Thursday, January 13, 2022

Unconditional Forgiveness

 

Unconditional Forgiveness

January 13, 2022

 

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

I am continually amazed by how Bible stories that I have known for decades still yield new insights when I read them again. I happened today when I read the story at Mark 1:1-12. In that story Jesus is at home in Capernaum. A large group of people has gathered around his door, and Jesus preaches to them. There were so many people that it wasn’t possible for latecomers to get anywhere near Jesus. Some people come carrying a paralyzed man on a mat. It seems they hoped that Jesus would cure the man’s paralysis. In some of the stories of Jesus healing people he does it long distance. In this story it seems that the people who brought the paralyzed man to Jesus thought they had to get the man close to Jesus if Jesus was going to cure him, but they couldn’t get him close to Jesus because of the crowd. So thy come up with an ingenious solution. They climb up to the roof of the house and somehow get the paralyzed man up there (we aren’t told how). The roof is apparently made out of mud or straw because the people who have climbed up there are able to did through it. They must have dug quite a large hole because they are able to lower the paralyzed man on his mat down through the hole they had dug.

Jesus sees the paralyzed man who has come through his roof. Jesus says nothing about people having destroyed the roof of his house, but never mind. The text says that Jesus sees “their faith.” It seems that the “their” here refers to the people who brought the paralyzed man to Jesus not the faith of the paralyzed man although the story is ambiguous about whose faith he means. Before anyone says anything to Jesus, Jesus says to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The story continues with some scribes who were present accusing Jesus of blasphemy because, they say, “who can forgive sins but God alone?” Indeed. Jesus says to them, “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk?’” Whereupon the paralyzed man stands up and walks out of the house.

It’s a famous story I suppose because of the drama of the way people get the paralyzed man to Jesus by digging through Jesus’ roof. I’ve known this story most of my life. When it came up for me today in a daily lectionary I use I very nearly said to myself I know this story, I’m not going to bother to read it again. But I did read it again, and when I did a new meaning the story has jumped out at me. In this story Jesus’ forgiveness of the sins of the paralyzed man is utterly unconditional. Let me explain.

At first reading it may appear that the paralyzed man’s sins were not forgive before Jesus said they were forgiven, yet that is not necessarily the case. Jesus could have as easily meant that the man’s sins were already forgiven, the man just didn’t know that they were. Read this way the story is about God’s universal, unconditional grace, expressed in the forgiveness of human sin. I love that reading of the story. For many years now I have believed, written, taught, and preached that God’s grace is indeed universal and unconditional. I have often used the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke to make that point. Until today I didn’t know that I could also use the story of the paralyzed man let down through Jesus’ roof to make it.

There’s a lot in this story about unconditional grace, about God’s unconditional forgiveness of human sin. Jesus forgives the paralyzed man’s sins as soon as he sees him. No one asks Jesus to forgive the man’s sins. The man makes no confession of his sins. He utters no mea culpa. Jesus doesn’t tell the man that there’s anything he has to do to get his sins forgiven. He just says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” It appears that Jesus tells the man that his sins are forgiven though no one has asked him to forgive them because he knows that the man needs his sins forgiven (and don’t we all) or because he knows the man’s sins always have been forgiven but the man didn’t know it. Either way, the forgiveness of the man’s sins to which Jesus refers is entirely unconditional.

That is indeed how it is with God’s grace, which of course includes the forgiveness of human sin. That’s how it has to be with God’s grace. If there are any conditions on God’s grace it isn’t grace, it’s an earned reward. In the ways of the world, for the most part, to receive anything we have to earn it. The ways of God however always turn the ways of the world upside down. God extends God’s grace to us not because we’ve earned it but because we need it. It really is that simple. For God truly to be God it has to be that way.

One way to get into Jesus’ stories and parables is for us to consider which of the characters in the story or parable we are—and we’re never Jesus or, if there is one, the character who represents God. In this story we may at times be the people who brought the paralyzed man to Jesus. We often want to help people in need get what they need. I find it more appropriate, however, for us to see ourselves as the paralyzed man. He needed God’s forgiveness, God’s grace. So do we. We need God’s grace at least as much as the paralyzed man of the story whatever that man’s sins may have been. For as 1 John says, “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8. We are all humans not gods. We are creatures not the Creator, and that means that we all need God’s grace. I wish everyone knew that they already have it. God has already extended grace to us and has done so entirely unconditionally. For that priceless gift from God let all of us say, “Thanks be to God!”

 

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Learning to Live with Mystery

 

Learning to Live with Mystery

January 12, 2022

 

I once heard the great Russian/British historian/philosopher Isaiah Berlin say that western culture rests upon three basic assumptions. They are:

 

1.      Every question has an answer.

2.      Every question has only one correct answer.

3.      It is possible to know that answer.

 

I don’t know if those three assumptions underlie all of western culture, but they certainly do seem to characterize secular western culture. People in our secular culture do seem to think that there are no unanswerable questions. We do not live comfortably with questions to which we do not know the answer. When people hear of something that they can’t explain they often speculate about possible explanations though they cannot know which of their speculations, if any, is correct. We just don’t like living with unanswered questions.

Yet even in the secular world there is a multitude of answered questions. I’ll turn to the science of astronomy to illustrate the point. Scientists believe that up to 85% of the mass of the universe consists of something they call “dark matter.” They postulate the existence of dark matter because they think that the total mass of the visible universe, unimaginably enormous as it is, is not enough to explain the observed behavior of the universe and everything in it. Yet they do not know what dark matter is. For now at least they cannot see it, so they really cannot investigate it except through observation of what’s going on in the visible universe that they cannot explain without positing the existence of dark matter. Astrophysicists are working very hard to solve the mystery of dark matter. Science cannot live with unanswered questions without trying to answer them. Scientists see unknown answers in their field of study as challenges. Trying to discern answers to unanswered questions gives them a great deal of work to do and a great many research grants to obtain. We creatures of western culture will keep looking for answers until we find them even if we can never find them.

Science has had an immense effect on how we think about everything, not just science. One thing that happened during the scientific revolution that was a big part of the European Enlightenment of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries is that people came to believe that truth consists only of facts and that science can discover those facts. This notion of truth as fact bled out of science and into religion. People came to want religious truth to be of the same order as scientific truth. As a consequence most Christians came to see the Bible and other stapes of the faith as reporting only facts. Allegorical truth, which today we call metaphorical or more technically mythic truth, which pre-Enlightenment culture knew and lived with, for the most part disappeared from the religious field. People came to understand concepts like God, Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and others as entities of the same nature as the laws of gravity or thermodynamics. A great many Christians came to see in the faith only in simplistic, factual terms.

When faith was reduced to fact it lost all sense of mystery. Protestants in particular locked God up in the Bible as a compendium of facts. The Bible became the only source and arbiter of religious truth. Jesus Christ was often reduced to being people’s friend rather than being a bringer or revealer of salvation as mystery. Today, as a result of the Enlightenment’s reduction of truth fact, people want a simple, easily comprehensible God. They want a God who is not only understandable but who they can manipulate through prayer. Most people today see God only as humanity writ large with nothing remaining as mystery. People today are unwilling to live with unanswered questions. Here's the thing though. Any God who is fully understood is not God. Any God as to whom all questions are answered is not God. Any God about whom there is no mystery is not God. When people won’t live with mystery they do not live with God.

Here's why that is so. Our human minds are limited. There is only so much we can understand. Our understanding of anything necessarily comes from the world we perceive through our various senses. Our senses are the only way we have of relating to anything material, anything factual. Our minds mostly operate within and relate to a presumed world of objects, a world consisting entirely of facts. Our minds connect us with a reality that is limited in time and location. Our minds are finite and can fully understand only that which is also finite.

Yet true God is not and cannot be finite. Our minds are finite, but they can and sometimes do experience the presence of something that transcends their experience of the finite. Sometimes we get a glimpse of a reality that far transcends our limited, finite reality. We catch a glimpse of it. In a way quite unlike our experience of our finite world we encounter a reality that infinitely transcends that world. We get a glimpse, but we can never fully understand what it is that we are glimpsing. We can’t fully understand it because that of which we are getting a glimpse is utterly transcendent. We do not experience it the way we experience the finite because it is not finite. God, you see, is not just another element of created reality. For God to be God, God must transcend that reality. One of the great paradoxes of faith is that God also inheres in the reality which God utterly transcends. That’s why we can sometimes experience God. Yet God still transcends that reality absolutely, and as absolutely transcendent God is ultimate mystery. The Catholic feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson calls God “the mystery that surrounds human lives and the universe itself.”[1] That is indeed who God is.

If we can fully comprehend something if it is finite. Yet if it is finite, it is not God. If a reality does not remain ultimately mystery it is not God. Anselm of Canterbury is famous for having said that God is that greater than which nothing can be imagined. While that statement may not finally work as a definition of God, it does point to a truth about God. We can comprehend finite reality and we can imagine a reality beyond finite reality. We can imagine it, but we cannot fully comprehend it with our finite minds. Of necessity it remains always mystery. The Bible puts it this way:

 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

     nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

     so are my ways higher than your ways

     and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9. NRSV.

 

God is indeed higher than we are. God must and does always remain mystery, and a great many people are profoundly uncomfortable with that truth.

Yet understanding God as ultimate mystery has a spiritual power that understanding God as merely another fact never can. We can stand in awe of ultimate mystery. We can accept God as God not just as another creature. Most of all, perhaps, understanding God as mystery introduces mystery into our lives. Because we can never fully understand mystery we cannot believe that we can manipulate it the way so many people think that through prayer they can get God to do things God would not otherwise do. Because we can’t fully comprehend ultimate mystery faith becomes more than a function of the mind. We can open our heats and spirits to that which is ultimate mystery and to the new things God is always doing in the world. We can trust our lives and our souls to that which is ultimate reality, ultimate truth. We can trust rather than know; and faith is not knowing, it is trust.

Sure. We think we’d like to reduce God to facts that we can know. After all, learning to live with ultimate mystery takes practice, and most of us don’t have the patience practice takes. It takes practice for us to say to God this is the best I can do, and I trust that for you it is enough. Accepting God as ultimate mystery lets us live in wonder, and wonder enriches life like no mere fact ever can. So I urge you: Accept God as ultimate mystery. Accept that you can know that God is real and trust that how you live with the mysterious reality of God will be enough. For us finite creatures, that is indeed enough.



[1] Johnson, Elizabeth A., She Who Is, The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (Crossroad, New York, 1997), 3-4.

Saturday, January 8, 2022

Some New Reflections on Russia

 

Some New Reflections on Russia

January 8, 2022

 

I have a PhD in Russian history. My major professor, Donald Treadgold, was one of the top names in the field and editor of the Slavic Review, the leading journal of Russian and East European studies at the time I studied with him. In spent the 1975-76 academic year in Russia, then of course the dominant part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I was there under IREX and Fulbright fellowships to do historical research in libraries and archives mostly in Moscow but also for a time in what was then Leningrad. I have self-published a book based on my PhD dissertation with the title Reflections on a Russian Statesman. I readily concede that I have not been professionally active in the field of Russian studies for a long time although I retain my interest in Russia and have followed events there perhaps more closely than have most Americans. On the basis of that background I offer these reflections on Russia today.

Events in Russia since I was there so many years ago have taken a course we Americans who were there when I was never thought we’d live to see. The Soviet Union dissolved on December 25, 1991, (which is not Christmas in the calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church). Each of the fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics that made up the USSR became independent nations. Russia ended up with all of the USSR’s nuclear weapons after Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up the Soviet weapons in their territories. Russia lost control of regions that had been part of the Russian Empire before the Communist takeover of the country. The world of the Soviet Union essentially no longer existed, and Russia’s sphere of influence was substantially smaller than it had been in Soviet times.

To many of us who had known the USSR through study and travel, the collapse of that enormous political entity came as quite a shock. In the mid-1970s at least the Soviet Union seemed to us Americans to be a huge, inert mass that wasn’t going anywhere but which was stable and solidly entrenched on the world stage. We thought that if the USSR was ever going to change, it wouldn’t do it for a long time yet. The whole structure seemed to be so massive and so static that we couldn’t understand how it would ever change.

There were some disturbing things about the USSR that we knew in addition to the political oppression and the repression of freedom of speech that were everyday realities for the Soviet people. The country’s economy was a mess. The centralized economic planning done in Moscow for the whole nation had rendered Soviet industry obsolete and unable to respond to changing circumstances the way western economies can. People at the US embassy in Moscow understood that there were actually three economies operative in the USSR. There was the official planned consumer economy run through successive five year plans.[1] There was the black market economy, which is where most Soviet people operated. Then there was the military economy. It had first call on the nation’s resources both material and human. The military got what it wanted. It isn’t hard to understand why. Russia has a centuries long history of foreign invasions. The Nazi invasion of 1941, which had cost something like twenty million Soviet lives, was still a living memory for people in the 1970s. The Soviet leadership also believed it had to keep up with the United States in an insane arms race between the two countries. The result of the military dominance of the economy was a pathetically poor consumer economy. Soviet people went into the illegal black market because things they needed that were supposed to be available in the consumer economy rarely were. Back in 1975 we knew all of that about the USSR. We never thought, however, that the difficult economy would lead to country’s collapse.

There was another issue in the USSR that many experts on the Soviet Union thought might, in the very long run, lead to the country’s demise. It was the nationalities issue. Geographically, the Soviet Union was the old Russian Empire absent Finland, part of Poland, and until 1939 the Baltic republics of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. As had been true of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union had within its borders so many different nationalities that I’m sure I ever even heard about only a small percentage of them. The so-called republics were organized along the lines of the dominant  nationality in their part of the world. They had this national identity in their names—the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Kazakhstan Soviet Socialist Republic, and the others. The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (Federated because it had so many different ethnic groups within it) was by far the biggest of the fifteen republics and dominated all the others. Not every ethnic group had its own republic. Not by a long shot. That there were many non-Russian people in the Russian republic would lead to immense problems for the Russians after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We knew that there were strong nationalist sentiments among many of the country’s nationalities. We knew that the Russians were concerned about certain aspects of their domination of other peoples. The Russians knew, for example, that the birth rates in the five central Asian republics were substantially higher than was the Russian birth rate. Some Russians worried that they might lose their status as the country’s largest ethnic group. We knew all that back in the 1970s. We thought the nationality issue might be the one someday to lead to the breakup of the USSR. Yet the USSR seemed so inert, and the Communist Party’s control of the people through the KGB and otherwise seemed so solid that we couldn’t imagine ever actually witnessing the collapse of the USSR.

Then the totally unexpected happened. Mikhail Gorbachev, pronounced Gorbachov with the stress on the “ov,” became leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and head of the Soviet government as well. In the 1980s he tried to turn the USSR into more of a social democratic state than it had even been. He set out to restructure the nation’s economy at least a little bit in the direction of a market driven economy. We learned that those efforts collectively were called “perestroika,” a Russian word that means restructuring. Gorbachev also eased the Party’s control of the intellectual and artistic life of the nation. He introduced a freedom of speech in a way no Soviet leader had ever done before. We learned that these efforts collectively were called “glasnost’,” and essentially untranslatable Russian word built from the word “golos,” the Russian word for voice. It means something like “voicedness.” The Russian people were gaining a voice in the life of their country that they had never had before.

Gorbachev didn’t know what he had unleashed. He thought his policies would lead to a freer, more open Soviet Union. Instead they led in quite short order to the collapse and dissolution of the whole Soviet order. What had been the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic became the independent nation called The Russian Federation. A period of near anarchy ensued. Boris Yeltsin, once the mayor of Moscow, became the president of the new Russian state, but he never succeeded in establishing a new economic and political order in the country. He named the head of the KGB as his successor, giving him the post of prime minister. That’s how, in 1999, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin became president of the Russian Federation by operation of law when Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned.

Putin is a thoroughly Russian man who came of age during the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. He was not a prominent figure in Russian politics when Yeltsin anointed him his successor, and that is probably why Yeltsin chose him. He has transformed Russia from a fledgling democracy into an authoritarian state with a patina of democracy. Although a communist party still exists in Russia, Russia is no longer communist and hasn’t been for some time now. Putin has, however, created a nation that has many of the characteristics of the late, unlamented USSR. Let me explain.

Russia has a constitution that appears to create a democratic republic. Elections are regularly held as required by law, but their outcome is rarely if ever in doubt. Using violence, trumped up criminal charges, and many other means Putin has firmly established his personal power. There is some freedom of expression in Russia, certainly more than there ever was under the communists. Yet media outlets that criticize Putin too much are likely to find that the government has shut them down and perhaps arrested their leading figures all on false charges of criminal activity. Putin allows freedom of expression only up to the point where it could conceivable threaten his power. He has even ordered the killing of opposition figures outside of Russia.

Compare these characteristics of today’s Russia with the ways of the USSR. The USSR too had a constitution that appeared to create a democratic republic and provide for the protection of individual rights. In truth the USSR was a totalitarian state run by the KPSS, the initials for the Russian words that translate as The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It had a patina of democracy even thinner than the one Putin’s Russia has, but it had one. There were elections in the USSR. Voting was mandatory, but the voter always had essentially only one choice, the candidate chosen by the Communist Party. The Soviet Union’s elections were even more of a sham Putin’s elections are. Their outcomes truly never were in doubt. The USSR’s constitution may have nodded in the direction of individual liberties, but the USSR  in fact honored such liberties not at all.

There is another significant way in which Putin’s Russia is similar to Soviet Russia. For all its existence (except to a lesser extent during World War II) the Soviet Union engaged in an ideological battle with the west. The USSR presented to the world and claimed to operate under a Marxist-Leninist ideology that directly contradicted the systems and claimed values of the western democracies, the USA chief among them. The Soviet Union understood freedom differently than we do in the west. In the west freedom means primarily freedom of the mind and the spirit. It includes freedom of speech and freedom of religion among others. The USSR understood freedom as being freedom from physical want. The Soviets would say, See? We’re a free nation. We provide medical care and education without cost. Everyone has government run pensions. We sell consumer goods at prices much lower than those in the west. They would claim that these aspects of Soviet life made Soviet people freer than we are in the west. Never mind of course that the quality of essentially everything in the Soviet Union fell far below western standards and the people had no freedom of expression at all.

So what has Putin done? He has created an authoritarian government that bears more resemblance to the USSR than most people realize. Putin’s Russia is the USSR light without the communists running everything and imposing their will on the country. Putin’s Russia looks as stable and inert as the USSR did in the 1970s. Only time will tell if it really is that stable or if it will unexpectedly dissolve the way the Soviet Union did.

Russia is no longer communist. The old ideological battles with the west are no more. Putin, however, is nonetheless engaged in what he sees as an ideological struggle with the west. Just as the Soviet Communists advocated values different from those of the western democracies, Putin presents Russia as standing for values different form those of the west. Today the ideological battle that Putin sees himself and his country waging is not between Soviet communists and western liberals. It is between the values of western liberalism like individual civil rights and free elections usually decided as much by money as by anything else and a Russian social conservatism grounded in the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Whereas Soviet Russia was aggressively atheistic, Putin has cozied up to the Russian Orthodox Church. (I once saw a picture of an Orthodox priest blessing a Russian rocket that was about to take off for the International Space Station, a sight you most certainly would not have seen in the Soviet Union.) The social beliefs and moral teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church are and always have been extremely conservative. Putin had adopted them and used them for his own purposes. A prime example has to do with the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Like all conservative churches, the Russian Orthodox Church considers all same gender sexual acts to be profound sins. So in 2013 Putin put through the country’s legislature a law with the awkward title “for (sic) the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values.” I suspect todays conservative American Christians would be surprised to find that they shared views like these with the Russian Orthodox Church and Vladimir Putin, but they do. This law essentially requires LGBTQ+ people to stay in the closet. They are not permitted to advocate for their own rights as human beings. Putin sees the liberal social values and morals of many people in western democracies as leading to sinful behavior and social disruption. So he advocates the social teachings and morals of Russia’s largest religious institution. Just as the USSR touted communism as better than western democracy, so Putin has made Russia the champion of traditional religious social and moral beliefs against what many of us westerners see as just being part of a free society. The issues are different, but Putin is setting up Russia as an ideological opponent of the west much like the USSR was.

Putin then has turned Russia into as much of a clone of Soviet Russia as he could. That’s not really surprising given both Russia’s lack of any liberal political tradition and the fact that Putin considers the collapse of the USSR to be what he has called the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the twentieth century. One wonders if he has forgotten World War II, but never mind. Appealing to Russian rather than Soviet nationalism, he has called the collapse of the Soviet Union the collapse of historical Russia. He works as hard as he can to restore Russia’s standing in the world, seeking to regain the status Russia lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Does Putin’s Russia appear to be a heavy, insert mass the way the USSR did in the 1970s? I would say yes though not quite as inert as the USSR seemed to be back then. Though Putin has thrown in his lot with a disreputable bunch of billionaire oligarchs who are stripping the country of much of its material wealth, there is much free economic activity in Putin’s Russia whereas in the USSR there was none that was legal. Dissent is tolerated as long as it doesn’t really threaten Putin’s hold on power. Dissent was hardly tolerated in the USSR at all. The Russian Orthodox Church has regained much of the position it had in imperial Russia but lost under the communists. The various national Orthodox churches have an unfortunate history of supporting the governments of nation states no matter how oppressive those states may have been. Still, an active and visible Russian Orthodox Church is a nation-wide institution whose aims are, in theory at least, not those of the national government. Will Putin’s Russia unexpectedly collapse the way the USSR did? There is no way to know, but for now Putin’s Russia looks like it will be around for a very long time.



[1] We saw propaganda banners saying “We will complete the five year plan in four years!” I never understood how completing a five year plan in four years was considered a good thing, but never mind.

Reflections on the First Anniversary of January 6, 2021

 

Reflections on the First Anniversary of January 6, 2021.

January 8, 2022

 

Two days ago we observed the first anniversary of the events of January 6, 2021. On that date Donald Trump, while he was still President of the United States, stirred up a mob of his supporters and sent them down Pennsylvania Avenue to attack the United States Capitol building. January 6 was the day Congress met to receive and certify the presidential electoral votes of the states after the November, 2020, election, a task assigned to them by the United States Constitution. Even before the 2020 election Donald Trump, as president, had asserted many times that the upcoming election was “rigged,” and that it being rigged was the only way he could lose. He lost both the popular vote and electoral vote. Not only did he refuse to concede to president-elect Biden (something losing politicians usually do though doing so has no legal significance). He continued loudly and continually to claim that he had actually won the election by a large margin but that his victory had been “stolen.” He began to come up with whatever cockamamie scheme he could think of to reverse the outcome of the election. Some of his followers came up with the slogan, “Stop the Steal!” There was and never has been any evidence to support Trump’s claim of massive irregularities in the 2020 election. There was no wide-spread voter fraud, Trump’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The appropriate state officials in every state certified the result of the election in their states. Some of those state officials were Democrats, though many of them were either Republicans or held a nonpartisan office. There simply is no evidence at all to support Trump’s claim that he had actually won the election.

Trump tried various desperate things to reverse the outcome of a free and fair presidential election. He sent hack lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani, once touted as “America’s Mayor,” into courts in swing states seeking to have the courts find enough voter fraud to declare the election results in their state invalid. Those lawyers presented not one shred of evidence to support their spurious claims of fraud. Courts across the country easily dismissed Trump’s cases. Judges often chastised Trump’s lawyers for having filed an unfounded suit. I don’t know if any of those lawyers got hit with Civil Rule 11 sanctions, but if they weren’t they should have been.[1]

Trump tried other desperate measures in his vain attempt to hold onto power though the American people had voted him out of office. He tried to get Republican-controlled state legislatures in Michigan and elsewhere to invalidate the election result in their state that showed Biden the winner and name Trump electors instead. None of them did. He tried to pressure the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia to “find” enough votes for him to reverse Biden’s narrow win in that state. That committed public servant refused to invent votes that didn’t exist. Trump’s shenanigans didn’t change one single electoral vote.

Trump saw his last chance to save his hold on power in the final act of the presidential election drama, Congress receiving and certifying the electoral votes of the various states. Congress would meet on January 6, 2021, to carry out that constitutional but largely ceremonial function. Trump knew, however, that Vice President Mike Pence, in his capacity of president of the Senate, would preside at that session of Congress. Trump asserted that Pence had the legal authority to declare the presidential election invalid and either to send the election back to the states for a re-vote or to the US Supreme Court for resolution. News reports say Pence wavered a bit when Trump demanded that he invalidate the election. In the end however he recognized that he did not have the legal authority to do what Trump wanted. He did not try to invalidate the election result.

Trump was getting desperate, for he could not face losing but clearly he had lost. (One of Trump’s favorite putdown of people he doesn’t like is to call that person a loser.) Pence wouldn’t do what Trump wanted. So sometime before January 6 he set up a public rally in Washington, D.C., and urged his supporters from around the country to come to the nation’s capital on that date. He or his people told them it was going to be “wild.” As Congress gathered to certify the electoral college results Trump and some of his minions, including the now thoroughly discredited Giuliani, addressed the crowd that had gathered not far down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol. Trump gave them one of his rabblerousing speeches and got them changing “Stop the Steal! Stop the Steal!” He told them to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. Many of them did, and when they did all hell broke loose.

When the mob got to the Capitol someone erected a makeshift gallows in front of the Capitol, and mob began to chant “Hang Pence! Hang Pence!” Mike Pence was their guy’s vice president, but he wasn’t going to attempt to overturn the election results. So he became the mob’s bête noire. I’m no fan of Mike Pence; but he was the serving Vice President of the United States, and Trump’s mob wanted to kill him. The rioters carried many different flags and banners. There were many Make America Great Again banners there of course. Some rioters carried American flags. Most offensively, at least one of them carried the southern battle flag from the Civil War. It was clear this mob was attacking the federal government of the United States in something like the way South Carolina did when it fired on Fort Sumter. The seditious rioters overwhelmed the grossly outmatched Capitol police and broke into the building. They smashed windows and bashed down doors. Many members of Congress were locked down in the Senate chamber. The police got Pence out of there to safety, but the representatives and senators in the Senate chamber were still at great risk. The rioters broke into many offices in the building, including that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, where someone stole a laptop computer. Inside the Senate chamber Capitol police told the people to put on the gas masks that were stored under senators’ seats. Who knew there were gas masks stored under the senators’ seats? I sure didn’t. Eventually the Capitol police got all of the members of Congress to safe locations, but in the process they shot and killed one of the rioters who was trying to break into the Senate chamber.

Trump’s mob ultimately failed in their attempt to stop Congress’ certification of Biden’s electoral victory, but they caused extensive damage to the Capitol building. They had members of Congress using their cell phones to make what they thought might their last call to their loved ones. The Capitol police showed enormous courage and managed to keep the effect of the seditious invasion of the Capitol from being worse than it actually was. Still, in the days after the riot two Capitol police officers took their own lives. The US Capitol had not been invaded and occupied since the British did it in the War of 1812. January 6, 2021, was a shameful day in American history. May it never be repeated.

In the news coverage of the first anniversary of the January 6 insurrection we heard reports about what was happing in the White House as the events of that day unfolded. Though Trump had told the mob he had assembled that he would be at the Capitol with them, he went back to the safety of the White House. It seems Trump was watching the riot on television and was thoroughly enjoying the show. We hear that members of Trump’s staff, his daughter, and even the despicable “news” hosts of Fox News pleaded with him to do something to stop the madness. He sat there doing nothing for something like three hours. He finally sent out a tepid text message telling the rioters to stop, but it seems clear that he could have prevented much property damage and personal physical and psychological injury had he acted sooner and more firmly.

The political analysists other than the rightwing hacks at Fox News and other ultra-conservative news outlets generally agree that the January 6 invasion of the Capitol was the most serious attack on American democracy since the Civil War. Of course there have always been anti-governmental forces in this country. To a significant extent democracies that respect individual rights must tolerate such forces. There have been American white supremacist terror groups in this country for most of the country’s history. Hate-filled racists created the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the Civil War for example. These groups have been able on occasion to carry off significant attacks against the US government, the horrific bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 being the most egregious example.

But the January 6 assault on the Capitol was different from anything we had seen before. What made it different was mostly the involvement in it of Donald Trump, at the time still the sitting President of the United States. We don’t yet know the full extent of his involvement in the planning of the January 6 attack. We do however know a good deal about how he at the very least created the atmosphere from which the assault arose and in which it took place. From before the 2020 election, and more vociferously after it, Trump spread the big lie that his election victory would be or had been stolen from him. Using the big lie is of course a well-known tactic of dictators and would-be dictators. Hitler’s big lie was that the Jews were responsible for Germany’s problems after World War I. Stalin’s big lie was that he was acting for the benefit of the working people of the USSR. Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election hasn’t produced disaster on anything remotely like the scale of the ones those two big lies created. It was nonetheless a big lie and one supported by no evidence. In the time just before January 6, 2021, Trump said over and over and over again that his election victory had been stolen from him and that Joe Biden was not the legitimate president.

It appears that he was involved in the planning in the rally in Washington, D.C., on January 6. We know that he spoke to the big crowd that gathered in response to his call for his supporters to come. In his speech he of course repeated the big lie that his election victory has been stolen from him. He got the crowd chanting “Stop the Steal! Stop the Steal!” He told them to go to the Capitol to stop what he called the steal, that is, to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional duty. Trump even said that he would be there with them, though of course he wasn’t and probably had no intention of being. Once the assault started he sat for something like three hours watching it on TV, doing nothing to stop it though the rioters understood that they were doing what Trump wanted them to do. The extent of Trump’s culpability for the events of January 6, 2021, remains to be fully established. Yet even based on what we already know his culpability is substantial.

Yet that Donald Trump is potentially criminally liable for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection is not the only nor necessarily the most important conclusion from the stunning events of that day. Donald Trump was a cause of those events. There’s no doubt about that. Perhaps more importantly, he is also a symptom of a deeper disorder in American society and culture. To understand how he is such a symptom we must go back into American history. Much of what follows is well known, but I’ll go over it briefly anyway.

This country was founded by and primarily for white men. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that he and his cronies held it to be self-evident that all men are created equal he wasn’t telling the whole truth. I’ve always been told that the word “men” in that statement means all people. It might mean that to some people today (though not to me), but that’s now what it meant when Jefferson used it. When he used the word it excluded fully one half of the colonies’ population, for Jefferson and the others never intended it to apply to women. They probably intended to exclude even white men who did not own landed property. Most definitely they did not intend it to include Black men much less Black women. The economy of much of the country at that time and for decades to come was founded on the enslavement of Black men, women, and children. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both owned slaves. The men who established this country never intended it to exist for the benefit of all people. They intended it to exist primarily for white, land-owning men. At the beginning that’s who the country was created to benefit. The land owning part eventually got dropped, but white men have held a position of privilege and power in this country ever since.

I have neither the time nor the resources to survey the entire history of the white male dominance of the United States across its many decades of existence. The general outlines of that history are well known. It took a Civil War that killed far more Americans than any other war we’ve ever fought and an amendment to the US Constitution to end the enslavement of Black Americans mostly if not quite entirely by white Americans. (There were a few Black slaveowners who owned other Black people, a fact I learned only recently from the great Henry Louis Gates, Jr.) The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution ended slavery. It did not end penal servitude, and it most certainly did not end American racism.

That racism continued full steam ahead. It created de jure racial segregation and white on Black terror in the Jim Crow south. It created de facto residential and educational racial segregation in the north and the west. In 1896 the US Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the court said that racially separate public facilities were constitutional as long as they were equal, which for the most part they never were. White Americans assaulted and even killed Black veterans returning from World War I. On May 31 and June 1, 1921, a white mob attacked and leveled the relatively prosperous, Black area called the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma, an atrocity that has been covered up in this country until quite recently. A civil rights movement among northern Blacks and a flowering of Black culture called the Harlem Renaissance grew stronger in the 1920s. Yet even relatively progressive Americans like Franklin Delano Roosevelt did little or nothing to address racial segregation or American racism. Black Americans were treated as second class citizens all through these decades of American history.

Things began to change a bit after World War II. President Truman desegregated the US military in 1948, exercising his power as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. In 1954 the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Brown v. Board of Education that overturned the Plessy decision and declared racial  segregation in schools and other public facilities to be unconstitutional. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a public bus, an action that became one of the turning points in the civil rights movement. Demands that governments in the south respect the voting rights of Black citizens became more visible. Racist southerners used the police and private terror in an attempt to stop the movement. They failed. In 1964 the federal government enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial and other types of segregation or discrimination in facilities open to the public. In 1965, the federal government enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in an attempt to protect the voting rights of minority populations that many states were still effectively restricting. Despite these bits of progress, all through the 60s and beyond white people maintained their position of dominance in American society. If you look at photographs from those years of the people serving on governing bodies or in major financial institutions across the nation you will see next to no Black faces.

In the decades since the 1960s, while the dominance of whites continued, the demographics and the public face of this country have been changing. The percentage of the population of both Blacks and Latinx people are increasing. Experts predict that by the mid-2040s whites, while they will still be the largest demographic group, they will no longer be a majority in this country. We hear about and see more minority leaders in business, education, politics, medicine, and other fields than we ever have before. We’ve even had a Black president. Television commercials are often a good place to discern changing demographics. Advertising executives must understand their audience and the potential consumers of whatever their clients are selling. More and more TV ads these days feature Black characters rather than white ones. We see mixed race couples in television advertising. The advertising business seems to be reacting to the country’s changing demographics more than is any other sector of American life.

Large numbers of white Americans across the country not just in the south have resisted every advance toward true freedom that people of color have made from the beginnings of the country to today. For quite some time now that resistance has led to the creation of white supremacist terror groups. In 1995 one of them managed to set off a large car bomb in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. We see images of these groups dressed in para-military gear and carrying military-style automatic (or at least semi-automatic) rifles. Early in Donald Trump’s presidency a large number of armed white supremacists descended on Richmond, Virginia. They shouted, “You will not replace us! You will not replace us!” For some time now a white supremacist underclass has been developing in this country. White supremacists in that underclass speak of starting a new civil war. They have committed acts of violence against innocent people, and they are prepared to commit many more.

These groups were long a fringe element of American society. Most Americans probably didn’t know they existed. But then Donald Trump, a sleazy New York real estate developer and publicity seeking egomaniac, entered American politics. He pandered to white supremacists. He called immigrants from Mexico rapists and murderers. He said there were fine people among the bigots who invaded Richmond. He is almost certainly himself a racist; but even if he isn’t, he talks and behaves like one in public. Trump’s bigotry and pandering have made many Americans believe that racism is now more socially acceptable than it had been for a very long time. Trump staged large political rallies where he whipped up the crowd with demagogic rhetoric. He said he would “make America great again.” White supremacists across the country heard him saying that he would put white people back on top, pandering to white supremacists’ belief that whites are being displaced by people of color all across our nation. “MAGA” has entered our vocabulary. It designates and is used by Trump’s bigoted, violent, white supremacist followers. Trump lies to them like he lies to everyone, that is, he lies all the time. His white supremacist supporters buy his lies as though they were gospel truth.

Trump has completely changed the nature of the Republican Party. It was a liberal party when founded, the party of Abraham Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation and Teddy Roosevelt with his campaign against the business trusts that dominated the country’s economy. By the 1920s it had become a typical conservative political party. It came to represent the business class. It advocated small government. It didn’t want government intervening much at all in the economy or in people’s lives. It did however do some good things. For example, Richard Nixon, probably the worst president we ever had before Trump, signed into law the statute creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Compared to today’s Republicans, Nixon’s domestic agenda looks downright progressive.

Now Trump has taken over that Republican Party. He has turned it into his own cult of personality. The party that used to call itself the Grand Old Party no longer stands for anything but Donald Trump. Rabid, bigoted Trump supporters are not a majority among the people who identify themselves as Republicans, yet Trump uses those supporters successfully to control the party. How does he do it? He uses fear to manipulate our political system. It has long been true that a tightly organized but small group of extremists can have an inordinate impact in politics. In order to win elections in this country politicians must most commonly win primary elections. That is, they must run against and defeat other politicians of their own party. Primary elections are usually decided by relatively few voters. Fanatical Trump supporters will turn out for primary elections in higher numbers than will more traditional Republican voters. Republican politicians are terrified that they will lose primary elections if the vote of Trump’s rabble goes to someone else. They call having a Trump-endorsed candidate run against them being “primaried.” Republicans from Mitch McConnell on down, even most of those who in the past have criticized Trump, kneel at Trump’s feet hoping he won’t have somebody primary them the next time they’re up for reelection. That’s how Trump has turned the Republican Party in to the Donald Trump Cult of Personality.

We need to understand that the attack on the Capitol on January 6 by rabid Trump supporters did not spring fully developed from the head of Zeus. It arose out of the corrosion of the American body politic. It arose because Donald Trump so successfully took over the Republican Party and used it to whip up his supporters with lie after lie. It arose because enough white American men feel threatened by the country’s changing demographics. That change plays right into these people’s racial bigotry, a bigotry they get because of America’s original sin of racism. They imbibed racism with their mother’s milk, just as we all did. Some of us have recognized our internal racism and worked to overcome it. To Trump’s rabid base racism is just God’s honest truth.

Most of Trump’s supporters probably couldn’t articulate it very well, but at some level these mostly poorly educated white men sense that they and all white men like them are losing their privileged status as the controllers of the status quo. At some level of their psyches these men have known that white men will eventually lose their hold on politics in this country. They will have to share power with women and with people of color. At some level many of them have thought, “I may be poor, poorly educated, and lacking many of the things I need in life, but at least I’m better than that nigger over there!”[2] Historically there has always been someone below them in the social pecking order, but that fact of American life is eroding away. It’s not all gone by any means, but it will be gone within the foreseeable future.

So these bigoted men dig in their heels. They chant “You will not replace us!” They buy into Trump’s deceitful slogan of Make America Great Again. They hear in that slogan a promise the their still present but weakening privileged status as the dominant power in this country will be shored up and preserved. They may even think that Trump could roll back some of the progress American people of color have made toward full equality. Their status cannot be shored up and preserved. This country is not going to go back to the 1940s when privileged white Americans didn’t even sense that their status was in the least bit threatened.

But fearful people are rarely assuaged by the truth. Trump convinces them that he is their hero though in fact he cares about nothing and no one but himself. These people attack democracy because the country’s changing demographics mean that their preferred candidates will win fair elections less and less often. If democracy doesn’t serve our purposes, they say, then to hell with democracy. We’ll let Trump whip us up into a frenzy, then we’ll attack and invade the Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying the evil Joe Biden’s win over our man Trump. On January 6, 2021, Trump did indeed whip them up into a frenzy. Then he sent them off to the Capitol. As they broke into that symbol of American democracy (not that much of what happens there is particularly democratic), destroying property and terrorizing everyone legitimately in the building, Trump sat in front of a television, almost certainly watching the rightwing propaganda machine called Fox News, enjoying the show.

What are we to learn from the events of January 6, 2021? There are I think two important lessons to learn. The first is a learning about Donald Trump. We must never allow him to come to power again. He is an American fascist. He panders to the most corrosive and destructive elements of American society. He doesn’t want to be the fairly elected leader of a free republic. He wants to be a dictator. He wants to have what his buddy Vladimir Putin has, control of a state that can be made to look democratic but that isn’t democratic. He doesn’t support democracy, he supports only himself and his own hold on power. He creates for himself a world we can call “a-truthful.” For Trump the categories true and false do not exist. The only categories he applies to anything are beneficial for Donald Trump and not beneficial for Donald Trump. He has no empathy for ordinary people whatsoever. The only people who matter to him at all are his rich supporters who give him money, supposedly for his campaign expenses but that he spends however he wants, to hell with the election finance laws. Given another chance he will destroy American democracy and undo as much as he can of the advances, such as they are, that minority American populations have made toward full civil rights and free involvement in the American political process. We simply cannot let that happen.

The other lesson we must learn is that there are significant parts of the American people that are frightened and willing to use any means, including violence, to hold onto the privileges they know they are losing. We hear much talk these days about a new civil war. I pray that we won’t have one, but if we do it won’t the north verses south like the first civil war. It will be between those frightened, bigoted parts of our society that support Donald Trump against Americans who support republican democracy and want to preserve our over two hundred old experiment in democracy, as it is fashionable to call this country. How the military would act in such a civil war there is no way to know. Although I will always deplore and oppose the use of violence, if violence there is to be I certainly hope that the US military will support the proper side.

The events of January 6, 2021, must teach us that we cannot be complacent about the future of our political way of life. Those events showed us how fragile our democracy really is. The seditious rioters almost got their way. We cannot be complacent about the threat the fearful, ignorant, and bigoted elements of the population pose with their fanatical desire to return Donald Trump to the White House. Yes, they are still a minority of our population. Trump lost the popular vote for president in both 2016 and 2020. (It was our republican but not democratic federal system that got him into the White House in 2016.) Trump’s supporters are angry, fanatic, and more than willing to use violence to protect their eroding position of privilege and power. These elements, though they respond to Trump’s intimations of violence with violence, are not yet tightly organized. If Trump or anyone else were to get them tightly organized around the common goal of overthrowing American democracy they would present a formidable threat indeed. Even as fragmented as their movement is today they present a significant risk of sporadic violence.

Complacency by Americans who support democracy is the biggest threat to that democracy today. We must take sides in the struggle to save American democracy. He wasn’t speaking about the struggle I am describing here, but the great Elie Wiesel said it brilliantly: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented.” In our context neutrality and silence help Donald Trump and his white supremacist supporters. We must not stay neutral. We must not be silent.

So here we are, one year after the worst assault on American democracy since the Civil War. Trump continues to insist that he won the 2020 election, which he did not. He continues to say someone stole his victory from him, but no one can steal what never existed. The Department of Justice is busy prosecuting the January 6 rioters. It may or may not be investigating events before January 6 that led up to the insurrection. Attorney General Garland says the DOJ will pursue the evidence wherever it leads and will hold people at any level responsible for any criminal behavior. I hope he means it. A House select committee is investigating the events of January 6. It seems the committee has already amassed a huge amount of testimony and documentary evidence despite the refusal of some of Trump’s closest associates to cooperate with the committee or even to comply with the committee’s subpoenas. We don’t yet know much about what the committee’s evidence establishes. We must wait for the committee’s report, which reports suggest may come out this summer. The committee will have to complete its work before the next Congress is sworn in after this year’s midterm elections because there is a real chance the Republicans will regain control of the House in those elections. If they do they certainly will disband the committee and stop as much of the committee’s findings and evidence from becoming public as they can. We live in a dangerous time. We see our American democracy threatened by Trump and his backers in a way none of us ever thought we would live to see. The future is of course not ours to see, but it certainly looks threatening from here. Stay tuned. There’s more to come.

 



[1] Civil Rule 11 is a rule of procedure in civil cases in federal court that says a lawyer who signs a pleading essentially attests that the pleading is grounded in fact and existing law or a legitimate attempt to change the law. The court may impose sanctions on a lawyer who signs a pleading with no factual or legal basis.

[2] Please understand that I use “the n word” here only because that’s how Trump’s racists would phrase it. I know full well that it is a hateful, despicable word that I would never use in my personal speech.

Thursday, January 6, 2022

Letter to the Editor, January 6, 2022

 

One of the tactics of dictators and would-be dictators is to call things and people the exact opposite of what they actually are. Former president Donald Trump has mastered that tactic. The mob that invaded the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, was motivated by and filled with hate, something the numerous videos of that event clearly show. Former president Trump says he saw a beautiful scene of love there. The mob that day attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to stop the Congress from completing a task the US Constitution assigns to them to record and certify the electoral votes of the fifty states. They were nothing short of insurrectionists attempting to circumvent the US Constitution and render it moot. Trump calls them patriots. It is an old trick by fascist dictators, and Trump wields it well. He is nothing short of an American fascist. We simply must protect American democracy from Trump and his insurrectionist followers.

 

Rev. Dr. Thomas C. Sorenson

919 Perkins Way

Sultan, WA 98294

425-268-0649

Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Just No!

 

Just No!

January 5, 2022

 

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

This will sound like heresy or maybe even apostacy to some who think a Christian may not contradict anything in the Bible. So be it. It doesn’t change the fact that there are passages—quite a few of them actually—to which I can only say “Just No!” I came across one of them today. It is Hebrews 11:39-40. It comes at the end of a section of Hebrews in which the unknown author has been asserting that everything the characters of the salvation history of Israel they did, they did by faith. Shortly before the passage I’m disagreeing with we read:

 

And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions…. Hebrews 11:32-33

 

In this part of the letter (which isn’t really a letter, but never mind) the text goes on and on about how our ancestors in the faith had faith and therefore were able to accomplish great things.

But then we come to Hebrews 11:39-40:

 

Yet all of these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better, so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.

 

There’s more than one thing wrong in these two verses. One of them is the statement that the ancestors in the faith “did not receive what was promised.” Just what did God promise to these ancestors in the faith? Mostly that they would receive the land Yahweh had promised them from the beginning and that Abraham and Sarah would have an enormous number of descendants. These people did occupy the land Yahweh had supposedly promised them. The descendants of Abraham and Sarah, through Ishmael and Isaac, continue to this day more than three thousand years later. That is at least what Judaism and Islam claim, and I’m content to leave it at that. The Old Testament never has God promise salvation the way we understand it, so salvation cannot be a promise the ancient Jews didn’t receive. Hebrews 11:39 is just wrong here.

That, however, is not the biggest problem with these two verses. That problem lies in the verses’ claim that those ancestors did not receive what was promised. It says they did not receive it because “God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.” I wasn’t sure what “made perfect” was supposed to mean. I did some quick research that reveals that the point of this verse is that perfection became possible only through Jesus Christ, so those who came before Christ didn’t get it. I take the word “perfection” to mean essentially the same thing as salvation. They are both full access to God’s grace, or at least that is the only way I can understand them. The claim here is at least that something desirable wasn’t available before Christ but became available after him and through him.

The more time I spend thinking about theology (and I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about theology) the more offensive I find that claim to be. The claim rests upon a belief that Jesus brought something substantively new into the world. He brought an access to God’s grace that hadn’t been available before him. The thrust of this passage is that though the ancestors of the faith had faith, they were not granted the fullness of God’s grace because Jesus Christ hadn’t come along yet. That is a contention I simply cannot accept.

Think about it for a minute. The heroes of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) had a faith appropriate for their time. They acted on that faith in ways appropriate for their time. The Old Testament asserts that God was with them all through the one thousand years or so that the Old Testament covers. Yes, our texts say that God was often angry with God’s Hebrew people. Sometimes, the texts assert, he punished them for worshiping gods other than Yahweh, or for what God took to be their failure to worship Yahweh properly, or because they failed to do distributive justice for the widows, orphans, and strangers among them. Yet God also restored them to Zion after their exile in Babylon, and many of the Psalmists knew that God forgives human sin simply because forgiving is what God does. Still, Hebrews and other ancient sources contend that those ancient Hebrew women and men were not saved, that is, they did not receive the fullness of God’s grace, simply because they lived before Jesus.

That contention simply makes no sense. It says that at a particular point in time God decided to make available t people a fullness of grace that God had withheld from people from the beginning of time to the time we now call the first century CE. Here’s the thing though. God is love and always has been. God expresses God’s love through grace and always has. The contention that the fullness of grace came only through Jesus says that at a particular time God changed, or at least it says that God changed the way God relates to creation. That is a contention I simply cannot accept. The God I know, love, and seek in my own humble way to follow would never withhold grace from anyone. God’s grace is and always has been unconditional. It has to be unconditional if it is truly to be grace and not an earned reward. Not even the coming of Jesus could impose a condition on God’s grace. Jesus Christ is the means by which we Christians come to know God’s grace. Following him is the way in which we respond to God’s grace and the way in which we seek to live into God’s grace. For all that I say, “Thanks be to God!” I do not say that the Christian way ever has been the only way into God’s grace. It can’t be that. If it were it would put a condition on God’s grace, namely, that to have it you have to be Christian. In other words, it would prevent God’s grace from truly being grace. Yet grace is who God is, and grace, if it truly is grace, is and always has been unconditional.

So I say to this passage from Hebrews “Just no!” No, you got this one wrong. Those biblical figures who came before Jesus had as much access to God’s grace as we do. Everyone has always had as much access to God’s grace as we do. That people may understand ultimate reality and how we relate to it differently than we do does not deprive them of God’s grace. It is pure arrogance on our part to say that it does. The ancestors in the faith of which the Hebrew Bible speaks had that access in a different way than we do. Most of them sought to live into God’s grace by following Torah law. That that is not our way to do it, but it is a perfectly legitimate way to do it. Especially given the horrendously sinful history of Christian anti-Judaism, it is inadmissible for us to say that the Jews who came before Jesus (or the Jews who have come after Jesus for that matter) were excluded from God’s grace but we have full access to it.

So once again I say to Hebrews, “Just no!” What you say may have been appropriate or at least understandable when you wrote it roughly two thousand years ago. It is not appropriate today. Asserting it today isn’t even understandable given the context in which we live that is so different from yours. So no, book of Hebrews. Just no!

Saturday, January 1, 2022

New Reconciliation?

 

New Reconciliation?

January 1, 2022

 

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

There is a passage in Paul’s Second Letter to the church in Corinth that I have long loved. It reads:

 

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19.

 

I have long loved this passage because it gives us a soteriology that is very different from the classical theory of atonement that most people think is what Christianity is but that I rejected a long time ago.[1] Notice what Paul does not say here. There is no mention of the cross (though the cross was important to Paul). There is no mention of Christ’s suffering and dying. It is only “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” There’s no mention of God demanding that a price be paid before God would forgive human sin.[2] There’s no feudal nonsense about God’s “honor” as there is the foundational text of the classical atonement theory. There’s no sense that we humans are so horribly sinful that only the unjust suffering and death of God’s own Son could be a price high enough to get God to forgive us as, something on which the classical theory of atonement insists. No, there’s just in Christ God reconciled the world to Godself. I so prefer that way of thinking about Christian soteriology to the classical theory of atonement, which I see as basically a theory of cosmic child abuse.

I’ve so preferred reconciliation to substitutionary sacrificial atonement (i.e., the classical theory of atonement) that until recently I hadn’t noticed a problem with this theology of salvation through reconciliation. It’s the problem that I have with the notion that Jesus Christ somehow brought a salvation that hadn’t been there before him. I have recently written about this issue on this blog. See my blog posts “On Salvation” and “Did Jesus Bring Salvation?” I won’t repeat here everything I said there. I’ll just say that it makes no sense to me to say, as popular Christianity always does, that before Jesus Christ with his suffering and death no one was ever saved because Jesus hadn’t come, suffered, died yet. I have concluded that Jesus didn’t bring a salvation that wasn’t possible before him. Rather, he demonstrated a salvation that was always there and always will be. In Jesus Christ we see God’s unshakable solidarity with all of humanity, all of creation really.[3] In and through him we can enter into that salvation and come to know it in and for this life as well as for the next life.

The same thing must be true of the reconciliation of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians. That reconciliation of God and humanity must always have been there. At least it must always have been there as far is God is concerned. Why would God suddenly decide to reconcile the world to Godself at a particular time in human history when God hadn’t done that before? It makes no sense to say that God did. Yet Paul seems to be saying that in Christ God was effecting a reconciliation that hadn’t been there before. He says that in Christ God “was reconciling” humanity with Godself. The form of the very Paul uses here (at least in English translation) necessarily implies that in Christ God was creating something that hadn’t existed but that God now decided needed to exist. Paul strongly suggests that Christ was a necessary instrument of God creating that reconciliation. Yet I simply cannot accept the notion that before Christ we were not reconciled with God but after Christ we are.

So if Jesus didn’t effect the reconciliation of which Paul speaks, is he irrelevant to our reconciliation with God? No, he’s not irrelevant at all; but he is relevant in a way very different from the way most Christians understand his saving work. He is relevant to our reconciliation with God in the same way that he is relevant to our salvation in God, reconciliation being another way to speak of salvation. He didn’t create reconciliation between God and us humans. Rather, he demonstrated a reconciliation that was always there but that most humans in all eras of history have failed to see and failed to learn from. In Jesus we see that God and humanity have always been reconciled to an extent we didn’t know before. By worshipping Jesus as God the Son Incarnate and by trying to be his disciples as best we can, we can access God’s reconciliation with us. We can access it here and now. We don’t have to wait for a there and then after death to live into the reconciliation that God has always known God had created but most humans haven’t known at all.

Do we gain anything by recognizing and living into God’s reconciliation with us? Oh yes, we gain a great deal when we do that. Our souls can rest at ease in the knowledge that God does not count our trespasses against us. We come to know that we aren’t the only ones God loves so much that God reconciles us to God. We learn that every single human who ever lived or ever will live (yes, even the ones who have been great monsters in human history) is a person God loves as much as God loves us. When we really know that there is no existential gap between God and us we can find the strength to face whatever we must face in life. We can find the courage to keep doing the work of the realm of God no matter how much the world hates, reviles, and even harms us for doing it. We can truly know that hatred and violence toward any one of God’s people (and all people are God’s people) is excluded from the life of faith. We can live and work in a peace and with a courage we never knew we had.

So St. Paul, with all due respect, no. God did not reconcile Godself to us Christ. God didn’t do that because God didn’t need to it. Reconciliation was already done. It was already there because it’s who God is, always has been, and always will be. It is of God’s nature to be reconciled with all creation. God can’t not be reconciled with all creation, for being unreconciled contradicts God’s very essence. So let’s realize that there is no gap between God and us. There never has been a gap and there never will be a gap as far as God is concerned. Jesus brings us that truth incarnationally. He brings it so we can see it. He brings it so we can live into it. So let’s get on with it, shall we? May it be so.



[1] For a discussion of the shortcomings of the classical theory of atonement see Chapter 8, “Beyond the Classical Theory of Atonement,” in my book Liberating Christianity, Overcoming Obstacles to Faith in the New Millennium, Revised Edition, which is available in paperback and e-book forms at amazon.com.

[2] See the book Cur Deus Homo? by Anselm of Canterbury published in 1107.

[3] This theology is called theology of the cross. For more on it see Chapter 9 of my book Liberating Christianity cited in footnote 1 here. It’s titled “The Meaning of the Cross: The Demonstration of God’s Solidarity.”