Church today should call one another to conduct ourselves in ways that do not allow the poor to be destitute and without a real choice.

fashionable help

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

In my arrogance…
I don’t want help that looks to simply like help…
I don’t want help that makes me look too desperate…
I wouldn’t want anyone to think I really needed help…
I’d rather be seen as someone who is a smug curator of the most desirable help.

In my arrogance…
I want fashionable help.

In my arrogance…
“I lift my eyes up.
Up to the mountains.
Where does my help come from?
My help comes from…”
Things that sound cool…
Things I can wear like fashion accessories…
Things like “12 step spirituality”
or “neuroscience”
or the scintillating book quotes I might drop…

What about people whose help is… God?
What about people who find it helpful to listen to Christian top-40 worship music?
What about people whose help is saying the serenity prayer?

Instead of arrogance…
intelligent help for intelligent people…
trendy help for trendy people…

What about simple help for simple people…

Lord make me humble.
Make me a servant.

the sneaky allure of selfishness

~ dwc ~ Leave a comment

I’m a prayer guy, and I’m a fan of 12-step spirituality.

So one of the resources I use for prayer is the guidance offered in the AA Big Book for step 11.

It suggests some patterns of meditation and prayer “upon awakening”. Here’s the first bit of advice…

“On awakening let us think about the twenty-four hours ahead. We consider our plans for the day. Before we begin, we ask God to direct our thinking, especially asking that it be divorced from self-pity, dishonest or self-seeking motives.”

AA Big Book, page 86

I am in awe of how practical this advice is. If I’m not directed by God, I will eventually (or immediately!) drift into spiritually unhelpful ways of thinking about my day. It mentions three huge categories of bad day-planning: “self-pity, dishonest or self-seeking motives.”

In my insecurity, I can lapse into the self-pity of imagining how certain situations may not go my way, or dreading the experience today of the effects of having been wronged yesterday.

In my self-protecting fear, I can drift into dishonesty, looking at the day ahead with a distorted lens that lies to myself by exaggerating the good that I think I might do, or minimising the mistakes I may make.

In my grandiosity (itself a product of insecurity), I can wade into the waters of imagining how impressively I might perform in this or that situation.

Later on in these couple of pages of advice, the AA big book has a strong suggestion around making our prayers that are oriented to being useful to others.

We ask especially for freedom from self-will, and are careful to make no request for ourselves only. We may ask for ourselves, however, if others will be helped. We are careful never to pray for our own selfish ends. Many of us have wasted a lot of time doing that and it doesn’t work. You can easily see why.

AA Big Book, page 87

I don’t think it is theologically wrong to pray for ourselves, of course. But it is not hard to see the wisdom of this advice. Our thinking about the day, and our ways of going about the day itself, are quickly distorted by self-focused motives. Heck, I can find myself drifting into worry, fear or self-protecting resentment even during a time of prayer itself!

The advice here is to always remember our priority of being useful to others. That is damned good advice.