Some Reflections on Hebrews 9

This passage appears just after an extended midrash on Jeremiah 31 which explains the advent of the New Covenant, and just before a meditation on the power of Messiah Yeshua’s once-for-all sacrifice. The primary thrust of our passage is a comparison between Temple sacrifices and the sacrifice of our eternal Cohein Gadol, Messiah Yeshua.

While this passage from Hebrews is rife with rich imagery and theological significance, it is the last portion of our passage that I wish to focus upon. Here we glimpse a fundamental distinction between Judaism and Christianity, and one that Messianic Jews are in a unique position to bridge.

Judaism has always been a religion of embodied practices, such that the importance of doctrine is paralleled by corresponding actions. Rabbinical commentaries throughout the ages address not only orthodox belief, but also how that belief is to be lived out.

Christianity, especially in its Western post-Enlightenment form, tends to focus much more on the inward, spiritual, and often cognitive aspects of relationship with God. The Christian faith is defined and perpetuated in part by a series of creeds, which give no mention of corresponding praxis but rather explicate orthodox beliefs. It is illustrative to remember that Martin Luther, the father of Protestant theology, wanted the book of James (with its emphasis on works) removed from the Christian canon.

Our Hebrews passage echoes this dichotomy. The author tells us that Temple sacrifices “were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper” (v. 9), whereas through Yeshua’s blood our consciences are indeed cleansed. The blood of goats and bulls provided outward cleansing (v. 13) yet apparently did not assuage the worshippers’ inward spiritual state.

While it is easy and perhaps tempting to polarize these two different emphases, each holds an important key to a full-orbed covenantal relationship with God. Yeshua chastised the Pharisees for being “whitewashed tombs” and “blind guides,” criticisms that highlighted the enduring status of their wisdom and leadership and yet the bankruptcy of their own integration between orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct action). These leaders became so focused on their outward observance that they lost sight of the inward penitence and humility that was to accompany such practices.

On the other hand, much of the modern evangelical world hyper-focuses on correct beliefs, but leaves unanswered James’ penetrating inquiry—“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?”(2:14).

Messianic Judaism uniquely addresses this tension by raising a specific set of questions: What can Christianity gain from Judaism’s highly developed set of covenantal practices? How can Judaism learn from Christianity’s heritage of doctrinal precision? These questions are urgent and important for our generation, and our ability to garner the best parts from both traditions places us in a strategic place to answer them.

The end of our Hebrews passage reveals one facet of this much-needed synthesis. Our section ends with a description of the riches we have been given through Messiah Yeshua, “so that we may serve the living God!”(v. 14). The “so that” tips us off to the goal of everything that has just been explained. In this case, the “so that” refers to an ability—and an injunction—to serve.

The importance of serving our God and each other is the beginning of our answer to the age-old “faith and works” question. This faith-filled service constitutes a large part of what it means to live in covenantal relationship. The book of Hebrews reminds us that only when we learn to embody our beliefs will we experience the fullness of our faith.

The Middle East: In Search of Life, Justice, and Peace

After being in school for this long, I’m realizing that wisdom and knowledge are not so much about having all the answers as about asking the right questions.

The events in the world around us and in my own life have left me recently asking the question “Who is our God? What is that God like?”

When pondering this question in recent months, I have come up with three broad areas of who God is.

The first is LIFE. God is a God of life. I was talking with my friend Jordan who is in Med School, and I am still struck by our conversation. There are certain people in my life who question what I am doing and studying. “Why do you have to get a theological education?” they ask. “Why don’t you just study your Bible like all Christians are called to do?” It occurred to me that no one ever asks that question about doctors. I don’t know about you, but when I go to the doctor I want to know that they got the best education that is out there to get. I want to see that framed diploma on the wall, to see their credentials displayed. And why is that? What do doctors do? They preserve, prolong and profit human life. And we all agree that this is an objectively good thing.

And I think that’s right—I think God agrees. If we look all the way back to Genesis, we see that God created human beings as the pinnacle of His entire creation. Genesis 1:26-31. We are created in God’s image, and God declares our life and well-being to be “very good.” So by highly valuing doctors and their work, I think we are echoing this value of our Creator.

In Deuteronomy, where God lays out the laws by which His people may live lives that are holy and pleasing unto Him, He sets before them life and death, and beseeches them to CHOOSE LIFE. God values life, and He calls us to value it as well. He calls us to make choices in our own lives that value and uphold and protect human life. Deuteronomy 30:19-20.

Let’s look at the New Testament. John 10:10. Here Christ tells us the reason that He came. Jesus’ purpose was to save human lives. We know that He wasn’t just talking about physical life, but He gave His life that we might receive life, and receive it in abundance.

Second, God is a God of JUSTICE. In the Old Testament, the prophets were so often calling out—and crying out against—injustice. Micah 6:8. This was given in the context of God rebuking and chastising Israel. (To jump ahead and look at the Middle East, to be concerned about justice does not mean to uncritically and unwaveringly support Israel…)

Also, Amos 5:21-24. Again, what God does and does not desire from us.

Lastly, the entire book of Obadiah. I took a Latin class over the summer, and we read the entire book of Obadiah in Latin. A friend who was in our little reading group had recently taken a class on the Prophets, and he explained to us the context of the book of Obadiah. Basically, a group of people called the Edomites were the sworn friends and protectors of Israel. But when Israel—it was actually the southern kingdom during the time when the twelve tribes were divided, and thus called Judah—was attacked, the Edomites scattered and fled and left the Israelites to be destroyed. It’s a terrible, tragic story. So the book of Obadiah is directed toward the Edomites, and the entire book is railing against their arrogance and indifference to what was happening to Israel. In short, it was crying out against injustice.

A bit of application…what Israel was in the Old Testament, the Church is now. We are to be a beacon, a light shining in a dark world. Are we committing the same injustices as Israel? Are we heeding the voices of modern-day prophets? (A little aside…I have this theory that Bono is a modern-day prophet. The lyrics of his songs, his whole AIDS in Africa awareness effort. I don’t think there is necessarily anything particularly significant about the injustices being committed in the Middle East as opposed to anywhere else—God is a God of justice and vindication for all oppressed and underrepresented people groups. And Bono is crying out against it, using every possible means to get peoples’ attention. That is exactly what the prophets in the Old Testament did…So there’s my theory.)

Third, God is a God of PEACE. Fuller seminary is an interesting place, and there are many Mennonites there. Now, until a year and a half ago, I didn’t know what a Mennonite was. But they are a branch of Christianity, kind of like a denomination, and one of the central tenets of their beliefs is pacifism. They think that Christ came to bring peace, and that He modeled this with His life. He rebuked the disciple who cut off the soldier’s ear, and He spoke of a Kingdom that is not of this world. Having many good friends who are pacifists, I have begun to look at the Biblical concept of peace in a new way. Whenever I heard Christians talk about peace—the peace of Christ, the peace of God—I somehow always applied it to my personal life. When I was stressed out, I would take comfort in knowing that Christ left His peace with us. And I think this is true. But I think it’s more than that.

Let’s look at the Old Testament. Psalm 122:6-9, Psalm 128, Psalm 34:12-16, Numbers 6:24-26 (the Priestly blessing—how Moses and Aaron were to bless the Israelites), Isaiah 9:6 (famous passage about who the Messiah would be, He will be called the Prince of Peace, ties the Old Testament and the New Testament together), Zechariah 9:9-10 (messianic prediction, prophesies peace, the end of weapons and war).

How about the New Testament? John 14:27. This is the verse that I always applied to my own life, and didn’t even think about on a national or international level. But think about it…How does this idea connect with the justice that the prophets spoke of? 1 Peter 3:8-17 calls us to live in way that the world knows nothing of. We are called to not repay evil with evil. And then there’s Matthew 5:9—“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” This is in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, the greatest sermon ever preached. Teachers who teach preaching will say that this sermon breaks all the rules that sermons are supposed to follow; structurally it’s a mess. And yet it’s the greatest sermon in human history, preached by Christ Himself. It says that peacemakers will be called “sons of God.” Well who was the Son of God? And what did He do? We are called to have the same mind as Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:5). We are Christ’s ambassadors to the world, called to represent and be about the same things that He was about.

OK, so what does this all have to do with Israel and Palestine? Well, I think for me, it all started when I watched the movie Munich. Have any of you seen it? The film is about the 1972 incident at the Munich Olympics. A group of Palestinians snuck into the Olympic athletes living quarters and kidnapped 11 Israeli athletes. They took them hostage, and as they were leading them onto a helicopter, the German authorities opened fire on the Palestinian kidnappers. The kidnappers opened fire on the athletes, and there was a massacre—almost everyone involved died, including all of the Israeli athletes. Well, the movie is about Israel’s reaction. The Prime Minister of Israel—Golda Meir—commissions a super secret team of Israeli militiamen to hunt down and assassinate the top Palestinian leaders who planned the Munich kidnappings. Eric Bana plays the main character, the lead assassin, and you watch as his entire life becomes dark and distorted as he hunts down these Palestinian leaders.

The first time I watched the movie I was absolutely horrified. I was in shock. All I could do was weep. I watched it a second time and was able to catch some of the dialogue. And I was blown away. Some of the dialogue in that movie parallels exactly things that I read in the Economist Magazine this past summer—during the most recent war between Israel and Lebanon. Israel having to “look strong,” for example. It’s the same story, being played out over and over again.

Spielberg openly calls his film “historical fiction,” not claiming that all of the details are exactly accurate. And he has a very pacifistic agenda. He shows how for each Palestinian leader the Israelis assassinate, something bad happens to Israel—a bombing, theft, destruction. But the film raises some pretty poignant questions and tragic truths, and I have not stopped thinking about it since.

In the Middle East, people are dying every day. God is a God of Life—as Christians, we ought to be concerned if for no other reason than that human life is being destroyed at an alarming rate. Unspeakable injustices are being committed, and the few times that peace has existed over the past decades (or centuries?), it has been fragile and short-lived. These things ought to concern us.

Sometimes I think about the modern state of Israel, and I wonder if the people are really that different from the Israelites in the Old Testament. It seems to me that they struggle with the same sins, they hold out the same hopes, and they are searching for the same things as the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

But something is different now. There’s the church. What is our role in this situation, in this conflict? It cannot be indifference.

Moreover, this is our spiritual heritage. Galatians 3:7 tells us that those who believe are the children of Abraham. Wait, I thought Abraham was the father of the Jews…Well, he is. But those who believe in Christ are also called children of Abraham.

In John 4:22, Jesus tells the woman at the well that salvation is from the Jews. Again, I don’t think that this translates to uncritical and univocal support of Israel. But it’s like our family tree. I took a class during my MDiv on Family Systems. As our final project, we had to create a genogram and write a paper about our family. Do you know what a genogram is? It’s like a family tree, but it charts and tracks dysfunction. The purpose behind them is that they almost always reveal hidden and shocking patterns of generational dysfunction. And through working them out and looking at them in visual form, you begin to understand why people in your family act the way that they do. Looking at our story—and our history—helps us to understand who we are, where we come from, and where we’re going.

So, why do we so often overlook what’s going on in Israel?

1) The issue is overwhelming—we are bombarded with news flashes, and it’s devastating and dizzying.

2) We don’t know all the details—who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who do we listen to?

3) It’s pretty depressing…I’m reading a book by Thomas Freidman, and he talks about the situation in Beirut in the 80’s. Frankly, I can’t imagine that it has changed all that much since then…But people basically just went about their days amidst unspeakable and unthinkable death and destruction. You literally just step over the dead body in the road and continue your conversation about what’s for dinner.

4) The history is all really confusing. Chaos and warfare has been going on there forever. Where do you even begin to gain an understanding of it all?

5) We don’t have time to keep ourselves informed. The situation is constantly changing, wars seem so commonplace they’re hardly even surprising anymore.

6) It’s pretty messy, and tough to sort through. Well, let’s look again at Jesus. He did not hover above the messiness of our world. He engaged it, He lived among the messiness, and He ultimately died under the messiness. We too need to engage the messiness…

Some resources for us to check out:

a) Christian Peacemaking Teams (www.cpt.org)

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) arose from a call in 1984 for Christians to devote the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war. Enlisting the whole church in an organized, nonviolent alternative to war, today CPT places violence-reduction teams in crisis situations and militarized areas around the world at the invitation of local peace and human rights workers. CPT embraces the vision of unarmed intervention waged by committed peacemakers ready to risk injury and death in bold attempts to transform lethal conflict through the nonviolent power of God’s truth and love.

Initiated by Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers with broad ecumenical participation, CPT’s ministry of Biblically-based and spiritually-centered peacemaking emphasizes creative public witness, nonviolent direct action and protection of human rights.

b) American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (www.aipac.org)

AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. Through information, education and experience, AIPAC professionals and members throughout the United States continue to work together to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong and remains vibrant long into the future.

c) Some authors to know about:

• Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians; Who are God’s People in the Middle East?

• Elias Chacour, Blood Brothers; We Belong to the Land…

• Thomas Freidman, From Beirut to Jerusalem

• Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land?

• Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism

• Naim Ateek, Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation


But….a word about books on the Middle East:

I recently had an email exchange with Gary Burge, author of “Whose Land? Whose Promise?” and I asked him if it was possible to get an objective understanding of the history of the Middle East. This was his response:

“Objective? The Middle East? No such thing. At some point, everyone looks at the suffering and injustice and makes a commitment to which side seems to own more of the misbehavior. And more often or not, other things (eschatology, predisposition to Israel, Islam) factor themselves in…At the end of the day you have to make a theological commitment that will shape your approach: Is Israel a theological reality or a political reality? That's where the conversation begins.”
--Gary Burge, author of Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians

Author Colin Chapman is not so bleak in his estimation of neutrality, and offers some wonderful theological frameworks that seem to offer much hope and promise for the future of the conflict.

So while I certainly do not have all of the answers, and I doubt anyone does, I think this is an issue that deserves our attention and our prayer. I wish to leave you with a verse from the Psalms, and a harkening back to our call from Matthew to be peacemakers.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
‘May those who love you be secure.
May there be peace within your walls
and security within your citadels.’
For the sake of my brothers and friends,
I will say, ‘Peace be within you.’
For the sake of the house of the Lord our God,
I will seek your prosperity.”

Covenant Theology

On Monday night, I had the opportunity to go to a lecture by Colin Chapman, author of Whose Promised Land?: The Continuing Crisis over Israel and Palestine. After having been told by Gary Burge (another Middle East scholar) that objectivity with regard to the Middle East is impossible, I was pleasantly surprised at how unbiased Chapman's assessment of the situation was.

He started by reviewing a brief history of the region over the last 2000 years, during which he critiqued both sides for their actions at different points, and commended both sides for their actions at different points. He proceeded to suggest what he sees as possible routes which either side can take in the future. The last part of his lecture---which, for me, was by far the most exciting and hopeful aspect---was a proposal of a new theological lens through which to view the conflict, and the Middle East in general.

He critiqued both dispensational theology (a lens that has been used by many conservative Evangelicals, by which the U.S.'s prosperity is tied to the prosperity of Israel, and the establishment of the state of Israel has great theological and eschatological significance) and replacement theology (a lens which says that God's covenant with Israel was somehow nullified by the coming of Christ, such that the people of Israel hold relatively little continued significance in terms of the progressive course of salvation history).

What he offered instead is what he termed "covenant theology." As he described this fresh and very promising theological lens, much of what he said sounded like a verbatim application of the theology of NT Wright to the political arena. Covenant theology understands God's promises and prophecies of the Old Testament to be fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. (Along these lines, Wright talks about Christ having fulfilled and embodied the five great Old Testament portraits of God--Wisdom, Word, Spirit, Temple, Torah--thereby demonstrating the vivid lines of continuity between the God of the Old Testament and the divine Messiah. According to Wright, Christ's claiming to be one with Yahweh is the "blasphemy" which led to His crucixion. See Jesus and the Victory of God, or for a more accessible version, see chapter 5 in The Challenge of Jesus or http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm).

Messianic Jews believe that Jesus was the embodiment of the long-awaited Messiah, and covenant theology seems consistent by saying that just as the peace and justice and redemption that Christ brought was not brought via military or political victory, Christians today should not expect that the redemption of Israel is going to come through geographical or political advances. This lens frees us from assigning huge significance to the existence of the state of Israel and calls us to focus instead on bringing about the Kingdom of God in the way that Christ incarnated that very Kingdom.

For me, this is still a pretty significant mental shift. Until recently, I had always uncritically assumed that to be a Christian meant to support Israel, and to not support Israel was anti-Semitic. But given the fact that much of Israel is a secular reality, it seems that Israeli nationalism can trump faith in the same way that American (or any other) nationalism often supercedes or interferes with or unduly colors faith. Colin Chapman noted that, in his opinion, the root of the conflict in the Middle East is clashing nationalisms. Much of Christ's whole message is that we are not fighting against flesh and blood, but rather against spiritual realities and principalities.

Anti-Semitism throughout the centuries has been an enormous tragedy with horrific consequences, and we must be concerned with the continued safety and flourishing of the Jewish people. For me, this stance stems primarily from the notion that we are created as God's image-bearers and called to bring about God's reign on earth. God is a God of life, peace, and justice, and these are virtues that are scarcely seen in the midst of the continued atrocities in the Middle East. Our activity of promoting life, peace, and justice is a universal call, a call to stand up against death, unrest and injustice wherever it exists on earth, whether that be in Gaza or North Korea or Darfur or Los Angeles.

We need to be advocating for peace in the Middle East. We need to be seeking justice and promoting life. And we need to do these things in the footsteps of Christ our Messiah, and according to the teachings that He gave us. We need to prayerfully and diligently live out the Kingdom of God, to be ambassadors of a world order that points to the rule of God and not the domination of men. Through the power and guidance of the Spirit, the Church is called to be the light of the world in the same way that Christ was (see John 8:12 and Matthew 5:14). In the words of NT Wright, "The Spirit is given so that we will be for the world what Jesus was for Israel. Our task is not to repeat what Jesus did, but to implement his achievement. That is at the heart of Christian mission" (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/events/2005/inthechurch.cfm). We need to keep in mind the spiritual realm, the realm in which Jesus acheived His victory over darkness and death. As Christians, to uncritically support Israel in its ongoing fight for land seems to return to an overly literalistic interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, the same type of reading which has led and continues to lead many Jews to the conclusion that Jesus Christ could not possibly have been the Messiah.

Exclusion and Embrace

One of my theology professors at Yale, Miroslav Volf, wrote a book entitled "Exclusion and Embrace." He talks about the genocide in Croatia (his homeland), and the place of both exclusion and embrace in Christian forgiveness and reconciliation. Especially where violence or oppression has been committed, that wrong must be acknowledged, and denounced, in order for there to even be hope of true reconcilation. Forgiveness is not acting as though sins were never committed, but rather calling them out for what they are and trying to rebuild relationship with the awareness of brokenness and past hurts.

I feel like this concept took on a whole new meaning in my own life yesterday. Perhaps for the first time, I felt seriously excluded from a people group to which I have belonged (if even de facto) my entire life---the Jews. I mean, being a Christian and a Jew is never an easy rope to walk (to use the phraseology of Richard Mouw). In fact, the vast majority of Jews consider those who have accepted Christ as their Messiah to be anathema. (On a sidenote, it's always struck me as odd when people introduce Jewish Christians as those who "used to be" Jewish. As far as I know, in most cases, those two identity markers can--and often do--exist simultaneously. It's only in our modern context that they are radically separated. Shall we look at the disciples? And most of the early church?) For me, an underlying and often ignored thread in my life has been and will continue to be the inner-reconciliation of these two identities. While for most of my Christian life, the fact that I am Jewish has slid into the background. But more recently (as in the past few years), there has been a stronger impulse to draw that part out, and see how it interacts with the me that has developed largely in its absence. Part of what spurred on this desire to reconcile these two identities was when, about two years ago, my cousin Rachel decided to convert to Orthodox Judaism. For the first time in my life, I saw the richness of modern Judaism in a way that resembled the people of the Hebrew Bible, if even vaguely. When Rachel talked about what Judaism meant to her, it was a completely different story than I had ever heard from any Jew in my entire life.

Growing up in Lake Tahoe, the Jewish population was scant at best. My only exposure to Judaism was my parents high school and college friends who lived in Los Angeles, and their brand of Judaism was, to my perception, largely cultural and secular. My own extended family falls into this same category. I always saw Judaism in these peoples' lives as more of a cultural (and often even a status/class) marker than a religious identity. It was like being white-collar vs. those who were blue-collar, or like having the generations-old secret recipes for family-cherished meals. I hardly ever heard these people talk about God, except perhaps in the occasional expletive.

So for the first part of my life, that was Judaism. And then of course there was my mother, who was assigned the loving title of "The Hanukkah Lady" in my elementary school, where every year she would bake 350 sugar cookies in the shape of a Jewish star and frost them with blue icing and go into all the elementary school classrooms teaching about the miracle of Hanukkah. (Would this EVER fly today with the church and state stuff that's going on??). But even that seemed to be speaking of this distant God who happened to intervene at a specific point in time, and therefore still radically different from the God who I would come to know through Christ some years later.

But I digress....back to what happened yesterday. There is an organization called Birthright Israel which seeks to raise awareness about the situation of the Jewish people and the modern state of Israel. They sponsor trips for young Jews, offering them a free trip to Israel in order to educate them about the Jewish homeland and story. I have had a few friends attend these trips in the past, and they've had fantastic experiences. I talked with Rachel about participating in such a trip together two years ago, but her life took a different turn that did lead her to Israel, though not with Birthright, and not with me. She met and married an Orthodox Jewish man, a law professor at George Washington University and the University of Chicago, and is now expecting her first child any day.

I have recently felt the tug to go to Israel once again, in part spurred on my watching the movie Munich and having a renewed sense of sadness and burden for the Jewish people, the political situation in the Middle East, and the rift that exists between Jews and Christians worldwide. I began looking into the various trips offered by Birthright and came across the trip that seemed to be perfect for me---the dates worked with my schedule, and one of the perks of this particular trip is, besides getting to see the historic landmarks of Israel, there is an emphasis on Israel's political situation and the trip participants get the opportunity to meet with Israeli political leaders.

Well, to make a long story short(er), I had a conversation with a woman from this organization who was wonderfully helpful, and answered all variety of questions regarding the trip. Having debated about whether or not to even bring up the Christian factor, I carefully hedged the question by circumlocuting and finally getting around to ask whether any Jewish Christians ever attended Birthright trips. This nice woman's entire demeanor changed, and she bluntly responded, "No." Sensing the sudden awkwardness in the conversation and not quite knowing how to handle it, I quickly shifted the conversation back to other trip details, like the registration process. She proceeded to bring it back around to "that thing you mentioned about Christians." We had an uncomfortable interchange about what it means to identify as a Jew and whether or not I had "converted." She ended the conversation rather abruptly by saying, "I'll have to check up on this and get back to you." Well, she did. And she called me this morning to inform me that I am not eligible to go on the trip. Her manner was curt, and she bid me a good weekend and we hung up. And that was that.

So here I sit, a bit baffled at how, despite my generations-old Jewish roots and acute interest in Israel and especially the political situation there (which is indelibly tied to its religious and theological situation), I am ineligible to participate in a trip that is designated for young Jews who care about Israel. Jesus said, 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"

I didn't quite realize that He was referring to HIS OWN FAMILY--the people of God. Jesus is the stumbling block, the dividing line. And for Birthright Israel, Jesus' words in Matthew 10 appear to be wholly accurate. Apparently, Jesus is enough of a difference between myself and other potential Birthright travelers to provoke exclusion, not embrace.

Later in Matthew, Jesus laments the obstinacy and hard-heartedness of His beloved people. He cries out "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." When I read Jesus talking about Israel killing her prophets, I can't help but to see in my mind the Cross. Matthew 27 reads, "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'"

Will there ever be an "earthquake" large enough to cause the Jewish people to come to the same conclusion as the centurion? And how do we live in the meantime? Can the atrocities that have been committed against the Jewish people ever be forgiven? Must exclusion endure forever? Will there come a time when embrace is even a possibility? Oh, that we might even see seeds of this shift in our lifetime.

In the meantime, I invoke the words of the Psalmist:

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
'May those who love you be secure.
May there be peace within your walls
and security within your citadels.'
For the sake of my brothers and friends,
I will say, 'Peace be within you.'
For the sake of the house of the Lord our God,
I will seek your prosperity."

Objectivity?

Today I had a fascinating email exchange with Gary Burge, the author of "Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians." I asked him whether or not it was even possible to obtain an "objective" awareness of the issue. This was his response:

“Objective? The Middle East? No such thing. At some point, everyone looks at the suffering and injustice and makes a commitment to which side seems to own more of the misbehavior. And more often or not, other things (eschatology, predisposition to Israel, Islam) factor themselves in…At the end of the day you have to make a theological commitment that will shape your approach: Is Israel a theological reality or a political reality? That's where the conversation begins.”

Wow....I guess my modernist tendencies are facing the blunt realities of his-story...

Church and State dialogue

OK, so this has been a pretty intense email dialogue with my dad...I certainly don't claim to have this church-state stuff figured out, and this exchange has been a helpful forum to try to work some of these issues out. Comments are VERY welcome....

It all started with this email about legislation regarding homosexual rights that is being put forth by the State Congress of California....

What follows is the dialogue that ensued.



August 23, 2006

String of Anti-Family Bills Pending in California

The Washington Briefing - 2006 Values Voter Summit - September 22-24, 2006Your help needed to convince Gov. Schwarzenegger to wield the veto pen and preserve family values.

Dear Douglas,

Lawmakers bent on promoting homosexuality in the public schools have managed to advance four legislative items that seek to undermine the foundation of family values. Your action is needed to ensure Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes them all.

SB 1437, which could wind up on Schwarzenegger's desk shortly, requires that textbooks and curriculum reflect the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in a positive light.

Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, said it goes beyond just the normalization of homosexuality — it would teach that people are born gay.

"This bill clearly attempts to enforce the homosexual lifestyle as normal and as immutable as race or color," he said.

American Family Filter - Protect your children from trash on the Internet. Spearheaded by openly gay Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the bill passed the state Senate in May. Despite the fact that Schwarzenegger immediately announced he would veto the bill if it reached his desk, the state Assembly passed the bill 46 -31 Monday.

SB 1441, which grants special protections to homosexuals, has passed both houses of the Legislature and now awaits either Schwarzenegger's signature or his veto.

If passed, the law would forbid any organization that receives government funding from portraying homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in a negative light. Experts say such a measure would create conflict between church and the state because it would require faith-based organizations — should they wish to remain eligible for certain funds — to contradict their deeply held beliefs.

Another bill, AB 1056, has passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate. It could come up for a vote by the end of the week.

The bill would create and allocate special funds for a Tolerance Education Pilot Program to promote learning about "tolerance and intergroup relations." This will include tolerance for "actual or perceived gender." The training would be included within the social-science curriculum frameworks and would teach tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle.

And then there's AB 606, which has also passed the Assembly and could also get a Senate floor vote this week.

The bill requires local school districts to "establish and publicize an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on specified characteristics, including, but not limited to, actual or perceived gender identity and sexual orientation."

What eventually happens in the Legislature won't just affect California, either. Many states select textbooks that have come through the filters of California and other Legislatures look to California law as a template.

Take Action

Tell Gov. Schwarzenegger, politely but firmly, to veto all four of these anti-family bills when and if they reach his desk.


J: Call me a liberal....but what good is it going to do to restrict the rights of human beings because they are homosexual?

D: Who said anything about restrict? Be careful in your interpretation of these special, new "rights" being bestowed on this group of deviants.

Why should they have broader rights than you and me? Should they be a "protected class?" A minority? Like the disabled or handicapped (maybe there should be an equal number of rainbow-colored parking places next to the handicapped spaces)? Should perverse lifestyle choices gain protected class status now? Should a "trans-gender" individual be rewarded with protected class status? Do you want your children indoctrinated at school (in contradiction to what he/she is learning from you the parent, and your church, and your bible) to believe that homosexuality and trans-gender surgery is "normative" and "special" and "blessed?"

You should teach your children to love and pray for the perverse and depraved, but should you be forced to be perceived by your child as the odd-man-out and deviant because of the very biblical values you are attempting to instill? That is the direction we're headed. By the time you have children you will be weirdo. You will be persecuted for your belief in God and your biblical worldviews.

Every fallen empire in history embraced all sorts of perversions near its fall. From homosexuality, to the "games" which threw humans in with lions to enjoy the "sport" of watching them be eaten, to glutony, to abuse of power and wealth, to blurring the lines between right and wrong followed by turning the two upside down. The same factions today that are promoting these social agendas are leading the attacks against God Himself, crosses (like in San Diego), displays of the ten commandments in public places, God's mention in the Pledge, "In God we Trust" on buildings and currencies, etc., etc. Couple the eradication of God from our society through political correctness and brazen promotion of these "alternative" lifestyles, and judicial activism, and you will certainly dive head first into relativistic, post modern society in which there is no good and evil, no right and wrong and supreme humanism and selfishness. What a marvelous job this faction has done to shift the far left into the center during the past 50 years. Kudos to them.

Personally, I think the battle is lost until Jesus returns. The movement is too pervasive, and the tiny minority of 50 years ago is now the majority.

Your comments?

J: Who says that we are all better off if America remains the "empire" that it has become? Throughout church history, the church has always flourished MOST when it is most persecuted. I don't think that preserving the pseudo-religiousity or morality of Christianity in our maistream politics is necessarily the God-honoring way to go. You know that I continue to struggle with the pacifism thing, but let's just pretend that Jesus did make a pretty strong case against violence, and we are to follow His lead. Then Bush is presenting a double-ethic by using his Christian morality both to strengthen family values and to obliterate other human beings.

If most of the nation happens to be for an increase in the rights of homosexuals, then as a DEMOCRACY, it is the government's job to obey their wishes. I don't think that says anything about the strength or weakness of the church, I think it is an age-old reminder about the depravity of all humanity----good ol' Genesis 3. Even more of a reason why Christians need to be working on the strength within their own families, and searching out alternative educational options if they don't want their children to hear all sides of the story. Personally, going to Yale and hearing lots of wackadoo theology and politics, I found it rather enlightening to see firsthand how BANKRUPT most of those ideas were. Perhaps it's valuable for people to hear all sides, only then to discover that Christianity makes me most sense after all.

I just don't think that it's necessarily the government's job to regulate morality. If the majority of the nation or any jurisdiction wants society to look a certain way, isn't it the government's job to listen to them? Maybe America needs to follow a little bit more in the steps of Scandinavian countries, for exanple, and most of Western Europe, which now has sub-replacement population growth rates in order to see where all of this is headed. Maybe we need to see first-hand that the decisions we are making as a nation, despite so much "culture of life" rhetoric, are actually anti-life. But I'm not going to be afraid of legislation that doesn't perfectly reflect Christian values. If I wanted Christian legislation, I would become Amish and create a separate society. We elected a president who was a Christian, and now we're seeing how that plays out----by his policy decisions and the extent to which they are informed by his Christianity. We elected A DEMOCRAT, probably NON-CHRISTIAN governor, and it's all well and good to try to lobby that he "protect family values," but I'm not going to be overly surprised if some of this legislation passes. And I think that if it does, it will give the CHURCH even more of an opportunity to respond and figure out how it wants posterity to be raised.

Thoughts?

D: under current academic policy under the liberal agenda, they CANNOT hear all sides of the story. only the theory of evolution by Darwin (as fact I might add), but NOT creationism or intelligent design (as it is called these days). don't be deceived to believe education is fair and balanced in the classroom. same with homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles, that will now be taught as normative, but teachers cannot teach about lifestyles advocated in the bible.

check out the amoral lifestyles of these countries before you use them as examples that should be held up as societal icons. deviant lifestyles run rampant here. they are macrocosms of the "anything goes" lifestyle of san francisco.

wasn't our country founded on Christian principals and values? What do you see as demonstrations of improving morals and values in the US over the past 200 years? Can you see the parellel between the elimination of Judeo-Christian values over the past 200 years and the devolution of any moral fiber at all?

Arnold ran as a Republican.

you must personalize these issues and place yourself in the position of a parent of an 7 and 9 year old in 2006. what do you want your children exposed to in public school? what do you want textbooks to include or exclude? what value system do you want them learning from, the deviant? or the Godly? Trust me when I tell you that swimming upstream and against the current in all facets of daily life including school will be repugnant to you one day. Trust me when I tell you that your core values and convictions will no longer waver. Uncertainty will melt into rock-solid certainty when your child comes home at 6 or 7 yrs old and questions your biblical values because the teacher said she is a bisexual woman (or man) and how wonderful it is and how students can be expelled for expressing any viewpoint opposing homosexual, bisexual or transgender lifestyles.

this is important for you to understand. you may be as uncertain and struggle all you want now, but when it comes to the values your children embrace one day...your struggle will change directions...radically.

one more point to ponder. just 3 years ago the debate revolved around gay and lesbian rights exclusively, to now the inclusion of bisexual and transgender "rights" and "discrimination." Think about it Jen, there is an incredibly focused, brilliant and organized conspiracy bringing in ANY deviant lifestyle into the ranks of the "oppressed." In just 3 short years! you can relate to how centrist wacky agendas become as political correctness and satan's thread weaves its way through society. thoughts?

J: that's my whole point---maybe only after following in the footsteps of those countries will we see the FRUIT that comes from such choices

D: i don't know about you, but i don't want a government that sticks its finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, then govern by popularity. doesn't someone/some body have to define right and wrong? soon, beastiality and even more perverse "orientations" (today's buzzword for permissable deviant behaviors) will be included in the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual movement and the government you seem to advocate for will continue to legitimize and embrace these "oppressed" people with more and more "rights." Don't think it can't happen...its already happening with the inclusion of bisexuals and transsexuals as "mainstream" and "victims" of "discrimination" in the same category as gay/lesbians in the blink of an eye. 20 years ago the term "gay" didn't exist. it was homosexual man or lesbian woman, period. "gay" was brought in to the modern glossary just like "orientation," more recently to promote and soften the immorality of this agenda. as disgusting and perverse as you might consider beastiality today, in 20 years it may be protected and included in the umbrella of "rights" that you and I don't even enjoy under the new legislation, legislated by the children of today's legislators.

J: do you think it is the government's right to regulate morality?

what do we gain by having our government make legislation that reflects Christian values? is it the government's job to tell people how they ought to live, or is it the church's job to teach a way of life that is contrary to other suggested ways of life? as i said before, history shows that the church flourished most under times of its most severe persecution.....perpetuating this facade of pseudo-morality in our country (aka morality not grounded on the principles of Christ) conveniently masks the fact that there is actually a radical difference between doing right because it's what God intends, and doing right because the government will punish you if you don't. I don't necessarily think it's beneficial for the church if those two things are conflated. Then you end up with secular moralists who don't "need" God, because they think they are living the optimal life without him---this is EXACTLY the story of my friend Zach. It is only by seeing that godless morality breaks down that he is finally seeing the difference between Christians and non-Christians. Point being, perhaps the larger the divide between Christians and the rest of society, the more people will begin to see the POWER AND FRUIT of the Christian way of life. I also don't see how it reflects the love of Christ to ostracize "sinners," ie those choosing alternate lifestyles. Yes, yes, I know----love the sinner, hate the sin. But how exactly are we loving the sinners? If they feel like Christians are pushing an agenda that makes them feel marginalized and unaccepted/unlovable, what then will draw them to the love of Christ?

Perhaps we need to revisit the proper and improper ovelaps between church and state. It seems curious that the country has seldom had a non-Christian president (whatever that means), and yet how much of the American populus actually believes in Jesus? It's like this rule or norm that the President must be a Christian, but not because anyone actually cares what that means. People want to go on and live their lives, and they want the government to do what is best for them. And it seems that all of this allows the church to quietly slip into the background, letting the state do what it should be doing----presenting a radical alternative to the way of the world. And yet, because that isn't the state's job, the radicality of who Jesus is gets lost in translation, and homosexuals, for example, end up with this image of God as wrathful judge. If the church is going to let the state say who God is, it better be prepared for some corrupted theology...

Where it began

yeah. so it's kind of amazing that i'm not sleeping right now. especially considering that it's finals week.

but there's just too much to say, think, write, and journalling is too slow.

i just started reading velvet elvis by rob bell, and my mind is swirling. bell talks about saying to God, "i can't believe i get to live this life," and i wonder what about life makes me think that....a good question....one i hope to continue to explore. and whatever answer i come up with, i want to do those things. more.

reading velvet elvis makes me feel excited about rob bell in the way i feel excited about jodie foster and jonathan edwards and george bush----we share a piece of our story. sometimes i think that is what life is about---sharing a piece of our stories.

it's kinda funny that i would choose to start a blog tonite, for a number of reasons. first, as i like to say, i live under a rock. to be honest, i'm not even sure that i know what a blog is. but tonite i spend time with a fabulous friend, and she started a blog. so a part of me is copying her by doing this, but i think i'm ok with that. and i hope she is too.

thought of the day: as it turns out, God doesn't give up on us, even when we seemingly give up on Him. AMAZING.

quote of the day: "LA has a way of sucking the heart out of film-making....and the souls out of its citizens" (or something like that) ---Lillian Parker

idea of the day: social trinitarianism.....how a familial model and a psychological model both fall radically short....and i think that's the point

high of the day: being inspired to write.

low of the day: reading over a paper on the Trinity i've been working on for weeks and thinking, "this doesn't make any sense....."

last thought of the day: will i actually keep up with this blogging thing?