I read a lot of things written from the "left," and that is where you'll find me, and from the "right," a place and space where you once could have found me until I crossed over.
Some people write the most curious things about the "other party," and what "they" believe, and in my opinion, those opinions are often uninformed opinions. One of my curiosities is that what one party blasts the other for not believing is what they actually believe. Or, better said, what one stands for in opposition to the "other party" is what many in that other party believe.
We are not a very informed people. We oftentimes swallow what someone else has prepared and chewed for us.
And, we are not terribly reflective as to how we got where we are. Do we actually sit and ponder, "How have I come to believe what I believe about X, Y, or Z?" Or "what are the assumptions upon which I base my political, religious, or whatever opinions?"
I have actually been thinking about that for myself of late. Yes, that has been part of my own internal questions and answers. And, yes, we can actually have internal conversations or debates if we let our "internalized parts" have their say.
For several years now, I have been reading sacred texts most days that tell stories of Jesus of Nazareth. Some may find that a curious thing. Some spend much time in the Psalms, a noteworthy thing to do, or Proverbs, another noteworthy thing to do, or even in the books of history like Kings and Chronicles, another noteworthy thing to do. All of those texts, according to my theological tradition are informative of God's plan for His people, first for the Jews and then for the rest of us.
I linger in the sacred texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the stories they tell about Jesus of Nazareth. I study His encounters in particular. Who does He encounter while who and who and who listen in on the conversation? Who is hiding in the shadows watching and listening and learning from Him, or who is in the shadows watching and listening an plotting their strategy that will lead to His demise?
Not only do I want to read and deconstruct His encounters, but I want to gather themes of His encounters. I want to know how His encounters fit the dominant narratives of the Jewish religion of the day, and in what ways His encounters go against the grain, creating counter narratives to the dominant religion of the day.
He is found talking to a woman at a well in Samaria, a Samaritan woman, at noon. He accepts a gift of anointing with nard just prior to His crucifixion from a woman. He notices and calls out the blind guy who has been annoyingly calling out to Him and heals him. The guy with leprosy that no one notices, that all avoid, He touches and heals him. The woman caught in the act of adultery He forgives and blesses when her accusers have vacated the premises. He invites the children who have been shunned by His disciples on two occasions, and holds them close as He blesses them with "of such is the Kingdom." He heals on the Sabbath, an uncool thing to do. He calls out what they, the religious leaders are thinking with parables, and while they do not grasp what He is saying, they know that He is saying something about them. And, it required money to fund His ministry and travels with His apostles, and women who had money supported Him out of their pocketbooks.
Therein lies my philosophy of doing life, doing justice work, doing church, and doing government policy. Some artificially ascribe church as a place where one thing is done, the individual world where another thing is done, and the government where other things are done. I get it when Jesus says to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's." Not a problem there.
When I vote in elections, I vote for people whose policies most closely mirror the paragraph above. What person and policies are going to touch the poor, the needy, women, children, those kicked to the curb by society? When a politician tells us what she or he is going to do, I listen. I listen to their words and I listen to their lives, the narratives that their lives have told prior to that specific election. When somebody tells us who they are the first time, believe them, says Maya Angelou. I resonate with her notion there.
If a guy has not solved problems with us during the last four years, he does not get another shot. He's had his shot. If someone in office stokes the fires of racism rather than attempting to engage all sides and mediate and lead to understanding and respect, he's had his chance. If he has false promises to farmers and then develops policies that leads to bankruptcies and suicides, he has had his chance. If someone in office does not have a clear civil rights policy, he'll never, ever get my vote. If he calls people names and insults women, the disabled, men, children, and others, he's had his chance for civility and failed. If he cozies up to foreign leaders who do not respect America and maligns our friends, he has had his chance, and he failed miserably. If he lies and lies and lies to us, he has had his chance, and he failed.
So, don't try to confuse me with that individually constructed set of lines between self, church, and government. I don't buy them. All of them involve people. All of them are going to be humane or inhumane.
There, I've said it. Jesus of Nazareth informs how I attempt to live my life and what I think is important in this society in which we live. Or, in the words of one of my best friends several years ago, "I will vote for whoever is best for my people." Jesus informs me as to how to treat people of all levels of society.
That is the line in the sand for me.
Amen!
ReplyDelete