December 2010 Archives
December 28 is one of the liturgical dates for the feat day of the innocents (others are December 27 and 29). This marks the story of Herod killing infants in order to end the threat of "the newborn king" (Jesus) as told in the second chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew:
Can it be only to fulfill the prophecy?
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the idea of killing an infant Jesus nor any other infants who may end up as collateral damage in Herod's insecurity. But if the point of Jesus is the crucifixion, we have no need for the life of Jesus, and especially not the ministry of Jesus.
The story of the massacre of the innocents tells us that Jesus had something to do instead of, or in addition to, dying. When we focus merely on the death, or even the death and resurrection, of Jesus, we miss the point of Jesus' life.
And if there is a point to Jesus surviving to adulthood, and to His healing the sick, and his preaching justice for the poor and oppressed, then there is probably a point to our living to adulthood as well. We may not see it - sometimes we may despair that there is such a point - but I believe there is a reason why we're here.
On this day, I will mourn those who die as infants - in first century Palestine and in the entire world in the twenty first century - due to senseless violence, hunger, and neglect. I will be grateful that I have been spared, and seek out what my ministry - my reason for surviving to adulthood - may be. I will look at the example of Jesus, who was not merely faithful in dying, but was faithful in living as well. I will examine who I serve, and make corrections as best I can.
16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men,* he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.* 17Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:Jesus escapes this slaughter because his parents had been warned:
18 'A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.' (NRSV)
But this makes me wonder: if the point of Jesus' birth is substitutionary atonement, that is:
13 Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' 14Then Joseph* got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, (NRSV)
- God dies as an infinite payment for the sins of finite humans against an infinite God, or
- A perfect human (Jesus) dies as payment for the sins of a perfect human (Adam), or
- Jesus dies to trick Satan into taking a blameless person, who he can't keep, and thereby rescuing all who Satan has taken, or
- any number of other schemes in which Jesus dies for our sins
Can it be only to fulfill the prophecy?
Isn't prophecy merely to tell of the times (or sometimes the future), rather than for events to make prophecy true? Surely this could have been omitted from prophecy and Jesus killed with the rest of the children.
15and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I have called my son.'
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the idea of killing an infant Jesus nor any other infants who may end up as collateral damage in Herod's insecurity. But if the point of Jesus is the crucifixion, we have no need for the life of Jesus, and especially not the ministry of Jesus.
The story of the massacre of the innocents tells us that Jesus had something to do instead of, or in addition to, dying. When we focus merely on the death, or even the death and resurrection, of Jesus, we miss the point of Jesus' life.
And if there is a point to Jesus surviving to adulthood, and to His healing the sick, and his preaching justice for the poor and oppressed, then there is probably a point to our living to adulthood as well. We may not see it - sometimes we may despair that there is such a point - but I believe there is a reason why we're here.
On this day, I will mourn those who die as infants - in first century Palestine and in the entire world in the twenty first century - due to senseless violence, hunger, and neglect. I will be grateful that I have been spared, and seek out what my ministry - my reason for surviving to adulthood - may be. I will look at the example of Jesus, who was not merely faithful in dying, but was faithful in living as well. I will examine who I serve, and make corrections as best I can.
As Christmas approaches, we see images of the infant Jesus everywhere. We hear and read "Jesus is the reason for the season". And why not? Who doesn't love a cute baby who never cries:
We also observe Good Friday, which people like my professor and friend Ted Jennings consider the most important Holy Day in the Christian Calendar. This marks the suffering and death of Jesus. I won't go so far as to say Christians like this image (although some do seem to have an affection for the sacrifice), but it's one with which we've grown somewhat comfortable.
We do celebrate Easter, although not with the commercial fervor with which we mark the traditional birthday of Jesus. And why not? A risen Son of God is something to celebrate indeed.
Most of us don't mark the ascension of Jesus. Do you know when it is? I had to look it up. It's forty days after Easter.
What do all these ideas of Jesus have in common? They're non-threatening.
Baby Jesus doesn't speak (and, to many minds, doesn't even cry) and is lying in a manger - no worries there. Dying Jesus is nailed to a cross - He can't come after you.
The Risen Jesus does walk and talk, but doesn't hang around long. He makes a brief appearance with Mary of Magdala (and various other people depending on which Gospel you're reading) in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. He shows up on the road to Emmaus in Mark 16 and Luke 24, but doesn't stay for the whole walk. And he makes a brief dinner appearance in Luke 24 and John 20. This is a Jesus who won't bother you for long
Of course, we have the ascended Jesus now, who is safely in Heaven, far away from us.
And we do sometimes talk about Jesus' ministry, but usually we talk about the miracles.
We don't, however, want to be confronted by the social activist Jesus. We certainly don't observe a holiday for social activist Jesus.
Social activist Jesus shakes up the social order. He tells a rich young man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. That makes us anxious, because we (and I am definitely including myself here) aren't really excited about giving up our security and comfort to help others.
And when Jesus performs miracles, there's usually another aspect that's missed.
Sure, there's the turning water into wine at Cana, but that's just being a good Jewish boy and obeying his mom. And there's walking on water, and telling people where to catch fish. There's also plucking a coin out of the mouth of a fish, but that starts to look like contemporary illusionists.
But Jesus performs healing miracles, and what a lot of people miss is that these miracles usually change the status of a person in society.
Afflicted by demons? Demons driven out and person is back among society. Could we do the same for the mentally ill?
Deaf or blind? Healed and the person is back among the townspeople. Could we also remove barriers that hold back those without hearing or sight?
Unclean due to leprosy or hemorrhage? Healed and the person is touchable again. Can we reach out with human touch to people with AIDS and other diseases?
One of my favorites is the paralyzed man at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26). The place is so packed that no one else can get in, so the man's friends cut a hole in the roof and lower him in to Jesus. Here Jesus shows what he's up to, and it's where people really get upset: Jesus tells the man "your sins are forgiven". The religious leaders are aghast - no one can forgive sin but God.
But what are we really talking about here?
Remember that Jesus was asked, regarding the man born blind, whose sin was the cause - the man's or his parents. In first century Palestine, many believed that physical issues were due to sin. But sin also kept people out of society. When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he was overruling the judgment that the man must be kept out of society because he was paralyzed.
After the leaders took such offense, Jesus healed the man's paralysis - not so much so that the man could walk (which was good) or so he could reenter society (which Jesus had already conferred on him), but because society could not get the idea that a paralyzed man belonged in society.
So what is social activist Jesus about? He threatens the status quo. He works toward dismantling the social structures that keep people in their places. He redistributes wealth and power from those who have much to those who have little.
I want a social activist Jesus holiday. Let's pick a date and start working on the celebration.
"The little Lord Jesus no crying he makes" - Away in a MangerThere are some, like my friends and former classmates Tom Ryberg and David Weasley, who take issue with this idea of a silent infant, but that's an argument for another time. My point here is that we like the idea of a quiet, peaceful baby, and how much better if it's the Son of God!
"Holy Infant so tender and mild" - Silent Night
We also observe Good Friday, which people like my professor and friend Ted Jennings consider the most important Holy Day in the Christian Calendar. This marks the suffering and death of Jesus. I won't go so far as to say Christians like this image (although some do seem to have an affection for the sacrifice), but it's one with which we've grown somewhat comfortable.
We do celebrate Easter, although not with the commercial fervor with which we mark the traditional birthday of Jesus. And why not? A risen Son of God is something to celebrate indeed.
Most of us don't mark the ascension of Jesus. Do you know when it is? I had to look it up. It's forty days after Easter.
What do all these ideas of Jesus have in common? They're non-threatening.
Baby Jesus doesn't speak (and, to many minds, doesn't even cry) and is lying in a manger - no worries there. Dying Jesus is nailed to a cross - He can't come after you.
The Risen Jesus does walk and talk, but doesn't hang around long. He makes a brief appearance with Mary of Magdala (and various other people depending on which Gospel you're reading) in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. He shows up on the road to Emmaus in Mark 16 and Luke 24, but doesn't stay for the whole walk. And he makes a brief dinner appearance in Luke 24 and John 20. This is a Jesus who won't bother you for long
Of course, we have the ascended Jesus now, who is safely in Heaven, far away from us.
And we do sometimes talk about Jesus' ministry, but usually we talk about the miracles.
We don't, however, want to be confronted by the social activist Jesus. We certainly don't observe a holiday for social activist Jesus.
Social activist Jesus shakes up the social order. He tells a rich young man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. That makes us anxious, because we (and I am definitely including myself here) aren't really excited about giving up our security and comfort to help others.
And when Jesus performs miracles, there's usually another aspect that's missed.
Sure, there's the turning water into wine at Cana, but that's just being a good Jewish boy and obeying his mom. And there's walking on water, and telling people where to catch fish. There's also plucking a coin out of the mouth of a fish, but that starts to look like contemporary illusionists.
But Jesus performs healing miracles, and what a lot of people miss is that these miracles usually change the status of a person in society.
Afflicted by demons? Demons driven out and person is back among society. Could we do the same for the mentally ill?
Deaf or blind? Healed and the person is back among the townspeople. Could we also remove barriers that hold back those without hearing or sight?
Unclean due to leprosy or hemorrhage? Healed and the person is touchable again. Can we reach out with human touch to people with AIDS and other diseases?
One of my favorites is the paralyzed man at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26). The place is so packed that no one else can get in, so the man's friends cut a hole in the roof and lower him in to Jesus. Here Jesus shows what he's up to, and it's where people really get upset: Jesus tells the man "your sins are forgiven". The religious leaders are aghast - no one can forgive sin but God.
But what are we really talking about here?
Remember that Jesus was asked, regarding the man born blind, whose sin was the cause - the man's or his parents. In first century Palestine, many believed that physical issues were due to sin. But sin also kept people out of society. When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he was overruling the judgment that the man must be kept out of society because he was paralyzed.
After the leaders took such offense, Jesus healed the man's paralysis - not so much so that the man could walk (which was good) or so he could reenter society (which Jesus had already conferred on him), but because society could not get the idea that a paralyzed man belonged in society.
So what is social activist Jesus about? He threatens the status quo. He works toward dismantling the social structures that keep people in their places. He redistributes wealth and power from those who have much to those who have little.
I want a social activist Jesus holiday. Let's pick a date and start working on the celebration.
A lot of my friends are asking "WHAT?"
But I am advocating for a plan that has already been presented and gives the maximum benefit only to those who have $250,000 or more in taxable wages.
If you have a gross income of only $250,000, you won't get the maximum benefit. This is because your taxable income will be lower: due to exemptions for yourself and your dependents, head of household adjustments, the standard or your itemized deductions (which can include health care, the mortgage interest on your home(s), cost of your au pair or nanny, etc.). No, after you take all your deductions, you have to still have at least $250,000 in taxable earnings to get the greatest benefit.
The plan I'm talking about is the one put forward by President Obama.
Now everyone is asking "WHAT??!!!"
Here's why Obama's plan provides the greatest benefit to those who have a quarter million dollars or more in taxable income:
The tax cut is a percentage on the first $250,000 of taxable income. If you have only $20,000 in taxable income, your tax break is a percentage of $20,000. If you have $250,000 or more in taxable income, you get the maximum dollar amount of tax break.
Those who argue for a tax cut on compensation for income above $250,000 are arguing for an additional tax cut that only applies to the 2% of Americans who A) receive more than that in wages and B) haven't managed to find enough tax shelters to hide it all.
I understand that times are tough, but they're not tougher for people in the upper 2% of income than they are for the rest of us.
But I am advocating for a plan that has already been presented and gives the maximum benefit only to those who have $250,000 or more in taxable wages.
If you have a gross income of only $250,000, you won't get the maximum benefit. This is because your taxable income will be lower: due to exemptions for yourself and your dependents, head of household adjustments, the standard or your itemized deductions (which can include health care, the mortgage interest on your home(s), cost of your au pair or nanny, etc.). No, after you take all your deductions, you have to still have at least $250,000 in taxable earnings to get the greatest benefit.
The plan I'm talking about is the one put forward by President Obama.
Now everyone is asking "WHAT??!!!"
Here's why Obama's plan provides the greatest benefit to those who have a quarter million dollars or more in taxable income:
The tax cut is a percentage on the first $250,000 of taxable income. If you have only $20,000 in taxable income, your tax break is a percentage of $20,000. If you have $250,000 or more in taxable income, you get the maximum dollar amount of tax break.
Those who argue for a tax cut on compensation for income above $250,000 are arguing for an additional tax cut that only applies to the 2% of Americans who A) receive more than that in wages and B) haven't managed to find enough tax shelters to hide it all.
I understand that times are tough, but they're not tougher for people in the upper 2% of income than they are for the rest of us.
