An Assault on the Rule of Law

President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr are engaged in all out assault on the American value and tradition of the rule of law. They have seen to it that our proud and professional Department of Justice will not function as it should when the subject of its activity is a friend of President Trump. Roger Stone, Trump’s friend and political operative, was lawfully tried for and convicted of obstructing a federal proceeding, making false statements to Congress, and witness tampering. There is no reason to believe that the federal prosecutors who brought those charges against Stone and secured his conviction acted an any way improperly. But Donald Trump cares nothing about that. Roger Stone is his man, so for Trump he should not be subject to the same law and the same legal proceedings that the rest of us are. Under Donald Trump the rule of law, if not quite dead yet, is under serious attack. We cannot allow this assault on a bedrock of American liberty to stand. Attorney General Barr must resign. If he doesn’t he must be impeached. There probably isn’t time to impeach Trump a second time before the November election, but if there were the House would have to impeach him all over again. If the American system of freedoms and rights is to survive we must remove Donald Trump from office next November. If we do not we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the destruction of our liberty grounded in law.

The Parable of the Whistleblower

The Parable of the Whistleblower

Matthew 25:14-30

It’s one of Jesus’ parables that most of us intensely dislike. In it Jesus says it is as if a wealthy man went on a long trip. Before he left he gave one of his servants (or slaves) five talents, that is, five valuable coins. To another he gave two talents, and to a third he gave one. While the rich master was away the servant with five talents traded with them and got five more. The servant with two talents did the same and got two more. The servant who had one talent however was fearful of the master. He said that he knew that the master was a harsh man who reaped where he had not sown and gathered where he had not planted. So he dug a hole and buried his one talent. When the master returned he praised the servants who had increased his money, but he condemned the servant who had hid the one talent in the ground. He said that servant should have invested the talent with the bankers so that the master would have gotten back his one talent plus interest. He says take the one talent from this servant and cast him into the outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, for to those who have much more will be given, but to those who have nothing even what they have will be taken away.

On February 9, 2020, the Rev. Leah Bilinski, lead pastor of Fauntleroy United Church of Christ in West Seattle, preached on this parable at First Congregational UCC of Bellevue, Washington. She said that there are two possible interpretations of this parable, one most of us have heard and one we may well not have heard. The one we have heard says that in the parable the master represents God. God expects us to take the gifts God has given us and increase them. This God gets mad at and punishes those who just keep what God has given them and return it to God without having increased it. This God takes what they have from those who have little and gives more to those who have much. This God casts people God doesn’t like into the outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. That’s the exegesis of this parable I’ve always understood and accepted. Yet I’ve known that that reading of the parable creates a very unappealing image of God. God becomes a wrathful judge who condemns people God doesn’t like and casts them out of God’s presence, presumably for eternity. Because that’s how I’ve understood the parable I’ve always said well, that’s Matthew not Jesus and avoided preaching on it.

Leah give us the other exegesis, one I’d never heard before. She said it comes from the book Parables as Subversive Speech by William Herzog. That book was published in 1994, so this interpretation has been around for a while. Still, I’d never heard it. Leah, apparently relying on Herzog, called this parable “the parable of the whistleblower.” When I saw that title in the bulletin for the day Leah preached and saw what her text was I was puzzled. It did occur to me that perhaps the servant with one talent who tells the master that he is a jealous man who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not planted was blowing the whistle on the master, but I didn’t have time to think that notion through any more than that. It turns out that that is exactly what Leah was going to tell us.

She said that we need to get over thinking of the master in this parable as God. Rather, he represents the oppressive economic system of Jesus’ time—and of ours. He takes what he has not earned. He takes the fruit of other people’s labor. He has done nothing to deserve the increased money the first two servants give him. The third servant, the one with only one talent, does indeed call out the master as benefiting from what he has not earned and does not deserve. The master then boasts that the oppressive economic system he represents will take away what little the poor have and give even more to those who have much.

Understood this way this troubling parable isn’t about a harsh and judgmental God at all. It is about the injustice of existing economic structures. It is a condemnation of the wealthy living off the efforts of others and treating the poor unfairly. It is a cry for economic justice, for the poor being treated fairly, and about no one living at the expense of others. Leah said in her sermon that understood in the traditional way this parable doesn’t sound like Jesus at all, and she’s right about that. Understood as the parable of the whistleblower, however, it sounds exactly like Jesus. It sounds exactly like Jesus speaking for the voiceless, condemning unjust economic and other systems, and demanding justice for the poor. Chatting with Leah briefly after the service I said that her interpretation makes the parable usable rather than one to be avoided. Understanding this parable that way gives it a prophetic voice that it certainly does not have when understood in the traditional way.

So thank you, Leah. You have opened my eyes to a new way of understanding this parable. You have also reminded me that no matter how long I’ve been studying the Bible and preaching from it there are always new lessons to be found in it. That, I suppose, is why the Bible is still alive for us so long after its numerous texts were first written. Thanks be to God!

A Sham Trial

This is the text of a letter I sent to the Everett Herald, our local daily newspaper: The Herald published it on February 14, 2020.

The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump was a sham from the beginning. It wasn’t a sham because Trump didn’t deserve to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. He did., and he does. It was a sham because the Republican Senators were never going to do the right thing no matter what information about Trump’s misdeeds came to light. In the end only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, voted to convict on one of the two articles of impeachment. This verdict means that tribalism has triumphed over justice. Party has triumphed over the nation. The Senate’s acquittal of President Trump proves beyond any reasonable doubt that our political system is broken. It no longer works the way it should. I mourn for my country. We have descended to a political depth I never thought I’d live to see. Shame on the Senate. Shame in particular on the Republican senators who refused to convict the obviously guilty president. They have violated their oath of office and the oath they took at the beginning of the impeachment trial. They have ignored both the facts and the law. How very, very sad for our poor country.

An American Tragedy

Unless a miracle happens the Senate will not convict Individual-1 of the charges the House has brought against him and remove him from office. The Senate vote is scheduled for next Wednesday. Unless a miracle happens it will be a strict party line vote--53-47 for acquittal. It's easy to look at that vote and see both sides acting for their political advantage rather than on the basis of the facts and the law. Strict party line votes like this one tell us nothing about what's right. To get to what's right we have to look at the facts and, in case of an impeachment at least, the law behind the vote. When we do that in the case of Individual-1's impeachment we find that both the facts and the law lead to only one defensible conclusion. Individual-1 is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and must be removed from office. He solicited and was prepared to accept a violation of campaign finance law by getting Ukraine to give him something of value for his reelection campaign. In that effort he used nongovernmental people--Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, and others--and worked outside normal, legal diplomatic channels. He forced a career foreign service officer serving as ambassador to Ukraine out of her post not because of any legitimate policy issue but because he believed she hampered his solicitation of that illegal aid. He violated the law on impounding funds lawfully appropriated by Congress.. He violated his oath of office and did everything he could to hamper Congress' investigation into his wrongdoing. None of these facts is in dispute. They are what he did. The consensus of constitutional scholars is that impeachment does not require a violation of the law, although of course we have violations of the law here. All of that adds up to only one thing: Congress must convict Individual-1 of the charges the House has brought against him and remove him from office. That it won't is one of the great tragedies in the history of American politics.