Baltimore - A Rush to Judgement?

I wish everyone would shut up for a minute.

But probably not for the reason you think.

    I waited a long time to write anything about the riots in Ferguson, Missouri because I wanted to try to understand the issues.   

    But this time, after watching and listening to media outlets talk about what is happening in Baltimore I don’t want to wait.  I am posting now, not because I think I understand what is happening, but because I am convinced that almost no one does.

Every media outlet, every reporter, every politician, and a great many bystanders have taken sides.

    Just like the Ferguson case, and the Travon Martin case, and so many others, everyone seems to be absolutely certain that they know exactly what is happening and why.

Everyone is rushing to judgement.

    They judge the police.  They judge Freddie Gray.  They judge the mayor.  They judge the President.  They judge the protestors, the rioters (those are vastly different groups), they judge the victims of the violence, and people are even judging the parents of the people in the streets. 

    Christians are often accused of being judgmental, but this is ridiculous.  Everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike seems to think that they know so much about what is happening hundreds of miles away in Baltimore that they can stand in judgement of people they’ve never met and who they know almost nothing about.

I wish everyone would all shut up and listen for a change.

As I watch and listen to the reporting from Baltimore, all I seem to find is more questions.

What exactly happened in police custody that led to the death of Freddie Gray?

Did Mr. Gray really have surgery on his spine only weeks before his arrest?

Did that matter?

Did the mayor tell the police to allow the mayhem to continue when it might have been stopped much earlier?

I could ask questions all day but it seems clear that, so far, there aren’t very many answers.

    And without answers, all the self-proclaimed experts (left, right and center) should slow down their rush to judgement until they actually have some facts.  Right now there are too many things that we just don’t know.   

Instead of rushing to judgement, why don’t we listen instead?

We all want justice.

    But we should be careful to find the facts so that there can be justice for everyone.  There needs to be justice for the police, the demonstrators, the rioters, the politicians, and especially for the victims.

Investigating, finding, and sorting through the facts are all things that will take time.

While we wait, instead of judging everyone, why don’t we do something helpful?

    Why don’t we try to find ways to help those who lost homes, jobs, and businesses?  Can our politicians and academics find ways to reduce poverty and joblessness instead of just pointing fingers at each other?  Why not volunteer with some charity or aid group to clean up and rebuild Baltimore?  We should all take the time to listen and understand people with whom we disagree.

    Instead of pretending that we know exactly what is going on and who is to blame, our time would be better spent trying to fix the problem and help Baltimore heal.  And while we’re doing that, we should talk less and listen more.

Instead of judging, try donating.

And if you are so inclined, I’m sure that everyone involved could use your prayers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To receive email notification for updates to the Crossfusion blog, click here.

Are You Loving?

    As I noted in my last blog, my family and I recently spent a week at Cedar Campus in the Upper Peninsula with author Tom Blackaby.  One of the things that Rev. Blackaby got me thinking about was this:

 “Are you loving?”

    Blackaby’s point was that while Jesus never compromised his faith or his values, he was always loving before he placed any demands on anyone.  For an example, let’s look at Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (found in the Gospel of John, chapter 4).  Jesus’ disciples are off looking for some lunch but Jesus stays behind sitting near the village well.  Along comes a woman who has a problem with fidelity, has been married five times and is currently living with a sixth.  Jesus know all this but he doesn’t lead with it.  Jesus doesn’t show up with a sign that says “God hates whores” or begin his conversation by condemning her for her loose morals.  

Instead, Jesus begins by asking for a drink of water.

    That might not sound like much, but it is.  As a Jew, Jesus wasn’t supposed to even speak to a Samaritan and probably should have been careful to speak to a woman even if she was Jewish.  Because of her lifestyle, it is likely that this woman was regularly disrespected.  When she saw a Jewish man sitting by the well, she expected to be overlooked and disrespected.  But Jesus didn’t do that.  Jesus gave her respect when he spoke to her.  Jesus showed her love by asking her for something that he would have asked of one of his own disciples.  Speaking to a Samaritan would have been discouraged but drinking from a Samaritan’s cup would have been inconceivable.   Jesus showed her love by ignoring the rules of his culture. 

    Not surprisingly, Jesus doesn’t stop at being counter cultural.  Jesus doesn’t just offer this woman some self-esteem, he offers her living water saying, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

    Let’s review: Jesus meets a woman who his culture says that he should ignore, and he speaks to her.  The religious leaders of the day said that Jesus should not speak to her, should not touch her, and should not even eat or drink from anything that she has touched but he asks her for a drink anyway.  And then, when the woman wonders why he is breaking all of the rules, he offers her living water, the gift of eternal life.  And so far, she hasn’t acknowledged her sin, repented, or changed her behavior in any way. 

Only then, does Jesus tell the woman that he knows all about her history.

Before Jesus talks about sin, Jesus offered her love.

    Over and over again, in encounter after encounter, this is the model that Jesus follows.  Before Jesus said anything to Zacchaeus the tax collector about sin, he honored him by entering his home and sharing a meal with him.

Love first. Religion second.

    I am not saying that religion and repentance are not important.  Jesus thought they were important.  These things did not get left behind at the side of the road.  Jesus came to earth, lived, died and rose again so that we could know about repentance and salvation.  But Jesus always showed people that he loved them before he told them that God desired for them to live differently.

    Before we tell our neighbors that they have a sin problem, we had better be sure that they know how much we love them.  Showing up at parades or funerals with signs saying that God hates somebody doesn’t pass the smell test.  Doing stuff like that doesn’t smell like Jesus, it isn’t at all the sort of thing that Jesus did.  Everybody hated Samaritans and tax collectors and they knew it.  The woman at the well and Zacchaeus expected Jesus to hate them.   They were surprised when he didn’t.  It was his surprising love for them that made them open to listening and genuinely hearing what he had to say next when he told them that there was a better way.

Loving your neighbor opens the door so that they can hear the important message that you are carrying.

The model of Jesus is this:

Love first.  Preach second.

So how about it?

Are you loving?

Trayvon, George, and the Church

    I wrote Sunday's message, "The Test", long before the verdict in the Zimmerman trial was announced and yet, the parallels between these events and scripture reading were worth noting.

    In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) a religious lawyer seeks to use Jesus to assure himself that he is good enough to go gain eternal life.  The lawyer and Jesus agree that the two fundamental criteria are 1) to love God and 2) to love your neighbor, but that isn’t good enough and so he asks Jesus “Who is my neighbor?”  In the time of Jesus, rabbis had differing opinion over who qualified to be a “neighbor” and these opinions ranged from friends and family, up to including anyone who was Jewish.  This man was hoping, even expecting, that Jesus’ opinion would be similar so that he could declare himself “good enough.” But Jesus goes an entirely different direction.  Jesus tells this story of a man who was brutally robbed, beaten and left for dead in the wilderness only to be rescued by a Samaritan.  

For many of us, this may also require some explanation.

    Long before the birth of Jesus, the Jews and the Samaritans hated one another with a deep and abiding hate.  Regardless of whose version of history you believe, hostilities between the Samaritans and the Jews dated back to the Old Testament, perhaps a thousand years or more.  Over the centuries, each side had attacked the other and had desecrated or burned the others’ temple.   A great many had been killed on both sides.  The only reason that the two groups were not fighting one another in the time of Jesus was that the Roman army was there to make sure that they didn’t. 

    In this environment of hatred, Jesus tells a story in which the Samaritan enemy was the hero and tells the man that even his enemy is his neighbor.  Jesus’ command is to “Go and do likewise.”  As followers of Jesus the  command to “Go and do likewise”  instructs us to show mercy to people we’ve never met, to share what we have with people who can’t do anything in return, to help people who aren’t like us, people who don’t like us, and even to people whom we consider to be our enemies.  It was a tough pill for that lawyer to swallow and it isn’t any easier for us today.  The parable of the Good Samaritan has always been, and will always be, difficult to put into practice.

    If we measure the events surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin by this standard we find that everyone failed.  Both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin failed when they chose to be suspicious and hostile and to engage in a brutal brawl on the ground rather than try to explain, discuss or walk away.  Both men assumed the other was his enemy.  The news media when they looked first for sensational headlines before reporting the facts.  Others failed because they were looking for an enemy and assumed that this violence was somehow different, that this murder was somehow more notable than the other thousands of young people who have been victims of violence since Trayvon Martin died. 

    Finally, the church failed.  We have known the story of the Good Samaritan since we were children.  We know that Jesus taught us to love our enemies and to do good to those who persecute us.  And yet, even now, in the midst of this tragedy, the followers of Jesus Christ, both black and white, look to place blame and to see an enemy in others, rather than demonstrate mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.  For the church, this case cannot be about who is right or who is wrong.  A wedge has been driven between two groups who already saw the other as the enemy.  Instead of arguing over who was in the right, we must find ways to avoid this sort of violence that kills young men and women every day in Sanford, Florida, New York, Washington D.C., and all across our nation.  We must find ways to teach the things that Jesus commanded us to teach.  We must show mercy to people we’ve never met, share what we have with people who can’t do anything in return, help people who aren’t like us, people who don’t like us, and even people that we consider to be our enemies.  We are called to be agents of healing instead of division.  We must love our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, and yes, we must love our neighbors.

Each one of us can make the world a better place if only we would, “Go and do likewise.”

Why this Conservative Evangelical Stopped Supporting the Death Penalty

    I used to support the death penalty.  After all, that’s what good Christians did, right?  Murderers received what they had measured out to others.  The death penalty was in the Bible and that was good enough for me.  But as the years went by, I began to wrestle with facts and ideas that didn’t fit.  It took time, years, even decades before I realized that I was changing my mind.  Even then, as a member in, and then as a pastor of, conservative congregations, I didn’t talk much about it. 

    I was troubled as I wondered how grace and mercy were served by the death penalty.  I was also troubled as I heard more about the costs of a death penalty conviction.  I suppose the last straw was when I first heard about the number of convictions being thrown out as DNA testing was first being used in the legal system.  Over the years, the evidence piled up until I had to surrender a notion that I once thought was reasonable.  I am not any different than I used to be.  My political and religious leanings are not significantly different than they ever were but I now believe that it is both logical and reasonable to oppose the death penalty from both a practical and a religious point of view.  Here’s why…

The Death Penalty is Not a Deterrent –Crime statistics in places where there is a death penalty are not statistically different from places where there is not.

Cost – It costs more to incarcerate a death row inmate.  Prisoners convicted under a death penalty statute are granted mandatory appeals and that process is expensive.  Estimates are that a death penalty inmate costs 2 to 5 times more over his or her lifetime than one who is incarcerated for life.

Fairness and Justice – The scriptural standard of evidence, particularly for murder, was from the beginning (Deuteronomy 17), two eyewitnesses.  In our modern world, having two witnesses is rare.  Mistaken identity is now one of the leading causes of error in our legal system.   Add a host of other errors, and suddenly a lot of people find themselves wrongly convicted.  For the last decade or so, an average of 18 death row residents per year were cleared by DNA evidence.  It’s so bad, that nationwide, a Columbia University study found serious errors in 68% of all death penalty cases and 2 out of 3 death penalty cases were overturned on appeal.  Of those overturned, 82% were retried on lesser charges.  Granted, no system is foolproof, but when ours is so messed up that we get it wrong 2 out of 3 times, its time to try something else.

Consistency – The church is usually among those who proclaim the sanctity of all life and declare to the world how God loves all people.  If we really believe that, then why is the life of a murderer not just as sacred?  Does God love murderers less? 

Grace, Forgiveness and Redemption – If we believe (and I do) that the Gospel message is all about grace, forgiveness and redemption, how do we justify the state sponsored killing of incarcerated criminals?  Where’s the grace and forgiveness in that?  How can God do a work of redemption in someone’s life when they’re already dead?  If we believe that God can change the hearts of human beings, then why are we so quick to assume that these men and women are unredeemable?

    As I wrestled with these questions, I realized that I didn’t have any answers that could make my continued support of the death penalty make any logical or spiritual sense.  That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a part of me that thinks the perpetrators of particularly horrible crimes shouldn’t die in some particularly painful way.   

What it means, I think, is that I’m beginning to understand the difference between retribution and justice.