From the UCC Network: 04/30/2011 "Where are Your Wounds?" [cross-post]

Where Are Your Wounds?

Excerpt from John 20: 11 - 20 

"Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side."

Reflection by Anthony B. Robinson

Two men faced God on the day of judgment. One looked beat and beat-up. Arm in sling, forehead bandaged, clothes tattered and torn. He looked awful. Moreover, his life had been so hard, he felt a failure. Ashamed, he would not lift up his face to look upon the Lord.

The second man looked as if he just stepped off the tennis court after winning his morning set. Dressed smartly, he was tanned and fit. His teeth gleamed. He appeared to have been nipped-and-tucked in the right places. Relaxed, he smiled confidently at the Lord.

The Lord looked at the two men, then turned to the one who was tanned and tucked and said, "Where are your wounds? Was there nothing to fight for down there?"

All of the stories of our Risen Lord returned have this element in common: Jesus' wounds are visible. He does not return unblemished, cleaned up, without sign of struggle or suffering. He returns to us bearing his wounds.

If you bear the wounds of the struggle for justice and peace, if you bear the wounds of battles for truth and righteousness, do not be ashamed. If life has not always been easy for you, do not be ashamed. You are in good company, actually the very best company. "Peace be with you," said Jesus, who then "showed them his hands and his side."

Prayer

Lord, who does not look upon appearances but upon the heart, speak your word of peace to all who struggle and suffer in the cause of righteousness and truth. Amen.

About the Author Anthony B. Robinson, a United Church of Christ minister, is a speaker, teacher and writer. His newest book isStewardship for Vital Congregations, published by The Pilgrim Press. Read his weekly reflections on the current lectionary texts at www.anthonybrobinson.com/ by clicking onWeekly Reading.

What is the Circle of Protection? [cross-post]

What is the Circle of Protection?

Yesterday, the leaders of more than 50 Christian denominations and organizations drew a line in the sand of the budget debate, and asked our political leaders to do the same. We united around the basic principle that those who are already suffering should not be made to suffer even more in order to reduce the deficit. Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, black, and Hispanic church leaders came together to say that Christians will form a "Circle of Protection" around programs that assist poor and vulnerable people. Add your voice andjoin the Circle of Protection now.

From Richard Stearns of World Vision USA to Father Larry Snyder of Catholic Charities USA; from Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evangelicals to Rev. Peg Chemberlin of the National Council of Churches; from Bishop Stephen E. Blair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to Bishop Charles E. Blake of the Church of God in Christ; from Rev. Sam Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference to Berten Waggoner of Vineyard USA -- all have a signed "A Circle of Protection: A Statement on Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor." Sign the statement and see the full list of signatories here.

The Circle of Protection represents an unprecedented unity on behalf of poor and hungry people. I hope you will read the statement below and add your voice to this ongoing fight:

In the face of historic deficits, the nation faces unavoidable choices about how to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. These choices are economic, political -- and moral.

As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up -- how it treats those Jesus called "the least of these" (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected. We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms, and to speak out for justice.

As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.

1. The nation needs to substantially reduce future deficits, but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.
2. Funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut. It should be made as effective as possible, but not cut.
3. We urge our leaders to protect and improve poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world.
4. National leaders must review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.
5. A fundamental task is to create jobs and spur economic growth. Decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.
6. The budget debate has a central moral dimension. Christians are asking how we protect "the least of these." "What would Jesus cut?" "How do we share sacrifice?" As believers, we turn to God with prayer and fasting, to ask for guidance as our nation makes decisions about our priorities as a people.
7. God continues to shower our nation and the world with blessings. As Christians, we are rooted in the love of God in Jesus Christ. Our task is to share these blessings with love and justice and with a special priority for those who are poor.

Budgets are moral documents, and how we reduce future deficits are historic and defining moral choices. As Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world. It is the vocation and obligation of the church to speak and act on behalf of those Jesus called "the least of these." This is our calling, and we will strive to be faithful in carrying out this mission.

We urge you to click here and join the Circle of Protection.

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Leaders Create Alliance to Defend Poor [cross-post]

Leaders Create Alliance to Defend Poor

by Evan Trowbridge 04-27-2011

Piercing through the bitter, partisan bickering regarding the nation’s budget, an unprecedented and diverse group of Christian leaders announced today the forming of a Circle of Protection against budget cuts that target poor and vulnerable individuals.

From Roman Catholic to evangelical denominations; from mainline Protestants to African-American Christian groups, Christian leaders from across the nation have agreed that if lawmakers want to go against the poor, they will also be going against Christians.

The Circle of Protection is an alliance of more than 50 signatories who are committed to the following statement:

As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.

Speaking to members of the press this morning, Rev. Jim Wallis emphasized that the budget debate is about choices of morality: “Budgets are not about scarcity; they are about choices — moral choices,” he said. “In a remarkable statement of unity, faith leaders from across the theological and political spectrum together now say you cannot choose to slash budgets and reduce deficits by causing even greater suffering for the poorest people — that is simply not acceptable to us.”

Also speaking to the press were other leaders, including David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, who emphasized the importance of the alliance’s broad reach. Beckmann stated: “The leaders that have signed this statement connect virtually the entire Christian community in the United States.”

The leaders on the call said that our nation’s deficit must be reduced and that all areas of spending must be on the table. Rather than severing the safety nets that help so many people, we should be going after where the real money is. Doing anything less is unsustainable and will hurt everyone in the end.

Ambassador Tony Hall, who joined Rev. Wallis on a 27-day Hunger Fast for a Moral Budget that ended on Easter, encouraged those who supported the Hunger Fast to contact their representatives to let them know that as people of faith, we are committed to a morally comprehensive budget.

“It takes engagement. It takes teaching. It takes education,” said Hall, a former Congressman from Ohio.

The Circle of Protection agreed that our government programs must be made as effective and efficient as possible, but lawmakers should not cut programs that literally save thousands of lives. The Circle of Protection has agreed to a list of eight key principles as well list of programs that should be protected and made as effective as possible.

David Beckmann emphasized that private charities could not simply step in to fill the government’s role. Only about 6 percent of the food that poor people get from national nutritional programs comes from private charities, he said.

“Churches and charities cannot do it all,” Beckmann said. “There is a deep biblical priority … the God of the Bible is not just a God of individuals, but the God of the Bible is a God of history that holds nations accountable.”

Among the signatories to the Circle of Protection are Rev. Jim Wallis, president and CEO of Sojourners; David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World; Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Rev. Peg Chemberlin, president of the National Council of Churches USA; Ambassador Tony Hall, managing director of the Alliance to End Hunger; Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, co-facilitator of the National African-American Clergy Network; and Bishop Stephen E. Blair, the Bishop of Stockton and Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Other signatories, including leaders from organizations such as the Salvation Army, can found on the Circle of Protection website.

“You’ve heard it said today that our duty before God is to defend the people that Jesus called the least of these,” Rev. Wallis told reporters. “And we are saying in this budget debate, we will do that.”

Evan Trowbridge is the communications assistant atSojourners.

From Wimp to Winner [cross-post]

From Wimp to Winner

Obama outmaneuvers his opponents—and his allies—every time.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

President Obama speaks at George Washington University on April 13, 2011.

Ever since the warm, post-racial glow of Barack Obama’s historic election victory evaporated two years ago—the rise of the oceans did not slow, and the planet, alas, did not heal—nary a day has passed without some Republican, somewhere, calling him a weakling, a wimp, or worse. But last week, as Obama prepared to respond to Paul Ryan’s long-term budget plan with a proposal of his own, an unlikely group of kvetches joined the girlie-man chorus to carp about the president’s once and future fecklessness: the nation’s top liberal pundits.

Their problem was Obama’s leadership style: either he lets others take the reins on tough issues, they said, or he makes preemptive concessions to Republicans. In The New York Times,Paul Krugman mocked the president as a “bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular.” The Daily Beast’s Eric Alterman likened the leader of the free world to “a boxer who … [spends] the entire fight taking punch after punch on the ropes.” And Jonathan Chait of The New Republic declared Obama a “horrendously weak” negotiator on the brink of becoming “a uniquely powerless president.” The only thing missing was Keith Olbermann flapping his arms and clucking “chicken.”

To hear Krugman & Co. tell it, Obama was all set to stride on stage at George Washington University, collapse into the fetal position, and announce that he was willing do whatever John Boehner wanted. What actually happened, however, was quite different. In a forceful 40-minute speech, the president outlined a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. The speech wasn’t wholly liberal. But it hit most of the notes—raising taxes on the rich, shrinking the defense budget, protecting the social safety net—that liberals longed to hear.

How to explain the gap between what lefties feared Obama’s speech would be and what it actually was? One interpretation is that after a long, lily-livered lull, the president finally decided to man up. But the truth is more complex. Whatever your opinion of Obama, “weakness” is not a particularly illuminating description of his leadership style. It makes more sense to see him as a hard-nosed pragmatist determined to maximize results. When liberals whine, says White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, it’s like “a fourth-inning analysis of a nine-inning game. People say ‘he screwed up the negotiations,’ but the deal ends up being very good given the political reality.”

More often than not, Obama’s approach has worked in his party’s favor. But it has also caused him problems. When Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the White House’s top priority was simple: getting legislation passed. To accomplish that goal, Obama followed two rules. The first was that he would largely allow the legislative process to run its course before stepping in. As political scientist Frances Lee has explained, when a president voices an opinion, the entire issue becomes polarized. To test this, Lee studied how the Senate voted on questions that didn’t have neat Democratic and Republican answers. Overall, these debates ended in party-line votes 39 percent of the time. But that number surged to 56 percent whenever the president took a stand. “Presidents getting involved can actually make things worse,” says Lee.

The second rule was that when Obama did weigh in, he would support the best possibleproposal instead of the best imaginable proposal. The White House slashed the stimulus from $1.2 trillion to $787 billion to preempt congressional objections. After declaring himself “a proponent of a single-payer universal-health-care program,” the president wound up backing a more conservative plan than Richard Nixon. And last December’s tax deal forced Obama to abandon his pledge to end the Bush cuts for the richest 2 percent right off the bat.

Obama’s initial leadership strategy was tailored to a time when Republicans couldn’t torpedo his agenda. In policy terms, the approach paid off, helping him put more points on the board during his first two years—the stimulus package, health-care reform, financial reregulation, and so on—than any president since LBJ. But the political result was a commander in chief who was left looking less engaged, less effective, and less moderate than he actually was, and suspicious Democrats who were left wondering whether starting negotiations from a more liberal position would’ve produced even better results.

When Krugman’s crew pounced on the president last week, this was the prism they were using to predict his behavior. But now that the GOP controls the House, no laws can pass without Republican support, and no Republicans will support anything the president proposes because they’re afraid it will help him get reelected. This changes the contours of Obama’s pragmatism: in 2009 and 2010, he could champion progressive legislation; in 2011, he can only defend against the GOP’s most objectionable ideas—and position himself to win a second term. That’s precisely what he did at GWU. By baiting Republicans into moving first, Obama was able to present his proposal as the “more balanced” alternative to Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”—a plan he made sure to frame, campaign style, as an extreme attempt to finance “$1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy” by dismantling “care for seniors and poor children.”

Some Democrats still worry that Obama’s moderate debt package will “[become] the left pole, [with] the center … halfway between this and Ryan,” as Krugman puts it. But it would be surprising, at this point, to see the president spend much political capital on meeting the GOP in the middle. Republicans will have little to run on in 2012 if they compromise, so they’re unlikely to be cooperative negotiating partners. And Obama is savvy enough to know that when he said “I refuse to renew [the high-income Bush tax cuts] again” in his speech, he made it impossible for the taxophobic GOP to play ball. But that, it seems, was the point: a pre-election deficit deal was always going to be improbable, so might as well seize the center of the debate. “Even if you get shot down,” says Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, “you can go to the people, say, ‘This is what I offered,’ and wind up looking like the grown-up.”

At times, liberals have grumbled about Obama’s policies, and Republicans almost always despise them. But the president’s so-called weakness isn’t to blame. Last week reports revealed that Obama’s agreement with Republicans to slash $38 billion from the 2011 budget—the supposedly timid compromise that kindled the left’s conniption—actually contained less than $25 billion in spending cuts, few of them to cherished Democratic programs. The same day, Public Policy Polling released a survey showing that independents, who backed Republicans 56 percent to 37 percent in 2010, now prefer Democrats 42 percent to 33 percent—a 28-point reversal. If those are the sort of things that happen when a president takes “punch after punch on the ropes,” then Obama might want to keep getting slugged.

With Howard Kurtz

I know that Jesus is the Answer, But What Does That Mean? [cross-post]

I know that Jesus is the Answer, But What Does That Mean?

by Aaron Taylor 04-26-2011

Is the gospel about Jesus rescuing us from hell and transporting us to heaven … or is it about Jesus creating a community to work with him in the renewal of creation? Here in America, questions like this can determine whether you think of yourself as emergent (or not), whether you like Sojourners (or not), or whether you prefer Fox News or CNN. It’s a question that Christians can discuss with their friends over a cappuccino at Starbucks. We know that Jesus is the answer, but what does that actually mean? Let me tell you about a group of people where the answer to this question can spell the difference between hope and misery: Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

A couple of weeks ago I traveled to Lebanon and Jordan as part of a delegation of authors, professors, and businesspersons. Originally we were supposed to meet with a major world leader, but that didn’t pan out, so we ended up spending our time meeting with political leaders, democracy activists, Christian workers, and Insider Muslims (which are Muslims that follow Jesus within the context of Islam — another story for another day). One day we spent a morning at a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut. It wasn’t at all like I expected.

Like many people, when the words “Palestinian refugee camp” came to mind, I pictured makeshift tents strewn on an open field somewhere, probably in the middle of a valley or a desert. The Palestinian camp in Beirut is more like a city within a city, a series of autonomous heavily guarded neighborhood blocks in which the Lebanese police are not allowed to enter. The partially bombed-out buildings betray evidence of previous wars and invasions, the streets are narrow and filthy, and walking on the narrow and filthy streets between the partially bombed-out buildings you can look up and see tangles of wires connecting here, there, and everywhere — evidence of people doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

Most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon live and die in the camps, and it’s been that way for more than 60 years. Unlike Jordan, where the Palestinian refugees were granted citizenship and integrated into the fabric of society, Palestinians in Lebanon are permanent non-citizens, living in a land that’s not their own while longing to return to a land that most of them have never been to. What this means in practical day to day reality is that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon face a number of prohibitions against working, owning land, or building homes outside the camps. The ones that are able to find work outside the camps often have to do so under the table. The U.N. agency tasked with overseeing the refugee population (UNRWA) fulfills a much- needed role, but can only employ a fraction of the refugee population. The situation is so grave that a group of British researchers tested the mental development of a group of children by lining them up and throwing soccer balls at them. To their shock and horror, instead of the children picking up the balls and throwing them back, they let the balls fall to the ground without picking them back up, showing not only a lack of mental development, but a perpetual state of hopelessness. To them, the camp is a prison which they have little hope of escaping.

Which brings me back to my original question: I know that Jesus is the answer, but what exactly does that mean?

The wannabee Anabaptist side of me says that the solution to all of the world’s problems lies not in politics but in the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God isn’t necessarily about solving the world’s problems, but creating an alternative community that eschews earthly power structures in preference for servant hood and simple living. Given the tendency of Jesus to lampoon the Herods and the Caesars of his day, coupled with his ability to transcend political ideologies by inviting tax collectors and zealots to serve on his apostolic team, and let’s not forget the Apostle Paul telling the slaves “If you can be free, great! But if you can’t, don’t worry too much about it” (my paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 7:21), I find a lot of justification for this position.

It’s surprisingly similar to what the Pentecostal side of me would say, “No matter how crappy life is on earth, hell is worse and heaven is better, so let’s focus on the issues that really matter… eternal issues, not temporary issues which are passing away.” Back in the days of slavery in America, the message of patiently submitting to suffering in hope of an eternal reward helped many African Americans get through their miserable days, knowing that there’s a sweet by and by in the sky gave them a peace and a hope that transcended their circumstances. All good and wonderful, except when you factor in the infamous Uncle Tom and Martin Luther King Jr’s soul-stirring appeal in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, it kind of makes you wonder if Christianity’s critics, the ones who claim that Christianity is a ploy of the ruling classes to keep the lower classes in servitude and submission may have a point after all.

Here’s the problem. How can I credibly say that “Jesus is the answer” if “Jesus is the answer” means that I no longer advocate for political solutions to problems that can only be solved by a political solution? For the plight of Palestinian refugees to change for the better, one of three things has to happen. Either Lebanon grants them citizenship, the Palestinians get a state of their own, or Israel grants them the right of return. The sectarian system in Lebanese politics makes option one very difficult, and the prospect of Israel making peace with Palestinians seems like a pipe dream. Still, anything less than one of these three options and the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon remains miserable and hopeless no matter how much individual charity is directed their way.

So why am I asking this question? I may not come up with any definitive answers, but here’s what I’m hoping will happen. I hope that some will read this article and take the time to visit, make friends, pray for, and advocate for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. If more people learn about the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and decide to do something about it, however big or small, then maybe the question is worth asking after all.

Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with A Jihadist: A Biblical Response to Holy War. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go towww.aarondtaylor.com. To follow Aaron on Twitter, go towww.twitter.com/aarondtaylor. Aaron can be contacted atfromdeathtolife@gmail.com.

Do you recognize the risen Lord? [cross-post]

FROM THE CCBLOGS NETWORK

Do you recognize the risen Lord?

Apr 25, 2011 by Daniel P. Horan

Easter brings with it an abundance of natural joy and reason for celebration. The love of God poured out for us through the Incarnation, the life, the death and now the resurrection, which today we commemorate, of Jesus of Nazareth is made known in the most powerful ways. The resurrection is a focal point of our faith, without which the crucifixion would have no more meaning than the another innocent man executed by the state. The Incarnation, the entering of God into the world as one like us, which we commemorate at Christmas, is another focal point — a calling to mind God’s humility and care for us. So much does God love us that God entered our world as one like us. Now that is love!

One of the things that the Scripture has called my attention to this Easter is the number of ways the friends and disciples of Jesus do and do not recognize the risen Lord. Have you ever noticed that? Why is it that? What were they expecting to see? What are we expecting to see?

The message from God — sent by, literally, “messengers from God” — is “Do not be afraid” (Matt 28:5), “Do not be amazed” (Mark 16: 6), “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5) and “Why are you weeping?” (John 20:13). There is, at first glance, a lot of confusion and the need for a messenger from God to begin to clarify the situation, reset the context, for it had only been a few days since the Lord was crucified. He was supposed to be dead, or so they thought.

What do we think? What do we expect? What do God’s messengers, God’s mediators need to say to us?

I stood at before the crowd yesterday in New York City and, during one of my seven reflections on the last words of Christ, mentioned that the Good News according to Luke is my favorite of the Gospels. One of the myriad reasons for this is the way the text ends. The account of the walk to Emmaus is by far one of the most powerful stories in all of the New Testament.

It is a story of the confusion of human expectations, we clearly do not know what is going on sometimes. What at first seems like a tragedy, like an end — a crucifixion perhaps — suddenly becomes a sign from God and a confirmation of Kingdom that the Risen Lord preached in his words and demonstrated with his deeds. Yet, how do we come to recognize the Risen Lord?

This Easter, this is my reflection: How do I recognize the Risen Lord? In the breaking of the bread? In the sharing of the Good News? In the entering into relationship with another? How is it that the disciples and friends of the Lord came to recognize him?

Originally posted at Dating God

The Love in Resurrection [cross-post]

The Love in Resurrection

by Tony Campolo Sunday, April 24th, 2011

At Calvary, we see what the power of Satan can do. We observe the demonic nature of political and religious power infused by evil. The Roman governor and the Hebrew king, on the one hand, and the priests and scribes of the religious system, on the other, conspired together to destroy the Son of God.

But on the cross, all their claims of being agents of goodness were stripped away. The principalities and powers were exposed as the power-hungry agents they really were (see Col. 2:15). The cross showed how the depraved nature of demonic powers can be expressed through the rulers of this age. It also demonstrated the love of God in its most perfect form. On the cross, power was confronted by sacrificial love.

On Good Friday, it looked as though power had won. The demonic hosts must have danced in celebration. But they had counted the spoils of their victory too quickly. Two days later, the stone was rolled away and the incarnation of sacrificial love was resurrected. History, from then on, would have hard evidence that love ultimately triumps over power. The resurrection proves that love is greater than all the power man and Satan together can muster.

The resurrected Christ still endeavors to effect change through love. He does not coerce us into His kingdom, but lovingly entreats us. He does not force Himself into our lives, but instead says, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20).

One of my favorite old gospel songs has as its first line, “He could have called ten thousand angels.” This so wonderfully explains the style of Jesus. As He hung on the cross, the Pharisees and priests mocked HIm, yelling that if He was the Son of God, He should come down from the cross–and then they would believe in Him (see Matt. 27:40-42). There is no question that He could have done just that. What is more, He could have snapped His fingers and had 10,000 angels in shining raiment appears instantaneously by His side, armed to the teeth, to wreak destruction on those who had mocked Him. But that was not His way. Love kept Him nailed to the cross. He refused to use His power so that He might reveal the love of God in its ultimate expression.

There will come a day when He will come again. On that final day, a trumpet will sound and He will unleash His power on the earth. But on that Good Friday 2,000 years ago, it was not His power, but His sacrificial love that was at work.