A Good Friday Sermon Unpreached

Today I am posting various artwork to create an online stations of the cross for my church.  There are many interesting images that I found as I googled the various stations, great images pointing to racism, sexism, discrimination, but done in ways that so often offered chances at redemption, showing a God whose humanity was bigger than any way we can divide ourselves.  Yet, there was one that stood out and hit me hard.  

When looking for something for Station 9: Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem, I googled images based on the words Jesus do not weep for me and found something striking: a number of pictures of Miley Cyrus on the first page. What does this have to do with Jesus and the women of Jerusalem?  

Luke 23 includes the text for this station:
A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him. But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

I can't say exactly why Miley Cyrus ended up connected to this or even if the connection is direct. It could as easily just be someone who is upset by what they think she has become as some connection to the scripture.  Either way though the idea of Jesus weeping for or because of Miley Cyrus seems a bit off.

Yet, this is often the stuff we weep over, things that happen within the culture where we assume we have the answers for another.  We claim we weep for the future, for our children who are growing up in a land of lawlessness and sexualization, yet we don't trust God to be in control, we want to make the decisions on what Jesus should cry over. 

"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who see something good in this celebrity..."
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who follow this type of politics..."
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who hear your voice saying something I don't..."
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who live differently..."

Yet, when we do this we become those who decide for Jesus, and thus for others, who they are, what they should be, and how they should live.  Jesus chooses to continue his journey to death in this story.  He does not ask for mourning, instead warning us that if those close to Jesus could not see what God was all about, how could those who do not have Jesus as a reference to God living in the world.  

Those who could not see who Jesus was were afraid of him, afraid that his choices would damage their place in the world.  They believed that a world without Jesus was one they could control, but we have seen time and again that God is the one in control.  We cannot choose who Jesus weeps for, because Jesus weeps for all whom God loves that are not with Jesus and for those who will not discern what God is doing in their own lives and in the world. Jesus doesn't weep because he's worried about others, but because of pain in his heart.

We cannot know the heart of another, just  those women could not understand why Jesus was at peace with the path he was walking.  We so often want Jesus to weep over the choices of another so that we can feel that Jesus is patting us on the back for not being like them.  Yet, we see time and again that God's way is one of surprising love and grace for those who society, even religious society (often especially religious society), outcasts and despises.  Not just those weak due to station in life, but also those weak due to their own choices, those who seem far from God are often closer than we'd like to think.

So let us go forth this Good Friday, not seeing ourselves as those who are right, or with the answers, but as those who do not live as Jesus did.  Those who weep due to worry, not do to pain.  Those who want control, and in wanting control have let the wood become dry, falling short of being the church that gave all, short of the God who gave all, short of the call we received upon creation.  May we weep for ourselves, but then may we remember that this weeping is not forever, for we are the ones called to join Jesus in bringing about this new world.  A world of love, a world of diverse ways coming together as God brings us together in Christ's image, not as we make others into our image.

Theological Rant - Guns

I'm not one to say much about political stuff, but with all the gun related news, brings me back to an issue that I don't find political as much as it is theological.  What are guns used for has become a forefront discussion piece among many I hear talking about this issue and it seems to fall into 3 main categories.

1. Hunting

2. Sport

3. Self-Defense 

Guns used for hunting, especially hunting for food, are mostly weapons that are large, limited shot, and mostly owed by those who do actually hunt for food in my experience.  These don't tend to be the weapons used in the majority "gun violence" as far as I can tell.  Yes, they can injure and kill, but I am not discussing these within the remainder of this post.  

Guns used for sport I don't fully get, some of these are hunting weapons not used for food acquisition, and that is a minor issue for me, but most of these weapons are handguns or high powered, multi-round weapons which make NO logical sense to me, and will be covered in the Self-Defense category. But I feel like this gun use in general doesn't need to exist, the guns risk is higher to the community than the value of an individual's enjoyment.  

So now the big piece, I hear lots of arguments right now that we need guns for self defense.   The issue I have here is solely theological.  I can't understand how a faith where we're commanded not to kill can so easily defend the existence of something created to harm another and put their life in danger.  Now I know many will say that "we wouldn't shoot to kill, just to protect" but what are we protecting?  Something more valuable than the life and health of one created equal to us in God's image?

Taking this to the next level, many now point towards the argument that we need guns in case we ever "lose our freedom" and end up with a government/world that does atrocities that would harm even more people.  The problem with this argument is that it says that we must keep whatever power and control we can over the unknown.  We fear others and fear and hate are as close to one another as hate and killing are in Jesus's teachings.  So if we're not supposed to hate or kill, why are we okay with having things that are mostly created to inflict harm, and honestly to kill.  Maybe not as many die today because of medical advancements, but it doesn't take a perfect shot to kill someone, and any shot could.  And why would we want to kill anyone?  Why would we want to harm anyone? How is harming another showing any form of love to them?  We go out of our way to put up fences around things like Lust, but when it comes to this thing that we supposedly hold so highly, human life, we're okay with potentially taking it from one another just because ours is worth more than theirs.  THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT.  Either we're all equal, all created in God's image, all making mistakes, and all in this together, or there is no God.  Christians, pay attention, Guns do nothing to help us live in the way God commands.  They do nothing to make this life any better, nothing to improve the world and bring the kingdom of God closer.  I wish they were all gone, but since that won't happen, please at least let's dialogue about this from a place that does not make any individual more important than another, and let's see not the possibility of a future as something to fear, but as something that can be more like the Kingdom of God if we first love more like God ourselves.

Love is Logical

When I look back over my life there are some key things that most every girl I ever liked had in common.  On the other hand I can also look back and see some great people who really liked me that I wouldn't even give the time of day.  What was it that kept me from being attracted to these girls?  In reality, I just wasn't, I had a very specific type of personality and physical look that would keep my attention and moved me romantically.  I couldn't then, and can't now logic being attracted to others in that way.  Of course at one time that inability to logic attraction made me wonder how ANYONE could be attracted to those who I wasn't.  As I though came to a greater understanding of how we communicate and began to better see the world through others eyes, I saw that everyone had things that they were attracted to, but they weren't always the same things.  

I now feel this is THE most reasonable argument for why same sex attraction is normal.  It's not that everyone should be, but that some just ARE.  It is what they are romantically interested in, just as I have only certain people who attract me, they do too.  There is no difference.  So if you are to tell someone not to be attracted to those of the same sex, you are also saying that you shouldn't limit who you're attracted to by anything other than a set of external rules.  I'm not even sure how we could determine these external rules. It's just illogical to think that we should all only be attracted to the exact same people.  I have never seen anything that makes that seem realistic.  

Why do I use this as my core argument?  Because it is all the same love.  Beyond the complexities of Gender Identity, Roles, Physical Sex, and all of that, who we're attracted to is just that, a short list of people that is different for every person.  It is just how we all do it, regardless of where we may fall on a spectrum.  I can argue with you from a theological standpoint, from a justice standpoint, from a legal standpoint, from any number of other standpoints, but this simple idea to me seems the most universal to all.  Even if you're not attracted to anyone at all, you know what you don't feel.  Why can we not understand that this just is what it is, and we can't really just go change it?  

I tried after my divorce to date a few people different than my ex, mostly physically different but also personality.  My wife now is physically similar, and in some core places is almost the same, same with her personality, there are differences, but there are some key similarities.  I know for some these core attractions do adjust over time, but we all I think can find some patterns either throughout life or within a season of life.  

I don't care what you think about people's actions, there is a serious issue with judging who a person is attracted to, regardless of if that judgement is based on gender or personality or a person's look.  It is like judging another for other differences in thought, such as if you were to judge me because I'm an aspie and can't think the same way as "most" or judging me for what I choose to eat because I am a diabetic.  I do not fit simply into either of these boxes, and to simply use your experience with others who are labeled with these labels to define me is unfair and judgmental   These are both complex situations I find myself in that I have to work with.  But they are more than illnesses or disorders, they are part of me, part of a full me, a core me, a real me that is as real and complete as any other.  

Equality is not as simple as the rights to do what others get to do.  To allow all legal rights does not make us equal.  What makes us equal is seeing all people as complete people and treating all that way.  That means there is no one set of rules that will always make everyone fit, that is actually the core of a relational theology.  God is three and God is one in relationship.  All three are different, but they are all fully God.  It is the same for us, we are each individual, but it is in our relationships with others who are different but still fully human that we ourselves can be fully human ourselves.  

Let people be who they are.  No law is going to change us, we have to change us.  We have to see people as fully equal to us if we want to move forward and bring the kingdom.  Time to get rid of the fear and embrace the same love one for another that we have been given since creation when we were made in the image of Love.

Poverty and Change

A while ago when the fight against SOPA was in full effect, I made some comment similar to the following "I wish we would put some of the energy and unity seen with SOPA into helping fix those things that affect peoples real rights everyday."  I tried to blog on it at the time but most things I typed were just angry, but today while out shopping it hit me.  My issue isn't the idea that SOPA wasn't worth the fight or even that the energy could have been better directed, the core of my issue was the argument that this was a justice issue over a comfort issue. 

We find it easy when our comfort is being threatened to get up in arms.  We find it easy to fight against change, easy to fight against things that affect our "personal" rights, easy to sign petitions and write letters and even go protest, but are we willing to get down and get dirty and help on the relational level?  Are we willing to actually enact the change we want to see? 

So what does that have to do with my shopping trip?  I headed out today to get some yummy diabetic friendly food from Trader Joes.  This trip involves me driving off the island I live on, through the inner city and then out to a place that others call Mt Plastic.  (I've never been sure if that relates to the appearance focused culture, how many there spend money, or if it related to the view of things as disposable, but that's another blog.)  On my way out there I realized that I was taking a long trip just to get "healthy" food.  While there I realized the extreme lack of diversity in the parking lot (mine was the only car which didn't look like it was kept in a garage and had been purchased in the past 2 years) or in the store (white, upper middle class or above).  So on the way home I decided to stop at 2 stores, a corner grocery downtown and a Piggly Wiggly that was found nearish to the area and it cemented my thoughts for this blog.

In the corner grocery store there was basically nothing that could be called diabetic friendly and most everything was high sodium and fat.  There was a bit more selection in the Piggly Wiggly, but still only hard candy that was diabetic friendly and most "healthy" food is what I'd call nasty-healthy.  There was nothing like some of the things I saw at Trader Joes.  Yet in this consumer based culture why would Trader Joes or anywhere build or stock things in that area?  People there aren't going to pay the prices or buy as much as those in more affluent areas.  Nor are they as "interested" in nutrition (because they're interested in survival, saving what little money they can, making it through, etc.).  So in a consumer capitalistic culture of course there's no reason to build a place like that in an area it won't survive as a business.

So what?  Well I realize due to being diabetic shopping these places regularly isn't a real option, but at the same time it points to how we so often avoid going where we're uncomfortable to shop, eat, or do anything financial.  We don't do anything to support the areas of poverty, we rail against the system that creates the issue, but we don't get down and dirty, risking our own comfort, money, or safety to actually travel with these who are struggling.  We avoid their pain by looking at our own.  Do we have debt?  Are we struggling? Yes, but guess what, if we have smart phones, I can point to a lot of people that need our help more.  Yes, there is a place to fight to change the system, but God came to the world not to change the system, but to change the world and do it relationally.  If we're not willing to put our money and treasures where our mouths are, we're not doing anything.

We can be passionate about our precious "information superhighway" but it's not what changes the world.  Those who claim it helps the poor fight oppression, the poor fought for years without it and still do so.  Those who say it gives movements more reach, are not places and movements from before this digital age famous and became large without the help of social media?  I have nothing against fighting for free information, open source, and all of that, but to claim it's anything more than fighting for comfort is to give up the relational connective power that comes from being made in God's image in favor of something made of self.  It is a tool, it is not the source of change.  The source of change is relational, physical world relational, the movement of people is the coming together in physical community, anything less has yet to change the world.  I want to change the world, who's with me?