data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/81e70/81e70723b5ed66a8318bca155c7a48d7bbd5cb99" alt=""
Titus just asked me, "Mom, when were you born?"
"April 16, 1966."
"Wow, that's a long time ago! Was that before the dinosaurs?"
Remember when high school students seemed old?
all weikal ~ all the time
Do ya'll remember about 10 years or so ago when Ellen Degeneres came out? (seems like a different world then, huh?) Well, I remember at the time being absolutely steamed by a comment that Jerry Falwell made, calling her "Ellen Degenerate". I seriously wanted to write her an apology and him a plea to SHUT UP. But I digress.
The point, and I do have one, is this - I recently found an article on the web which was written shortly after the Degeneres/Falwell thing. It asked this -"Would Jesus condemn or condone Ellen Degeneres?" Kudos, by the way, to the author. His answer was "neither - Jesus would LOVE her". Why is it that we force ourselves into this categorical response? Are we for or against? In particular, as Christians, do we condemn or condone? Will we speak out against the evil or say nothing, which is just another way of saying it ain't evil at all...or so it is interpreted.
What I love about Jesus is that he was uber-clever. He always knew how to find the third way. I wish I were so creative. Since I'm not, I guess I'll default to the position of love. What can it hurt? Am I called to point out sin or love my neighbor? I think it is far easier to point out sin, to separate myself from really having to relate to anyone who is "misbehaving". I think I've done that a lot in my life.
When I look at the Gospels, I see Jesus relating to sinners who are transformed by his love and willingness to be a part of their lives where they live. It is the religious who are most often chastised for their sinfulness. What would happen if we made it our mission to truly love and left the condemning and condoning out of the equation? Do you think our love would draw anyone toward God, toward wholeness, toward freedom?
If we are going to do God's will here on earth as it is in heaven, we'd better start loving with reckless abandon. When is the last time you expressed love to someone whose behavior you would never condone?
My husband reads books. I read them too, of course. But I read books. He reads BOOKS. You know, the big thick history books about English kings and Russia. He reads them over and again until the binding breaks and chunks fall out like first graders' teeth.
One of those chunks has been migrating around our house lately, moving from kitchen table to bathroom, bedroom to living room floor. Pages 363 through 452, if you care.
"Listen to this," Ray called from the other room. He began to read."There was also a new stress on the workers' own sense of dignity...and they were no longer willing to be treated with any disrespect by either foremen or managers...Domestic servants marched to demand that they should be addressed with the formal 'you', as opposed to the familiar 'you', previously used to address the serfs. Yardmen demanded that their degrading title should now be changed to 'house director'. Women workers demanded equal pay to men, an end to 'degrading body searches', fully paid maternity leave and the abolition of child labour. As the workers saw it, these were basic issues of morality...Many workers spoke of founding a 'new moral life', based on law and individual rights, in which there would be no more drunkenness, swearing, gambling or wife-beating."
"Do you get it?" He asked. "I know exactly what you're thinking. I got it in about the second sentence." (Married people are like that sometimes) "Sounds a lot like the Kingdom, huh?"
I find it interesting that God's kingdom rises up in unlikely places at times. That was Russia in 1917 - around the time Americans were fighting for suffrage and prohibition. About the time that our denomination was gaining legs. Here's my question. Does God's kingdom rely on religious people to cause it to happen or could it possibly move at Divine impulse through means the religious do not sanction or call their own?
* the painting is titled "Revolution" by Marc Chagall
This gesture is a mudra; a well-recognized symbolic hand position in eastern religions. One hand represents the higher, spiritual nature, while the other represents the worldly self. By combining the two, the person making the gesture is attempting to rise above their differences with others, and connect themself [sic] to the person they bow to. The bow is a symbolic bow of love and respect.
Particularly in Hinduism, when one worships or bows in reverence, the symbolism of the two palms touching is of great significance. It is the joining together of two extremities -- the feet of the Divine, with the head of the devotee. The right palm denotes the feet of the Divine and the left palm denotes the head of the devotee. The Divine feet constitute the ultimate solace for all sorrows -- this is a time-honoured thought that runs through the entire religious ethos."
A month or so ago, I listened to a podcast called "Finding Our God in the Other" by Samir Selmanovic. One of his points was that as Christians we arrogantly presume that God is at work only through "us" "His people" "the Church". Our idolatrous ownership of God and the work of God's Spirit is confronted when, among other questions, Samir asks something like this "If God can speak to us through 'The Matrix' then why not through Hinduism or Islam?"