King's Letter From Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 KJV).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 57 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

This week we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

As we celebrate this week, culminating with the federal holiday on Monday, January 20, we have much for which to be thankful, much has been accomplished in race relations in America. Let us stop looking to others and ask, what more can I do to help?

Miraculous Babies?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that its founder was born miraculously. Actually, similar claims were made long before Jesus was born.
For instance, a Buddhist legend claims that Buddha’s mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that the Buddha was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
Honestly though, in light of this backdrop, is it possible that the story of the birth of Jesus could be mythical or even legendary? Here are four responses to this question:

1) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT MYTHOLOGICAL

Myths are cultural and religious tales of a specific community. These tales or stories reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance Greek myths included fantastic creatures such as Centaurs – half-human, half-horse creatures. Greek mythology and later Roman mythology also entertained ideas of Cyclopes, giant one-eyed creatures. Then there were the sphinxes carrying the head of a woman, the haunches of a lion, and the wings of a bird.
In the first place, the birth of Jesus does not include fictional characters. Specific persons were named, specific locations were identified, and specific roles were performed. Those are literary features, not associated with mythological or apocalyptic literature. 
As mentioned earlier, mythology reflects the beliefs of a community. Interestingly, Jews communities in the Bible never practiced observing birthdays. Hence, a mythological belief of the birth of Jesus would not have been possible. Before an angelic appearance, the father of Jesus was appalled by the idea that Mary could be impregnated by a deity. Such beliefs were not a part of their culture.

2) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT LEGENDARY
A legend is a story from within a community that evolved over a long period of time. Legends require decades and sometimes centuries to be accepted as stories or tales of a community. Like with myths, these beliefs are not rooted in facts. The primary criterion is that they reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance, there are communities that believe that spirits live in trees. Trees display life, in that they grow, send seasonal messages, provide fruits for sustenance. In other words, trees are alive and benevolent. Therefore, spirits live in trees. Such views evolve from within communities and are considered believable with time – that is consistent with the birthing of a legend.

So unlike the birth of Jesus. The story began to emerge from eyewitnesses. In his letter to Theophilus, Luke was careful to mention that he interviewed eyewitnesses and “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-4). Luke was contending that his report was verifiable. That presentation of evidence is never characteristic of mythology or legend.

3. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT
History is descriptive of a past event that could be verified. It is based on information of events that actually happened. Hence, history is interested in artifacts, records and circumstantial evidence that can be verified.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke relied on ancestral support or genealogies. This historical catalog confirms family identity and connects events to reality.
Furthermore, in reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke talked about the political leadership at the time and decrees that were ordered. These details placed the birth within an historical setting and not within the vagueness of mythology or legend.Also, unlike any other claim of miraculous birth, the birth of Jesus was predicted.

4. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS A PREDICTED EVENT
Other claims of miraculous births always followed the birth. The birth of Jesus was predicted and recorded before his birth. King Herod depended on these records when he wanted to know where Jesus would be born.
Matthew quoted the prophet Isaiah as referring to Jesus, more than 700 years before His birth. He had no doubt that the birth of Jesus signaled the arrival of the promised Messiah.
Unlike any other claim, the miraculous birth of Jesus was consistent with the miraculous life of Jesus. Unlike any other claimant, the greatness of Jesus preceded His birth. His birth was unique. It was not an accident; His arrival was planned. The same can be said of His pending return.

A Tribute To Women of Courage!

Sandra Green, a Florida mother turned-in her 18-year-old son to the police. She recognized him on surveillance video in connection with a home burglary.

Clearwater police released footage showing three teenagers breaking into a home. They were stealing headphones, sports memorabilia and a pair of Michael Jordan-brand sneakers. Days later, Sandra Green saw the video and said she was “heartbroken” to see that her son was one of the three people wanted.

“I was heartbroken because I know I didn’t raise him like that,” she told a television station. “I told him, ‘Come home, take your shower, get something to eat, I am about to take you over there to Clearwater, and turn you in." Clearwater police arrested the young man and charged him with burglary and grand theft.

The mother told a judge she wanted her son to be put on probation with the requirement that he get back on the path to graduate from high school. “He is not hardcore. I feel like he will break tonight. But I want to make sure that it sinks in.”

Throughout the life of a mother, she is confronted with difficult decisions. The difficulty often increases as children grow. For career women, many abandon career ambitions and accept the new challenges of motherhood. Others surrender economic stability and opt for developing character and value in their children. Simply put, mothers make huge personal sacrifices in attempting to nurture their offspring. Sometimes that passion to produce excellence in their children forces them to make tough decisions, all in the interest of their children.

That passion for character development prompted another mother to also turn her son in to the police. Lakesha Robinson was at her son’s school for a parent-teacher conference. She noticed his attention was on a cell phone that she didn’t recognize. She said, “what are you doing with this phone? Whose phone is this?”

He told his mother that the cell phone was given to him by a friend, but she wasn’t buying his story; therefore, she conducted her own investigation and uncovered the real owner of the phone.

The owner told the mother-of-three that his car was broken into and his cellphone, wallet, and credit cards had been stolen. He went on to say that his credit cards had been used at McDonald’s and Walmart. “Since my son had the phone, it’s obvious that he knows something about this theft.” But, when she asked her son about the burglary, he denied it – that’s when she continued her investigation. A McDonald’s bag, a Walmart bag, and a receipt were found inside her home and she called the cell phone owner to see if the amounts matched his statements.

The mother arranged a meeting with the owner and returned his property. Afterward, the Florida mother didn’t hesitate to turn her son in for burglary because of her own criminal background. She did not want her son to make the same mistakes she did before changing her life. Her son was arrested and taken to a juvenile detention center for 12 hours and charged with four counts of burglary.

As I reflect on Mother’s Day 2018, I am forced to recall experiences with the mothers I know best – my own mother, my wife who mothered three, and our daughter who is mothering four. These three women, representing three different generations have taught me much. Each of these women displayed toughness in their parenting. They sacrificed much, displayed tenderness, but never surrendered toughness. Thankfully, none of these women have had to report their children to the police.

At this time of year, I salute them – I salute each of them because, in their mothering, they cared more for the character than the image of their children. I salute these women because their passion for Jesus is greater than their passion for religion. The words of the Proverbs 31 woman ably describe each of them – “Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all” (Proverbs 31:29). Happy Mother’s Day!

CARNIVAL: Fun or Farce?

Byron Lee was not the first to start carnival in Jamaica. Caribbean students at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus, held a carnival before 1990. There was also the Orange Carnival, organized by a group of Jamaicans. All these events mirrored carnival in Trinidad.

Despite being the first in the English-speaking Caribbean, carnival did not originate in Trinidad. There is no evidence of the festival prior to 1783, when the French-speaking planter immigrants and their African slaves arrived. Carnival finds its roots in Roman Catholicism and can be traced to the 12th century in France.

Then, it was called “The Feast of Fools”, and celebrated by junior priests who used the occasion “to make fun of traditional symbols and invent their own ludicrous symbols”. Fun characterized carnival then, as it does now.

Etymologically, carnival is believed to have come from two Latin words – carnus and vale – meaning, “good-bye or farewell to flesh.” It does seem apparent that both history and etymology concur that the essence of the festival is a fling of the flesh. Another word often associated with carnival is bacchanal – from Bacchus, a Roman and Greek mythical deity representing life and revelry. The term introduces the idea of revelry and drunkenness.

Masquerading is another feature in contemporary carnival celebrations. A similar feature was evident in the 12th century celebrations of the “Feast of Fools”. Author, Ingvild Gilhus, used the term “reversals” to describe the “contrary behavior”. This is what Loyd Brown referred to as “the element of play-acting which finds its most natural symbol in the mask of the road marcher and in the masquerade of the carnival bands – a fleeting mobility on its participants.”

The parallels between the contemporary and 12th century carnivals are amazing. For instance, “The Feast of Fools” focused on releasing tension to create arousal in the participants. It was as though the energy which kept the religious system together was let loose. There was a movement from the orderly to the ludicrous, from form to lack of form. The truth is, the quest for fun today, is no different than what was sought in the 12th century. Then, the festivities were referred to as asinaria festa, the “Feast of Asses.” The festivities brought much emotional relief to participants.

According to Darryl Barrow (Caribbean Journal of Religious Studies), “There are many people who regard carnival as a good escape releaser. People have been experiencing stress, strain and certain inhibitions – carnival allows people to release their pent-up energies and desires.”

Interestingly, what Barrow sees as an asset in carnival, Ismith Khan, in The Obeah Man, sees as symptoms of deep-seated social malaise. There seems to be an underlying irony of the carnival spirit. Derek Walcott may well be alluding to this in his poem Mass Man. Here Walcott exposes carnival as a kind of sham behind which we may discover images of pain and despair.

Much of this pain is reflected in the music. For Byron Lee and the Dragonaires, songs like Ragga Ragga and Tiney Winey might be entertaining, but the messages of the songs cannot be ignored. Pain is too often trivialized in order to solicit laughter. In Trinidad, Ash Wednesday, the day following carnival, is no laughing matter. The abandoned costumes, piles of garbage and inebriated bodies, paint a picture of gloom, so unlike the laughter that prevailed hours earlier.

As a Trinidadian, I have spent much time analyzing the fun promised by carnival festivities. However, it is not enough to say that that fun is illusive. Christians need to rediscover the celebrative aspects of life. We need to revisit our understanding of “the abundant life” Jesus promised. The Bible breathes a spirit of joy that is so lacking in our behavior as Christians. Jesus embodied joy and the New Testament makes more references to joy than to all of sadness, weeping, mourning, anguish, anger and distress put together.

In the Old Testament, both mourning and dancing took physical form from the sways and rolls of lament to the joyful bursts of dance. The Psalmist echoes the relationship between joy and dance in proclaiming, “You turned my wailing into dancing; you removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy, that my heart may sing to You and not be silent. O Lord my God, I will give you thanks forever” (Psa. 30:11-12).

Defying Gravity!

What gives the song Defying Gravity a universal connection is the overall idea of letting go of society's expectations and just being yourself. The song has become a self-esteem anthem for millions around the world. However, the song merely reflects the idea of leaving the influences of others behind, in order to experience personal independence.

Following his resurrection, Jesus literally defied gravity – He left earth. Christians refer to this experience as the ascension of Jesus. Five times New Testament writers employ the Greek term analambano (to take up) of Jesus’ ascension. Each time the verb is in the passive voice, He “was taken up.” The passive voice represents the subject of the verb as being acted upon. Thus, in this instance, indicating that the taking up was empowered from above.

Like me, you are probably asking, can someone really believe in ascension in our scientific age? Could one really believe that Jesus was literally “taken-up” from earth? Assuming Jesus was not ascended as reported by Luke in Acts 1:9, we are left with a few difficult historical questions – Then, when did his ministry come to an end? Or, how come, in documenting the history of the church in Acts, there is no record of Jesus’ movements. In addition, no post-resurrection corpse of Jesus was ever found.

In post-resurrection New Testament passages, Stephen, Paul and John claimed to have encountered Jesus. But none of them provided geographical locations where they met. At no point in sacred or secular history does any historian refer to Jesus in terms of His physical location. Following His alleged resurrection, someone must account for His absence from the tomb and from anywhere on earth. The best account for his absence is his ascension, as recorded in the book of Acts.

Like His death and resurrection, the ascension of Jesus was predicted. A thousand years before His birth, David prophesied the ascension of the Messiah when he announced the Lord’s enthronement at the Father’s right hand (Psa.110:1).

In this Psalm, David says, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’”. Jesus quotes this verse in a discussion with the Pharisees to prove that the Messiah is more than David’s son (Matt. 22:44). He is David’s Lord. Interestingly, no other psalm is so frequently quoted in the New Testament.

Like the Psalmist, Jesus predicted His own ascension. In announcing his death to his disciples, He promised to go and prepare a place. Such a mission necessitated leaving earth. It was shortly after making that promise, Jesus said, “it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Holy Spirit will not come to you...” (John 16:7).

Luke contends, just after instructing the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, “Jesus was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight” (Acts 1:9).

This year, Ascension Day, one of the earliest Christian festivals, will be observed on Thursday, May 10. It is observed as a public holiday in many countries. Interestingly, it is celebrated 40 days after Resurrection Sunday – consistent with the ascension of Jesus, 40 days after his resurrection.

The theological implications from the historic ascension of Jesus are massive. Questions like, where did Jesus go, or, where is Jesus now, cannot be avoided. In addition, he accurately predicted his death, his resurrection and his ascension. He also predicted his return – could that be the next big story? With such a successful track record of accurate predictions, it would seem foolish to conclude that his return is unlikely.

Without his ascension, a conversation about his return would be mere wishful thinking. It would then seem prudent to follow the admonition of the angels that were present at his ascension – “this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 2:11).

It was because of his confidence in the return of Jesus, Paul said in his last letter to young Timothy, there is a reward “also, to all who have longed for his appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8). Whatever your theological position regarding the timing of Jesus’ return, what is certain, there will be a defying of gravity, in order to be with him.

Ashamed and Uncomfortable?

In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”

Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of remembering the death of Christ in communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services. Some churches even relegate the practice of believers’ baptism, with its symbolism to the cross, to a private adjunct activity, following a main service.

To be honest, we want a happy Christianity, without symbolic reminders of sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The cross invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on a cross.

As an atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.

The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.

As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact; for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact. To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.

In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life? Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one could bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. The truth is, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort.

The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In one of his letters, Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).

But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.

Furthermore, if we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Because of the cross, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift – ludicrous thinking.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!

The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.” This Easter season might be a good time to return to the words of Fanny Crosby’s hymn, “Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross”, or Elizabeth Clephane, who in 1872 wrote “Beneath the Cross of Jesus”.

There is no user-friendly version of the Gospel. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks Him. Like Paul, I contend, “I am not ashamed of the gospel...” I further contend that the cross is still the best antidote to the narcissism and violence in our culture today.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: His Letter from Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 44 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

Today we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

This year’s celebrations coincide with the ending of two terms of service by the first black president of the United States – what a tribute to Dr. King.

Peace on Earth?

The news headlines preceding Christmas 2016 were frightening – massacre in Germany, major threat averted in Australia, bombing in Syria, Libyan plane hijacked, and the list goes on. None of those events suggest that we are experiencing peace on earth.

Interestingly, the same could be said of the world in which Jesus was born. The philosophical and religious backgrounds of paganism in the first century left a sense of emptiness among many. For instance, belief in the reality of the ancient gods and goddesses of classical mythology resulted in widespread agnosticism.

Many sceptics deduced that the gods were originally men who had distinguished themselves either as warriors or benefactors of mankind, and who after their death were accorded divine honors.

What was aptly termed “the failure of nerve” characterized the moral and religious vacuum that many felt but could not overcome, despite the panaceas offered by a welter of competing teachers, philosophers, priests, astrologers and quacks.

Epictetus, a first century Roman historian and philosopher said of this era: “while the emperor may give peace from war on land and sea, he is unable to give peace from passion, grief and envy. He cannot give peace of heart, for which humanity yearns more than even for outward peace.” As emperor, Caesar Augustus ruled the nations, but could not conquer the human heart.

That was the religious and philosophical world into which Jesus came. That was the world which heard the angels say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests” (Luke 2:14). So unlike today’s understanding of peace, the angels were not referring to the absence of war. They were declaring God's desire for harmonious relationships between men and nations.

Like with the Hebrew word shalom, peace means completeness, wholeness, health, welfare, safety soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord. Shalom comes from the root verb shalom meaning to be complete, perfect and full.

That understanding of peace is so different from those who believe that assuming a posture of strength dissuades potential attacks, consequently leading to peace – the absence of war. But peace is much more than the absence of war.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul linked peace to a person, and not merely to an ideology. He contended, “for He (Jesus) is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility... (Ephesians 2:14).

Hundreds of years earlier, the prophet Isaiah predicted of the coming Messiah, that He would be sar shalom – Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus, who Christians believe is that Messiah, said to His disciples, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you...” (John 14:27). For this reason, Christians see Christmas as the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

Despite the isolated cases in history of using Christianity to incite and initiate wars, the Christian message is universally known as a message of peace.

Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia, sex trafficking and abortion persists.

Because Christians are expected to demonstrate the life of Christ as a lifestyle, we should constantly pursue peace. The biblical teaching is unambiguous, “... as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). Christmas provides tremendous opportunities to illustrate this truth.

In 2015, an estimated $373 billion was received for charities from Americans. About $119 billion of that amount went to religious charities – including churches and para church organizations. That is more than what is spent by the federal government on education or human services. Interestingly, most of that money was received within ten weeks before Christmas.

This fact reminds me that every hour, during this month of December, there is a performance of Handel’s Messiah somewhere in the world. Since the musical was premiered on April 13, 1742, the response around the world has been phenomenal.

George Frideric Handel personally conducted more than thirty performances of Messiah. The millions of dollars that Handel’s performances raised for charity led one biographer to note, "Messiah has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, fostered the orphan . . . more than any other single musical production in this or any country."

In essence, the proceeds have brought peace to many. It is that message of peace, about the Prince of Peace, that continues to bring wholeness and harmony to billions around the world. For this reason, there is no need for anyone to live in turmoil, knowing that God’s peace is available in the Christ of Christmas.

FAKE NEWS OR GOOD NEWS?

When I was a child, anything that was intended to mislead was called a lie – it was not the truth. Some have since described such lies as half-truths, and more recently as fake news.

According to the New York Times, fake news refers to fictitious articles, fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers. Generally, with the goal of profiting through “clickbait” (Internet content of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page).

PolitiFact described fake news as “fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination”. While in Germany recently, President Obama referred to fake news as “active misinformation”.

It is so sad when one cannot trust the media, committed to trustworthy communication. It is like we need a campaign for good news. News that is wholesome and reliable.

In a culture plagued with fake news, Good News is always good. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood at the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.

In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.

Near-Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”

One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.

The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.

Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.

Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society.

Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.

Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.

Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.

However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.

Interestingly, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.

The Virgin Birth: UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. It is believed that some
pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions.

One Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.

Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.

At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.” 

This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.

Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.

History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.

That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.

Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).

Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).

Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to boost the person born.

Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).

Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.

In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).

As a careful historian, Luke anticipates the skepticism that would arise in telling the story, hence the inclusion of Mary’s question: “how will this be, since I am a virgin?” In addition, he quotes the angel as saying, “for nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:34,37).

To merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”

Is Christmas Christian?

Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities.

Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”

The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.

The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.

Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.

In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.

Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.

By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”

As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.

At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.

Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia. 

Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.

In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.

Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!

In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.

For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.

(This commentary first appeared in December 2014)

Happy Thanksgiving!

My family observed our first American Thanksgiving in 1991. A few months earlier, we began our studies in a northern suburb of Chicago. We learned rather quickly that in America, Thanksgiving was a time for families to get together.

An American family invited us to join them for that first celebration. For five years, we celebrated with them in St. Louis. The joyous times made the 300-mile journey very tolerable. Now, twenty-five years later, the friendships we maintain are just as meaningful as in those early years.

When our family-group of twenty gather this week, I will be aware that our celebration would not be anything like the first American Thanksgiving. The first observance of Thanksgiving in America was entirely religious in nature and involved no form of feasting. On Wednesday, December 4, 1619, a group of 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River in Virginia. The charter of the group required that the day of arrival be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God.

The celebration was probably derived from the harvest-home ceremonies originally held in England. Those were days reserved to thank God for plentiful crops and a bountiful harvest. Accordingly, this holiday still takes place late in the Fall Season, after crops have been gathered.

In 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first official Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.”

Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level. Much of the credit for the adoption of a later annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For 30 years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting president after president until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving.

Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. In 1941, Congress permanently established the fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.

It is believed that the English idea of giving thanks for crops had its genesis among the Jews. In Leviticus 23:15-16, God commanded the Jews to count seven full weeks (49 days), beginning on the second day of Passover. The celebration was known by different names throughout the Bible. Among them were The Feast of Weeks, The Feast of the Fiftieth Day and the Day of Pentecost – from the Greek word pentecostes, meaning fiftieth.

Even with a cursory study of the Jewish, British and American practices of thanksgiving, a few common threads seem obvious. Each celebration was in keeping with harvest festivals and acknowledged God’s faithful provision.

In June Jews celebrate Shavuot – the biblical harvest festival. Normally, they spend hours studying the Torah, chant the Ten Commandments, read from the book of Ruth and decorate their homes and synagogues with roses and spices.

In America, it would seem as though the tradition of thanking God has been replaced by the eating of turkey. Some historians believe when colonists sat down to eat with native Indians, beef and fowl were on the menu. A letter written by pilgrim Edward Winslow confirmed this belief when he mentioned a turkey hunting trip before the meal.

Within modern times, the annual "pardoning" of White House turkeys is an interesting tradition that has captured the imagination of the public. It is often stated that President Lincoln’s 1863 clemency to a turkey was the origin for the pardoning ceremony. It is a rather trivial American tradition that the poultry industry looks forward to.

On a more serious note though, for what will you be giving thanks this week? As the patriarch at our Thanksgiving table, I will encourage my family to reflect on something within the last year. My list would very likely include my faith, health, family, church, career and upcoming retirement from pastoral ministry.

What would your list look like? What about saying thanks to at least five persons who had a positive impact on your life within the last year? Have fun. Happy Thanksgiving!

“We the People?”

The phrase “WE THE PEOPLE” is in the very first sentence of the United States Constitution. The entire phrase reads, “We the people of the United States...”. It would seem obvious that the phrase was referring to citizens of the United States.

To determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, allow me to revisit the initial use of the phrase in 1787. It is believed that Founding Father James Wilson was the first to use the phrase. Wilson was one of six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was the first and most eloquent proponent at the Constitutional Convention. He argued that “the new government should be based on the will of the people and not some distant power made up of the rich and powerful.”

What was clear – the Constitution was not to be influenced by England, or any other country. It was to be a statement of the citizens and by the citizens. From this opening phrase, one can correctly deduce that it is the people who wield the power in this democratic republic.

In America, the power to govern comes from the people. Sometimes one wonders if some of our current narcissistic federal and local representatives should not be mandated to pursue ongoing education classes in American Civics.

Some folks may argue, then why didn’t Hillary Clinton win the election, didn’t she get about 400,000 more votes than Donald Trump? Don’t more votes represent the will of the people? Thankfully, majority vote is not the only criterion for presidency. In recent history, other candidates gained majority vote, more than Hillary Clinton, yet did not win the presidency.

If the majority vote were the sole criterion for victory, the votes of city states would always outnumber votes from rural states. In an attempt to avoid this abuse, the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. The 538 votes of the college equitably represent states across the country. Whenever a candidate earns more than 270 votes, that candidate would have won the election. In order to earn 270 votes, a candidate would need to have majority votes in many states - in that way, representing big and small states.

Why the fuss? To ensure that the will of the people is represented and not abused. In essence, the electoral process seeks to ensure checks and balances – the will of the people must be guaranteed and protected.

In an earlier blog, I argued that the study of civics in America is under attack. I told the story of hundreds of students who walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver to protest a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority.

The youth protest in the state's second-largest school district followed a sick-out from teachers that shut down two high schools. Many students waved American flags and carried signs, including messages that read "There is nothing more patriotic than protest."

The school board proposal that triggered the walkouts in Jefferson County called for instructional materials that presented positive aspects of America and its heritage. The County would establish a committee to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

When interviewed, a student demonstrator at Arvada High School, said that “the nation's foundation was built on civil protests, and everything that we've done is what allowed us to be at this point today. And if you take that from us, you take away everything that America was built upon."

That sounds like some of the rhetoric I am hearing since the recent presidential election. In a civil society, the most powerful form of protest is through the ballot box. That opportunity we had a few days ago. The will of the people was expressed within the laws of civil society.

The Bible refers to this type of protest as “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:2) - civil government and order. I believe there are cases when civil protests are necessary, within the context of one’s First Amendment rights, but this is certainly not one of those cases. “We the people” have a rite to be responsible, but not rebellious.