Picture this: Joy to the world, indeed

We were singing “Joy to the World” in church the other day. I’ve always like that Christmas carol, but as with many familiar songs, I sometimes gloss over the words without thinking about them.

So anyway, we started rollicking through the part about “the glories of His righteousness…” and I suddenly had the thought: “Just what are the glories of His righteousness?” Certainly his righteousness would have to appear pretty darn glorious when stood up next to my righteousness since mine, when left to my own devices, is a pretty rickety framework with a veneer-thin coating not big enough to cover all the gaps I’d like to hide so I have to keep shifting it from place to place as the wind blows.

And then the revelation returned to me that MY righteousness is worthless, but the righteousness of the sinless Christ is so great and glorious that it covers me and makes me righteous in God’s sight, and not because of anything I did but because of what Jesus did. In fact, because of what Jesus came to do.

Then I thought of the next line in the song: “…and wonders of His love, and wonders of His love…” for it is a wonder that God’s love is so all encompassing that He would send His son, and the son’s love would be so great that He would endure all for me.

And I sang with a great, sounding Joy.

Loving your neighbor in Inver Grove Heights

Last week the Inver Grove Heights City Council met to hear from the public regarding a new property maintenance ordinance aimed at instituting certain appearance, maintenance and lawn-care standards for private homes. As with many laws, especially those regarding private property, this ordinance wasn’t aimed at defining or protecting an owner’s property rights, but at criminalizing poor or indifferent citizenship. Of course, it’s all for a good cause: “It’s for the children,” one of the proponents said.

Apparently, it’s more harmful for children to see a messy yard than it is for them to see adults taking their neighbors to court to resolve a problem instead of pitching in to help.

As a property-owner I know how discouraging and aggravating it can be to share a neighborhood — or even a property-line — with an “eye-sore” home and lot. I am much more concerned, however, with the ever-increasing encroachments on property rights, typically in the name of “doing good.” From Kelo, to smoking bans, to how high you let the grass grow, it’s an ever-expanding power-grab passed off as being for the common good without any real examination of how much good — or how much harm — is actually being done. (On a side-note, I heard one news-reader on KFAN this a.m. referring to the new state-wide smoking ban in bars and restaurants, say the ban “does not apply to private homes at this time” — suggesting, what?)

In this particular case, this issue for me is not just a legal or conservative one about rights and what you can get people to go along with, it is a moral and Biblical one as well. Usually it seems that if you raise a moral issue these days it’s assumed that you want to impose some narrow-minded “thou shalt not” on other people. In this case the “thou shalt nots” being imposed are coming from the larger public and what’s being missed is the “thou shall” Biblical instruction. You know, the one that “thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself.” Note, that doesn’t say “love they neighbor only if thy neighbor is a believer,” nor does it say “if you are a believer, thou shall love thy neighbor.”

What if that neighbor with the dilapidated house or junky yard is someone struggling just to make ends meet and can’t afford to make the improvements to the paint or siding that the community deems to be necessary? What if that neighbor is working two or three jobs and might skip mowing the lawn from time to time? What if your neighbors are an elderly couple who don’t have the physical, let alone financial, resources to maintain the property but are trying to live independently? Shall we just have our pubic servants, the police, march up to the door and slap a citation on it? Certainly it would be “legal.” Or, alternatively, shall we walk up to the door in person, knock on it and say, “Hi, you may not know me but I’m your next-door neighbor and I was wondering if there was something I could do to help?”

Ok, so what if that neighbor is a lazy bum who’s perfectly capable of maintaining his house or yard, or is someone who just likes to use old washing machines as lawn statuary? Well, it could be that your offer might not be well-received, or that your neighbor might think that you’re the nutjob. But if a succession of people approached him or her over time and offered to help (as opposed to demanding that he or she “straighten up”) what effect could that have? The neighbor would know that people are paying attention, that they care about the neighborhood and their property values, and that they’re willing to try to help first rather than condemn. He may not change his attitude completely but he may be motivated to try to make some improvements (even grudgingly) or even accept an offer of help. Which approach do you think ultimately contributes to a better neighborhood?

If that is starting to sound like a good idea to you, but you’re thinking, “yeah, why can’t the government do something to help that guy?” then you’re still missing the point. A lot of the problems we’re facing in our communities come from the fact that we’ve allocated to the government the responsibility of looking out for the well-being of those around us, of loving our neighbors. Sure, we mean to “do good” by passing new laws and taxes but we’re merely passing off our personal responsibility to do good to another, impersonal (and usually less efficient) entity.

Now it could be that your neighbor is a loser with no conscience or sense of shame who will readily accept help from you and your neighbor and just sit back and figure someone will always bail him out and never lift a finger himself. There’s certainly precedent for that happening when the help comes from a faceless government, but may not be so common when there are real faces involved. It’s worth a try at least to see if you can make a difference, and if someone is totally resistant or irresponsible there are other Biblical examples of how to deal with an unrepentent individual (and no, they don’t involve stoning — I’m thinking Matthew 18:15-17).

Furthermore, do we know how many people might fall into this latter category, and might it be worthwhile to figure it out before writing an ordinance or passing a law? At the Inver Grove Heights meeting, one person asked the Council how many complaints had been filed regarding nuisance properties. The answer was 160. The questioner then asked how many private homes were in Inver Grove Heights. The Council and the proponents of the ordinance didn’t know.

How many of the complaints referred to the same property? They didn’t know.

How many complaints had been filed by the same person? They didn’t know.

For the time being, the Council has decided to proceed with a stripped down version of the ordinance that regulates junk, open storage, woodpiles and similar eyesores but not the outside condition of houses and other buildings. It was much less than ordinance proponents were hoping for, and the issue is still alive. A second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for the next Council meeting on October 8.

A praying nation

I wrote this essay for another publication, back in September, 2001.

Ultimately, America’s secular façade crumbled even before its material symbols collapsed. I first turned on my radio — and heard the first words regarding Tuesday’s disaster — moments before the second tower was struck. The voices of the national news team were already urging Americans to pray for the safety of those involved. It sounded almost glib at first, but as the unreal became real and the horror increased by the minute, the references became more heart-felt, even desperate.

As our true helplessness and vulnerability became apparent, the call to pray was in every report and every story. And pray we did: alone, with our families, and in special services and vigils that themselves became news. All of this flying in the face of a culture and media that has said for years that faith and divine intervention are, at best, inappropriate if not impossible. It must have been like discovering that the kooky old aunt you’ve been keeping in the attic is the only one who knows where the family silver is buried.

But which is the true picture of America? Are we a secular society that merely pays lip service to faith when a crisis looms, or are we a nation of quiet faithful who allow ourselves to be cowed by society until circumstances give us a chance to break out? I know how our attackers would describe us.

Make no mistake, this is a spiritual and religious war. Those who attacked us chose as their main target what they perceived to be the symbolic spiritual center of our nation. Perhaps we need to ask why the most recognizable symbol — and target — of a country founded on Christian principles should turn out to be the World Trade Center.

My opinion, however, is that we are primarily a nation of faith even if the cultural spin obscures this. There are just too many blessings in our lives and too few fruitful external assaults on our freedom and security for it to be otherwise. Our country could not have developed the abundance we experience (or manage our enormous debt) without God’s favor and the generally well-intentioned (if unfocused) spiritual character of our people. The vicious and ungodly in-fighting of our leaders and factions in an attempt to garner power and divvy up the fruit from our foundational blessings is both sad and laughable in comparison to the desperation that much of the rest of the world lives in: we’re fleas fighting over the dog, but our biting and scratching just may drive the dog crazy (to which the dyslexic, atheistic flea shouts “there is no dog!”)

But if we’re stronger spiritually than we realize, what is the meaning of the September 11 attacks?

The bridges of Minneapolis and San Luis Rey, and the Tower of Siloam

Who, what, when, where? Those are the first things we want to know when a disaster makes the news. Close on their heels comes the question hardest to answer: Why?

That question breaks into two parts, the physical and the metaphysical. Why did the bridge fail structurally, and why were these particular people apportioned to survive, die or be injured? The first question will eventually be known to the millimeter; the second will remain fuzzy. Implicit in the second one, however, is the fear that everything is random, that there is no justice, or that justice is applied on a scale so grand that we can’t calculate it; either way we are left with uncertainty as to just what measure is due us personally. The thing is, we want there to be a reason and order to things, and optimistically assume (or hope) that our own accounts will balance to the “good”; promising or justifying our own deliverance from calamity.

We easily extend our version of grace to others (as long as they’re victims and not members of the opposition party), generously judging them good or innocent by the most general of categories: he was a “nice guy”, she was a young mother. “Why do bad things happen to good people?” we cry. Other people, or other times, might view calamity as judgment or karmic justice.

Similarly, was it chance or God’s plan that resulted in the deaths in the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis? Was it God’s indifference that lead to the fall, or God’s providence that the calamity was not more catastrophic? If there is such a “goodness” scale, by what measure can the survivors claim deliverance and what comfort can be given to the families of those who didn’t? How can a former missionary go missing while a child abuser survives?

People didn’t start asking these questions just when President Bush took office, either. In his 1927 novel, “The Bridge at San Luis Rey,” Thornton Wilder tackles similar questions and circumstances in the person of Brother Juniper who tries to ascertain the central failing in the lives of five people who perish when the titular bridge falls into a chasm. (He could come to no conclusion). Going back a bit further, in John 9:2, Jesus was asked about a blind man, “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” Whereupon he made mud and put it in the blind man’s eyes and then sent him to wash in the pool of Siloam, healing his blindness. Interestingly, Siloam is mentioned again in Luke 13 when people suggest to Jesus that calamity overcame certain people as a judgment. His response: “… those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Or, (excuse my jump in character but not in context), in the words of Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, “We’ve all got it coming.” The point being made was that no one is innocent, but each may come to the revelation of salvation by grace; by the work of God, not man.

I’m not trying to be dark. In fact, I believe that there is an order and justice in the universe even if we can’t see it all at once. I believe that because, in fact, we are able to see beauty and justice from time to time. If it weren’t so, all would be chaos and despair. Instead, in the midst of the refining fire of a disaster there are gleaming streaks of gold rising through all the impurities; the acts of courage, altruism and goodness in the survivors and rescuers (perhaps even unplumbed in their lives up until that point), and of a community pulling together in empathy and faith.

Bridges are aspirational; tangibly they are an example of our ability to overcome an obstacle to achieve what we want. The failure of one is not just a challenge to getting what we want, it is a repudiation of our ability to even conceive of it; the cutting of the tight rope woven of our doctrines that we walk to find our own salvation. In Mark Helprin’s book “Winter’s Tale” the allegorical and eternal Jackson Mead, an engineer representing either Lucifer or man (I go back and forth on this), strives to bend steel, nature and his will into casting a tremendous bridge of light to Heaven that — like our human understanding — touches the far shore for a moment and falls. Yet one of the messages of the book is that the balances are exact; and one thing cannot fall without something else rising and even more gloriously.

The 35W bridge fell in a crush of broken steel, concrete and bodies — and though the dust sought to obscure it, we could suddenly see something clearly: we are the bridges, standing in or reaching across the gap for and to one another.

Standing, always.

Keep on a-rocking me

One day last week a co-worker on maternity leave brought her new little daughter to the office for show and tell. There’s a distinctive commotion when someone brings a baby into the workplace, marked by multiple, high-pitched cooings and cluckings. It’s completely different from the sound of someone bringing doughnuts, for example.

Nevertheless, I looked out over the cubicle walls anyway and saw about a dozen female heads clustered together focusing on something in the midst of them, and I figured they weren’t watching a football game. I walked over in time to see the mother hand the infant off to one of her friends who, within moments, began the distinctive side-to-side rocking motion adults do when holding a child. Not only that, but within minutes the entire cluster was swaying sympathetically as well, including myself. I’m sure it’s a phenomenon we’re all familiar with.

I remembered this little scene again on Sunday morning at church. After we began with praise and worship there was truly a sense of the presence of God in our midst and as I stood in the moment I found myself gently swaying side to side in the exact same way I had earlier in the week, and the recognition of that kind of startled me. I looked around the room and easily two-thirds of the congregation were also quietly swaying in the same way.

Something in us or passed on to us naturally makes us adults rock to comfort a baby that’s hungry, scared or has made a mess. Just as naturally, something in us or passed on to us draws us, even as adults, when we are hungry, scared or have made a mess of things. Then God takes us in his arms, and the breath of His spirit goes “Shhh-shh-shhh, it’s going to be all right.” And it is.

Dying easy, II

A few days ago I put up a post referencing how safe our lives have become and suggesting that we had to go looking to find things to kill us, and usually found them embedded in the things we’ve used to make our lives easier.

Our desire for easy and convenient kills us with useless calories, toxic drink dispensers and mutated nutrients while we celebrate progress and our exceeding cleverness. Why, to do without these fruits would be regressive, even primitive.

Morally we also like things easier, and we don’t like to put the hard work in to examine ourselves and cut the slack out of our lives, thinking that as long as everything “looks good” then we must not be too bad. We certainly don’t want to be bothered with the work of taking a stand in the hopes of changing others (unless we’re one of those who can’t wait to change everyone but themselves), so we watch that video, play that game, revel in those lyrics. Why, to do without our rationalizations, to be willing to say something is actually evil, would be regressive, even primitive.

It’s far easier to act as if the “science” of our morality has all been settled, that evil has been driven from our land along with the wild, man-eating animals, leaving us this convenient, easy life where we assume everyone’s just naturally got it all figured out and evil is merely a quaint concept to be manipulated for power and ratings, or to describe how someone else votes. Or else a venial sin is blown up into a huge paper dragon so that certain warriors can similarly puff themselves up to do battle with it. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

And then someone shoots up a school, pours acid on a playground slide or opportunistically twists another person’s name and reputation for personal gain on a national stage and we gape in horror and wonder how anyone could do such a thing even though it happens in one form or another every day. Meanwhile, the TV networks that won’t show a fan running out onto an athletic field because it gives the yahoo the exposure he’s looking for and only encourages others, trip all over each other to broadcast the addled rantings of a self-absorbed maniac.

A friend who is a carpenter recently opined, after touring several million-dollar homes, how disappointing the workmanship was in these beautiful and expensive abodes. Things certainly looked nice, but to a practiced eye the mistakes and cover-ups for the mistakes were jarring. Something might look right, but if it’s not properly squared up it’s eventually going to sag and crumble, no matter how expensive and modern it is.

I can’t imagine the architect is too pleased.

Filings: NSF

One of the songs we sang in church on Easter Sunday had these words:

I’ll never know how much it cost
To see my sin upon that cross.

We’ve sung that song a few times before and each time I usually think to myself that I do know how much it cost to redeem my sin — it “cost” Jesus having to come to earth in human form, being beaten, crucified, dying and rising again. Yesterday, however, it really sunk in for me that there is a difference between “knowing” and “experiencing”. Or, to put it in the words that occurred to me, it’s the difference between receiving a check for $1 million and writing a check for $1 million.

That’s not to say that most of us haven’t tried to write out our own check for our salvation, either out of our man-made doctrines or new age spirituality, or based on our “good works”. Inherent in all of those thoughts is that deep down we assume we’re not “that bad” (even “good”), so how big a check are we really talking about? The thing is, there is no check that we can write ourselves that would pay that debt, even on an installment plan. That’s because we all fell for the marketing incentives and opened our accounts at the First Bank of Hell (hey, I got a free toaster!), and those checks are always going to bounce. They’ll come back stamped NSF — Insufficient Faith. And man, those penalty charges eat you up.

Nor do I get any closer by taking that revelation and thinking that I’m a worm, a worthless sinner (especially if done with an all-too-human sense of pride at my humility). True, on my own that is what I’d be, but Jesus looked at the value and decided I was worth it. I don’t know which revelation makes me weep more.

It is a gift that I can’t explain, rationalize or justify; all I can do is either accept it or waste it. There were many over the weekend who tipped their hats to the “message of Jesus” without realizing the sacrifice he made. There were the ones, even in Christian leadership, willing to call him “Teacher” but not “Lord”. I know; I’ve been there, done that myself. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity (and KingDavid reminded me):

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg–or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [alternative] open to us

Filings is an ongoing section of this blog where the posts focus specifically on issues of Christian life. The name comes about because “filings” are the natural by-product of Proverbs 27:17: “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

Rehearsing

My wife, the Reverend Mother, preached a sermon yesterday. In it she described how there is a book being written about our lives, every day, and that one day that book will be opened. But there is also, she said, a script for our lives that has already been written and that we can follow. I know both are true.

The first book is scary. Many things are in there that I wish I could rewrite, or delete entirely. Unfortunately, all my rough drafts are there, unalterable:

my missteps…

half-finished thoughts…

idle words…

careless plots and sketchy character development —

all of it, just waiting for a real Author and Finisher.

The script, however, is comforting. It means that I, like an actor at rehearsal struggling to learn a new part, have a guide to fall back on; someone who knows what the plot twists are for and how the story ends. It means that in any scene, if I lose my way or forget my part, I can stop and say,

“Line, please.”

Filings: What sayest thou?

A friend of mine offers this commentary to my recent post about Pastor Mac Hammond, Living Word Christian Center and CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington):

Are you saying the end justifies the means? That because Mac and the church have done good things we should look the other way? That it’s not anyone’s business if they’re lining their pockets by fleecing willing congregants who think every dollar gets them closer to the Kingdom of Heaven? In the Strib article, Hammond says, “It’s impossible to bless someone else or be a blessing if you have nothing to bless them with.” So better to have a jet than a schoolbus. Better to have a Lexus than a 1998 Taurus. Better to have a $500,000 retreat than some housekeeping cabins. It’s like Steve Martin in “The Jerk” . . . this is all I need. These condos in Florida, this Porsche, my kids on the payroll and so on. You seem to shrug and let him off the hook by saying if he is up to no good, he’ll be judged. If he is indeed running some kind of pseudo-religious Ponzi scheme, shouldn’t his actions be exposed to the light of day sooner than later, even if you disagree with the media outlet that’s holding the lantern?

Actually, what I was saying was that the timing and sudden interest the Strib took in Living Word and Mac Hammond’s message (which he has been preaching since 1980, and from the pulpit of his huge building since 1998) was more about the newspaper being offended by his politics than his doctrine, but that may just be a biased assumption on my part. Perhaps I should wait for more evidence than just a circumstantial connection between the stories the newspaper ran, the complaint filed by CREW, and Pastor Hammond’s public endorsement of a candidate much reviled by the Strib’s editorial board and left-leaning watchdog groups.

Perhaps, from my own experience I am too judgmental and suspicious of those watching out for us, of whom author Mark Helprin once wrote, “The dog who protects sheep quickly learns how to direct them, and it becomes a habit. The people have been trained by their watchmen to jump, and to trample what the watchmen want trampled.”* Hence, I can look at the situation and think, “Something smells fishy.”

Similarly, there may be those who will readily assume a pastor or a church is fleecing a “conned”-gregation into thinking it can buy its way into Heaven because the reported facts look suspicious, even if all that has been presented is a careful marshaling of facts and innuendo while the newspaper carefully avoids making any direct accusation of wrong-doing. Why wouldn’t someone reading the story think, regarding the church, that “Something smells fishy?”

So, obviously, there can be differences of opinion based on perspective. I will, however, address the underlying question in the comment above as well as the actual question asked at the end (while also indirectly responding to other comments on the original post).

I don’t claim to be a great Biblical scholar, but I do have more than a passing acquaintance with the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” attributed to Pastor Hammond (also known, less charitably, by critics as “name it and claim it”). I won’t issue a judgment on Hammond because, as I said before, I don’t know what he is actually preaching. I do know, however, from scripture and — most significantly to me — my own experience that material as well as spiritual blessings have overtaken my family and I because we give liberally (admittedly, about the only thing we do “liberally”). We have good incomes, a nice house, nice things, and we tithe off of everything we receive, and give a similar amount in alms and other offerings, and are still able to put aside money for the future. Other people may have bigger incomes, nicer houses, more things, etc. without being givers, but we have seen amazing (some might say miraculous) connections between what we’ve given and the things we’ve received. When we give thanks for our meals we often include 2 Corinthians 9:8, “God is able to give us everything we need to live life in abundance and to give into every good work.” Unlike the world, we’re not just receiving from those who we’ve given to or vice-versa.

Some might say we live too well. We could, I suppose, get by with a smaller home, even older cars and without that new HDTV and home theater system, and give the money to the poor (or pay even higher taxes). Yet in a smaller house we never would have been able to take in the people we’ve taken in over the years, or hold the home church meetings on Friday nights; our vehicles are used to get us and others to places we need to be in order to be a blessing; and I’m going to bring the boys from the Fundamentals in Film class into my basement to watch this week’s movie (ok, that last part may be because I want to see them jump when the artillery hits more than because I want to bless them).

Or we could have kept for ourselves all that we’ve given and, theoretically, have even more stuff. It may be counter-intuitive, but I don’t think so. Proverbs 11:24 says, “One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty.” Giving and receiving and giving again is how we live. It’s not the be-all and end-all of our “creed” but it is something we’ve tried to help others to apply in their lives. As Mac Hammond said, “It’s impossible to bless someone else or be a blessing if you have nothing to bless them with.” There are certainly times when warm thoughts, open arms and fervent prayers can be a tremendous blessing, but it’s also valuable to send someone off with a hot meal or a new coat on behalf of our Father who loves us and would not “give us a stone when we ask for bread.”

So, count me among those who think it is an important part of the Christian life to be a cheerful giver (see 2 Corinthians 9:7), and as someone who has seen it bear fruit in my life. Does Mac Hammond have more fruit in his life than me? Apparently. Does he deserve it? That’s between him and God and his congregation, and my opinion doesn’t enter into their relationship and, in fact, could hurt my own relationship with God. I have no idea what percentage of the money that comes in to Living Word goes to Mac Hammond and no interest or say in what he choses to spend it on because there is no accountability between the two of us. It would seem, however, that those who do have a mutual accountability with him are well satisfied with the arrangement.

It is certainly obvious what the church is doing with the bulk of the money. If you go to Living Word’s Outreach page there is an impressive list of ministries and programs to people of all social classes, and all around the world. Missions, schools, a thrift store, a rehab clinic, a Christian night club (where youth can be edified as well as entertained instead of being left to seductions of the culture), and much more, plus a large staff to minister and administer these things as well as to the the people who come into the church itself. There’s always the risk that Hammond and the church love money — or it could be that they love what the money can do.

Of course, newspapers, businesses and governments all love what money can do as well, and they ask for it all the time. Each of us, individually, also has a powerful appreciation for what money can do for us. Cultivating a proper attitude toward money and seeing it as our servant instead of our master is a challenge and stirs up strong emotions and reveals strongholds in our lives. I remember several years ago that a man left our church saying, “All they’re interested in is your money.” A little while later he was found to have been embezzling money from his business. Interesting what he thought he was hearing, isn’t it?

I know that it is common for certain ministries to ask for money by referring to the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:8, “some seeds fell on fertile (good) soil and produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted.” These ministries will say that they are “good soil” and worth supporting. I typically don’t give to these because Matthew 13:23 says that the “good soil” is our hearts that receive the word, not the ministry that receives the money. Further, if my heart is good, then even if I give to the wrong place I can still reap a benefit well out of proportion to what I’ve sown.

No doubt, as with any church, there are legitimate reasons for people not to like Mac Hammond and Living Word. They may be put off by the large size and prefer something more personal. They may find the teaching too different from what they are accustomed to, or too challenging to their own comfort zone. They may consider it completely heretical. They might turn out to be right, but I can be nonchalant about it and let Mac “off the hook” simply because I’m not the one with the hook in the first place. As Matthew 13:24 goes on to say:

Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. The farmer’s servants came and told him, `Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!’

“`An enemy has done it!’ the farmer exclaimed. `Shall we pull out the weeds?’ they asked.

“He replied, `No, you’ll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.'”

God’s word is the seed and brings the wheat into our lives, though there might be enemies and weeds in and around it. When the time comes, the light from the fire that burns those weeds will overwhelm whatever feeble lantern might be trying to illuminate those weeds — and I’m pretty sure I don’t want to be holding that lantern when it happens.
*From the chapter entitled “The Machine Age” in Winter’s Tale.

Where there’s smoke, find out who’s trying to blow it into your eyes

I’ve had some comments percolating inside me since Sunday regarding the Pastor Mac Hammond story in the StarTribune and the subsequent follow-up articles, but a crises at work (I’m losing a valued employee) and a crisis at home (the illness and departure of our cat) have distracted me from giving this the attention required. Meanwhile, others have also been weighing in (good posts here and here).

My thoughts are the religious angle is but a common and convenient smokescreen to the real issue.

First, let’s deal with the smoke.

You know you’re not supposed to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, right? Run afoul of the media’s sensitivities or business interests (especially locally) — say, if you happen to own a piece of land that the city covets for a ball park development and you brazenly hold out for market price — and you can expect to be denounced in boldface type in stories and by communists columnists. If you’re a church that’s guilty of offending the media (I’ll get to that offense in a minute), and don’t fit into the mainstream, reliably liberal denominational mode they’ll try to make you look like Fred Phelps or Jim Bakker, depending on which fits the template or best serves the purpose.

In this case, since Pastor Hammond (interestingly enough, the Strib never refers to him as Pastor, Reverend or any other religious title in its story) of Living Word Christian Center is flamboyant and possesses many material goods that come with a high standard of living and preaches on prosperity then the angle of attack is that Mac Hammond = Jim Bakker, in much the same way that Iraq = Viet Nam, regardless of any fundamental differences there might be. Living Word is described as a “name it and claim it” church, though there’s nothing in the church’s statement of doctrine, or in the list of books written by Hammond’s wife, Lynne that suggests this is the main focus of the ministry.*

While it’s always interesting to see whether the Sunday School drop-outs in the media can out-do their clerical targets in taking scriptures out of context, it is a disingenous argument. First, there is nothing inherently noble about being either rich or poor, even though our society idolizes and gawks at the rich (while supposedly hating them) while merely giving lip service to the poor. In fact, all people are inherently sinful (yes, even the good people) and need to be saved and ministered to. Neither the rich or the poor are saved or condemned by their financial status, but by the state of their hearts, and all will be judged by their fruits.

Everyone is ruled by money, but in different ways, and money is a hard master. Far better to make it a servant, which is part of the so-called “name it and claim it” doctrine. Money is a powerful thing, however, and I’m reminded – not of scripture – but of the poem about the Lady and the Tiger. The snares are there and they are both subtle and profound for those who preach prosperity — just as they are for those who preach the holiness of poverty. Pastor Hammond may take his interpretation to the extreme; if so he’ll be judged – as will those who preach to the opposite extreme.

For what it’s worth, my wife and daughter have committed themselves to spending a year helping a young single mom develop the life-skills she needs to get out of poverty. This includes sharing the same spiritual principles that we’ve used ourselves. While the mother wants and enjoys the material things that have come to her so far as a result of this outreach, she is completely uninterested in the spiritual (at least for now). This doesn’t make her any worse than others we’ve helped or tried to help in the past, perhaps just more honest.

I’m not concerned with media criticism of Pastor Hammond or his ministry. For one, persecution is promised to believers and if he’s sincere in doing God’s work he’ll be fine even if he is not perfect. (For all the wealth he’s supposedly extracted for himself, the church does appear to have done and built some tremendous things.) Second, if he is in error, the consequences are certain and out of the hands of the media and others. It is interesting, though, how money becomes the focus of the media. Apparently the thought that 10,000 people voluntarily go to something they enjoy and give out large chunks of money to do so is suspicious, though I’d say members of Living Word show better judgment than Timberwolves season ticket holders.

As I said at the beginning, the religious criticism is just a smokescreen and a handy club to try and beat Hammond and Living Word into submission. The real issue is politics and power, and in short the media and the government doesn’t like competition in telling people how to think and act and especially what to do with your money. They are the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees, focused on making others conform to man-made interpretations and doctrines that keep them in power while missing the Spirit that inspired those.

The media has no problem with religious leaders getting involved with issues — as long as they’re on the “right” side: AME churches hosting one-sided candidate forums for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Buddhist temple fund-raisers for Al Gore, or Cardinal Flynn speaking out on global warming, etc. Use your pulpit otherwise, however, and watch out. My thinking is that this latest “expose” grows out of Living Word hosting Michelle Bachman during the last campaign and Pastor Hammond’s hearty endorsement of her candidacy. Since then they’ve allowed a little time to do some research and find some disgruntled former church members (have you ever known a church — whether of 10 people or 10,000 — that didn’t have disgruntled former members?) and let some legal eagles see if they can find some plausible-sounding charges; whether true or not the charges get attention and serve as supressing fire to get the church or similar communities to duck their heads.

Now, just a few months after the campaign, you’ve got a “watchdog group” in Washington, D.C. filing charges and demanding an investigation into the Living Word’s tax-exempt status. In this case the watchdog is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). That sounds very noble, but whenever I see a group being called a “watchdog” I always look to see who is holding the leash. With a little poking I think we can find out who the major contributors or founders of CREW are, but their own statements on their website are pretty unabashed as they indicate they were created to fill a niche opposite of conservative watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch, The Rutherford Institute and the National Legal and Policy Center.

Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the progressive arena. There are a number of non-partisan groups that address government honesty, including Common Cause, Public Citizen, the Center for Public Integrity, and Democracy 21. While we applaud their efforts, we have noted that these groups focus principally on research and legislation. They do not use litigation to target outrageous conduct, nor do they bring the message of injustice to the people the way their conservative counterparts do. Because these public interest organizations focus mostly on policy issues and not on obstacles faced by ordinary citizens, these groups have not mobilized a shift in public opinion on the issue of government honesty. CREW fills that niche.

This isn’t about religious doctrine, though doctrine can be ginned up to discredit your opponent. Instead it is about free speech, about who gets to speak and who gets shouted down (or sued).

[*Full disclosure: I am not now, and have never been, a member of Mac Hammond’s church, Living Word, nor have I ever met Mac or, to my knowledge, anyone on his pastoral staff. I think I have a good understanding of the doctrines that are said to be taught at Living Word, but I’ve never seen or heard a sermon myself. I have known several people over the years who are, or have been, members and found them to be very grounded and focused on helping others.]