tribalism

Well, well, well…

/ JJS / 9 Comments

The Samaritan Woman at the Well – Annibale Carracci

Today’s readings:
Psalms 19; 150, Isaiah 43:14-44:5, Hebrews 6:17-7:10, John 4:27-42

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., said “the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.” Many factors contribute to this phenomenon, including our natural inclination to congregate with people we believe are like ourselves. Almost instinctively we make religious, political, and cultural distinctions. Sometimes we intentionally gravitate toward groups that affirm our beliefs, but more often than not we’re happy to stay put where fate planted us. There is nothing necessarily wrong with being part of a group, but problems start when we are too eager to define who is not in the group.

Jesus was notorious for ignoring such boundaries. Like many famous rivalries, the bitter one between Jews and Samaritans was between relatives. Both tribes claimed a common ancestor in Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham and Sarah. By Jesus’ time they had nothing to do with each other. When Jesus ignored this history of enmity and spoke with a Samaritan woman at a well, they had a frank conversation that left her wondering if he might be the messiah. When she told her story to her people, they invited Jesus to stay with them and he visited for two days. Upon his departure, many followed him because they recognized the truth in his teachings.

Who are our Samaritans? People we refuse to talk to because they are too different from us? People who are similar in almost all ways except the one we can’t bring ourselves to be flexible about? Or people we can just ignore because our lives are structured in such a way that we never encounter them?

If we are to follow Jesus, we have to follow him into both friendly and unfriendly territories. We must do our best to accept people as Christ did: across ethnic divides, up and down the economic ladder, beyond humanly imposed doctrine. We must welcome rivals into our group, and we must be prepared to be welcomed by our enemies.

A well is a place that draws together people who have a common need. If we can’t find one, let’s start digging.

Comfort: Christ’s family is not defined by anything or anyone but Christ.

Challenge: Everyone is someone’s “Samaritan.”Be honest with yourself about who yours might be, and whose you might be.

Prayer: God of all creation, teach me to love my neighbors even when we don’t like each other. Amen.

Discussion: Could you be somebody’s Samaritan? If so, whose?

Join the discussion! If you enjoyed this post, feel free to join an extended discussion as part of the C+C Facebook group. You’ll  have the opportunity to share your thoughts with some lovely people. Or feel free to comment here on WordPress, or even re-blog – the more the merrier!

Questions Beyond Borders

/ JJS / Leave a comment

Chain Link Border Fence

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post that started about the Handmaid’s Tale and ended up a reaction to the Attorney General using Romans 13 to justify the zero-tolerance policy implemented on our southern border, and by extension its effective separation of children from their parents. I don’t get a lot of comments on my blog (read into that what you will), but I did get a private Facebook message from someone.

This person – a childhood neighbor, fellow Christian, lover of beauty and creativity, and in my humble estimation an all-around good and generous egg – asked my thoughts on a couple questions.

  • What do think would happen if hundreds of thousands of Americans decided to enter some other country without “papers” (for lack of a better word)?
  • What if a child born in the United States (parents from another country) decided to leave the USA and take up residence in the Country of his or her parents?

These questions are sincere and important and immediately sent my mind spinning in a dozen directions. I want to answer (and expound on) them sincerely and respectfully. I am grateful to her for thoughtful engagement.

WITHOUT PAPERS

The author of The Handmaid’s Tale – the source material for the television series which was the genesis of my original sidetracked post – actually does tackle the idea of a sudden onslaught of refugees from the (former) United States into Canada. The Canadians accept anyone who can make it across the border. The hope of these refugees is to eventually to reclaim and resettle to their homes, but there is no indication that will be soon. However the question was what do I think would happen. Try as I might I can’t come to a more solid answer than … it depends.

But on what?

First, it depends on the destination country.

Different nations have different philosophies and policies around immigration, refugees, and asylum. The legal distinction among those classes is important. Germany, for instance, doesn’t admit just anyone outside the European Union as a migrant for economic or personal reasons, but it has been famously accepting millions of refugees fleeing conflict in the Middle East. Italy, on the other hand, has been less willing to accept such refugees. Both countries are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention – as is the United States, but only per amendments as of the 1967 Protocol which actually expands the definition of refugee – but all interpret their corresponding responsibilities differently.

Second, it would depend on the reason.

The United States is a wealthy nation offering more economic and personal security than most countries typically known for displaced refugees. Were that to change (a la The Handmaid’s Tale) due to natural disaster, civil war, economic collapse, or other circumstances, and if such changes created groups of people who were endangered with no recourse through the national government, U.S. refugees would probably be received as sympathetically as other refugees. But – and this is a big but – the last couple centuries of history of the U.S. as an extension of Western European development is that of the colonizer far more than of the oppressed. Native Americans brought to the brink of extinction, enslaved African Americans, and Japanese Americans interned during World War II would have certainly qualified as refugees from the United States under the definition of the Refugee Convention, but when we picture the possibility of “Americans” approaching foreign borders is that really who we’re thinking of? Under present circumstances, an approaching horde of Americans of Western European descent seems more likely to be seizing than fleeing. God forbid our fortune changes, but unless it does, people leaving the United States in droves is a far different scenario than people fleeing countries which have descended into violent narco-states ruled by murderous gangs.

Third, and this may seem like part of the first but I think it’s important enough to warrant its own consideration – what has been the extralegal, “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” history between the United States and the country in question?

Has it recently changed? For decades the U.S. has largely looked the other way when migrants from Mexico and other nations provided cheap labor to shore up industries like construction, hospitality and agriculture because no one wants to pay fifteen dollars per pound for apples picked at the legal minimum wage. As immigration authorities clamp down on such labor, many farmers are struggling to deal with labor shortages. This relationship has been symbiotic for many years. It hasn’t changed because of economics or danger, but because of politics. It seems to me the concern about “the illegals” has grown proportionately not with the number of Mexicans immigrating to the U.S. (the net is actually negative), but with the so-called “browning of America” – the increasingly large portion of legal, permanent (and native) Latinx residents as compared to whites.

It’d be disingenuous not to note the number of non-Mexican Latinx immigrants is increasing, but a large portion of those are seeking refugee or asylee status. If United States residents started migrating in large numbers to a country where we had been welcomed under the table for years and that country experienced an economic downturn, I expect we’d be far less welcome than we were when the country needed us to continue its flow of cheap products. Even if we weren’t taking the jobs people wanted, we’d be scapegoats. Xenophobia is ever only waiting for the right conditions to reveal itself. Populist movements in the U.S. and Europe are largely about the fear of foreigners changing the cultural and literal complexion of a nation.

BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM

I don’t necessarily have to speculate about answers to the second question. There are at least a dozen countries that will grant you citizenship if you can prove your parents (and in some cases grandparents) were born as citizens of that country. Other nations would treat you as they treated anyone else who wanted to migrate.

To me, the more interesting part of the question is how we think of borders.

Particularly the borders of the United States. When Europeans began settling North America, the continent was already populated with people and their established territories. Borders didn’t seem to matter much to us as we acquired land through war and genocide. When we annexed Texas and invaded Mexico to expand into territory they would not willingly cede to us, we weren’t too worried about the sovereignty of borders. Until 1882 – nearly a century after the establishment of the US Constitution – there were no immigration laws. There were requirements for citizenship and naturalization, but when we were expanding westward and needed labor, whether people crossed our borders didn’t seem to matter much to us. The first U.S. immigration law – the Chinese Exclusion Act – was not because we wanted the limit the total number of immigrants, but because of the fear of the “Yellow Peril” – that is, Chinese people overwhelming our European heritage – as if somehow Europeans were more deserving of the land we’d stolen than were the Chinese. Other groups were excluded for various reasons, including health, literacy, and anarchist political activity. But we weren’t so worried about borders: we were worried about non-white people.

It wasn’t until 1921 – 134 years after the establishment of the nation – that we began instituting immigration quotas which roughly resembled the ethnic composition of the country at the time. (As an aside, that means anyone claiming their family immigrated “legally” before that time is making a moot point; everyone but Asians were allowed in through established ports of entry).

So what changed during those years?

There are many reasons for secure borders, but those didn’t change. What did change was that we outgrew the sense that we were in a state of constant expansion and unlimited resources. Stretched from coast to coast, bound on the North and South, we realized our limits of geography and resources and decided we didn’t want to share them with just anybody who showed up on the continent.

We basically shut down immigration during the Great Depression, and actually coerced hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens to repatriate to Mexico. Not the Irish or Germans or English mind you – only the people who were native and who’s ancestors were here before the Europeans and just happened to involuntarily end up on our side of the border after the Mexican-American war.

People wanting to come to America were no longer seen as fellow pioneers in the Great American Experiment, but as threats. The quality of people outside our borders had not changed, but our jealousy of our resources had. Outside a slight concession to refugee resettlement in the 1980s, the focus of our immigration policy has been on maintaining employment and ethnic mix.

Now that we’ve got ours, borders matter to us.

Of course the economy is of national concern, but we need immigrants to maintain the economy. That makes the deciding factor ethnicity. There are plenty of successful people from countries which are mostly non-white, but in my experience proponents of “merit-based” systems rarely use them as examples, and are instead quick to point to mostly wealthy white countries which people have little desire to leave anyway. Our quotas and other immigration policies make implicit judgments about worthiness based on where people are from. Our talk of “merit-based” immigration is also disingenuous to the American ideal: no longer are we here for the huddled masses yearning to breathe free… but come on in if you’ve already made it big!

To me that doesn’t seem very “all men are created equal.”
It doesn’t seem very Christian.
It doesn’t seem very American Dream.

How many of us are here because our ancestors fled something?
How many wouldn’t make the cut today under the same circumstances?
How many railed against the discrimination and persecution they experienced here?
How are we more deserving of this stolen land than people facing the same situations?

THE QUESTION BEHIND THE QUESTIONS

Thinking about immigration as a matter of justice requires thinking about a much larger story than what is legal or illegal, convenient or inconvenient, or profitable or not profitable at this moment in history. Before I get to what I think is the big question behind the original two questions, I want to make a few things clear:

  • I don’t believe in lawless, open borders; I don’t personally know anyone who does.
  • I do believe we need to recognize the basic human dignity of everyone – not just citizens.
  • I don’t have a problem with prosecuting and deporting criminals.
  • I do have a problem with indefinitely separating and/or detaining children and families.

That last point shifted the focus of my prior blog post, which in turn raised the questions addressed in this one. My post was about exploiting scripture to defend the indefensible, and how that is neither conservative nor liberal but dangerously fundamentalist. I specifically didn’t advocate any policy, yet it raised policy-related questions for at least one reader. And the connecting thread between these questions was a deeper question…

What would other countries do?

My short answer to this question behind the questions is: I don’t think it matters.

I want us as a nation to do what is right and merciful, regardless of whether other nations would reciprocate. I’m not going to pretend I personally have the prescription for what is right, but it’s certainly something better than what we have now. As a Christian – as a human being – I can’t look at something as artificial and shifting and arbitrary and historically cruel as a border to restrict my compassion. I’m not advocating for some liberal theocracy (that would be hypocritical), but I think if Christianity does influence American politics it should be through values like mercy and sacrifice.

Make no mistake, I love my country. Heck, it allows me the freedom to write critiques of it, which in this world is no small thing!  But loving something doesn’t mean excusing everything it’s done or is doing. That’s flag-waving tribalism, which leads to stagnation, collapse, and – at its worst – genocide. We need to be vigilant about avoiding tribalism, about valuing or devaluing others based on their ethnicity, and about dehumanizing notions à la Manifest Destiny.

We may not have any more opportunities for geographic expansion, but we can still be pioneers of justice and dignity, even when it requires sacrifice. At its heart, that will be what keeps us a nation worth seeking.

Note: Regarding the history of U.S. immigration law, I drew heavily from this Wikipedia article. Yeah it’s Wiki, but they’re all sourced.

Why I Stopped Posting Political Memes

/ JJS / Leave a comment
batmeme

Meme by William Loring. Used with permission and encouragement.

Of course I have opinions on politics. They are many and they are strong. And like the opinions of most people, they are not in point-by-point synchronization with some monolithic party platform. They do not neatly fall to one side or the other of what is fast becoming a high and impenetrable wall on the border between Liberalstan and Conservatica. Partly because a) not every idea is at its core a partisan one no matter how hard we try to make it so, and b) thinking people realize the framework of any “-ism” gets increasingly bent and banged and in need of modification the more it is applied to actual living persons and events.

As a matter of fact, I am seriously considering backing away from any use of “liberal” or “conservative” to describe human beings as individuals or groups. Maybe ideas can be classified so, but the person who observes no exception to an ideology is hopefully as rare as I would like to believe. Tempted as I am to paint an entire population of voters with a broad red or blue brush, people I actually know don’t fit into those categories. Yet sadly, many of the same people who complain about being painted with that broad brush don’t see the hypocrisy in using it to paint “the opposition” with the enthusiasm of a majority shareholder in Sherwin Williams.

And that’s where the political memes come in. Once upon a time, in the heat of the last presidential election and slightly afterward, I found a certain satisfaction in sharing ones that seemed clever. Things changed. Maybe it was me; maybe it was the political conversation. I’m not naïve enough to think politics hasn’t always been ugly (and historically speaking even uglier than it is now). Until recently, however, bad ideas took a lot longer to travel. We couldn’t correspond instantly with everyone whose ideas we found offensive. Serious disagreement required effort and forethought. For that matter, so did agreement. I imagine Lincoln and Douglas could find a lot of common ground in being mutually horrified that days-long debate had been reduced to a couple hours of sound bites further reduced by commercial breaks. Twitter would have seemed like the apocalypse.

PREACHING TO THE PARTISAN CHOIR

Political memes as we understand them aren’t actually meant to communicate. We may think they are because the original concept of a meme was an idea that spread like a virus, but that kind of meme wasn’t intentionally created. Just as viruses spontaneously occurring in nature have been engineered and weaponized, so has the meme. Political memes are meant to whip up the base, not to inform the uninformed. Sure they often pretend to address the snowflakes or the fascists, but that’s so the sharer of the meme can get a little thrill out of feeling like he or she is sticking it to the (largely stereotyped if not outright imagined) opposition. If you were actually out to persuade someone, would you start by insulting their intelligence?

And for those who aren’t bright enough to understand why, the correct answer is “no.”

See how that made you feel?

DESIGNED TO DIVIDE

The virus comparison doesn’t stop with the rapid spread of memes. When we use our powers for good, viruses can be the source of life-saving vaccines. The political meme also inoculates us … but unfortunately the “disease” it protects us from is reason. See, to achieve reasonableness, we can’t just double-down on the ideas we already like. We have to weigh them against the ones that challenge us. Enough doses of the bad logic of political memes (we’ll get into that shortly) eventually trains us to think badly and call it smart. The (often poorly executed) “cleverness” of the political meme also reinforces the idea that sarcasm and irony are tools to be used by everyone. They’re not. Very few people can use them effectively as rhetorical devices.

Instead what we get most of the time is someone listening to a point of view not to fairly consider it, but to refute it in a way that gets in a zing. Doesn’t matter if said refutation actually makes sense, because it makes us feel briefly superior. And that’s what the memes are for: replacing reconciliation with the satisfaction of a cheap shot. Common ground is merely an obstacle.

LAPSE OF LOGIC

To me, one of the most troubling aspects of political memes is how easily they encourage people to forego critical thinking. We don’t want to fact-check anything that reinforces our existing opinions. And even if the facts are correct, how often are they used logically?

One popular style of meme is posting photos or quotes side-by-side to illustrate an implied contrast. For example, showing one politician reacting charitably to a disaster while another is one the golf course at allegedly the same time. Or maybe one person’s best words against another person’s worst. Photos and quotes have context, and in the digital age they are in infinite supply. Anyone can look bad or good for the split-second it takes to be exposed to a camera. Unrelated images and quotes tell us exactly nothing, but we’re willing to project a lot onto them.

Closely related is the meme that forgets we can do two things at the same time. Support good police officers and check bad ones?  Both things can – and should! – happen. Yet any critique of unnecessary police violence must mean you hate law enforcement, and any expression of support for law enforcement must make you a racist. At least according to the poor logic of political memes. Neither stance should be a partisan issue, but too often we express one as reaction and negation to the other because we equate challenging viewpoints with censorship and react disproportionately. Kids, we improve when we think critically about our own positions, not when we start shouting about who’s rubber and who’s glue.

Then there’s good old Double Standard, and its second cousin Whatabout. Notice how people’s definition of “too much time on the golf course” tends to change with the party of the president? Or for what the first lady wears? Or moral lapses? And when people criticize us for letting Double Standard sidle up to the table, we invite Whatabout for reinforcement. He’s really distracting, constantly yelling about how your guy (or gal) did the same or something worse. We don’t let our kids get away with two wrongs making a right, but we let our politicians slide if they’re on our team. How about this idea: both of them can be wrong, or maybe the offense wasn’t really an offense at all. Hypocrisy is the oxygen feeding the flames of illogic.

Finally we have the presumed offense. In politics, for every action there seems to be an equal and opposite preaction. What’s that mean? Think about school shootings. Anymore after one happens, the memes start flying about what we presume the other side is saying. We don’t even wait for them to actually say it. Fortunately for us, this puts them into the position of either confirming our preconceptions (if one is right mustn’t they all be right?) or defending their position. We win either way without ever having to actually engage people of different viewpoints. Almost anything that looks like policy debate on television is merely the preaction reaction. And what happens on Facebook should stay in Vegas.

Only when we return to logical thinking, instead of defensive memery and one-upsmanship, can we hope to actually communicate instead of shouting over each other. The danger of memes isn’t just the momentary reaction as we scroll by them on our timeline, it’s how they retrain us to see each other as opponents instead of companions.

IT’S NOT YOU, IT’S MEME

At this point some readers will undoubtedly think I’m telling them to stop posting political memes. Nope. I’m telling you why I did. If you assume expressing my opinion means I’m telling you what to do, please re-read the previous section. That’s part of the big problem: the breakdown of logic has taught us to hear an argument or an opinion as a threat to our own freedom. “Snowflakes” come in red, white and blue. I am darkly amused when someone who posts about how people are too easily offended by mere words … then get offended by different words. Everyone is offended by something. The trick is not to justify your offense while minimizing someone else’s. Do that enough, and you’ll handle offense like an adult.

SO WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

So why write about all this on a Christian blog anyway?

Nobody keeps their politics and their faith (or at least their moral beliefs) separate. If we think we do … Surprise! We’ve put faith second.

But if we put faith first, specifically faith in Christ, we are committed to being humble voices of reconciliation and justice. Humble voices often don’t feel like they’re accomplishing much. One at a time, maybe they aren’t.  So we need to stick together and see Christ in each other and be Christ to each other. That means offering dignity and peace even when – especially when – it costs us. Peacemaking is a slow, relentless business. It requires listening more than speaking. Giving more than defending.

Humility isn’t fun. Tribalism and smugness are fun. Terrible, but fun.

Love your enemy. Don’t mock them. Don’t belittle them. Don’t make sport of their feelings and well-being. Love them.

If you can do that in a meme, let’s hope it goes viral.

Peace to you.

Beyond Tolerance

/ JJS / Leave a comment

abolished law

Today’s readings (click below to open in new tab/window):
Psalms 92; 149, Numbers 11:16-17, 24-29, Ephesians 2:11-22, Matthew 7:28-8:4

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians addressed the concerns of a church whose members were divided over the issue of circumcision. Jews practiced circumcision as a sign of the sacred covenant between God and their people. Greeks did not practice it. The church had members of both cultures, but many Jews felt circumcision was a requirement to enter into the faith of a Jewish Jesus. Paul taught them both ways were acceptable, because through Christ they had been made into one humanity.

More than a lesson in tolerance, this is a lesson in the artificiality of boundaries.

One modern parallel is the current division between self-identified liberal and conservative Christians. Another is the structure of denominations. If Paul is right, being one body doesn’t mean “conservative and liberal Christians have equally valid viewpoints” or “Presbyterians are just as Christian as Catholics.” It means those divisions … simply … don’t … exist.

We want them to exist though. We like to be able to point to our “tribe” of like-minded individuals for support and affirmation. While we should certainly stand firm on our principles and beliefs, those principles and beliefs can’t be about creating division within the Body. Nor can they be about bending people to our will. When we let that happen, it’s not long until we think we’re qualified to decide who is “in” and who is “out” of the Body based on tribal affiliations rather than personal commitment to Christ.

Labels exist to divide us. They say, “I am this and you are not,” or “you are that and I am not.” What starts as an objective naming of qualities inevitably devolves into a dangerous, tribalistic mindset that declares: “We are worthy and you are not.” When our allegiance to a label takes priority over our allegiance to the Body (and just look at American politics to see how that plays out), we suffer from a kind of spiritual auto-immunity, attacking parts of our own Body and destroying its health.

Tolerating each other is not the same as loving each other. The first reinforces division, and the second helps to erase it.

Comfort: The existence of other people’s beliefs does not threaten yours.

Challenge: Be sure to recognize the difference between being persecuted for your beliefs, and not being allowed to persecute others for your beliefs.

Prayer: Loving God, help me to love my neighbor as your child, and to remember we are both equally beloved by you. Amen.

Discussion: What social boundaries have decreased or increased in importance for you?

Join the discussion! If you enjoyed this post, feel free to join an extended discussion as part of the C+C Facebook group. You’ll be notified of new posts through FB, and have the opportunity to share your thoughts with some lovely people.

Common Ground

/ JJS / Leave a comment

leanleftright

Today’s readings (click below to open in new tab/window):
Psalms 98; 146, Leviticus 26:1-20, 1 Timothy 2:1-6, Matthew 13:18-23

Politically speaking, Christians are all over the map. Conservative, moderate, or progressive, we all believe the principles of our faith inform our decisions about how to vote. How can it be we vary so widely? The Southern Baptist Convention and the United Church of Christ read the same Bible, but arrive at very different conclusions about gay marriage. Jimmy Carter and Mike Huckabee are famously Christian, but agree on little when it comes to the moral implications of federal budget making. These organizations and people are passionate about their faith, but understand it in very different ways. How should we respond to such a polarizing environment?

If we are to find common ground, we need to start from the ground up, rather than the top down. For example, both conservative and progressive Christians should want to address poverty, since Christ tells us to take care of the poor and the sick. One side endorses a free market solution, while the other relies more heavily on social programs. Both approaches could benefit from insights of the other, but in the top-down scuffle to impose ideology on actual lives, the poor are treated more like turf than people. Whatever end of the spectrum we fall on, Christianity is not about winning, it is about serving, and the tribalism of politics make us lose sight of that.

The first letter to Timothy advises believers “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.” When it comes to modern politics, “dignity” doesn’t exactly spring to mind. In a culture where winners say “respect the office” and losers claim “the officeholder is illegitimate,” the message remains revolutionary.

Even when a candidate we despise wins office, we should pray for them to be successful in serving the people well. Our actions in the public sphere should reflect a humility to serve, not the viciousness of campaign rhetoric. Christians have always disagreed. Our role is to model how to disagree with love.

Comfort: Standing up for your beliefs doesn’t have to mean alienating those who believe differently.

Challenge: Spend some time listening to or watching conservative or liberal radio or television – whichever one you tend not to agree with. Do so with an intent of discovering common ground.

Prayer: God of diversity, help me hear truth, even when it is spoken by those I am inclined to disagree with. Amen.

Discussion: Do you extend a fist or an handshake to those who disagree with  you?

Join the discussion! If you enjoyed this post, feel free to join an extended discussion as part of the C+C Facebook group. You’ll be notified of new posts through FB, and have the opportunity to share your thoughts with some lovely people.

Symbolic

/ JJS / 2 Comments

american-eagle-with-flag-1565088

Today’s readings (click below to open in new tab/window):
Psalms 99; 147:1-11, Daniel 5:1-12, 1 John 5:1-12, Luke 4:38-44

Symbols are important to us. There are countless United States flags, from cheap plastic ones made overseas to quality domestic products purchased by our armed forces, but desecrating even one – while legal – is an affront to the millions of people who have served under it. “Desecrate” is generally reserved for the defilement of holy objects, and if any secular item rises to that criteria, it is the flag. Like other holy objects, the flag has rules for handling, display, and disposal.

The gold and silver temple fixtures of the captive Jews were locked away in Babylonian vaults. One day Belshazzar, successor to King Nebuchadnezzar, got drunk and had his servants retrieve them “and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them.” Capturing the vessels was one thing; desecrating them was another. A hand appeared and the terrified king watched it write mysterious words on the palace wall. He was desperate to know their meaning, so his queen reminded him of Daniel’s gifts for interpretation.

An attack on a symbol is an attack on an identity. It plucks the raw nerves of tribalism under our veneer of civilization. It spits in the eye of our existence. We know our nation is more than a pattern on cloth. We understand a printed Bible is mass produced for profit. The body of slain soldier is tragic but still just a body. Yet our enemies know desecrating any of these will incense us, possibly to recklessness.

Symbols can also be personal. That pair of soda-cap cufflinks Uncle Ted left to your cousin may seem silly to you, but they may symbolize a deep bond between parent and child.

When we deal with friends and enemies, let’s be sensitive to what symbols might mean. Let’s avoid mocking, exploiting, or desecrating things that aren’t important to us but have meaning for others. And when we are offended, let’s remember a symbol is never more important than what or who it represents; our defense of it should not betray it. Our symbol is the empty cross – but our savior is not there.

Comfort: Symbols, used properly, can be powerful and motivational.

Challenge: Symbols, used improperly, can be manipulative and dangerous.

Prayer: Gracious God, teach me to think critically about symbols and ideas, and to value them only as much as they glorify you. Amen.

Discussion: Read this article on flag etiquette. What do you think about the flag being incorporated into clothing?

Join the discussion! If you enjoyed this post, feel free to join an extended discussion as part of the C+C Facebook group  or visit comfortandchallenge.tumblr.com. You’ll  have the opportunity to share your thoughts with some lovely people. Or feel free to comment here on WordPress, or even re-blog – the more the merrier!

Brand X

/ JJS / Leave a comment

Today’s readings (click below to open in new tab/window):
Psalms 143; 147:12-20, Esther 7:1-10, Acts 19:11-20, Luke 4:14-30

Has American Christianity turned Jesus-the-Savior into Jesus-the-Brand? In a time and place where Christian is the default spiritual setting, and mentioning Jesus invites applause instead of danger, it’s easy to wear his name like a logo. Think that’s harsh? Consider the phenomenon of the “Christian” business. Not faith-based bookstores or religious goods shops, but carpet cleaners, dog groomers, and truckers. How exactly does a travel agency have a relationship with Christ? There’s no evidence they perform better, behave more ethically, or give more charitably. That’s troubling, since once we slap Brand Jesus onto our product, we ought to consider living up to it. More and more, the public perception of Christian businesses is that they are less interested in how to serve than whom not to serve.

While Paul was in Ephesus, some wandering exorcists tried casting out evil spirits in the name of “the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” They weren’t really followers, but attached themselves to his reputation because it was good for business (yes, many exorcists charged for the service). A spirit replied: “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” The exorcists fled the encounter naked and wounded.

When we push Brand Jesus onto the world, do people believe they’re encountering the genuine article … or a intelligent-designer impostor? Are we rightfully called out by people saying: “Jesus I’ve heard of; who are you supposed to be?” Even if we don’t feel personally stripped and bruised by that reaction (and why not?), the reputation of our faith community certainly takes a hit.

Jesus is someone with whom we are meant to have a personal relationship, but too often we settle for being fans and all the tribalism and trash talk that accompany fandom. Putting on the jersey doesn’t convince anyone you are a member of the team. Isn’t it better to live and conduct business and humbly share our faith in a manner that lets people see Christ reflected in us? When a product is good quality, people will seek it out. Try pushing a cheap knock-off, and they may never come back.

Comfort: You don’t have to market yourself as a Christian; you just have to follow Christ.

Challenge: This week note discrepancies between people and entities (including yourself) who call themselves Christian and any un-Christ-like behavior they exhibit. Don’t judge them (including yourself), but pray for them.

Prayer: Holy and Loving God, may my words and actions point to you. Amen.

Discussion: Many Christians object when Christmas is shortened to Xmas, yet the X comes from the Greek letter chi, the first letter of Christ’s name, and has been used for centuries. Some use this and other manufactured offenses to shine a spotlight on the Christian “brand.” Can you think of other examples?

Join the discussion! If you enjoyed this post, feel free to join an extended discussion as part of the C+C Facebook group or follow @comf_and_chall on Twitter. You’ll  have the opportunity to share your thoughts with some lovely people. Or feel free to comment here on WordPress, or even re-blog – the more the merrier!