Advent's Declaration of War on Fear

I have been reading a tidy little book of writings on Advent since September.

Today's reading, by Johann Christoph Arnold, contained a thought that eluded me in the two other times I've read Arnold's article: The angelic heralds' first words to the frightened recipients of God's grace were often, "Fear not."

Particularly in the biblical accounts of Jesus' birth, where Mary, the shepherds, and Zechariah the father of John the Baptist (see Luke 1 and 2) are told by the glorious messenger of God to "fear not." It was, in Arnold's words, "a declaration of war on fear."

Our society is fixed -- even motivated -- by fear (something of which I am reminded after only 20 minutes of television viewing). Advertisements for the evening news invite the fixation of our eye balls on their broadcast to learn of the latest place, person, or thing to fear; as other commercials on the same channel play on our fears of social irrelevance, physical illness, or financial instability to motivate us to call for help.

We've become so accustomed to living in a culture of fear that we think it to be as normal as it is inevitable. Yet, the antecedent to the Advent message are the words: "Fear not." In those two simple words -- whether spoken as a command or as a gentle admonition -- is a declaration of war on all that fixes our attention on things other than the eternal; on all that motivates us to "double-down" in a wager that eventually loses.

When I think for a minute what I could accomplish, where I would go, what I would say, were I not afraid for myself, I begin to see what God offers each of us when we abandon our fears to Him. What was true then of the young Mary, the simple shepherds, and the learned priest Zechariah is still true today. But only for those who are willing to join the war against fear.

Book Reviewed: "Losing My Religion"

Over last weekend, I finished reading the book, "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace," by William Lobdell. (Click here for a review of this book by The New York Times.)

I was interested in Lobdell's experience on the Religion beat, because I was once a religion reporter for a large daily newspaper, and I shared many of Lobdell's initial ambitions and perspectives on the reporting of religion as news (as opposed to fluffy feature stories where everyone is in Sunday best). I also shared many of Lobdell's disappointments: Clergymen who fleece their sheep, religious institutions that have more in common with Wall Street than with Main Street, and persons who use religion as a cover for hate and violence.

Unlike Lobdell, I didn't lose my faith as a result of my job; I lost my job because, in part, it was destroying my faith.

Now, all of this wasn't clear to me at the time. Back then, all I knew was that the job that I had dreamed about while I was in theological school was becoming more drudge than joy with each passing day. Eventually, my editors and I concluded that we should go our separate ways. The year was 1981, and my experiment had lasted 11 months (less if you consider that I took an unpaid leave for 8 weeks for my Naval Reserve training).

In those months, I interviewed Billy Graham, the late Jerry Falwell, Richard Roberts (son of Oral Roberts and heir of Oral's ministerial empire in Tulsa, Oklahoma), a senior citizen who had founded a white supremacist "church" that he ran from the sunny shores of Broward County, Florida; and the late D. James Kennedy, whose Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church was an easy drive from the Fort Lauderdale bureau where I worked. It was, as you can see, a sampling from the ecclesiastical sea that included flying fish, bottom feeders, and the species in between.

I have never regretted my decision to go to Florida for the newspaper job; nor my decision to leave when, and how, I did. As the saying goes: "When the horse on which you're riding dies, get off." Lobdell's experiences resonated with me and, to my surprise, helped me to understand the value of guarding the environment in which one works and lives.

Lobdell, a devout man on his way to becoming a Roman Catholic, spends progressively larger amounts of time pursuing the story of the decade: The Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal and the cover-up by higher-ups. Little by little, the sins of men undermine Lobdell's faith in God.

As I finished Lobdell's book, the words of Paul, as recorded in his letter to the Christians in Philippi, haunted me: "Finally bretheren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you." (Philippians 4: 8 - 9, NASB)

As a citizen of heaven -- yet, still a sojourner on earth -- our path will take us through many places, and before persons, deceitful, dishonorable, crooked, polluted, ugly, disreputable, and unpraiseworthy. I believe that the Spirit of God will not lead you where the grace of God will not keep you. I also believe that the key to emerging from the cesspool having influenced the cesspool more than the cesspool has influenced you is found in Paul's advice to the Philippian disciples.

Did Muslim Chaplain Talk Out of Turn about Fort Hood Murder Suspect?

While listening to a National Public Radio interview with Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, I was squirming in my seat.

Earlier -- on the eve of Veteran's Day -- I had watched the televised memorial ceremony for the 12 Fort Hood Soldiers and one civilian, who were shot to death by a fellow Soldier: Dr. (Major) Nidal Hasan. A few hours later, as I made my way home, I heard a six-plus minute radio interview with the Bethesda chaplain, who freely offered details of conversations that he had with the psychiatrist when both worked at Bethesda. (Click here to see the full transcript of the interview.)

By his own admission, the chaplain and Hasan were not friends, which means that the conversations they shared were either between strangers, or between a person in need and a person perceived to be in a position to help. I was squirming because it seemed to me to be the latter, and it seemed that the chaplain was divulging information that had been entrusted to him in confidence.

I can only begin to appreciate the pressure on Chaplain Hendi, as both a Muslim leader and someone who could actually provide a piece or two more to the puzzle at Fort Hood, to go public. But having first been taken into a person's confidence, as a chaplain then -- and a clergyman today -- I am loathe to trade on that confidence -- even if the public and the investigating authorities demand it.

A decision by a member of the clergy to divulge anything but the most innocuous details of a conversation where the person talking has a reasonable expectation that what he or she is saying will be held in strict confidence is a breach of trust. It was the sense that I was witnessing the shredding of that trust that caused me the most discomfort.

Everyone needs -- and the law recognizes it with protections for clergy -- a safe haven. The perception that chaplains will not regard private conversations as privileged is a tremendous loss, both for the person in need, and the person perceived to be in a position to help.

When "Good-bye" Becomes a Prayer

"All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."

William Shakespeare, "As You Like It," Act 2, scene 7

The eldest of our two adult daughters is moving out of the state today. Shakespeare's words capture my emotions, as I witness the first of many changes in our respective lives.

If you live long, you'll inevitably play a lot of roles.

I remember moving out of state for the first time as an adult child. I saw it all from the child's perspective, of course. Now, as a parent, I see a bit of what my own parents were seeing -- and feeling -- as we went about routine tasks, and silently counted-down to the moment when we said our good-byes.

Good-byes are hard, even when you've been looking forward to "launch time," such as the last day of an unpleasant job; or the first day of a great adventure. Good-byes are hard because saying "good-bye" is the prelude to a change for just about everyone in the "cast." Good-byes are hard because no change comes without uncertainty.

Lost in the modern usage of the word "good-bye," is its literal Middle English origin: "God be with you." Therein, for me, is the key to surviving every departure with its promises for success and its risks for failure: The invited presence of God.

When Getting By Isn't Good Enough

Just when we begin to think that a fat bank account, powerful friends, and smart lawyers are all it takes to tip the scales of Justice, the recent arrest of cinema darling Roman Polanski (pictured) reminds us that even in this life, while you may get-by, you don't always get-away.

Polanski, 76, who directed such critically acclaimed movies as "Chinatown" (1974), and "The Pianist" (2002), was arrested in Switzerland over the weekend at the request of law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles, California, who had a 31-year old warrant for Polanski's arrest. Polanski, convicted in 1977 of having sex with a 13-year old girl, fled California for Europe prior to his sentencing for the crime; and had successfully avoided countries that might extradite him to the United States -- until last weekend.

There is no excuse for any of Polanski's actions. Not his flight from justice. Not his crime against a 13-year old child.

Most difficult of all to swallow is the rising chorus of voices calling for his immediate absolution because (1) his crimes were committed such a long time ago; and (2) he's had such a remarkable career in the 30-plus years since his conviction, which ought to count for something -- like a "get out of jail free" card.

Trying to argue for accountability, fairness, justice, and the rule of law with the folks who are pulling for Polanski's immediate release is, I think, a futile endeavor. The sad part is this: There are a lot of people in our society who think as they do.

However, the encouraging part in this long, painful story is that there are times when even the rich and powerful are called to answer for their crimes, no matter how long they've managed to get-by.

An Antidote for Narcissism

Recent news of a former professional acquaintance who -- much to the consternation of his colleagues -- was apparently scheming to stay-on in his current job beyond his normal tenure, reminded me of another all too human proclivity: Narcissism.

Narcissus, according to both Greek and Roman mythology, was a handsome but vain young man who spurned all who loved him, and upon seeing his reflection for the first time, fell in love with himself; the tragedy, of course, being that he could see but never touch the object of his affection.

Today, we usually regard persons as narcissistic if they are vain or seem to love themselves more than all others.

I must confess to having given in to narcissistic tendencies, as we see all too often with the leader who schemes for another term in office -- the constitution be damned; the aging athlete who fears life's prospects apart from adoring fans; or the senior military officer who cannot imagine life without the military, even as the military has decided that it will do just fine without him.

In the Book of Ecclesiastes, its writer says that there is a time and a purpose for everything under heaven. Some transitions -- such as job promotions, weddings, the birth of children, and new prospects in exciting places -- are greeted eagerly. Other transitions -- such as the inconveniences of aging, forced career changes, or even the departure of adult children to situations and locations that are strange and distant -- are greeted less eagerly. Yet, both kinds of transitions are a part of the "deal." The more narcissistic we are, the more we want to avoid the unpleasant bits, and keep the sweetest parts of the deal to ourselves.

In my former colleague's case, I suspect that he had developed special relationships and knowledge in his current assignment that would be of special value to his current and future bosses. The military is a particularly risky place to advance this line of reasoning in the pursuit of job longevity, since it is an article of faith in the better military forces of the world that all persons are replaceable. Or, as the late French General Charles de Gaulle said: "The cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men."

The Scriptures can help us avoid narcissism which, if the truth be told, irritates everyone except the person who is captivated by his or her own virtues, value, or abilities.

The Bible tells the follower of Jesus that he or she ought to look out for the interests of others as one looks out for one's own interests. (Philippians 2: 4) Many times, when we've stayed "in the chair" beyond our time, it robs someone coming along behind us of the opportunity to learn as we've learned because we're occupying the spot! Looking out for the interests of others means doing for others as we would have others to do for us -- and that includes stepping aside. (Matthew 7: 12)

In a less direct way -- through the lives of others -- the Bible also reminds us that what we sometimes regard as negative experiences are frequently the "training" we need for other "jobs" and "assignments" in one's life and career.

Consider the life of Moses, who had risen high in the ranks of Egyptian leadership before fleeing a murder accusation to the backside of the desert to tend sheep for 40 years which, at the time, must have seemed to Moses like the end of the end to a very promising career. As is often the case when our careful planning seems to go awry, God was just getting started. A wilderness apprenticeship was precisely the training Moses would need to lead God's little flock -- the Children of Israel -- in the wilderness following the Exodus.

The epilogue to the Exodus story is that Moses did not live to enter the Promised Land because the work the Lord had given Moses was finished. The Lord God chose the protege of Moses, Joshua, to lead the Children of Israel across the Jordan River into the Promised Land.

What if you and I aspired to be like Moses: A person who accepted both the sweet and the bitter of life with equal grace; who refused to sulk when reversed; and who easily yielded the stage to Joshua, a person whose interests he had guarded as carefully as his own?

If we dared to try, it would transform us for better; and it would gladden the heart of God.

Art Credit: Narcissus by Caravaggio

Discipleship's Simple Requirement: An Open Handed Approach to Life

The brush fires in California, and the accompanying reports of homeowners who refuse to evacuate at the risk of perishing in the flames and smoke, are an apt metaphor of Christian discipleship's simple requirement: Living with an open hand.

In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is recorded, after a brief discourse, as saying: "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." (Luke 14: 33, NASB)

The early 20th Century Christian missionary Oswald Chambers opined that this didn't mean that one could not be saved, as if from the peril of hell (which complements our original metaphor), but that he or she would not completely belong to Jesus. (Please click here for the referenced quotation.)

The point is that it is impossible to completely belong to Jesus if one is holding any of his own possessions. Discipleship, you see, is a zero-sum game. John the Baptist understood it as such: "He (Jesus) must increase, but I (John) must decrease." (John 3: 30, NASB, parenthetical notes are mine)

Holding one's own possessions is not the same as being a caretaker (steward) for the possessions of someone else. In life, we will have things, but the aspiring disciple of Jesus regards all that is under his or her stewardship as such, and not a personal possession.

One of the best illustrations of this occurred to a disciple named Clarence Jordan, who in 1942 began an experiment in racial reconciliation on a farm near Americus, Georgia, which drew the ire of some of its white neighbors. In the mid-1950s, Jordan's "experiment," Koinonia Farms, was the a frequent target of gunfire, bombings, arson, and the beating of its people.

In a letter to a friend, written in 1959, Jordan wrote: "I remember the night Harry Atkinson and I were on our way over to the roadside market after we had received word that it had been bombed and was burning. When we came over a hill we could see the fiery glow on the horizon, and this ignited a burning in my heart. I was scorched with anger, and I'm sure if I had known who had committed the act, there would have been considerable hatred in my heart. At that time I doubt that I could have distinguished between anger and hate.

"But as I had occasion to think, I realized that the hate was rooted in a consuming possessiveness. . . Later I had the same reaction when various ones, including myself and my children, were shot at. The so-and-sos were trying to take our lives from us!

"The solution to this soul-destroying condition came only upon the recognition that neither property nor lives were ours but God's. They never really had been ours in any sense of the word. We hadn't even 'given them back to Him' -- they were His all along. And if this was he way He wanted to spend His property and His people in order to accomplish His purposes, why should we pitch a tantrum?" ("Theology in Coveralls," Sojourners magazine, December 1979)

As Jordan notes, our possessiveness provokes all manner of negative emotions within us, and will eventually destroy the core of our being -- our soul.

I have always been in awe of people who live life with an open hand. Those rare folk who will work hard for something, but will also walk away from it or give it up because, I think, they have realized as John the Baptist did in Jesus' time; and Clarence Jordan has in ours, that it all belongs to God and it is God's to use (however peculiar or wasteful it may, at the time, seem to us) for His purposes.

Too many of us, for far too long have lived our life with a clenched hand. We grip what we have grasped. We are loathe to let go; and heaven help anyone who dare take what we hold from us. Yet, the truth of the matter is this: While no one may not be able to take what you have, neither can someone give you something better.

To give away all that one possesses is the first step toward gaining the gifts of God!

Magazine Review: Mapping the Seven Deadly Sins

The latest issue of "Wired" magazine maps the Seven Deadly Sins. (Click here to see the article and accompanying maps.)

If you've never read this magazine, it is worth your time. And it's not just a magazine for geeks (although persons with less than perfect eyesight will need reading glasses). As you might have assumed, you can also find "Wired" on the Web.

I began subscribing to this magazine because I thought it would help me to better understand the technology that has become a part -- for better or worse -- of interpersonal communication. Preaching, if nothing else, is interpersonal communication on a large scale; and I thought that a better understanding of the communication technologies would help me to be a better preacher.

So, if you've wanted to learn about Craigslist, how to throw a knife, or discover what's really in a Slim Jim snack, "Wired" is your ticket. And, you'll also see where the big "sinners" live!

The Runner, the Motorist, and the Turtle

The story below actually happened to my wife Jay, and is re-told with her permission. (It's not like the story is copyrighted; or that my wife would sue me, or something, if I didn't obtain her permission. But if you like this story, and you know my wife, please tell her so.)

A few days ago, my wife was running through our neighborhood when she saw a box turtle in the street.

The turtle was half-way across the street as she passed.

Approaching, from the opposite direction, was a car that attracted my wife's attention because, as it approached, it began to slow. Then, several yards beyond my wife, the car stopped.

As she turned, she noticed that the car had stopped at the turtle. A man emerged from the driver's side. He picked-up the turtle, and headed to the grass beyond the curb -- limping.

A Funeral Homily for an Old Soldier

MSGT Freddie Lee Mahone, U. S. Army (Retired) died on August 12. He was 82 years old. The words below are my funeral sermon for my friend, who was also a friend to many others in his neighborhood, his extended family, and the U. S. Naval Academy Chapel community.

He was buried, with military honors, in the Maryland Veterans Cemetery, Crownsville.

Scripture: Ecclesiastes 12

This passage from the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes may seem to be a strange text for a funeral sermon – particularly for a man who had lived for more than eight decades; a man who had fought in two wars; a man who had served our nation for 30 years as a soldier, and 30 additional years as a federal civilian employee.

However, the truth about the funeral sermon is that it is not for the person who has gone – as the folks in Freddy’s native Georgia might say – “from labor to reward.” It is for those of us who remain.

I first met Freddy – who insisted that I call him by his first name – one Sunday morning before services in the upstairs chapel. He was an usher and a cross-bearer in the procession. (He was one of the gentlemen who comprised our usher corps, and not all of them could easily carry the heavy processional cross the 80 yards or so from the Chapel entrance to the altar!)

But I got to know Freddy as I encountered him – at 70-plus years – running the perimeter of the Naval Academy grounds. Occasionally, we would run together.

I learned that he was devoted to his wife, who at the time was seriously ill. He had great affection for the Naval Academy, despite being an Army guy. He loved this Chapel community. This was his church!

He had seen a lot. He had done a lot. And he knew a lot, although he would be the last person to let-on, because he was a man of great humility.

The resonance of the final chapter of Ecclesiastes for we who remain is in the preacher’s admonition to remember our Creator while we are young.

You may be 100 years old, but you are younger today than you will be tomorrow.

Today: Are you living for God?

Today: Have you time for God?

Today: Are unalterably committed to the things that are always right; the things that never deceive; the things that transcend time and eternity?

The words of Ecclesiastes are as relevant today to persons who are “young at heart” as they were when first written 3,000 years ago to people who were “young in fact.” To those individuals – regardless of chronological age – for whom tomorrow is bright; and for whom life is as full and varied as a Sunday buffet, the preacher has three words: Remember your Creator!

Scripture tells us that there are three basic tactics employed by the devil to help us to forget God: (1) The lust of the flesh: What feels good to our senses; (2) The lust of the eyes: What looks good, either literally or figuratively; and (3) The pride of life: The sense that life is good, and that, for you, it always will be good.

Yet, the preacher says that if we live long enough, our life will change – and at the end of life, we each must stand before God.

When that day comes, and we each stand before God, what will be in our memory? Recollections of treasures reserved for us; or the reality of treasures laid up in heaven, where moth and rust cannot corrupt; and where thieves cannot break through and steal?

When that day comes, and we each stand before God, what will be in our memory? Recollections of our hobbies, pastimes, and occupations; or the assurance that God has remembered the visits to those whom others seem to have forgotten: The sick, the shut-in, the prisoner, and the elderly?

When that day comes, and we each stand before God, what will be in our memory? Will it be our Creator? Will we recognize Him as our Father? Will he recognize us as His children?

Our Hope – Jesus Christ – came to this earth; lived, was crucified, buried and resurrected, that you and I might become the Children of God by believing in Him. If the Spirit of God is speaking to you; urging you to remember your Creator, will you now come to Him?

Jesus says this: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him and eat with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3: 20) There is no better time than now. There is no better place than here.

As a disciple of Jesus, this was Freddie’s hope. It is my hope, too.

I envision that when I see Freddie in heaven, we will, again, go for a run; but not before we have added our voices to the heavenly assembly, gathered to remember in eternity our Creator, Redeemer, Lord, and God: “Holy, Holy, Holy! Amen!”

The Perceptions of the Professor, the Policeman, and the President

One of my least favorite popular phrases is, "Perception is reality." Nothing is farther from truth, as is definitively shown through the recent tempest surrounding the arrest of noted Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (pictured).

As you may remember, Gates -- who is black -- was arrested by a white police officer in front of his Cambridge, Massachusetts residence for disorderly conduct. Gates, it seems, was upset with the police officer for alleged "racial profiling" in his investigation of a 911 call from one of Gates' neighbors that two men were forcing the front door of Gates' house. Gates perceived that he was being investigated because of his race. He is a black man in a predominantly white neighborhood.

The officer, a police sergeant with an exemplary service record, says that he was just doing his job in ensuring that Gates was the rightful occupant of the house as the indignant professor vociferously questioned the sergeant's motives. The sergeant says that he told Gates that he was risking arrest because of his conduct, and when the professor persisted, he was arrested.

The President, who during his election campaign noted that he had sometimes found it difficult to hail a cab in some cities because of cab drivers' perception that they are at a greater risk of being robbed by a black passenger than one who is not black, weighed in by saying that the Cambridge police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates, and fanned the embers back into flames.

So, today, the President will host the professor and the policeman at a picnic table at the White House and, over beers, try to redeem the situation. Which brings me back to my least favorite popular phrase.

Yes, our perceptions do frame our own peculiar realities, but that is not Reality, as in the truth.
The professor, understandably perhaps, based on his research and experience, thought that what was happening was a textbook case of discrimination based on race. It was not. Gates' neighbor saw two strange men entering a house by force and did what any good neighbor should do: Call the police.

The policeman perceived Gates as an angry, abusive citizen, perhaps not unlike many other citizens he's encountered in his law enforcement career, and he had his own textbook response for the professor's behavior: Arrest. In retrospect, perhaps the sergeant would have rather talked-down the professor in Cambridge and saved the trip to Washington, D. C. for another time.

The President perceived that the policeman had not used his best judgment by arresting Gates. Not having been there, perhaps the President's perception was the worst of the three. But that did not stop him from offering an opinion framed by his own experiences and, perhaps his personal acquaintance with Professor Gates. He apologized for his public remarks, and hopes to do a little fence-mending of his own today at the picnic table.

Is perception reality? Clearly not. Perception is perception. Reality is reality. We all use what we have and what we know to make sense of our world and the situations in which we find ourselves. But we should resist the temptation to measure others with our limited -- and often inaccurate -- yardstick.

The antidote to erroneous judgments based on limited vision (remember: to "perceive" means to "see") is humility and an even-handed approach to all situations and all people -- particularly those whom we suspect are not our champions. If we acted in such a manner, we would be amazed at how pitifully limited our perceptions are, and how magnificently broad is Reality.

"On Love," and Newspapers

"On Love"

My Sunday newspaper contains a weekly article in its "Style" section that features a couple's "love story."

I normally don't read these articles, because the articles that I have read seem to be about the same kinds of love: Man meets woman; man and woman "fall in love"; man and woman are challenged in some way in their love for each other; through the challenge, man and woman come to realize that they are made for each other; man and woman get married; man and woman live happily ever after.

Yesterday's article was true to that formula -- click here to read the article -- and reading it gave me another reason not to read such articles in the future: These stories are only about the first chapter of that couple's life together (although in the case of yesterday's couple, they had known each other for more than ten years and had two children between them before they arrived at the altar -- but that is another story for another time).

My wife and I have been married for more than 27 years, and I have been in pastoral ministry for more than 30 years. Based on those experiences, I wish that my Sunday paper -- and all others newspapers with similar story ideas for "love stories" -- would write the love stories of couples who have been married for more than 40 years. Or the love story of a couple that has stayed together through the death of a child, a life-threatening illness, a disabling injury, or a shattered career.

Many marriages do not survive such stresses. The marriages that do are full of lessons about humility, transformation, self-sacrifice, faith, hope, and love. Precisely the lessons that couples completing the first chapter of their life together will need for each successive chapter; precisely the lessons that all couples need to make the transition from wedding day to married life.

Newspapers

Now, while I am on the subject of Sunday newspaper reading, I also noted an article on the recent purchases of small, local, newspapers by former Washington Redskins president John Kent Cooke, which is contrary to the current trend, where most folks with money are shunning old media, such as newspapers. (Click here to see article.)

Newspapers are dear to me. I studied journalism in college and, for a time, was a working journalist for three daily newspapers. The decline in newspaper readership saddens me.

Cooke is not buying newspapers out of sentiment. He sees small daily and weekly newspapers in locations that are outside the shadow of large, national, dailies -- such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times -- as strong for newsprint.

It seems that in this case, small is better -- and more profitable. As a former newspaper guy, I hope Cooke is right!

The Redeeming Power of Poverty

"I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is better," said Beatrice Kaufman more than 70 years ago.

In the decades since Kaufman -- and in the centuries before -- few have disagreed. Poverty is as limiting as it is humiliating. Most people, I think, would prefer to encounter poverty by a rare and fleeting accident, than by even the most carefully crafted design.

The "rich is better" axiom is challenged in today's selection from the devotional guide, "My Utmost for His Highest," which is a year's worth of daily readings excerpted from talks and sermons given by early 20th Century missionary Oswald Chambers (pictured).

"The underlying foundation of Jesus Christ's kingdom is poverty; not possessions; not making decisions for Jesus," Chambers says, "but having such a sense of absolute futility that we finally admit, 'Lord, I cannot even begin to do it.' Then Jesus says, 'Blessed are you. . .'" (Click here for the full reading.)

Regarding the power of poverty, the media are on a pendulum: Publishing the story of a man who finds purpose through poverty on one day; and the next day publishing another man's struggle to regain his lost prerogatives and financial status. From such even-handedness, it would seem that either state is equally preferable, equally sustainable, and equally moral. They are not.

It is said that of all subjects, Jesus talked most of the subject of money. (The same could be said, of course, about The Wall Street Journal newspaper.) However, Jesus' approach to the subject was different from what many of us might take, which is to regard money as a "necessary evil." Jesus did not say that money was necessary (something The Wall Street Journal might say); and He did not say that money was evil.

To quote St. Paul, money is not the root of all evil; rather, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, and the source of much human misery. (Click here for Paul's quote.)

The doorway to the rule of God in one's life is poverty. It is there -- and there alone -- where one finds freedom from the tyranny of fear, competitiveness and selfishness.

NIMBY at Work in Proposed National Health Insurance Plan

The phrase, "Not in my back yard" (a. k. a. NIMBY), is commonly used to identify an attitude of individual benefit at the expense of someone else.

One need not wait long to see this attitude displayed. For example, while many folks are eager to close detention camps, such as the one in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, few are willing to have Guantanamo detainees imprisoned in their home state. NIMBY.

The financing of universal health care coverage for Americans is the latest example of NIMBY. According to recent news reports, a couple earning more than $350,000 a year would suffer a surcharge amounting to between 1 percent and 5.4 percent of their income to raise funds for the health care plan. It is estimated that this plan would affect approximately 1.2 percent of all households, and would raise one-half of what would be needed to fund the scheme, with the other half coming from savings in Medicare and other health care programs.

I don't think much of this idea, and it is not because my wife and I earn more than $350,000 a year. We don't. I resist this idea because it requires only 1.2 percent of the population to contribute to a benefit received by the remaining 98.8 percent of the nation.

One definition of fairness is whether -- all things being equal -- you would continue to like a particular idea if the roles were reversed. In this case, government proposes to take more from one, small, segment of the population for no apparent reason other than it has the political and legislative muscle to do so without a fight from its victim. On the street, that is called "strong-arm robbery," and it is as illegal as it is morally wrong.

I do not mind paying taxes, whether of the general variety, such as income taxes, which support a variety of programs for our corporate benefit; or the specific variety, such as gasoline taxes, which go toward road maintenance and are more or less tied to how much one uses the streets and highways. "Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. . ."

What I see in the proposed plan is an attempt to pass a greater share of the cost of of a general benefit -- in this case, universal health care -- on to a sliver of the citizenry presumed to be more able to carry the load. For the higher tariff, I don't think that those who pay more will receive a greater benefit or more generous amenities, such as a priority line for medical appointments or expedited prescription drug refills. Nope. They will receive the same level of service that 98.8 percent of their fellow-citizens receive, except they will pay more for it.

In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talked about fairness in a maxim we today call "the Golden Rule": "Do unto others as you would have others do to you." (Matthew 7: 12a)

Selecting a burden for others that we ourselves would not willingly bear may, by act of the Congress, be legal, but it can never be right.

Naval Academy Minority Admissions: Fair Without Being Equal?

This is one of those times when it pays to let the dust settle.

A month ago, U. S. Naval Academy English professor Bruce Fleming caused a fuss when he wrote an article for the opinion page of the local Annapolis newspaper, The Capital,
that claimed recent increases in the number of blacks and Hispanics admitted to the academy is occurring at the expense of better qualified white applicants.

Of course, Professor Fleming's allegations roiled the blog sphere and talk radio; and were noted in follow-on articles in The Washington Post and USA Today. I agree that there is something patently un-American about selecting someone ahead of someone else with relatively superior grades.

But what if -- as is the case at the Naval Academy, and many major colleges and universities -- grades were only one measure of an applicant's suitability? Would it then be fair to choose a "B" student over an "A" student, if the "B" student exhibited greater potential to fulfill the stated purposes of the institution?

By his own admission, it has been nearly a decade since Professor Fleming served on the Naval Academy's admission board. In the intervening years, the Academy began emphasizing a "whole person" concept in its selection of Midshipmen, which means that not every applicant with good grades will trump an applicant with poorer grades but high potential to serve our nation as a naval officer.

Such is the change that seems to offend the professor. Were it as simple as "racking and stacking" according to grade point averages (GPA) -- assuming for a moment that everyone agreed on how to regard the less than uniform way the nation's 37,000 high schools arrive at grades -- admissions boards, such as the one on which Professor Fleming served, would be unnecessary. Such is the problem with "objective" evaluations: While they may be equal, they can be far from fair.

In the three years that I served on the staff of the Naval Academy (2001 - 2004), I noticed that the professors (most of whom were civilians with scant military experience) cared most about academics while the military folks, who were responsible for Midshipmen professional development, cared most about such practical subjects as leadership, moral and character development, and physical training.

So, it is no surprise that Professor Fleming thinks poorly of an admissions process that seems to favor the general needs of the Naval service over an individual applicant's GPA.

Yet, the Naval Academy's purpose, according to its vision statement, is to be "the nation’s premier source of leaders for the Navy and the Marine Corps who embody the highest standards of character and professionalism, and who aspire to lead and serve their country in peace and war. "

Such aspirations for an institution need not mean that persons with good grades need not apply, but perhaps that academic achievement is only one element needed by a publicly-funded institution with a mandate to provide a diverse graduating class for service in an increasingly diverse Navy or Marine Corps.

"Angels and Demons": Hollywood Theology?

Several years ago, I heard a speech delivered by the Rev. Rick Warren in one of the break-out sessions during the annual National Prayer Breakfast event in Washington, D. C., in which Warren said that if Christians really wanted to influence American society for Jesus, they should forget Washington, D. C., and start working Hollywood.

The power of a good story is well known -- particularly by parents, pastors, pundits and producers. Hollywood, more than any place else in our culture, manipulates the power of this medium.

To be sure, there are many in the film industry who have taken Warren's advice, and are about the work of producing movies and television programs that reflect the Gospel message. The adaptations of C. S. Lewis' books from "The Chronicles of Narnia," is one noteworthy example.

Some weeks ago, columnist Ross Douthat reminded me of the potential power of a story in an article he wrote that examined the not-so-obvious themes in author Dan Brown's best-selling works: "The DaVinci Code," and "Angels and Demons."

"If you want to understand the state of American religion, you need to understand why so many people love Dan Brown," Douthat wrote.

Click here to see Douthat's thought-provoking article. I am sure that you will begin to see that both Douthat and Warren are on to something.

A Father's Day Letter to My Mother

Dear Mom,

Thank you for marrying Daddy.

It's not that you need me to thank you for more than 50 years of marriage (see photo from Golden Wedding anniversary reception in 1994) and six children (all of whom are living productive, independent, lives), but for all of the times I wanted to say it -- and didn't; and for all of the times I should have said it -- and wouldn't: Thank you for marrying Daddy.

It has been 10 years this past January that Daddy died with you at his bedside holding his hand. Since then, I have been acutely conscious of the greatness of the man you called by his first and middle initials: "L. C."

Based on what we see and hear these days, it seems that the average man is clueless as to what it means to be a real man. A few years ago, I was given a book -- written by a Colorado Springs "mountain man" -- that had become a bible in many gatherings of Christian men. No doubt, the writer was being handsomely remunerated for helping hundreds of middle-age "boys" to man-up. I just couldn't take seriously the writer -- or his writings. You see, I had been there, when I really was a boy.

A boy's perspective is a peculiar one. Everything seems too large to grasp, while at the same time strangely achievable. I first began to see the world from the front seat of Daddy's car.

He took me with him on errands, and on home visits to shut-in members of the church he served as pastor. He was my primary source for answers to my questions about the what and why of things I had heard or seen in those car rides.

I was his frequently reluctant partner in home building projects, my first being the erection of a swing set in the back yard of the parsonage in Hutchinson, Kansas. He also was like Moses (more the lawgiver than the wilderness guide in this example), who promised death (or, more accurately, the wish that one were dead) for lying, stealing, insubordination, and poor school grades.

Mark Twain once said that when he was a teenager, his father was the most ignorant man on earth. But when Twain became a young man in his early twenties, he was amazed at how wise his father had become in only a few years.

Like Twain, I am exceedingly grateful that Daddy lived long enough for me to realize how wise he had been all along; and for the opportunity to draw on that wisdom as I made my way in the world. I know that not all boys grow up in homes with their fathers. Death, divorce; or as is commonly the case today, unwed motherhood paired with absentee fatherhood, have created a situation that psychologists, pundits, and pastors work tirelessly to remedy.

As a man, I can see many things that I could not appreciate while a boy. First, Daddy loved you very much. I never heard him say an unkind word about you, and heaven help anyone who did. Second, Daddy was serious about his faith in Jesus. This is not to say that he lived perfectly, but he was unwilling to ignore or to change the standard, even when by the standard he had fallen short. Third, he was serious about "raising" his two sons into men.

In the Bible, it says that "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27: 17) Yes, Daddy was often as hard as granite, and as unyielding as iron, but it was not without its benefit. Because of him, I know the value of honesty; the cost of freedom; the necessity of family; the benefit of a prepared mind; and the all-sufficiency of God.

And as the icing on the cake, because of him I know how to safely handle firearms, catch a fish, defend myself with my hands, cry when moved, and shave with a straight-edge razor.

As cool as all of this may be, it started with you. Thanks for saying yes to "L. C." Thanks for marrying my Daddy!

Love,
CHUCKY

Religion: The Scoundrel's Last Refuge?

Last Wednesday's shooting death of a security guard special by an 88-year old white supremacist in Washington, D. C.'s Holocaust Museum brought to mind two thoughts.

The first thought is a quote from 18th Century English writer Samuel Johnson (see photo): "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." 

The second thought is a recollection of a meeting I once had with another elderly white supremacist nearly 30 years ago, who called his fellowship of racial hatred a "church."

The year was 1981.  I was working as a religion reporter in The Miami Herald newspaper's Broward County bureau when I discovered the existence of a group that called itself The World Church of the Creator (please click here for a link to the Anti-Defamation League's write-up on the group).  After a phone call to the group's founder, Ben Klassen, a white colleague and I arranged to interview Klassen for the article.

It was clear that Mr. Klassen's "church" was a refuge for scoundrels -- similar to the contemporaries of Samuel Johnson that gave genuine patriots a bad name.  

Likewise, the museum shooter -- James W. von Brunn -- an alleged World War II veteran who described himself as a patriot, according to reports of writings posted on his Web site.  

In such cases as these, it is always the genuine article that betrays the phoniness of the Klassens and the von Brunns of society.  Real patriots do not need to pin a flag on their lapel.  Their patriotism is measured in sacrifices made for the benefit of all of one's fellow citizens, not in the collection of perquisites and prerogatives for one's own family, group, or tribe.

Similarly, according to scripture, true disciples are known by their unalloyed love for the wide-ranging fraternity of God: Red, yellow, black and white -- and brown.  True disciples are the salt of the earth, and the candle in the darkened room. 

When true patriots and true disciples are at their best, there is no place for the scoundrels of the earth to hide.  

Vacation is Over: Back to Blogging!

Two of the primary rules of blogging are: Post early, and post often.

I regret that I've broken the second rule with my silence over the past six or seven weeks. It's not that issues and events have failed to present a reason for writing. In the interim, I heard an excellent sermon in Cannes, France during that city's Film Festival where the preacher -- a lay preacher -- delivered a sermon that was as timely and as engaging as any I've heard in years.

I've also read articles that I've thought worthy of passing along in hopes that you are as challenged as I've been by the author's words. Current events have also given me reason to think about the condition of humanity, and what Holy scripture says our common illnesses -- and the cure.

Finally, thanks to those of you who gently mentioned to me that you've checked this blog in recent weeks, and have missed the posts. Time to get back to writing. Thanks for reading, and please send a comment back my way! - LCA

Two Examples of Using What is Nearest to Bless Others

Two recent articles -- one in a daily newspaper, and the other in a magazine for aviation enthusiasts -- served as a good reminder to use what we have to do the Lord's work.

The first article featured a retired Navy physician, Anthony Martinez, who spends his days tending to the physical and spiritual needs of Washington, D. C.'s homeless. (To read this article, click here.)

The second article featured a Denver businessman, Jeff Puckett, who uses his helicopter -- dubbed "Prayer One" -- to get local Christian, Jewish and Muslim clergy; and local gang members into a place where they can begin to see the world from a different perspective. (To read this article, click here.)

These articles reminded me that we each have skills and abilities that the Lord can use to bless others. The shame of it is that we fail to be available; or we fail to be creative; or we devalue the worth of a gift shared with others in the Lord's name. (I am reminded of the account of Jesus' feeding of the multitude with a little boy's lunch, as recorded in John 6: 1 - 14, and in the other Gospels, too!)

Sometimes, what is nearest us is a possession, such as our checkbook. Sometimes, it is a tool we use in our work, as is the case for Jeff Puckett. Sometimes, it is a skill used in one setting that is transferable to another setting, as is the case with Anthony Martinez.

Today, consider what it is that you have nearest you. Then, consider how it can be used to bless others in the name of the Lord.

Torture: Were God in the Room. . .

Several years ago, while teaching "Ethics and Moral Reasoning" in the U. S. Naval Academy's mandatory sophomore-level course of the same name, I heard a recently-retired three-star admiral say that while he would welcome lawyers in a room where decisions about air strikes were being made; he would exclude chaplains.

Based on recent news reports, it seems the folks who were making decisions about the interrogations of suspected terrorists had the same idea as the admiral. (To read a New York Times newspaper article on the subject, click here.)

While acquiring legal, medical and psychological cover for interrogation methods that many -- if not most -- lawyers, physicians and mental health professionals consider both illegal and unethical; it seems the Bush administration, the U. S. Justice Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency were unwilling to consider the morality of how they "persuaded" our enemies to give-up information.

The admiral's comments were a candid admission that when God is in the room, people are compelled to behave themselves. 

I am not saying that a chaplain -- in any way, circumstance, or form -- is God. However, clergy generally represent a standard that is higher than what is merely legal, even if all clergy (and I am speaking from observation and personal experience) fall short of that standard in their life and in their vocation.

The 17th Century French priest St. Vincent de Paul reportedly wrote or said that a man in a hurry misses the things of God. Clearly, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, we were a hurried and a fearful nation. And while it is good that our houses of worship, for a time, were filled with people seeking solace, guidance, and strength, there is now ample evidence that other Americans were inviting everyone but God into the situation room.

The admiral referenced above explained that with the chaplain came inconveniences.  For example, we might reason that there is acceptable risk in attacking terrorists who are in a building situated across the street from a school house -- unless our child is in the school house.  

When God is in the room, the captor becomes the one captured; the strong consider the position of the weak; and the means to an end are considered as seriously as the end.  At every level, the recognition of an authority greater than we reminds us that not everything that may be legal is right; and that just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we ought.

Piracy: The Devil's Hand is Tipped (Again)

Easter Sunday was a bad day for piracy.

With the rest of the world, I watched last week's events unfold 230 miles off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden.

Tuesday: A band of Somali pirates in a small boat hijacks the U. S.-flagged container ship MV Maersk Alabama. The crew resists; the ship's Master, Captain Richard Phillips (pictured), surrenders himself to the pirates as he orders his crew to a safe compartment in the ship. The pirates leave the ship in a life boat with Captain Phillips as a hostage.

Wednesday: The warship USS Bainbridge arrives on the scene. Negotiations begin to secure the release of Captain Phillips.

Thursday: Captain Phillips attempts an escape by jumping into the water, but is quickly recaptured.

Sunday: While under tow by USS Bainbridge, and in the fading daylight, it is determined that the pirates in the life boat are about to harm the captain. Three U. S. Navy sharpshooters positioned on Bainbridge's stern are ordered to shoot the pirates, which they do almost simultaneously. Three pirates are felled. The captain is rescued, unharmed.

A bad day for piracy, indeed.

Almost immediately, the usual collection of pundits and experts emerged to point out that the killing of the pirates would immediately transform what had been an ordered, purely commercial enterprise into something a lot more complicated -- and bloody.

Hold, for a moment, the compelling reasons for piracy: For nearly 30 years, Somalia has been a near-lawless nation; many of today's pirates were yesterday's fishermen -- before overfishing by Europeans and Asians made it nearly impossible for a Somali to make a living from the sea that didn't involve firearms and million-dollar ransoms; and the shipping industry was all to willing to play along as long as the cargo was safe and the insurance premiums didn't rise too sharply.

As before (see my blog from March 1, 2009), the devil's hand is tipped. The devil wants only to focus on the price of something; never on its value. So, it becomes okay to steal -- or even to be the victim of theft -- as long as it doesn't (pardon the metaphor) "rock the boat," or disturb the business model. Never mind that theft, kidnapping, false imprisonment, extortion, and bribery are always wrong -- and a cancer on society, commerce, government, and the human soul.

In the aftermath of Sunday's events, life in the sea lanes in and around the Horn of Africa may become more complicated for all mariners. Pirates may seek revenge on U. S. citizens. Other nations may attempt rescues as we did, with less rosy outcomes. But these are risks that must be taken for all who value some things -- such as freedom from fear and intimidation -- above its costs.

Easter Sunday -- which has its own narrative on the sacrifice of one for many; freedom from fear; and the elevation of value over price -- was, indeed, a bad day for piracy, in all of its forms. But it is a bright day for those who have seen the devil's hand (again).

"Resurrection" in the Dock

Okay. I will bite.

In the news of late is a story about a 22-year old mother -- Ria Ramkissoon -- who is charged with the murder by starvation of her toddler son. As twisted as it is that a mother would starve her own child, there's more: Ramkissoon has cut a plea bargain with prosecutors that calls for all charges against her to be dropped if, or when, her son Javon Thompson is resurrected from the dead. (Click here for CNN's account.)

There is a lot here on which to chew: The media's fascination with the tragic and the bizarre; the circumstances of the child's death; and the intellectually lazy manner in which complex subjects are disintegrated by reporters and their editors for easy consumption by the masses. And there is another subject that hovers and haunts this tragic situation: The plausibility of bodily resurrection.

In a post about this tragedy, blogger Gary Davis gives no quarter to the idea that the small cult to which Ramkissoon belonged is "Christian," or to the media's interest in resurrection without due consideration of the Resurrection. (Click here to read Davis' blog.)

If it is true that a sure bet is no bet at all, the Baltimore, Maryland prosecutors who accepted Ramkissoon's "resurrection" clause are not betting people, and their actions have put Resurrection in the dock.

Resurrection on trial is not a bad thing. Were it not for this intrusive reminder, most Americans might only think of God's most audacious act on the coming Good Friday and Easter Sunday -- which are yet more than a week away -- and not think of it again until the following year!

But there it is: The proposition that our life doesn't end with our bodily death. There it is: The possibility that as Jesus was resurrected from the dead, so will all who have lived be resurrected -- the faithful to life with God; and all others to an eternal existence apart from God. There it is: The wager of all wagers.

Unlike the Baltimore prosecutors, who have wagered without fear of loss; every person has a stake when the Resurrection in the dock. As the clock winds-down, and as we see many of our contemporaries pass from "labor to reward," we realize that, like it or not, we have skin in the game.

A Test of Principle: Slot Machines at the Mall

The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant's gift to Western Civilization was a way to test the strength of one's moral beliefs.

One of Kant's "Categorial Imperatives" is to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In other words, do to others only as you would have it done to you.

Through a twist of circumstance, some folks in the northern part of my county (Maryland's Anne Arundel County) are enduring the Philosopher's test vis-a-vis the possibility of slot machines being placed in a nearby shopping mall. (Click here to read the newspaper article.)

In a referendum last November, Maryland voters approved the placement of slot machines. It is reasonable to assume that many of those who voted "yes" might have voted "no" had they known the gambling devices would be installed at a shopping mall instead of a track for horse racing. The assumption, which proponents of gambling generally deny, is that slot machine parlors are the thin edge of the wedge for more coarse forms of entertainment, such as prostitution and strip clubs; and a clientele that is more transitory and sketchy than the current patrons at the popular mall.

Through a series of happenings that turned the slot machine plan on its head, the favored horse racing venues -- having financial problems of their own -- failed to post the money required to get a shot at the slots, which opened the door to the long-shot: The shopping mall, which is now in line to receive the lion's share of the machines the law permitted, because few other venues qualify.

There are, of course, the voters -- I mean, the neighbors -- who reportedly feel as if they are the victim of a "bait-and-switch," which they are. Had they thought a slot machine operation could show-up in their neighborhood, they likely would have voted against the proposition in last fall's referendum. Who knew?

That is the point. Maxims, rules, laws, commandments -- if we follow or obey them -- save us from having to live under our own bad decisions.

Long before I became acquainted with Immanuel Kant, I was taught a similar maxim: The Golden Rule, which says, "Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you."

It works, even today. You just never know when the casino you thought was a great idea, when you thought it was headed to the next county, will be breaking ground at the neighborhood shopping mall.

Lection Reflections: The Fourth Sunday in Lent

"Lection Reflections" is a short review of the themes of the coming Sunday's scripture readings as written in the Common Lectionary, Year B. For more information on the Lectionary, and how it can work to aid your Bible knowledge, click here!

This week's Sunday readings are full of timely challenges!

The first reading (in the order of appearance in the Bible) is II Chronicles 36: 14-23, and it records the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the exile of the people to Babylon, as foretold by the prophet Jeremiah.

There are two obvious lessons in this text: (1) Before crushing the rebellion of His people, God sends messenger after messenger to encourage their repentance because of His "compassion on His people and on His dwelling place"; and (2) God may use, as he did in this case, our circumstances and the most unlikely of people to bring us to repentance. You see, not only were the Babylonians the captors of God's people, but through King Cyrus the Babylonians made possible the re-building of the Temple. God, indeed, has a sense of humor.

Psalm 122 is a song of ascents, which is a song the faithful would sing as they made their way to Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord. It begins: "I was glad when they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of the Lord.'"

A question: Does the opportunity to attend worship gladden our heart? To be sure, public worship is a privilege that we in the United States view as a right. We need only look at other nations in the world to see that the freedom to worship as we choose is not guaranteed.

The Gospel reading is found in John 6: 4-15, and records the familiar account of Jesus feeding 5,000 people with a little boy's lunch consisting of two fish and five small barley loaves. The final verse is one that caught my attention, because it reminded me of the temptation to sacrifice the "best" for the "good."

Jesus, seeing the intention of the multitude to make him King, immediately withdrew to the mountain. Do you and I have the same focus on the mission of God, and the same commitment to the purposes of God, to run from the entreaties of those who want us to do good things, but at the expense of the long-term, big-picture, best things? Or do we entertain the proposition in hopes that we can "fit all of it in"?

The final reading, Ephesians 2: 4-10, is full of encouraging words! The final verses, 8-10, will resonate with many people: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. . . "

However, I encourage attention to the beginning of the passage: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us. . ." (Verse 1) Mercy. Great love with which He loved us.

To be sure, all such messages of affirmation and assurance give us reason to worship. I hope you have a great Sunday!

The Best Radio Interview in Years!

I was arrested this morning on my drive to work.

It wasn't the police who made the arrest. It was an interview of the U. S. Marines who serve in the solemn ceremonies where fallen warriors from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan arrive home in flag-draped caskets.

WAMU radio journalist Kavitha Cardoza conducted the riveting interviews, which really were more a seamless montage of voices telling intensely personal stories than a question and answer session. It was the best radio I've heard in years: Informative, intimate, inspiring, touching.

Click here for the podcast ("Bringing Home the Fallen") to hear the interview for yourself -- then tell me what you think.

Lection Reflections: The 2nd Sunday in Lent

"Lection Reflections" is a short review of the themes of the coming Sunday's scripture readings as written in the Common Lectionary, Year B. For more information on the Lectionary, and how it can work to aid your Bible knowledge, click here!

There is the potential for a lot of heavy lifting in Sunday's lectionary.

Genesis 22: 1-14 records Abraham's intention to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, in obedience to God's command to do so. It is hard for modern-day readers to grasp the idea that a good God would ask a faithful man (Abraham) to kill an innocent child (Isaac), and I would wager that most preachers will pass on using this passage as a sermon text. It is extremely difficult to challenge ideas that have taken root about a passage encountered long ago by most people in the pew. But blessings on the preacher who takes-up, yet again, a story that explores the foundations of faith in God, and the role of obedience.

Psalm 16 exalts the Lord as the psalmist's portion in life; and his deliverer in death. This is a good psalm to recall the comprehensiveness of God's love, faithfulness, and mercy.

Mark 8: 31-38 reminds us of the exacting cost of Christian discipleship. One cannot read it honestly and not be challenged by its requirements: Self-denial, cross-bearing, and obedience. It almost -- almost -- goes without mentioning the proliferation of groups in the Christian Church that promote self-actualization over self-denial; blessing-seeking over cross-bearing; and self-satisfaction over divine obedience. Again, heavy lifting for anyone bold enough to deal with the text on its terms.

Finally, Romans 8: 31-39, which includes the oft-quoted verse (28) about all things working for good to those who love God, and are called according to His purposes, is a reminder (a) that there is often suffering for those who choose to follow Jesus; and (b) that we are ultimately victorious over these mortal impediments, because nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (39).

While there is the potential for heavy lifting in the exploration of these readings, the real work is the application of God's word in our living. It is work, to be sure, to live faithfully according to God's plan, in God's time, and to work in God's way; but it is work that is true and rewarding. Or, as Jesus asks in day's Gospel reading: "For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mark 8: 37)

Have a great Sunday!