the Outlook Blog

A few days ago I read a brief denominational paper which, like many others before it, addresses the issues of pastoral leadership and the church’s future. The beginning point of the paper, again like so many others, focuses our attention on various changes in contemporary culture asking questions about how we can be more relevant to people in this time while remaining faithful to our ecclesiastical traditions.

After reading this paper – written by dedicated people who care very much about Christ and the church – I lamented with my colleague, Ted Wardlaw, the ways in which the beginning point for the paper determined both its direction (making it into a rather utilitarian document seemingly grounded in the assumption that the future of the church rests in our hands) and its almost defeatist tone (feeding a generalized anxiety that grips much of American Protestantism), and how a different starting point, an explicitly THEO-logical starting point would have changed the whole character and spirit of the paper.

Please let me explain what I mean. A generation ago, in a series of lectures later published in the United States under the title, Christ the Center, Dietrich Bonhoeffer critiqued our various attempts to understand Jesus Christ that begin by asking “How” questions, (for example, “How can Christ be both divine and human?” “How is it possible for God to be both three and one?” “How can an eternal God be subject to creaturely changes?” And so forth). According to Bonhoeffer, all such roads that begin in questions of “How” inevitably lead to dead-ends of arid curiosity that try to force the unprecedented and unique event of God in-the-flesh into some already existing categories we’ve fashioned with our own hands.

Bonhoeffer’s alternative is elegantly simple. When we return to the biblical witness, we discover that it is unconcerned about questions of “How” but is preoccupied with the question of “Who.” As someone said of Bonhoeffer: “Every avenue of his thinking leads him to confront Christ and ask, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ or to be confronted by Christ and hear his question, ‘Who do you say that I am?’”[1]

Here’s my point: when we begin with the various questions of “How” in our current climate we inevitably privilege issues of utility over character: How can we appeal to people whose attention spans have been conditioned by years of television viewing? How can we re-craft the church’s message so it competes in a marketplace already saturated with other messages? How can we train church leaders who are more entrepreneurial? I could go on and on. And we do go “on and on” in this vein! Anxiety climbs as we give ourselves the impression that the church’s survival depends on us, that we must change or the church will die.

We all know that just putting some theological window-dressing on a document will not solve the problem. One only has to look at a artifact from the church’s past to see this confirmed: for instance, the sixteenth-century theologian William Perkins, in his “The Golden Chain,” nods first to God the Holy Trinity before proceeding in his discussion of election to undercut the very notion that Jesus Christ fully reveals God. But, as another theologian, Karl Barth, observed toward the end of his life: when we get the starting point wrong it’s very hard to get much else right. And the starting point that corrects our self-obsessions and anxiety is the THEO-logical starting point.

God is revealed in Jesus Christ. And the God revealed in Christ calls us to our true and full humanity in Jesus Christ. The God who is almighty in power, in whose hands surely rest our past, present and future, is also the God almighty in love, into whose hands we can entrust our lives and all that we love. To say we believe in the God revealed in Jesus Christ (as opposed to any number of other gods promoted by our culture, whether gods of technology, nationalism, brute force or wealth) is to say something distinctive about everything we are and do. Certainly to say we believe in the God revealed in Christ it is to place boundaries on our actions. But it is also to imagine bridges across gaps that seem too vast to span. And ultimately it is to liberate us to imagine new ways to be and to flourish. To speak of this God is to speak THEO-logically, and this is our first and fundamental business as church.

Last summer while attending a gathering at one of our church’s marvelous conference centers, I overheard a neighbor complain about a presentation we were listening to. He muttered under his breath, “This speaker is just too theological.” Now, he wasn’t saying that the speaker was too abstract, academic or long-winded, too narcissistic, self-referential or lacking in insight. The speaker was “too theological.” The presentation was just about God, about who God is and what it means for us to worship and love this God. His comment reminded me of something John Leith once said in a series of lectures here at Austin Seminary: “The renewal of the church will not come without the recovery of the authenticity and theological integrity of the church’s message and a renewed emphasis on preaching… [our] first concern … must always be content.” Leith said this by way of addressing the topic, “What the church has to say that no one else can say.”[2]

The church can’t be too theological. In the final analysis, listening for the Word (Logos) of God (Theos), speaking a word about God (theology), living lives in the Spirit of God’s Word: this is really the only excuse for our existence as church. We begin THEO-logically so we can remember who we are and where we are going.

Michael Jinkins is dean and professor of pastoral theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas.


[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center, John Bowden, tr. (New York: Harper & Row, 1960); the quote is from Edwin H. Robertson’s introduction to the book, 16-17.

[2] John H. Leith, The Reformed Imperative: What the Church Has to Say That No One Else Can Say (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988),

“I’m amazed,” wrote David Brooks a few years ago, “that Reinhold Niebuhr hasn’t made a comeback since September 11. After all, he was one of America’s most profound writers on war and international conflict.”  Recently, of course, Reinhold Niebuhr’s name did re-enter public conversation in a very big way because President Obama described Niebuhr as his “favorite theologian.” When presidents drop your name, your name gets noticed. But Niebuhr has been a favorite theologian for generations of public intellectuals and political leaders.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., for example, credited Niebuhr as a core influence particularly on the book that was, arguably, Schlesinger’s greatest contribution to American political thought, The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (1949), in which he quotes Niebuhr as saying: “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Just a year prior to the publication of Schlesinger’s book, Niebuhr appeared on the cover of Time magazine.

The fact that Niebuhr is enjoying a comeback these days is no surprise to theologians and ethicists, like Robin W. Lovin who in his 1995 book Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Realism called the twentieth century “Niebuhr’s Century.” As Brooks anticipated, when the going gets tough Niebuhr’s makes even more sense. But, in light of this recovery of Niebuhr another question has picked up steam: “Where are our Reinhold Niebuhrs today?”

This might be a good question; although I think it could be refined a bit: When’s the last time Protestant Christianity produced a figure whose stature as a public intellectual merited that person’s appearance on the cover of a major news magazine?

Mind you, there are Christian intellectuals out there, people who combine deep understanding of public policy issues and theological wisdom. But rarely are they able to communicate their ideas as memorably as did Niebuhr.

More commonly, the self-appointed spokespersons of Christianity in our time tend to represent factions and narrow interests, sometimes even fringe ideologies, in ways that make thoughtful Christians cringe. {This week, for example, as I write this essay, in my home state of Texas, the news media has reported the story of “Christians” who demand that the social studies and history textbooks adopted in our public schools reflect their own take on American history, promoting “American Exceptionalism” and the idea that American expansionism represents God’s providence. When did our understanding of “balanced reporting” come to mean that fairness in the media means that we should treat fantasies and falsehoods as though they are true?}

Maybe the question, “Where are our Reinhold Niebuhrs today” is just enough off-kilter to miss a more crucial point. Maybe asking where are the intellectual giants of Christianity who could speak for us and to us is just another way to avoid our culpability in the lack of such voices.

Garry Wills once observed, with reference to leadership in general, that we get the leaders we demand. We may even get the leaders we deserve. But we definitely do not get better leaders unless we demonstrate more responsible follower-ship. “Show me you leader,” Wills said, “and you have bared your soul.”[1]

Perhaps much the same holds true for Christian public intellectuals of the caliber of Reinhold Niebuhr. Niebuhrs emerge because we will listen to them. I don’t mean to take anything away from Niebuhr’s unique genius, but I suspect there are Niebuhrs among us today, if only we would listen for them. What gets put on the cover of Time or any other magazine has a lot to do with us and what quality of thinking we will tolerate.

I’ve been wondering recently why we call the most famous of texts Niebuhr wrote, “The Serenity Prayer.” True, the opening line goes, “God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed.” But the prayer also prays for “courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.”  Maybe, if Christians care about the quality of public discourse, we ought to pray even more today for the courage to change and the wisdom to discern, because these virtues just might encourage us to listen harder for the Niebuhrs among us.

Michael Jinkins is dean and professor of pastoral theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas.

[1] Garry Wills, Certain Trumpets: The Call of Leaders (Simon & Schuster, 1994), 21.

One of the weekly features that I like best in Sports Illustrated is a small vignette called “Sign of the Apocalypse.” These are brief looks at things that are so weird, off the wall, just plain nuts, and a sure sign that things just can’t go on if this kind of craziness keeps up for much longer….

            I got to thinking, we could turn some these crazy things around to point at signs of the Second Coming of Christ.  By that I mean, can these crazy things spark in us instances in the Bible and our faith lives that point directly to the coming of Jesus that will take us all home to the completed Kingdom of God?

            Some of these reflections may border on the profound (who knows), others on the silly, and still others on the ridiculous.  Please take them simply at face value.  I am not trying to make any great – everlasting statement about the End Times or anything.  I am simply taking strange, maddening, crazy and sometimes funny situations and putting them in the context of my faith life.

            So, I will give it a shot using 14 different examples from Sports Illustrated to point to the Heavenly Reign of God in Heaven!  Some will take some explaining, and others will just have the Scripture, and let you make the connections.

Grace and Peace, Pastor Steve Nofel

1.      February 1, 2010 - An Atlanta promoter has announced the formation of a whites only basketball league that will focus on “fundamental basketball” rather than “street ball.”

Galatians 3:26-28 - You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

When we finally get over all the racial prejudice, bigotry, and hate just because someone is “different” from us, we will truly cloth ourselves and our world in Christ – for we will finally KNOW we are all one in Jesus Christ.

2.      December 28, 2009 (Golfer) Tiger Woods was mentioned on the cover of the New York Post for 20 consecutive days, surpassing the 9/11 attacks (19 days) for the longest streak in the paper's history.

I don’t think I know anyone who has not gotten caught up at least a little bit in the whole Tiger Woods soap opera.  It is forever in the headlines and on the news.  It is like watching train wreck about to happen.  I don’t want to see it, but I don’t want to look away either.  Yet, the Apostle Paul tells us, we can and should focus on a more excellent way:
1 Corinthians 12:31-13:8 - But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.

 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

3.      Nov 30, 2009 - Iraqi detainees at a prison camp in Baghdad have been taunting U.S. soldiers from Wisconsin about Brett Favre's signing with the Vikings.

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."  And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One." The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself." – Luke 23:34-37

Even at His most desperate - painful time, when He was abandoned and being put to death by those He loved, Jesus reached out in forgiveness to those who taunted Him, and, loved them still

4.      Oct 19, 2009 – (Seattle) Seahawks fullback Owen Schmitt needed medical attention after splitting open his forehead by slamming himself with his helmet to fire up the crowd during pregame introductions on Sunday.

1 Corinthians 6: 19-20 - Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

5.      Oct 12, 2009 - Citing the dangers of global warming, a member of Tokyo's 2016 Olympic bid committee said, "It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind."

(Signs of the End of the Age)

Matthew 24:30-36 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

6.      Sept 21, 2009 - An animal-rescue group will donate five bags of dog food to a Washington, D.C., shelter for every time Michael Vick is tackled when the Redskins play the Eagles next month.

Psalm 106:6 (The Message) - We've sinned a lot, both we and our parents; We've fallen short, hurt a lot of people. After our parents left Egypt, they took your wonders for granted, forgot your great and wonderful love. They were barely beyond the Red Sea when they defied the High God —the very place he saved them! —the place he revealed his amazing power! He rebuked the Red Sea so that it dried up on the spot —he paraded them right through! —no one so much as got wet feet! He saved them from a life of oppression, pried them loose from the grip of the enemy…Then they believed his words were true and broke out in songs of praise.

You may remember quarterback Michael Vick was convicted of animal cruelty, trafficking dogs illegally and promoting and holding dog fights to the death on his home property.  He actually did time in prison for his sin.  He seems to have turned his life around, I really hope so.  At the same time, while I may never root for him again, I must realize we have all sinned a lot, and all can be forgiven by our all-powerful God.  I pray for myself to repent of my offenses, and for Michael Vick, and everyone (all of us) who have fallen short.

7.      July 27, 2009 - In an ad on the Lions' website for streaming video of old games, fans of the team, which went 0--16 last year, were exhorted to RELIVE THE 2008 SEASON.

Isaiah 6:10 - Close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes.

Sorry about the bad pun.  I am still sore that the Lions beat my Cleveland Browns in 2009 (I am a native Clevelander and a Browns fan for more than 40 years).

Here is a saying I found about closed eyes from the Book of Proverbs when I was looking for the Isaiah passage that got me wondering: He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses. (Proverbs 28:27).

 A very serious question:  What do you believe this Proverb means?

8.      June 22, 2009 - An Arlington, Wash., Little League coach is accused of using some of his players to help him break into and rob an abandoned tool shop.

Matthew 18:5-6 - "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

9.      June 8, 2009 - A bodybuilding competition in the Netherlands was canceled after all of the competitors fled when drug testers arrived.

1 Thessalonians 5:4-6 - But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled.

10.  June 1, 2009 During a Mets game a plumber had to be called to Citi Field to free a woman whose arm got stuck in a toilet when she tried to retrieve a lost gold tooth.  

Matthew 6:19-21 - "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

11.  March 30, 2009 Police in Indiana drove a high school basketball coach 45 miles to his team's playoff game after he posted bond on a DWI charge.

1 Thes. 3:68 - In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.

In the First Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul urges them to follow his and his companions’ example of good Christian hard work and ethic.  He could make this request, because even though he was an imperfect man, he tried his best to follow his savior.  And when Paul did fall short, his letters show he picked himself up, repented, and tried again.  I only hope that after showing his high school team a terrible example that coach repented and got his act together.

12.  Feb 9, 2009 - Former Steelers running back Franco Harris is selling a line of furniture called the Immaculate Collection.

This one will take a little explaining.  December 23, 1972, Franco Harris plucked a tipped pass out of the air and ran for a touchdown with no time left on the clock to beat the Oakland Raiders in a playoff game.  The wags have forever dubbed that catch “The Immaculate Reception.”  There is even a statue in the Pittsburgh International Airport of Harris making the grab at his shoe tops.  So it is actually funny that Harris now has a line of furniture called   “Immaculate Collection.”

Now what many don’t realize that the Immaculate Conception is NOT the conception of Jesus in Mary by the Holy Spirit.  The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of the Virgin Mary in her mother (traditionally named Anna) in her mother.  This is held by the Roman Church thinking that only a perfect, sinless vessel could have held our Savior for nine months.  Yet, God came to a sinful world, and saved us.  I got no trouble with Mary being a regular sinner like the rest of us.  In fact, I take comfort in the fact that God uses sinful humans to witness to salvation and to do the work of witness and ministry. “…born of the Virgin Mary, He became man…”

13.  Jan 19, 2009 Cricket fans in the hometown of India's national team captain are building a temple where he will be worshiped as a god.
Exodus 20:2-4 -"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”

14.  October 13, 2008 - An Elgin, Ill., high school student was forced to remove a Cubs jersey she wore to school because a staffer thought fukudome was a curse word.

1 John 4: 4-6 - You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Sometimes we not only see things from the world’s point of view, we actually assume the world’s point of view.  We thing we know what someone means before they actually say it.  We often assume they mean ill, because we just think they do.  But as Children of God we are to look with Christ’s eyes.  Look on others with love then go about strengthening them with hugs, or rebukes or any other helps.

By the way “fukudome” is the name of the Chicago Cub’s Japanese born right fielder, Kosuke Fukudome.

 

Though this part of the city largely escaped the worst of Hurricane Katrina (the church’s sanctuary was badly damaged but has been restored), this congregation has experienced a rebirth in the wake of the storm because of the sense of mission the devastation awakened. In the weeks following the hurricane, the congregation mobilized its membership and resources; it assembled, coordinated, and housed volunteers from around the country to rebuild homes and indeed whole neighborhoods ravaged by Katrina.

The vitality of the church is evident in its worship and preaching, as well as in programs of community service. As the leadership of the church reflected on the church’s future mission in our leadership retreat, asking what might be the next steps the congregation needs to take, some wondered aloud what it would mean for them to re-envision their whole mission program yet again. Beyond the immediate goal of building homes and neighborhoods, what would it mean to allow their on-going mission work to afford also an intentional educational opportunity for themselves and for others? Members of congregations would come to their city not only to rebuild structures and neighborhoods, but to gain new and deeper understandings of Christian mission that might transform the lives of their congregations and communities back home. St. Charles Avenue would become a mission-education center, as well as a coordinator of mission itself.

The conversations over the course of these two days were lively and animated. In closing my portion of the retreat I described four beatitudes that had been taking shape in my mind as I listened to them discuss their mission past, present, and future. These beatitudes may be worthwhile for all of us to remember as we continue to rethink, adapt, and transform the ministries of our own congregations.

Bless dissent. In the very first session of the retreat a theme emerged: No single one of us knows where our church needs to go next, but together we will. In order to discover the shape of our future mission we must bless dissent. The church is the Body of Christ, St. Paul tells us, and a body has many organs, each with its own distinctive functions. However, not only does a heart have a different function from a foot, it has a whole different perspective on the body and the world the body inhabits. Variety of perspective isn’t always pretty, but differences need not lead to divisions. We must learn to bless our differences, even (maybe especially) our dissent, because we simply do not know where the key insights are coming from that will transform us, and no one of us has the understanding we need to find our way.

Bless failure. Samuel Becket once wrote a line of sheer poetry that also represents a fundamental insight into human maturity and good leadership. “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better,” Becket wrote.  Notice: there are no question marks in this collection of six short sentences. The hinge on which maturity and health turn is in that third small sentence, with its gracious shrug of the shoulders. “No matter.” It transforms the fact of life (We try. We fail.), making possible the resolute and marvelous closing sentence, “Fail better.” The education we all need waits for us in our failures.

Bless story. Someone once observed, “Do you know why I believe that ideas can change the world? Because nothing else ever has.” I love this statement because I love ideas, the bigger the better; and the statement is almost true. But there are times when good ideas, even great ideas, don’t win the day. When great ideas don’t win, I’ve noticed that the thing that beat them was a story (though some of the stories weren’t even true). The power of stories, of legends, myths, fables and fairy tales is the greatest power for transformation known to humanity. The late Don Hewitt, the creator of the enormously successful television news magazine, “Sixty Minutes,” credited that program’s durability to the fact that they always answered a basic human request: “Tell me a story.” A church needs to cast its big ideas (including its mission) in stories.

Bless blessing. The power to bless is ultimately the greatest power the church possesses. We live in a culture of cursing. Cable television and talk radio are driven by the power to curse. And if we, as church, simply conform to the mold of this age, cursing our way through our culture, we will have failed to live up to the call of the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who came into this world that we might have life and have it in abundance. The curse boasts that its power is the only real power on earth. But, as the Bible reminds us again and again, the end of the curse’s power is always a grave, and the power to bless raises us to new life. The author of the original beatitudes chose to end his list with this one, reminding us to “rejoice and be glad.” After all, it’s when we bless that people notice a family resemblance between us and the God who created us.

MICHAEL JINKINS is dean and professor of pastoral theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas.

 

 

[...]

As the writer of a weekly editorial, I often can predict which editorials will generate a flurry of damning letters to the editor.  From time to time, the flurry turns into a real winter storm, and once in a long while it catches me like a blizzard, catching me by surprise.  So it has been this past week as critical letter upon letter has popped into my inbox.  

              My shoulders are broad enough to handle such reactions. God well prepared me for this role long before calling me to it.  But from time to time I feel the need to set the record straight – to counter fallacious arguments against what I’m convinced is right and true.  This is one of those times.

              Two preliminary thoughts:

              First, the very first letter received was prescient.  Toby Brown warned, “Godwin's Law alert! If you want us to take your arguments seriously and discuss them, comparing people with whom you disagree to Nazis is pretty much a conversation killer.” Uh, I didn’t compare anybody to the Nazis.  But my mere mention of the Nazi Holocaust did unleash a host of knee-jerk reactions, producing many letters that argued against points that were nowhere to be found in nor implied by my editorial.  Note to Toby:  “Bro, it kills me to admit that you were even partly right, but the evidence does show that drawing any kind of analogy to WWII Germany can blind many folks to the point one is making.  I will keep Godwin’s Law in mind in the future.”

              Second, the editorial does not intend to provide a thoroughgoing apologia for Christians’ advocacy of immigration reform.  Neither does it develop the very complicated language that such legislation would require.  Such an argument cannot be developed in 700 words or less.  Rather, the editorial alludes to such things, with the assumption that readers will be able to fill in the blanks – consistent with my intentions (as over against the erroneous inferences drawn about Nazis).  Indeed, the editorial operates like my friendly but frequent critics, Parker Williamson and Jack Adams, the retired editors of the Layman, have operated for years.  When quoting folks like me saying something that actually sounded orthodox and/or intelligent, they often would add, “What s/he didn’t say was…” and they’d add some quote from years before, often taken out of context or even fabricated out of the air, to demonstrate that I or the other person really doesn’t believe what we’ve just been quoted as believing.  Such a reporting style has served up lots of laughs among friends over the years.  Well, in the present case, I would footnote my editorial with “What I didn’t say was…” and I’d throw in the more lengthy arguments that Outlook writers, myself included, have written in the past on the subject of the immigration.            

That being said, allow me to explain my position a bit more clearly and systematically than I did in the editorial itself.  Three simple points.


1. We must obey God and not man [sic].

 
When referencing Mary and Joseph’s arrival in an unwelcoming Bethlehem and, soon thereafter, their escape to Egypt, plus the allusion to heroic Christians protecting Jews during the Holocaust, I was illustrating an obvious truth for us believers:  when the laws of our homeland counter the laws of God, we must obey God.   I could have illustrated that further by talking about the survival of Moses in his infancy, or of Israel’s escape from the Egyptian armies, or Elijah’s defiance of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, or young David’s challenges to King Saul, or the eating habits of Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego, or just about any page in the book of Acts.

              So many stories of believers in the Scriptures and through the past two millennia highlight the deep conviction that when the laws of the land conflict with the laws of God, we must obey God.  In fact, that point is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be mentioned.

              …except for the fact that for many, many American Christians, the application of God’s laws regarding strangers and aliens gets qualified by drawing a dichotomy between the two categories of “legal” and “illegal.”  While such categories certainly play a role in the development of immigration legislation, such categories cannot be given sacrosanct status.  Such a dichotomy does not exist in Scripture, and, accordingly, we must – at very least – call such a dichotomy into question if we are going to treat God’s law as sacrosanct.

 

2. God’s will for our treatment of immigrants is explicitly taught in holy Scripture


Pull out a concordance.  Look up the words, “stranger” and “alien.”  Read what each of those biblical texts says.  The message is clear:  God loves strangers and aliens.  God commands us to love strangers and aliens as ourselves – an explicit clarification of the Great Commandment.  The contexts of those texts make clear that they’re talking about migrants.  And the power of the gospel is expressed as Christ’s mission of welcoming those of us who were aliens and strangers to God and to the people of God, leading to the end results of making us all citizens with the saints.  The teaching of the Bible is explicit and emphatic.  And, while the particular intentions of some immigrants are hostile and subversive to our way of life, our approach to immigrants must be guided first and foremost by those biblical teachings.

 

3. Illegal aliens don’t wish to be either


They don’t wish to be illegal.  Most don’t even want to be aliens.

Yes, some immigrants are crossing our national borders to import illicit drugs or terrorist plots.  Our border patrols need to be provided the tools to identify and capture such individuals, to seize their destructive products, and to set the stage for their conviction and punishment.

              But, as suggested in the editorial, most immigrants have not come here for such reasons.  Most have come here for the same reason that their parents and grandparents did: to earn a living that can provide for their families.  In most cases, their fathers and grandfathers left behind wife and children for three to six months at a time, journeyed across an invisible border to a farm or ranch, and worked there during harvest or round-up, and then, returned home with enough funds to sustain the family through the rest of the year.  Their homeland’s backward economy and corrupt government did not offer a better alternative.  But their annual migration patterns served them well enough: they fed their children.  And the pattern served American farms and businesses:  it provided laborers that helped them prosper.

              That all changed when an economic policy was formed into tri-national law during Bill Clinton’s administration.  As is usually the case, the intentions were good, but unintended consequences kicked in.  Border protection expanded.  Those who had been migrating seasonally now were being treated not as guest workers but as interlopers, even as criminals.  Many were arrested.  And, the prosperity that that legislation was supposed to deliver to their hometowns did not materialize.  The workers now faced a choice between two terrible options:  to stay home all year round, struggling to eek out an existence within an economic structure whose unfairness was deteriorating from despair to hopelessness, or to take the whole family and try to sneak into the U.S. and make it their permanent home.  The latter option became the choice of many.  Those who succeeded are now dubbed “illegal aliens.”

              What turned them into illegals?  It wasn’t that they started doing something evil.  It was that our laws changed.  Now, a dozen years later, those undocumented immigrants – a much better term – numbers in the millions.

              What are we to do about that?  Well, as the editorial suggests, we can rewrite those laws.  George W. Bush wanted to do so, but he ran into a buzz-saw of political opposition.  John McCain promised to do so if elected.  Barack Obama promised to do so, too.  But nothing has happened, in part because the president and the democratic congress have been pouring most all their energy into healthcare policy reform.  But they also have not done so because of a huge anti-immigrant hostility that has been fueled by a growing populist protectionism.

              That populist movement has joined together strange bedfellows.  “America First” patriots of the political right oppose immigrants largely out of a love for the values, traditions and principles they fear outsiders will disrupt.  Their loyalty to the rule of law is offended by any suggestion that some amnesty might be extended to those operating illegally in any sector of society.  On the other hand, labor unions oppose immigrants due to those immigrants’ willingness to accept lower wages, thereby endangering the wages of the workers they represent.  Again, those intentions are understandable and commendable.

              Fact is:  most of the strangers and aliens among us do not wish to operate outside the law.  They don’t want to be “illegals.” And most don’t really want to live here at all.  They would welcome a temporary worker status, thereby enabling them to spend the bulk of their time in the village or community they call home.

 
Here’s the real problem:  we are now caught in a bind.  As Christians we are commanded to love the aliens among us as we love ourselves.  But the law prohibits us from harboring aliens and being accomplices to their criminal status.  Our legislators know that many aspects of the tri-national economic policies adopted in the past two decades have created unintended consequences, but they are hard pressed to take action in the light of the concerns among their constituencies.  The rapid growth of the number of undocumented immigrants has become a huge mess to address, especially since our American respect for the rule of law gets offended by the thought of granting amnesty to lawbreakers.

              Any elected official who would try to rewrite our immigration policies to address such a challenge faces the same buzz-saw that caused George W. Bush to back away.

              It is in the light of those realities that I have suggested that we Christians do one simple thing:  write encourage our legislators to take some positive action.  We have within our power the ability to foster a grassroots movement that could at least counterbalance the movement that has been openly hostile toward immigrants .  We could let our leaders know that some folks in their congressional districts believe that we should love aliens and strangers as we love ourselves.



So, what about all those letters to the editor?

              Go back and read them.  I trust you can see that some of them were reacting and arguing against ideas far different from those stated or implied in the original editorial.

              A few more specific responses:

1. By all means a good immigration policy must require us to do background checks on those who would want to come here.  Interdiction of illegal drugs, terrorists, money laundering, criminals, etc., must be carried out to the full extent of the law.

2. Our immigration policy should take its cue not from the policies of other, more exclusive countries.  Rather it should be guided by the principles upon which this nation has been founded, which include the teachings of Scripture, democratic values, and the multicultural experience that has emerged from our being a nation of immigrants from places far and wide.

3. A general amnesty is not the answer.  In all I’ve written on the subject, I’ve never called for that, and frankly, I don’t know of anybody who has.  A program for registering guest workers would provide a big part of an answer (and would allow many to return to their home countries to make their primary residence there).  A program for welcoming family members of legal aliens would be a part of an answer.  The ultimate answer would involve the writing of necessarily complex legislation, given the complexity of all the issues involved.

4. Drawing a connection between this issue and that of protecting pre-born children is totally appropriate.  While folks in the church differ on the matter of pro-life vs. pro-choice, just as we do on matters around immigration,

“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.” Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others. (Book of Order, G-1.0301)

 

In the light of that, we all are duty-bound to stand up to the power of the government, choosing to obey God rather than the law of the land – when we believe they stand in conflict, which certainly includes policies regarding life and death decisions, including such matters as abortion, euthanasia, waging war, bearing arms for self-defense, and capital punishment.

              So, all of this is to say, go back and re-read that editorial.  And, yeah, reread the story of the birth of Christ – in a place that made no room for him, except that of a cow stall. And read about the Magi’s obedience of God that required them to defy Herod, thereby making themselves enemy aliens in the land. And read about Mary and Joseph’s escape and sojourn in Egypt, another foreign country, and imagine what they probably faced there.  No sentimentality here.  Rather a direct consideration of the coming of our Lord as a stranger and alien, by which we who were strangers and aliens “have been brought near by the blood of Christ…” so that we “are no longer strangers and aliens, but … citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God” (from Eph. 2:11-21).

October 1989 / 2009
Today is a special day in Germany - the "Day of Decision" (Tag der Entscheidung), recalling the start of the "Peaceful Revolution" 20 years ago today in East Germany. Four weeks later - November 9th - saw the Berlin Wall come tumbling down. Our "sister church" in Leipzig, the Nikolai-Church, was at the center of it all, having begun a series of "Monday Prayer Services" (Montagsgebete), which drew thousands of people seeking non-violent change. When the pastor, Christian Führer, and the "Prayers for Peace" participants emerged from the church following the 5:00pm prayers on October 9, 1989, they expected to be beaten down and arrested by the secret police. Instead, they were greeted in front of the church by some 70,000 like-minded people holding candles and joining in a mass demonstration calling for change, chanting "No Violence!" and "We are the people!” One of the members of the secret police was later quoted as saying: "We were prepared for everything but prayers and candles."  It was an historic turning point - and the beginning of the end of the dictatorship in East Germany. There is an excellent made-for-TV film called "Nikolaikirche," which is being being shown tonight on television.
 
We visited the Nikolaikirche in Leipzig a few months ago -- the same historic sign from the fall of 1989 is still posted at the entrance of the church "offen für alle" (Open for All).
 
With peace,
 
Jeff & Andrea
 
Jeffrey Myers
Alte Nikolaikirche am Römerberg
Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY

 

This summer, among the piles of lesser literature I hauled on vacation, was one of those books I had been intending to read for some time but just hadn’t gotten around to it.


I don’t know if you’re like me in this regard, but I have a ponderous stack of books on my bedside table, and sometimes I am less than systematic about making my way through it. I tossed about half the stack into a book bag this summer. They traveled with me to Montreat and then to a succession of beaches down the coast of South Carolina and Georgia. And when I returned home and dumped out the bag, along with some stray sand, this book remained unread. I knew it was better for me than the Sookie Stackhouse novels I’d read (the novels on which the HBO series “True Blood” are based), better even than Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, but I just hadn’t gotten to it.


Until then, that is. But when I began reading this book, I remembered all over again why I love to read. I was struck again, as if for the first time, by the lyrical beauty of the English language and the sheer joy of ideas.


The book, you ask? Marilynne Robinson, The Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought (1998). In addition to essays on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Darwinism, Puritans, prigs and Psalm Eight, the book boasts the most remarkable “Introduction” anywhere. I’m going to quote just one paragraph and leave you to it:


Robinson writes:


“I want to overhear passionate arguments about what we are and what we are doing and what we ought to do. I want to feel that art is an utterance made in good faith by one human being to another. I want to believe there are geniuses scheming to astonish the rest of us, just for the pleasure of it. I miss civilization, and I want it back.” (p. 4).


So do I! Let’s go get it!

Background

 

Within a day or two of moving into the editor’s office of the Presbyterian Outlook in January, 2006, I realized what overwhelming authority the office carries.  Not only does that person get to preach a word to the church every week that will be read by most every person of influence – the “Editor’s Outlook” has enormous potential to influence influencers.  What’s more – and this was the surprise – it’s the editor who decides repeatedly in any given day which news ought to be reported and how it should be presented.


Not only would I discuss and negotiate news-writing assignments for our award-winning news-writer, Leslie Scanlon, and other stringer reporters.  My email box would fill with reports from news services – Presbyterian News Service, Religion News Service, Ecumenical News Service (and since then I’ve subscribed to Associated Baptist News Service and Episcopal News Service) – plus news releases would come from dozens of others.  And it was up to me to decide – often on the fly – which ones to post and which ones to disregard.


I made such calls based upon the obvious:

· Is this of interest to our readers?

· Is this important, whether or not our readers will want to read it?

· Does it report the news responsibly or does it spin it?

· If it is a commentary, does it present its argument with credibility, whether or not I personally agree with it?


Within days I discovered the fallout of such decisions:  angry letters to the editor and even cancelled subscriptions due to our coverage of a topic of concern to any of our readers.  Invariably, I would take another look at the coverage being protested to assess as self-critically as possible whether it leaned too far to the right or left, was too scholarly or banal, too tall steeple or small steeple, too feminist or misogynist, too clerical or anti-clerical, too old school or new school, and the list goes on.


Before long I assessed that, indeed, the media is pervaded by bias in its reporting.  However, that bias was/is less driven by ideologues than it is by

a) those who are willing to drop everything to help a journalist write the number of assigned inches of copy on deadline,

b) those who can be trusted to provide sufficient accuracy to help the writer/editor avoid accusations of inaccuracy, ineptitude, and defamation, and

c) those who help a publication or broadcast retain and even increase its audience and, ultimately, its funding (beit from commercial ads, grant funding organizations and/or deep pocket contributors).


So what does all this background have to do with a journey to Jordan? 


Well, we all know that the news media have absorbed an unrelenting barrage of criticisms for its reporting of the news of the Middle East.  Most of those criticisms come from those claiming that the media are manipulated either by Zionist Jews and dispensationalist Christians – OR – by anti-Israeli liberals intent on driving the Jews into the sea.


While outspoken voices on both sides of that demarcation line have cited evidence to substantiate their claims, I would suggest that more basic issues have been driving the news coverage of the Middle East:

a) the relative accessibility/inaccessibility of voices on any given topic to help writers meet their deadlines,

b) the difficulty of finding expert voices to represent their positions most effectively,

c) the audience anxiety felt by reporters and editors as they have contemplated the fallout any given story may bring to their publication/broadcast, and

d) specifically, the driving collective conscious of Americans for the past eight years, as we together have tried to come to terms with the horror of 9-11.


Getting specific to my journey to Jordan, I went on this trip in the hope of gaining insight – to be shared with my readers – regarding our post 9-11 realities.  I had already toured Israel twice – both times with a Messianic Jewish tour guide – and then a third time on my own, aided mostly by Palestinian Christians.  I also had toured Jordan, visiting its holy sites and tourist locations.  In planning this journey I looked forward to seeing these sites again, I wanted to see Jordan through 21st century eyes.


The Jordan Tourism Board anticipated this kind of desire of journalists like me, so they planned a few briefings with leaders both from the faith community and the government.  As reported in my first two blogs, I pursued one interview of my own – knowing that the JTB certainly would have tried to put the nation’s best foot forward.


Getting back to the matter of 9-11, I share the memory of so many Americans – not only of the horror of the events that transpired that day eight years ago, but also of the terrible failure of Muslims worldwide and Arabs in the Middle East to take a stand against it.


World leaders condemned the attacks immediately and decisively – that is to say – world leaders that were neither Muslim nor Arab.  They remained quiet.  Or, at least, that’s how it appeared in the media.


For us grieving Americans, their silence was deafening.


At first, if one were feeling generous, one might envision Muslim-Arab leaders huddling together, hoping beyond hope that the Americans had drawn the wrong conclusions.  One could imagine them keeping their counsel as they awaited vindication.  Surely they were exercising caution, lest they set Arab-against-Arab, Muslim-against-Muslim.  “Circling the wagons” enjoys a celebrated history among us Americans; so, too, it stands to reason that they would circle their camel caravans.  Accordingly, the bridge-builders among us, those regularly exclaiming “they’re really good people,” might be able to rationalize away the silence.


Then again, few of us were feeling that generous.  Those horrible attacks incited rage beyond measure.  Even months later, most of us (myself included) applauded when Congress declared war on Iraq, even though an airtight case for complicity in the 9-11 attacks had not been made. Guilt by association (“all those Arab Muslims terrorists”) was enough for us.


Now eight years later, the western world still awaits even the slightest expression of remorse for the horrors they visited upon us.  We wonder if their religious fanaticism isn’t so ubiquitous that they simply will not stop their attacks until they accomplish total world domination:  Israel driven into the sea, Europe bowing down to Mecca, Churches everywhere replaced by mosques, and democracy replaced by Sharia law.


So, with all those issues in mind, I went into the briefings on our trip and I prepared for my interview with His Highness Prince Hassan with one central question in mind: “Does there exist any will among Muslim Arabs to actually speak out against the evils of Muslim extremism, to build understanding with Christians and Jews, and together to demonstrate the conviction that the love of God leads TO the love of neighbor, not away from it?”


To put it differently, “Does the will exist here among the citizenry in general and among the politicians in particular to ‘beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks’ … so that … ‘nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’” (Isa. 2:4)?


So I asked them.

 

 

Observations

 

I was embarrassed to hear their answers. 


I looked pretty stupid.


My question looked stupid, because I was ignorant about the post 9-11 work that needed to be done among religious communities in their own neighborhoods.


Imams, priests and ministers did issue statements but their audience was their own congregations and those other ones in their neighborhoods.  They walked from mosque to church and vice-versa to lament the evil perpetrated, to grieve the loss of life, and to reassure one another of their resolve to continue to build mutual respect and partnership where it matters most: right where they live (all politics being local).


I looked stupid because I quickly realized that I had been listening for “statements” when they were up to their ears in crisis management.


As Wafa Gousous, the Amman representative of the Middle Eastern Council of Churches, explained to us over coffee, within hours of the firing of the first shots, signaling America’s invasion into Iraq in 2003, some 100,000 Iraqi refugees flooded across the Iraqi border into Jordan (that number would grow to 500,000 over the subsequent years).  They were helping penniless, displaced sojourners build a new life.  And, given Jordan’s experience of having received so many refugees in the past – the post-1948 arrival of Palestinians brought so many West Bank Palestinians that they actually outnumber historic Jordanians in their country) – that they were negotiating with nations around the world to accept refugees into their lands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Wafa Gousous (photo by Jack Haberer)

 

My question looked stupid also because I was forgetting what I already knew:  the amazing Common Word statement issued by Muslim scholars on Oc. 13, 1997.


As Father Nabil Hadad, the Catholic director of the Inter-Faith Coexistence Center in Amman told us last Sunday, this was a “concrete theological document speaking of solidarity with Christians.”


In fact, when I caught wind of that statement two years ago, I read it as historic, maybe even history-changing. I give it high visibility in the pages of the Presbyterian Outlook.  A year later, I referenced it in an editorial.


But when asking about the will to make peace, I felt stupid for not at least mentioning the Common Word statement.  Then again, I can rationalize my oversight, since, I assumed it mustn’t have made much of an impact.  As a matter of fact, just about nobody in the West paid any heed to it.  What I thought to be ground-breaking, front-page news was covered by almost none of my colleagues – religious and secular – in the US news media. A few referenced it, but never mentioned it again.  Could it be that the media’s post-9-11, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bias was holding sway?  Could it be that the publication of something good about Muslims and Arabs risked losing readers and ad sales?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Father Nabil Hadad (photo Jack Haberer)

My silent, internal rationalizations got interrupted, …and I went back to feeling stupid all the more, as Father Hadad went on to tell us about the Amman Message.  Apparently the Muslim leaders in Amman wanted to spread their convictions – including blatant condemnation of religious extremism – further and more explicitly than had the Common Word document so they published this statement – it now includes signatures of 80 Imams.  They are planning an international conference for Oct. 2010.


By the time I went over to the Royal Palace to interview His Royal Highness Prince Hassan, I was done with asking stupid questions.  These earlier conversations told me that Arab Muslim leaders had been seeking to build understanding with us Western Christians long before 9-11 …and continuing after 9-11.  And they had been speaking out against terrorism.  And they had been condemning extremism.  And they were trying to reclaim a centuries-long legacy of peace between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Middle East …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Prince Hassan Bin Talal (photo courtesy of The Palestinian
Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem)

My background research on Prince Hassan, indeed, indicated that, back in 1994, he established The Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies.  In 1995, he wrote a book that provides a scholarly and sympathetic introduction to Christianity in the Arab World.  Prince Hassan is a founder and now President of the Foundation for Inter-religious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue (FIIRD) which was established in Geneva in 1999.  In 2003, he launched Partners in Humanity as a joint initiative with John Marks from Search for Common Ground (SFCG), which aims to improve understanding, build positive relationships and promote dialogue between the Muslim and western worlds.  He presently is President Emeritus of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.


I realized that so much of his time, serving as crown prince and chief advisor to the late King Hussein of Jordan (for 30 Years) and in the subsequent years, has been poured into building peace, respectful coexistence, mutual understanding and trust between our two peoples.


I also discovered that he did speak out quickly and vehemently against the 9-11 attack on America.


So I asked better-informed questions, and sure enough he blew my mind even further with the brilliance, the insightfulness, the graciousness and the sheer humanity in his responses.


I wonder why we haven’t been hearing from him before.  I wonder why we haven’t been hearing from voices like his, especially in these past eight years.  Do you think Hassan’s message was considered too inconvenient by the ratings seeking, subscription selling, ad-client-pursuing media?  Could it be that any positive reporting about Muslim Arabs is just too shocking, too x-rated, too unthinkable for post-9-11 Americans to hear?

 
Do you think the Presbyterian Outlook will now lose readers and advertisers for having allowed something positive about Arab Muslims to leak out?

 
Jack Haberer

Oct. 5, 2009

 
PS - Stay tuned for the videotaped interview of His Royal Highness Prince Hassan.  It will appear on the Outlook’s web site as soon as a few technical glitches get solved.

Sept. 30, 2009

Well, after encountering Archbishop Abuna Elias Chacour in little Richmond International Airport on Friday morning, and getting from him a lead on whom to contact, I had high hopes of getting a great interview of a leader of the Jordanian government as I was embarking on a tour journey.  Of course, I knew this was huge long-shot.  But the kind Archbishop (whom I had first met in northern Galilee when in the Galilee nine years ago), told me just whom I needed to try to reach, and gave me contact info.

      What were the chances of running in Elias Chacour at that location (he walked by my airport gate because he mistakenly walked by his own …and kept walking and walking and walking…)?  Probably a thousand-to-one.

       But now were the odds that I could pull a member of the royal family into an interview on short notice?  Probably ten thousand-to-one.  But for the next 24 hours of journey that lay ahead I sure could hold on to the hope.

      God is good.

      In the next day or two, I will be posting on the Presbyterian Outlook Web site the videotape of a 25-minute interview with Prince El-Hassan bin Talaal, which was recorded yesterday in the royal palace of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

      Prince Hassan is one of the most intelligent humans I have ever encountered (two degrees from Oxford, fluent in six languages, founder of  many humanitarian, academic, peace-making organizations, including founding director of the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies.  He is a man who has poured himself into making Jordan not only a haven of peace in one of the volatile regions of the world. He also has leveraged his role on the international stage to build understanding between Muslims, Christians and Jews – courageously and publicly challenging prejudice among all peoples, especially his own.

      Watch this page for this exciting report.

Yesterday we visited Gadara –  where Jesus cast the demons out of the man into the herd of pigs…

Jerash – the largest ancient Roman city in antiquity… and…

Then it was on to the Royal Palace.

Today we visited the site where John the Baptist did his baptizing ...

…then Madaba – where a 7th century mosaic on the floor provides an extraordinary map of the Middle East …

…then Mt. Nebo, where Moses viewed Jericho and the Promised Land …only to die there.

And then drove into the night to Aqaba – on the northern tip of the Red Sea.  

Tomorrow we’ll tour Petra.  An awesome day awaits!!!

Welcome to my first series of blogs. I’ve resolutely avoided both blogging and twittering. My general mindset is to put my most thoughtful ideas before the church via my weekly editorial and leave the rest up to our readers’ imagination. Well, that changes this week as I travel to Jordan, “other holy land.” Along with journalists from other Christian publications – Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, and Evangelical – I have embarked on an adventure to this place of rich history, and in the present, a place of peace. Bordered by Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and a stone’s throw from Egypt and Lebanon, Jordan is, nevertheless, the Switzerland of the Middle East. I hope on this trip to explore not only the ancient history of the place but also the remarkable present story of its role in transforming that region of the world. I’ll be posting daily – or close to daily – through October 3.

I’ve never thought of Delta Airlines as God’s angels of transport. In fact, my track record with Delta is abysmal: cancelled flights allegedly due to bad weather, when other airlines are flying the same routes without delays; no help in finding alternative flights; no apologies for the inconvenience. But the first leg of my overseas journey was going to require a flight from Richmond, VA to JFK in NYC (and Delta’s price was so much better than Jet Blue’s). So, to be safe, I booked my first flight with a 10 hour layover, just in case it got messed up. That way I could even drive there (7 hours). I checked flight status the evening before …then in the morning and everything looked great. Barbie took me to the airport, dropped me off, I checked in, status: “on time”, went through security, got to the gate, and for some inexplicable reason, the flight time was now nearly 3 hours later. Phooey. Oh, well. As panicked travelers lined up at the gate desk to try to save their travel itineraries, I settled down to my computer to do some emails.

I wrote Fahed Abu-Akel, former moderator of the General Assembly, a native Galilean, and leader of the Palestinian Christian movement. I had met Fahed in Galilee while I was on sabbatical researching my book GodViews, in 2000. He had toured me around the northern Galilee, and with missionary friends, Daniel and Becky Frank (Daniel having been a former associate pastor of mine), took me to the Ibilin Institute. This elementary-high school-college and center for spiritual renewal in the upper Galilee was led by Father Abuna Elias Chacour. I had heard of him and read one of his books – a heart-wrenching personal account of his home town being captured and destroyed in 1948 when Great Britain handed the land of Palestine to the Jews. A powerful story and awesome witness by this Melkite priest who, having been crushed by the Zionist movement, nevertheless proclaims the message, “Yes, Christians ought to love Jews; Jesus was a Jew; the apostles and prophets were Jews; they brought the gift of salvation to the world. BUT,” he adds, “Christians ought to love Palestinians, too. They are your brothers and sisters.” In the years since I first met him, he has been elevated to the role of bishop in Haifa, has spoken at our General Assembly in 2008 and at many conferences, especially here in the US (most recently a couple of weeks ago a the Montreat Conference Center). I covered him speaking at the Presbyterian Global Fellowship in Houston in 2007, and interviewed him for the Outlook.

Well, here I was sitting in the airport, emailing Fahed because he was been trying to arrange for me an audience with the king or queen of Jordan. Coming right after Ramadan, it has been difficult to work it all out, so my email from the wee airport in Richmond – at gate A-12 at the far end of the concourse – was pressing once again to nail down some plans.

All of a sudden there walked by me a short, round fellow in black clothing, sporting a long white beard. I jumped up from my computer. “Elias Chacour! Are you Abuna Elias Chacour?”

“Yes, I am.” I couldn’t believe my eyes. What was he doing here in Richmond? In our little airport?

“I’m looking for my gate. It’s A-2. I think I missed it.”

“You did.”

I then reintroduced myself to him. Told of my plans to head to Jordan. He was heading back to Haifa. Told of my being in the middle of a note to Fahed, and that I was trying to arrange an interview with the King or Queen. “O, you need to talk to Prince Hassan,” he said. “He is brother of King Abdullah, but he is the ideal person to interview on matters of international relationships, peacemaking, and Palestinians.”

“Thank you, Bishop.”

We shared an embrace, and he was on his way back to his gate.

I finished the note to Fahed … “Get me an appointment with Prince Hassan.”

I then called home to Barbie … told her about the chance encounter. She rejoined, “So, Honey, do you think that was a God-thing?”

“What do you mean?”

“Was it a God-thing that you met Elias Chacour at the airport?”

“Absolutely.”

“Way cool,” she added. Then came the clincher, “So do you think that God used Delta to do a good thing?”

“Absolutely not!” I retorted in full voice, with a chuckle -- other waiting passengers standing nearby. “Delta is evil. Despicable. They’re not capable of being used by God.”

God did work.