Why I Wouldn't Vote for Ben Carson

“The problem is, many of the people in need of saving are in churches, and at least part of what they need saving from is the idea that God sees the world the same way they do.” 

-Barbara Brown Taylor

I think the conservative element, especially among Evangelicals, are much too enamored with Dr. Ben Carson. While I am most certainly pro-life and hold other conservative values which would, no doubt, line up with many of Carson's positions I have a few things “against him” so to speak.

Carson got into trouble recently speaking about gun control and applying it to the Holocaust, stating, in a nutshell, if the Jews had more guns and had not been under oppressive gun laws implemented by the Hitler regime they could have fought back more effectively. So the Holocaust would have been less likely if there were more guns?

This not only sounds absolutely stupid and slightly crazy to me but many others. Even the ADL, “Anti-Defamation League” has spoken out against this view. Let's be clear, this is all hypothetical that we're speaking of but Carson is no historian and he's treading on a dangerous hypothetical scenario that not only makes him look ignorant but also a little crazy.

I'm not anti-gun, far from it, but giving everybody more guns is not the answer we need now and it's not the answer that was needed years ago. Dr. Carson thinks that by explaining, in hypothetical “what I would do” scenarios he is expanding on what his policy would be but he isn't. He's painting himself into a corner with words which he won't be able to get out of, and we have another example besides the Holocaust quip.

When asked about a recent school shooting Dr. Carson suggested that if he were in that same scenario he would have “rushed the shooter” banking on the fact that the shooter can't shoot all of us, they can only shoot one person at a time. In other words he would fight back. How patently absurd, how callous this is to the victims. It almost shames them, implying that maybe they would be alive if they had just acted differently. He doesn't come right out and say that but that's what is implied.

Who really knows what they would do in any given situation? You can say, “I would do this...” all day long but you really have no idea how you will react when something terrifying happens, when adrenaline kicks in and something tragic is in full swing you don't always pick some noble or brilliant course of action. Many times, I would wager, when people are faced with life or death, they simply try and cling to life as much as possible and don't make bold, saucy moves. This isn't the movies and true heroes are hard to come by in that regard.

So who would I vote for? Strike up a conversation with me and I might tell you...and I won't even give you a hypothetical...

Jesus is Fire...

Matthew 3:11, NRSV, “I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

It's fun to find the opposites of things, some are obvious, far and near which we all learned from Grover on Sesame Street. Friends and enemies, of course we could claim the middle ground is the confusing “frenemy”. Some are more difficult, what is the opposite of fluff? What's the opposite of cantaloupes?

A pair of dynamic of opposites is presented here in Matthew 3, water and fire. Water cools, quenches, floods, engulfs, sustains and nourishes. Fire burns, consumes, destroys, refines, and eliminates all the impurities for the purity that is inside to show through.

John is presented as the water, Jesus as the fire. This is an interesting comparison, John is baptizing with water but he says that one is coming that will baptize with fire. But if you look through the gospels you will see that Jesus never baptized….so what is the meaning here?

I suppose it depends on what we mean by baptism doesn't it? Some people will say baptism comes from the Greek meaning “to immerse”. Others will say it means to “pour over” and others will show support for both. I will be honest here, if Greek scholars are still in debate over this, and they know Greek, I doubt I will settle it since I don't know it at all.

I think we can say this though, baptism seems to be an important event. John is particular about who he baptizes, even turning people away, see vs. 7-8 of this chapter. Jesus is baptized and it is a watershed moment, when he begins His public ministry and He doesn't have just anyone perform it, he has John do the honors. Jesus commands believers to baptize as one of the ongoing rites of the church.

If John is water we can compare him to water in this way, water is perishable, it dries up, you can have a flood but it will dissipate at some point. The flood waters that come, have a source and when that source dies down, the waters begin to slowly subside, they do not build in intensity. Once the source is cut off, you have no more raging storm to battle just the aftermath.

If Jesus is fire then you have a very different comparison. Fire burns until it runs out of oxygen or fuel to burn. Fire jumps and spreads and grows bigger, even if you dig trenches and wet the fuel, fire is utterly destructive, destroying everything in it's path. There is no clean up after a fire, there is only destruction and building something new.

But what does come after fire is new growth. The fire puts nutrients into the soil which allow for the first buds of new trees, plants and flowers to slowly make their way though. Out of the destruction, out of the utter death of everything, comes new life.

That's where the Holy Spirit comes in and that's why Jesus is bringing Him because there is no growth without the Holy Spirit, there is no awakening the soil, there is no speaking to the dead, “grow, live, breathe!” without the breath of God.

And just like man was first made out of dirt, we are made out of ashes and breathed into by God...that, my friends, is why Jesus is fire.  

Forgive Me Not

“Love is not a victory march. It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah...”

-Leonard Cohen

Matthew 11:28-30 NRSV. “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

A very poignant lesson on forgiveness lurks in Matthew 11. If you are familiar with the Bible at all you are probably familiar with all the verses we love to quote on forgiveness, but maybe this one isn't quoted in that context as much. Maybe you've heard this in the context of the maxim, “Let go and let God”, which is not a thing, by the way. It's empty talk that Christians use when they don't actually have anything meaningful to say or can't think of anything to say. There's certainly nothing Biblical about it.

So let's peruse the passage shall we? The beginning of chapter Jesus and His disciples split and Jesus is spending some time on his own. John's disciples encounter him and bring some questions from John, that would be John the Baptist. He has his doubts, he's maybe discouraged or unsure, a smidgen on the hesitant side.

Instead of answering them directly, Jesus points them to actions He has done and things that are happening throughout the community, “the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed”-vs. 4-6.

Jesus is effectively telling the disciples and John, and all the other listeners around him, look at what I've done but also and possibly more importantly, “go and talk to the lepers who are no longer lepers, the blind who now see, the lame who now walk the same roads we do”. Jesus is inviting them to investigate the testimony of others that have encountered him and decide for themselves. He doesn't give them a direct answer of “yes”.

I'll spare you a detailed exegesis of the rest of the chapter but suffice to say vs. 7-24 are full of strong words from Jesus. He praises John but basically affirms John's suffering and doesn't dismiss it, He then points to all the evidence that has been given to the people He has been talking to and pronounces judgments on them if they do not accept his words as truth.

The last section in this chapter dovetails off all this and brings it to a conclusion. The song lyric from Panic at the Disco seems to fit the sentiment nicely, “All you sinners stand up, sing hallelujah”. The last few verses are a wonderful breath of fresh air compared to the previous verses. So why does Jesus say these things? He doesn't say them to affirm that our troubles will be light when we follow him, this is no, “follow Jesus and never be sad or depressed” card. What Jesus seems to be reinforcing is that his message frees the heart and that freedom will spill over into your actions. We still have struggles, we will still have aches and pains, long nights and difficult days. But Jesus speaks to the matter of the most importance, the burden of the heart and the afflictions that pile up on it, that burden of the soul that can only be lifted by Jesus. But you know what's interesting about this passage? Jesus talked about the things He had done, pointing to Him, they took direct intervention and action. May we do the same in our community so people can see what a forgiven theology looks like in action.

“I thought about why forgiveness is so hard in our culture, because there's two affects or emotions that people fear the most, and it's shame and grief...I thought faith would say, 'I'll take away the pain and discomfort'. But what it ended up saying was, 'I'll sit with you in it'. -Brene Brown

I'm Not Who You Think I Am

"Lucas: Joe, I think it's gonna be okay.
Joe: What makes you think that?
Lucas: Who knows where thoughts come from? They just appear. 

-Empire Records, the movie.

John 14:9, “Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me?'...”

This is a small verse sandwiched in the middle of a rather lengthy discussion between Jesus and His disciples where He is giving encouragement and discusses upcoming changes but does so in hidden terms. His disciples, not catching on to the hidden terminology, are asking questions and so there is some back and forth.

Two particular statements are rather startling, Jesus is leaving and He is offering encouragement about what He will be doing so that they all understand that there's a plan behind all this.

“I go to prepare a place...”-vs. 2-3 and “in my Father's house are many dwelling places”, so Jesus is going to go back into the carpentry business that He learned (but with better tools) and maybe Joseph, his adopted dad, will help him out since he taught him the trade. Jesus is going to build some new apartment complexes and spiral staircases and other cool things in “His Father's house”. So He's going to be busy for awhile.

Thomas is confused, however, about all this talk and asks Jesus specifically where He is going, so they can continue to follow Him, Thomas is not ready for any transitions, changes or anything different. He wants things to stay the same and He is unsure what all this means…

The first startling statement is Jesus' response, which is both confusing and reassuring, here's the conversation from vs. 5 summarized…

vs. 5, Thomas: “Lord, we don't know where you are going, how can we know the way?”

vs. 6, Jesus: “Thomas, I am the Way”…

What a brilliant yet enigmatic response.

Jesus has given him the answer and he has given us the answer...when we get lost, when we have difficult questions with no easy answers. When quoting a Bible verse doesn't help, when our medicine cabinet has no options for us and we can't afford or understand yoga we can be sure that Jesus' answer is still true….I am the way.

But even more true than this is Jesus' rebuke to Thomas because it is a rebuke to us as well, it is the second startling statement:

“Have I been with you all this time...and you still do not know me?”

You can insert that response into a lot of complaints you have, concerns, issues, hot button issues that are sensitive and difficult to answer...insert this statement and drive on from there.

But that's not an answer you might say...ah...but it is and often times, complex questions, difficult issues, cannot be answered with a yes or no, a quote or a simple step by step procedure. It is often a nuanced, purposefully vague, answer that will make you think….how does this fit? That's the answer you are looking for.

John 14:31b, “...Rise, let us be on our way”  

The Wine Speaks

“The conscious water saw its creator and blushed”---Richard Cranshaw

When we read the story of Jesus' first miracle we find him at a party. In John 2 there is a wedding party, Jesus and his friends and his mother are invited. During the party the wine runs out, and Jesus performs his first miracle by turning water into wine.

The amount of water turned into wine was large and many, many gallons of wine, good wine, were made by Jesus. There were, evidently, a lot of people at this wedding or Jesus wanted to go above and beyond in his demonstration and the result was an overkill of wine.

What I find interesting is that during this whole story the only dialogue that involves Jesus is his response to his mother and his command to the servants. He is seemingly unwilling to get involved in the matter initially and then he dives in full force by producing a massive amount of wine and having the servants take it to the master of the banquet.

Why is there no dialogue? There is certainly dialogue in other miracles. Jesus, in other miracles, commands faith, chastises people's lack of faith and blesses people because of their faith. But this story, this initial miracle has 2 components, seemingly at odds, Jesus initially not willing to involve himself and then involving himself in a powerful way that people noticed at once.

What was the conversation like after the wedding? Did people ask where the wine came from? Did people ask to take some home with them because it was so good? This is vintage wine from heaven, after all, there's none stored in any cellars today waiting for a special occasion to uncork.

Perhaps there was little dialogue because there was no need for words. Jesus' actions said everything there was to say. First there was no wine, now there was plenty. You can draw a lot out of that as far as principles go but maybe primarily we need to know that God is a god of plenty, God is a god of new wine and God is a god who acts.

May we be acting as God would act and remember that people are more inclined to open up in conversation when we are out in the community giving new wine to drink.

gods and cats

“No, I think I'll just go down and have some pudding and wait for it all to turn up.... It always does in the end.”

-Luna Lovegood

“And why shouldn’t I feel sorry for a great city like Nineveh with its 120,000 people in utter spiritual darkness and all its cattle?”-Jonah 4:11

At the end of Jonah 4 we find this interesting snippet that concludes the book in a rather strange way. Jonah is angry that God saved Nineveh, Jonah never liked the Ninevites, he considered them a bunch of jerks who were better off dead.

Then while he's pouting and considering early retirement as a prophet (which is a tough gig), he finds a shade tree, small slender little thing out here in a hot, dry region and it lends him some relief from the heat.

But his shade is soon decimated by a hungry leaf eating worm and the shade plant dies. He is scorched by the sun and angry even more than he was in the first place.

He's angry, the text tells us, because he desperately wants something to happen to the city. He is secretly hoping that God will relent from his mercy and kill the city or rain down some sort of punishment. So he goes to get front row seats.

At the end of the story we don't really hear if anything happens to the city, we assume that it doesn't. But we hear God argue his case to Jonah, which seems odd but that's exactly what He does. He talks about how important it was to save the city of so many people and then he mentions one more thing.

He mentions the animals. Hence the odd phrase, “and many cattle as well”. Some translations simply say, “animals” instead of “cattle” So God is not only set on saving the city of people, he is also invested in saving the animals! Why does he mention the animals last of all? Why does this mention of animals close out this short book?

I am sure that there are many answers and no answers. That is to say, there are probably many good guesses and no solid answers, maybe there doesn't need to be. But in my thinking if you look earlier in the story we find something interesting, God punished Jonah with animal, “a big fish”-1:17 which swallowed him, and it also provided him transportation-2:10. There was an animal involved in changing Jonah's mind, and why shouldn't the animals in the city God was aiming to save also be redeemed along with the people?

It's a small connection but it is there if you look. Sometimes when you feel small, when you feel nobody knows how discouraged, lonely and frustrated you are, remember the animals at the end of Jonah and how God saved them too.

“Arguing with Angels” ---thoughts on Luke 1:5-66

“You must choose wisely...”-Grail Knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Some people are good at winning arguments. Some people argue so much that you let them win because you tire of hearing them go on and on.

But arguing with angels is different. We have a passage here with 2 people. One old priest and one young girl.

The old priest is mentioned first and he is married, his name is Zechariah and his wife is Elizabeth. The text tells us that he is well past the age of having children and so is his wife. It does not give us their specific ages. But with his reaction to the angel we can safely assume he is advanced in age to the degree that it would be a ridiculous notion to father a child and a silly announcement to declare his wife a new mother.

It tells us that this couple was a good couple, they weren't corrupting the priesthood, they had a solid bloodline, good relatives. They simply had no children, which was not a small thing in those times, it was viewed as a sign that God was displeased with you, this is especially troubling for a priest. But Zechariah had apparently not ceased to pray for a child, regardless of their age, we see that in the passage, because vs. 13 tells us, “your prayer has been heard”.

Zechariah is at work, offering prayers to God on behalf of the people, maybe making some more prayers of his own and he is interrupted with an answer, via messenger. The angel Gabriel. Zechariah asks what appears to be a legitimate question, “How can I be sure?”. He isn't discounting the idea entirely but he would like a sign of some sort. Sure an angel just appeared to give him a direct message from God but Zechariah wants some other surety to be convinced. This is not the first time people have argued with God in some form or fashion. Gideon, Moses, Peter, the list is long but those 3 are good examples. Some wanted some proof, some wanted some extra help, others wanted a different plan because the current plan didn't seem very good.

So poor Zechariah is struck mute. That's the punishment. His punishment, we are told, is because, “you did not believe my words”, meaning the words of God sent to him, via angelic messenger. But I am unsure that Zechariah had zero faith in this matter as we already stated he had been praying for a child, that's why the angel came. But when he asked for more confirmation, more assurance, more clarity, since this was an odd time for them to have children, he is punished.

Mary has a similar encounter in this same chapter. She is “troubled by the angelic visitor” and when she is given this news that she will have a child, is equally perplexed as to how this could happen. Just as Elizabeth and Zechariah were shocked because of their age Mary is shocked because she is a virgin. There are a few things it takes to make a baby and Mary knows what they are so she is confused as to what this means. She even asks the question after the angel has told her God will give her a baby! So let's not pretend that Mary isn't asking the exact same question as Zechariah because she is, look at vs. 34, “How will this be?” This seems to be the same sort of thing Zechariah says when he asks, “How can I be sure?”

Before you jump off and say that Mary's heart was more believing than Zechariah's let's not forget that the beginning of the passage has already established that Zechariah is a priest and a good one at that, it explicitly let's us know that this man is a godly man. This has nothing to do with his heart.

Both of these characters ask how they will have children when they should not be having children. Mary knows and worships God and so she should know that all things are possible with God. Zechariah knows the same thing.

The answer to the question, why was Zechariah punished and Mary not is not answered by the passage.

The only hint we are given is perhaps in vs. 62 when he writes the child's name on a tablet, and in obedience he names the boy John. It seems his obedience to the commands given in his angelic visitation confirmed his faith.

Perhaps Mary's response in vs. 38 is her obedience confirming her faith in the God who can do all things.

What is clear from this passage is that arguing with angels can lead to more information, as in Mary's case, or with an irritated angel, as in Zechariah's case.

Perhaps we can take away from this encounter the prayer of the man who brought his sick son to Jesus and his response to Jesus' question of belief is found in Mark 9:24, “I believe, help my unbelief!”