Jewish Masons

What did Harry Houdini and Irving Berlin have in common? They were both Jews. And they were both Masons.

I have just learned that there are many Jews who are members of the Masonic Lodge. Of course when you think about it—Masons meet in temples. Sounds Jewish. As you may know, all the Masonic symbols and rituals come from the Old Testament, particularly from Solomon's Temple.

My ignorance has been diminished a little. I've learned that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that Freemasonry and Judaism were two sides of the same coin—both trying to take over the world. Hitler put Masons into concentration camps right along with Jews.

The Jewish magazine Moment (Jan/Feb 2010) has an article about all of this, and also discusses Dan Brown's new book Lost Symbol.

Generally speaking, I'm a little suspicious of organizations that operate in secrecy (like the Masons). Not that I think there is anything dangerous going on in those temples. I've known many Masons over the years and they have been good people. I hobnobbed around with the Grand Master of the Masonic Lodge of Kentucky when I was young. One of the deacons in the Baptist church I grew up in was a Mason, and he always did the ritual of folding the communion table cloth with true Masonic precision. That was the most ritual we had in the Baptist church.

When I was growing up I didn't know any Jews. Except Jesus. And I'm not sure I realized he was Jewish. As far as I know, Jesus wasn't a Mason.

It’s Complicated

We went to see the movie "It's Complicated" (Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin). It's very funny; lots of comical situations. But it also raises questions about marriage and divorce and grief. It shows that divorce is not a punctiliar reality, but a process. The 'letting go' period of a failed relationship may indeed take a long time. 'Learning how to be divorced' is the phrase (as I remember it) used in the movie.

**

It seems to me that 'union' should be a contract validated by the government; and 'marriage' should be a different thing—a sacrament validated by the church (or other religious entity). That would separate and make more clear the two dimensions of modern 'marriage'—namely, a civil contract and a sacred commitment. Then those who just wanted legal matters clear could enter into a Union; and those who wanted to recognize their relationship in the context of faith and God could enter into a Marriage. In some countries it is done this way. The government shouldn't be in the business of sacraments.

 

True Compass[ion]

I write this on February 26, the day after Obama held the televised bipartisan discussion on health care. The Republicans think the big bill is too expensive. But there may be more to it than that.

As I was reading Ted Kennedy's memoir (which someone gave me for Christmas), I was interested to read about the Clinton attempt at health care reform in the 90s. Kennedy writes that the real reason the Republicans were being obstructive toward the health care bill was admitted by Newt Gingrich in July of 1993. He told the New York Times that the House Republicans were going to use opposition to the bill as a springboard to win Republican control of the House in the November elections. Well, isn't that what's going on right now?

I hear concern on the Democratic side about the millions of uninsured Americans, but I never hear that concern on the Republican side. I think Jesus would line up with the Democrats on this. Couldn't all of us sacrifice a little in order for all Americans could have health insurance?

 

[True Compass by Edward M. Kennedy, published by Twelve , 2009]

change

I'm watching the movie version of The Bridges of Madison County on TV. I listened to the book many years ago, and I would put it on my list of most enjoyable books I've ever 'read.' I noticed in the movie that Robert (Clint Eastwood) says to Francesca (Meryl Streep) that change is good because it's something you can depend on happening. That's a paradoxical truth that can be useful to think about.

We can expect things to change.

The dogma of change gives us stability. We can count on it.

The name of hell

I went into my bank the other day to make a deposit. As I approached the counter I noticed that the teller was a person I had not seen in my bank before. As she took my check and deposit slip and worked at her computer, I glanced at the counter and saw her business card. Her name was Jean Number. No kidding—Number. That struck me as funny. I wondered if she had been destined to work in a bank because of her name.

I once knew a minister whose last name was Goodpastor. We had a President named Bush who thought he was on fire and God spoke through him.

Names are important in the Bible. A change of name indicates a change of character. Remember Abram-to-Abraham…Saul-to-Paul…Simon-to-Peter?

The angel told Joseph to name his son 'Jesus.' The name Jesus literally means, "Yahweh saves." Through Jesus, God saves us.

What does Jesus save us from? The traditional answer is: Hell. I had an elder in a congregation ask me one day, "Why are the Baptist churches growing and we are losing members?" I said, "They believe in hell."

I grew up believing in hell. But Jesus scared the hell out of me. Or more accurately, Jesus loved the hell out of me. I no longer believe in hell. The God I have come to know through Jesus of Nazareth is not a God who could torture people forever and ever because they didn't have the right religion.

If I had been born in India, I probably wouldn't a Christian; I'd probably be Hindu. And according to traditional Christian belief, if someone didn't reach me with the gospel, I would be doomed to be tortured by God for millions and millions of years. I can't believe that. That's not the kind of God Jesus has taught me about.

Now, I know that Jesus himself talked about hell. He warned people about the judgment and about going to hell. However, I think the terminology he chose is important. When Jesus spoke of 'hell' he used the word 'Gehenna,' which refers to the Valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem. It was the place where garbage was thrown. It was always burning. And the worms/maggots were always there. It was a dark place. In other words, Jesus chose a metaphor—a poetic word—when he spoke of hell. It was a word which indicated a place where the trash was thrown. So, 'hell' in the vocabulary of Jesus is a metaphor for that which is wasted. If your life is wasted (thrown away), you have experienced hell.

Jesus saves. He saves from hell. What that means is that Jesus leads us into a type of life that is meaningful. He saves us from living a meaningless life—a life which is thrown away—a life that is useless.

Jesus helps us accept who we are and find meaning in the normal, everyday existence that is our gift from God. As we accept our humanity and live as real human beings (the way Jesus taught us) we experience the grace of God, the beauty of life, and the depth of existence. We are saved (rescued) from emptiness and self-loathing; we are saved from the excruciating attempt to be more than or less than human.

When the Word became flesh (human) and lived among us, he affirmed our humanity. To be 'saved' is not something other than human; it is to be truly human. It is to love yourself and to love others. It is to love God. When evangelicals promise something other than ordinary human life, they lead us down the wrong path.

To be saved is to be a loving person living in communion with God. Nothing more, nothing less. You can bank on that.

Bin Laden’s plan

I have learned more about what kind of person Osama bin Laden is by reading Growing Up bin Laden (St. Martin's Press, 2009). In this fascinating book one of his wives and one of his sons tell about living with him.

Najwa bin Laden, Osama's first wife, and Omar bin Laden, Osama's fourth son, give intimate details of family life, describe Osama's personality and temperament, tell both harrowing and humorous stories, and give insight into his religious fervor. Osama bin Laden has five wives (all at once) and 20 children by those wives.

We probably don't even want to think of Osama bin Laden as a human being with feelings and a family and sincere beliefs. But he is. He is also a terribly misguided and destructive person. Thinking of him only as 'the enemy' or the devil incarnate doesn't give a real picture of the man.

Religion can be a means of love or hate. Unfortunately, Osama's understanding of God has led him to use his religion as a weapon to destroy life.

I heard a respected minister a couple of years ago give the insight that "Islam is a young religion." Which means that Islam has not had time to mature and come to accept the benefits of a secular society as has Judaism and Christianity. That made sense to me. Religions that maintain a complete separation from the secular end up being violent or irrelevant. The Shakers became irrelevant; Islamic extremists have become violent. Islamic terrorists have the mindset that sees secularity as a threat to the meaning of their existence. They demand theocracy or nothing.

The genius of America is its acceptance of secularity as a necessary guard against religious fanaticism that takes the form of violence. The 'wall of separation' which Jefferson wrote about is part of the wisdom of our founders.

The one passage that really bothered me in this book is a conversation between Osama and his son Omar. Omar had by this time come to a different mindset than his father. And with audacity he questions Osama's vision of violence toward the West. Here is part of Osama's response:

First we obliterate America. By that I don't mean militarily. We can destroy America from within by making it economically weak, until its markets collapse. When that happens, they will have no interest in supplying Israel with arms, for they will not have extra funds to do so. (p. 177)

The United States is militarily the most powerful in the world. And I imagine it always will be. But I would not be surprised if our nation implodes due to economic weakness. We went into Iraq and wasted billions of dollars. We were left with a huge deficit and domestic needs unmet. That, along with the greed of corporations and banks, has left us a weaker country. Capitalism is like Tiger Woods. It has to set limits on itself—be self-disciplined—regulated—or it will get itself into a mess. The absolutist free market philosophy of Greenspan et al. failed to require self-discipline for our economic system. So, needless war and greed at home combined to threaten our national security in terms of economic stability.

To defend us against enemies, foreign and domestic, is the vow that members of congress take. One of our domestic enemies is unregulated greed. One of our foreign enemies is Al Qaeda. To be patriotic we have to wear bifocals.

Introverts in the church

I recently read Adam McHugh's book Introverts in the Church (IVP Books, 2009), a thoroughly researched treatment of the nature of introversion and its implications for leadership and ministry.

McHugh describes what being an introverted pastor was like for him:

I… relished times of solitude, reflection and personal study. I enjoyed people, and I found satisfaction in depth of relationship and conversation, but even when I spent time with people I liked, I looked forward to moments of privacy. I found crowds draining. I could stand up in front of hundreds of people and preach a sermon without nervousness, but I often stumbled through the greeting time afterward because my energy reserves were dry. (p. 13)

I can relate to that. We introverts really do enjoy people, but only in small doses. Small talk takes its toll on us. Solitude is our friend. But we live in an extroverted society, and Protestantism in general is an extroverted milieu.

A therapist who works with lots of pastors as clients told McHugh that many of those pastors struggle to find balance in their lives and often wrestle with depression. The therapist says that

many introverts pay a high cost to be in ministry. They feel unable to meet the social expectations placed on them by their congregations, and they frequently lack adequate boundaries to enable them to find rest and to recharge their introverted batteries.

Only now, as I look back on 39 years of pastoral ministry, am I coming to a full realization of how much my introverted temperament has been a drag on my ministry and my ability to be a more productive pastor.

Recently I heard the great tennis professional Andre Agassi being interviewed about his new memoir Open. He startled me by saying that he hated playing tennis all those years. Hated tennis! How could someone who spent almost 40 years playing tennis as a professional and eventually becoming the best in the world—how could he "hate tennis"? You wonder if he is exaggerating.

Yet, his statement struck something way down inside of me about my experience as a pastor for 39 years. I don't think I would encourage anyone with an introverted temperament to go into pastoral ministry.

 

Identities

Tariq Ramadan is among the leading Islamic thinkers in the West, with a large following around the world. He is Professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University. His little book What I Believe is very accessible and straightforward.

He speaks up for a tolerant kind of Islam. He states that the shariah is not "a system" nor "a closed body of Islamic laws," but is rather the "Way to faithfulness to Islam's objectives" (which consist in protecting life, dignity, justice, equality, peace, Nature, etc.). Thus, in Western society his version of shariah would be anything that protects life, dignity, etc.

He criticizes the media for giving us an optical illusion about Islam. He writes:

The Islamic groups or groupuscules that most often make news, those that express the most incendiary and violent views, represent the tiniest fringe of the Muslim community, which does not identify with them.

Here is a helpful statement: "A point should be noted: multicultural society is a fact; there is no being for or against it."

The most helpful section of the book for me is the one on "Multiple Identities." Ramadan acknowledges that many people these days feel confused and afraid because of rapid change all over the world. What happens is that "one defines one's identity by reaction, by differentiation, in opposition to what one is not, or even against others." However, says the author, the truth is that all of us have multiple identities at once; we are not just This or That. He uses an example put forth by the economist Amartya Sen who said:

Suppose you are a poet and a vegetarian. If you are a dinner guest, this is no time or place to insist on your identity as a poet, while if you attend a poetry circle, you are certainly not going to introduce yourself as a vegetarian, for you would be seen as eccentric. You have more than one identity and you give priority to one or the other depending upon the situation.

What Ramadan wants us to see is that so much of our conflict in the world is caused by over-simplified black-and-white thinking. "I am This—you are That; we are different." But when we affirm our commonalities with other people, we find that the reality is: "I am some of this and some of that, and so are you; we have something in common."

A person can be at the same time a Christian, an American, a fan of jazz, a positive thinker, an advocate for ending hunger, a marathon runner, a Republican, a gourmet, and a member of the Humane Society. Another person can be all of those things, except a Muslim instead of a Christian. Both of course are members of the human race. We all have multiple identities. Muslims can be Muslims and Americans. Christians can be Christians and Palestinians. We have multiple identities.

When we focus too narrowly on one aspect of our identity, even if it is the religious one, we are not seeing the whole truth about ourselves or others. Broadening our sense of identity is part of being what Jesus calls us to be: peacemakers.

My favorite sentence is Tariq Ramadan's book:

    Demand justice and give love. (p. 89)

The sin of Sodom

Of the controversial issues debated in churches these days, gay and lesbian rights are at the top.

So, allow me to lay out my Biblical understanding of this matter. It might be helpful to some folks, and will surely be rejected by others.

1. Here's an indisputable fact: Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing.

2. The Bible as a whole spends much more time discussing other matters, such as helping the poor, working for justice, treating people with dignity, being compassionate, learning to forgive, living in covenant relationships, etc.

3. We now understand that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is not about homosexuality, but about inhospitality. (See my book, Whatever – there are two sermons on Biblical passages and homosexuality.) The men of Sodom wanted to gang rape the messengers of God (foreigners). It wasn't about sexuality, but about their violent rejection of God's messengers. (An unwelcoming and xenophobic attitude.)

4. The few other passages in Scripture, mainly Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1, are ambiguous as to what kind of sexual relationships are in view. Paul may have been writing about the sex slave trade, or the nonconsensual arrangements between adults and minors in the Greco-Roman culture. In other words, just as Scripture condemns certain kinds of heterosexual relationships, it condemns certain kinds of homosexual relationships, but not all. Nowhere are consensual adult monogamous homosexual relationships condemned specifically. Even the first chapter of Romans speaks only of lustful same-sex relationships.

5. In the time that the Bible was being penned there was no understanding of what we now call 'sexual orientation.' Everyone was assumed to be naturally homosexual. So, the 'unnatural' activity Paul writes about assumes that only heterosexual attractions are 'natural.' Now we know that for some people same-sex attraction is 'natural.' We have a better understanding of sexuality than Paul did.

6. There are four options: (1) Paul's writing about homosexuality can be understood in the traditional way; (2) his writing can be interpreted differently, i.e., as talking about not all homosexual behavior, but only that which is exploitative; (3) his writing can be considered dated because he didn't understand sexual orientation; (4) or Paul could have been wrong.

7. A key principle in the Bible (if not THE key principle) is: Covenant Relationships. The whole message of the Bible is about God's covenant with us, and our reciprocating covenantal life style. The highest sexual ethic put forth in Scripture is a faithful monogamous covenant relationship. Whether hetero or homo, the ethical framework for sexual behavior is a faithful, monogamous covenant relationship. It is not about gender, it is about love and faithfulness. Homosexuals who enter into faithful, loving, monogamous covenant relationships are fulfilling the principle ethic of the Bible.

8. I believe in marriage. It is a precious institution. Therefore, why not make it available to all people? Why not expand marriage instead of being selfish and keeping only for us heterosexuals? Let's not be selfish; let's share it.

9. Ordination of gay people who are called of God to be in ministry is a good thing. If we do not ordain gay people to ministry, we are blocking God's work.

10. My experience working with gay and lesbian people in churches has shown me that many homosexual folks are committed to Christ, gifted for ministry, and filled with the Spirit. They do Christ's work like anyone else. They are being who they are. (Many gay people do not serve or honor Christ, just as many heterosexuals do not serve or honor Christ.) It is clear to many of us in the Church that God is using gay people to do his work without trying to change then into something they are not. I have known several pastors (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, UCC, Methodist and Baptist) who have faithfully served Christ and the Church for a long time; I have also known elders and deacons of a gay nature who have faithfully served. The witness of the Spirit is that gay and lesbian men and women are called to live in covenant with God—'just as they are.'

11. The irony is that the very sin of the city of Sodom (not welcoming those from God) is the sin being committed by people in churches who do not welcome their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ. The church needs to repent of its inhospitality to some of God's children.

12. What is ultimately clear is that the Bible's treatment of homosexuality and its whole attitude toward sex can easily be understood in such a way that our modern knowledge of homosexual orientation leads to an affirmation of the gifts and commitments of gay and lesbian people. Homosexuality is not a sin if expressed sexually within a covenant relationship. Slowly but surely our culture and the Church are coming to see that gays and lesbians have much to offer our world in terms of art, friendship, ministry and joy. If we refuse their gifts, we are the poorer.

Pro-choice Biblical foundation

I am prochoice in regard to abortion because I think the prolife position when taken to its logical conclusion has dangerous tendencies, and I think the Bible and Jewish/Christian theology offer substantial reasons to support the pro-choice position.


1. Birth Control: If a prolife person is consistent in his arguments, the result will be that birth control is prohibited. The Roman Catholic position on abortion says as much and is very consistent. Many forms of birth control terminate a zygote before or after implantation. Therefore, that which conception has produced is killed. That's abortion. I do not want the prolife movement to outlaw birth control; I don't think that would be responsible legislation. But that's where it logically ends up.


2. Executions: Again, a prolife person who is consistent in her thinking would have the State convict mothers, nurses, doctors, and maybe husbands of murder when an abortion took place since prolife folks teach that abortion is murder. Mothers and doctors, etc, would have to be executed for premeditated murder. If they really mean what they say, that would have to be their recommendation. I'm against executing mothers and doctors, etc, after an abortion is performed. A few people have taken the pro-life position to its logical conclusion and have actually killed doctors.


3. Jesus: Our Lord said absolutely nothing about abortion. If we would pay more attention to the things Jesus thought were important—the things he talked about a lot—we would be better off. Jesus was very concerned about how money and possessions entrap us in materialistic idolatry, but we don't see evangelicals protesting excessive capitalism or greed. Jesus began to hack away at the patriarchal arrangements of society and religious establishments. But evangelicals and the Catholic Church support patriarchal hierarchies. Let's talk about what Jesus talked about. He never once spoke about abortion.


4. Bible: The Holy Scriptures say absolutely nothing about abortion. They talk a lot about peace and justice and kindness and prayer and humility; but say absolutely nothing about abortion.


5. Not Equal: The closest the Bible comes to discussing abortion is a passage about a miscarriage. Exodus 21 brings up the case of a woman being injured and miscarrying in the midst of a fight between two men. The passage says that a negotiable payment must be made to the women's husband for the death of the fetus. But if the woman dies, the man who hit her must die too (a life for a life). So, the penalty for killing the woman is higher than the penalty for killing the fetus. Therefore, the woman and the fetus are not regarded as being of equal value. The woman is of higher value than the fetus.


6. Breath: The second creation story in the Bible (in Genesis 2) offers a metaphor that is helpful. The story says that God made Adam from the soil (the human from the humus) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a 'living soul.' It is when God gives the mud-pie-creature breath that it becomes a human being. Of course 'breath' also means 'spirit.' So, God gives the 'thing' spirit and it becomes human. That, I think, is the central metaphor in Scripture that defines a human life. The metaphor of "breath" gives us a theological and Biblical basis for saying that a fetus becomes a human being when it is born and begins to breathe on its own. A fetus' humanity, then, begins at birth, not at conception. Which means that abortion is not homicide, but feticide.


7. Birth: The Bible also gives us clues about when a person becomes a person by its terminology. The terminology of 'birth' is used consistently throughout the Bible. Israel becomes a nation when God gives birth to her. Jesus said that a spiritual status is created when one is born again (not 'conceived again'). A major Christian holy day is Christmas—the celebration of the birth of Jesus; we don't celebrate his conception. We say that the Church was born on Pentecost (not conceived on Pentecost). Birth is the way Scripture marks the beginning of spiritual life. When does human life begin? At birth. We celebrate our childrens' birthdays, not conception days. The Jewish rabbis taught that a person becomes a person when they come out of the womb. Jesus did not contradict that teaching. And even though we sometimes speak of the unborn 'child,' we speak in terms of 'what will be' in an anticipatory manner. The fetus will become a child when it is born. 'Born again' Christians need to stop and think about why they are not 'conceived again' Christians. It is because the Bible uses the terminology of birth to describe the status of spiritual/human being.

   

8. Choice: God has made us as responsible agents of the moral life. Being made in God's image means that we represent God on earth. We were made to "play God," that is, to make decisions on his behalf. The decision of whether to bring life into the world is up to us. I affirm any couple's decision to bring into the world a handicapped child, or even one that will inevitably die in a short time. That is up to the woman and man. People sometimes make incredibly courageous decisions to give birth to extremely deformed children. I celebrate their courage and compassion. But other people decide to abort a fetus rather than bring it into the world under those kinds of circumstances. I celebrate their courage and wisdom also. The pro-choice position takes seriously the stewardship of moral decision-making that God has given to humankind.


Summary

The pro-choice position is well-grounded in Scriptural language and emphasis. Christian theology has never held a consistently pro-life position. Jewish and Christian thought has given the church a foundation on which to build an understanding of human personhood which is potential in the womb and actual at birth. To understand the death of a fetus as 'homicide' leads to extreme positions related to capital punishment and birth control which reasonable people intuitively reject. The Bible says nothing about abortion, but it gives us the theological metaphors to apply to the development of human personhood. A pro-choice position is not pro-abortion. We wish abortions would decrease to point zero if possible. Every abortion is a tragedy, just as every war is tragic. God knows us before we are born and before we are conceived. We are wonderfully made.


It doesn't seem to be an accident that the strongest pro-life movements come from within church traditions in which women are subjected to men.

Abortion Conversation

 

A woman once came into my office and asked me if I agreed with the Bible's view on abortion. I reached for a Bible and gave it to her. Here, show me a passage about abortion, I said.

She looked at the Bible, then looked back at me. I don't know where to look, she said.

I replied, That's because there is nowhere to look. There is no passage in the Bible about abortion. It's never mentioned in Scripture.

She looked surprised. But there have to be verses in the Bible about abortion, she said, because preachers talk about it all the time.

Yes they do, I said, but they never quote a verse about abortion because there aren't any.

She bit her lip and said, Well, I don't know what to say.

But she wouldn't give up. You mean, Jesus never said anything about abortion?

No, Jesus never talks about it. Paul never talks about it. The prophets don't mention it. The Ten Commandments say nothing about abortion.

But, she said, isn't abortion murder? (Ah! Now we're getting somewhere.)

I looked her in the eye and said, Mary (not her real name), do you know anyone who has had an abortion? She said she didn't. I said What if your daughter got an abortion? Would she be a murderer?

She took a deep breath. I guess so, she said.

Would that mean that your daughter should be executed for murder?

She bit her lip. She knew and I knew that debating abortion on an intellectual level is one thing; but when we begin to talk about real people and apply Biblical laws consistently, putting mothers and doctors and nurses into prison or putting them to death for participating in an abortion is 'over the top.'

I said to her: Mary, if I read Scripture like pro-life advocates do, I would believe in capital punishment (because it's in the Bible), and I would support the execution of mothers and doctors involved in abortion, because that would be the only conclusion I could reach if I were reasoning in a consistent manner. But I can't believe that. I can't support the execution of doctors and mothers for being involved in an abortion. And that's just one reason I am pro-choice.

Mary left my office that day with much to think about. When I saw her the next Sunday at church she said to me, I've thought about what you said, and it makes perfect sense.