Racial Hatred Unrestrained ...

Blue lives matter, or at least they should.  When you utter a slogan like that, you are stating that the lives of cops, our military, our first responders should matter to us all.  By stating “blue”, you reflect an absence of skin color, and a support for law-and-order regardless of which race a cop, first responder, or military member is descended from – only that they serve us all today – that they put on a uniform (often blue) each morning and go out to serve.  So why does an NFL quarterback wear socks with pictures of pigs wearing those same uniforms?  Why does he sit down during the national anthem specifically to protest “social injustice” and his own perception that blue hates black, and can kill with impunity? 

And how does his protest begin to grow in a sport of pure privilege, in a league whose first letter “N” stands for National?  The NFL exists because of our “Nation’s” interest in sport.  To show such disrespect to the Nation that affords him personally such wealth and opportunity seems the greatest of insults to us all.  Pick a different venue for protest.  Pick a different method.  Or watch as the “Nation” in the NFL begins to vote with its dollars and ratings; our interest in sport diminish, until you become just another crazy, carrying a sandwich board on a street corner bemoaning the woes of the world.  While you make exorbitant salary, and carry a ball on a field where no social inequity exists, do not insult the citizens of the Nation who afford you this opportunity.

But does this errant quarterback have a point?  Do the “mothers of the movement” have a point?  Is there social injustice in the world … seems as though there would have to be.  Does blue sometimes kill black with impunity … seems as though there are occasions of it, statistics must bear that out.  So where does the perception of oppression come from?  Do singular incidents, widely publicized of what should be private pain, exploited on our screens for ratings, create a perception of oppression?  No, it takes repetition, to create that perception.  It takes a shared or common experience to create it.  When many of us have seen something, when we have witnessed injustice, we begin to jointly conclude that oppression is real and that inspires within us a need for retribution, for revenge, for what we believe is justice for the oppressed.

When this phenomenon occurs along racial or religious lines, those lines begin to run deep.  In ancient Palestine, Jews hated Romans.  This was white on white racial hatred, but the hatred ran deep.  And there was a reason for it.  Unlike Nebuchadnezzar who did his damage in one invasion, and then left the countryside of Israel alone as long as it did not rebel, the Roman conquerors invaded and stayed put in the land.  They wanted tribute (or taxes), and they would have it, if not in coin, then in human trafficking.  The Romans had given the Jews motive to hate them.  People hate losing their things, their wealth, their family members, and their lives.  It inspires a hatred that runs deep.  Even those Romans who did nothing to the Jews, were hated because they were Romans.  And the feelings were mutual.

Romans detested Jews.  It had nothing to do with religion.  It had nothing to do with skin color.  Romans had elected themselves as the world’s policemen, the world’s first responders, and the world’s military.  Anyone standing in opposition had to be put down.  Opposition was not tolerated.  It is little different in our day; those who resist arrest risk the loss of life.  Our society demands compliance during the process of arrest; any non-compliance risks death.  And our society is OK with this loss of life under these circumstances.  Threats, even perceived threats, to those who enforce arrest can end in death for the citizen.  The Roman’s version of it was more arbitrary, more final, and not restricted to the guilty.  If the guilty got away, their families and things would surely suffer.  This happens when compliance is valued so high, when order is praised so much, that dissention means death to avoid a future recurrence.  In our day, dissent is only tolerated in the court system, under legal jurisdiction.

Romans detested Jews because Jews were constantly in a state of opposition.  Jews committed crimes to make the lives of Romans more difficult.  Jews committed murder, not just of Romans, but often of them.  When Romans witnessed crimes of opposition committed by Jews over and over again, their own racial hatred began to develop.  No other conquered people were this resistant, this disrespectful to Roman law and Roman rule.  When our blue must by necessity, encounter crimes over and over each day, it also has an impact upon them.  Blue begins to hate criminals. 

Criminals come in all shapes, sizes, races, and religions; but most often poverty drives crime.  Desperation drives it.  So our Blue begins to see those in poverty with suspicion; especially after listening to criminals lie again and again about what they have done to escape prosecution.  As the distaste for criminals develops, as cops witness other cops die from criminals who decided to shoot their way out of being caught or prosecuted, Blue begins to think differently and react quicker.  And sometimes mistakes are made.  It is better in our day, but it is not perfect in our day.  The human tragedy of fighting crime and exposure to crime, can make some Blue harder on crime, or the risk of crime, until oppression emerges, and common experience is too common.

The Romans prided themselves on their law, they had taken it to the world.  Roman justice might have been a true world wonder, if Roman power were not so absolute.  Instead, resistance became opposition at any cost; and the drive for order became indiscriminate murder, and two factions developed a racial hatred that deepened to the point of extinction.  This is the world Jesus lived within.  This is the nation Jesus came to witness to, to not only lose the hate for Romans, but to love them.  The Jews would have no part in this.  The Jews thought their birthright and proper religion gave them the favor of God, and that they needed no love for Rome to keep that favor.  Jews had gotten to a point where killing a Roman was not considered sin, it was considered heroism.  And the Romans knew this, lived with this, and detested Jews for this.

So Peter bears witness to what unrestrained racial hatred can do.  Perhaps Peter had removed himself far away from the trial proceedings to see from a distance.  Perhaps Peter was only told these things by a witness who was still there to see it.  Perhaps most striking of all possibilities, perhaps it was a Roman who did these things, and was later converted and told it to Peter.  But in any case, John Mark continues recording the story for us in his gospel in chapter fifteen, picking up in verse 16 saying … “And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.”

This facility was no accident.  The Praetor in Rome (or Consul of Rome), usually had a war room or facility in which strategy was created and battles were conceived.  It was a place of honor.  It was not the place for any simple Jew.  But for a Jew who had been labeled the King of the Jews, this would be an especially ironic place.  It would be a place for Jesus to understand as He was condemned to travel to His death, that Rome would remain in power, able to craft strategy, and develop battle plans to win any war of attrition with the Jews, Jesus would be leaving behind.

John Mark continues in verse 17 saying … “And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,”  Romans detested Jews.  Having the King of the Jews in their presence, under their control, gave them a chance to begin to express just how much Romans detested Jews.  They remove the clothing of Jesus, likely leaving Him naked.  Then they replace them with purple garments reserved for royalty (or perhaps the missing Roman Praetor at the moment).  The body of Jesus would be bleeding severely, nearly ripped apart from the lashing He had only just finished receiving at the hands of one of the Roman soldiers there in attendance.  They add to this robe, a crown, platted of thorns deep and long and place it upon his brow.

John Mark continues in verse 18 saying … “And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! [verse 19] And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.”  Let the mocking commence, let the racial hatred be completely unleashed.  It did not matter to the world’s policemen that this Jew was particularly innocent.  Others were not.  Most were guilty, at least most of the ones the Romans had to chase down for crimes against Rome.  The nation of Israel hated Rome, so why would this one single Jew be different?  But He was.  The guards did not care.  They began to strike His head with reed, in order to avoid the prick of the thorns on their own hands.  Hitting Jesus with a stick causing the thorns to bury deeper into His flesh, and the blood to rush out all the more.

But pain was not enough.  They must mock the King as a king is due.  They spit in His face, but He does not react, or change His love for any of them.  The soldiers bowed their knees and offered fake words of worship to the bleeding innocent lamb standing before them.  There is almost not enough life left in Jesus to mock.  This is just not as much fun if He should drop dead in front of them, especially if caused by their hijinks.  This Man is to be tortured on the cross for His death.  Nothing quick is allowed for Him.  So John Mark continues in verse 20 saying … “And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.”

The death Jesus had been sentenced to, was the worst one Romans could think of or devise.  Drowning or burning to death was much faster.  Beheading, or spearing to death was faster still.  A quick death was a mercy from Rome.  A slow death was much worse for the victim, and for the family of the victim.  So what they intended to do to Jesus was the worst death they could think of.  And yet, they took the time to lead Him away privately into the Praetorium, to further torture and mock the Son of God.  This was completely unnecessary.  Yet Romans did this.  The world’s policemen did this.  They were angry about opposition in their land.  They did not care if this criminal was not a criminal at all.  They were not interested in guilt or innocence, only in releasing hatred pent up inside of them.

In perhaps the last epilogue of Roman hatred, John Mark completes this section in verse 21 saying … “And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.”  Romans have no problem creating instant slaves.  Simon of Cyrene would do this act, or possibly join the procession as its next victim.  Simon would do this act, or watch his sons be murdered in the hateful rage the guards had for Jesus, or any Jew.  Simon complied.  He left the Romans no pretense of legitimacy to further injure himself or his two sons.

Compliance is not surrender, it is de-escalation.  Injustice will not be cured by compliance, but it will avoid any pretense of legitimacy for the escalation of violence.  Questions of innocence or guilt will be determined later, by people who do not carry guns, or are forced to make shoot/no shoot decisions every day.  Avoiding even the appearance of a threat, de-escalates situations with Blue, that might otherwise wind up in death we want to avoid.  It is not fair.  It is not right perhaps.  But it is common sense, and it is in the self-interest of anyone who must endure that kind of encounter.  So how do we change it?

Protests of injustice are such a weak response.  It is easier to protest than to mimic our Lord, and reach out in love to those who may mean us harm.  Satan would have us take a course of action that deepens the hatred on both sides.  Jesus would have us rethink who our enemy truly is.  In response to the Roman aggression and oppression described above Jesus makes no angry retribution.  Instead He asks His Father to forgive these men because they do not understand what they are doing.  He pleads for the redemption of these men.  He has performed miracles for men of Rome like these.  He loves them without limit, or precondition.  He does not hold their race, or choice of job, or past misdeeds against His love.  He does not even hold their actions of violence and hate against them.  He offers them love, and a better way to see the world.

And this is the real victory.  To see the world in a better light, in the light of the love that only Jesus Christ can put in our hearts and minds.  Jesus carried no sign stating … no Justice, no Peace.  The sign of Jesus says Come ALL ye that are labored and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  It is love that truly affects things, and changes things.  Everything else tends to prolong them.  Love would prevent the criminal from doing acts of crime.  Love would prevent abuse from one person to another.  If we REALLY want to change or impact the social injustice of this world, we do not need to make statements to the press, or disrespect the citizens of a Nation at NFL games.  We could instead offer quiet love, consistently, and impact the world that we interact with.  If enough of us did this, the world would truly change.

 

Your Two Cents Worth ...

Ever had anyone offer you “their two cents worth”?  They offer you nothing more than their opinion, with the caveat that it may not be worth much.  On the other hand, a soldier who dies in combat defending his country is said to have given his last ounce of courage or his last measure of devotion.  This sacrifice is the most any one could ever offer, and none of us would dare equate it to only the value of two pennies.  But what if everything you had to offer, your entire last measure of devotion, was literally only worth two pennies?  If that was the case, our first response would be to judge you as extremely poor.  If everything you owned, and everything you earned, had only amounted to two pennies, you would truly be the poorest of the poor.  If we encountered such a person, meaning if any of “us”, encountered such a person, we should all of us, be able to help them out somehow.  No matter how much any of “us” are in need financially ourselves, all of us can muster more than two pennies.  And yet this paradox is only just beginning.

We all know the story.  We have all been embarrassed by it.  We all measure ourselves by comparison and find that our own last measure of devotion has yet to ever be offered.  We call ourselves Christians, but few have ever faced the ultimate test, are we willing to give our lives for our beliefs.  Yet one poor widow, tucked away at the end of an eventful chapter in the Gospel of Mark, gave hers.  Peter could easily have skipped this story.  If he had, it would simply have gone down as one of the countless things Christ did or said that were never recorded in scriptures.  None of us would ever know anything about the poor widow.  None of us would feel cheated from this omission, from our lack of knowledge.  In fact, most of us might feel better about ourselves, at least about what we have given for His cause.  But Peter remembered the story.  Perhaps because the Holy Spirit, who inspires us all, remembered the story, and did not wish to see this widow disappear into oblivion unnoticed.

So it would be recorded.  Perhaps it is worthy of our second look, as John Mark records, picking up in verse 41 saying … “And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.”  Motives matter.  But talk about a high pressure sale.  Jesus moved within the Temple where He had been teaching and preaching over against the treasury.  This was the offertory box, or safe, or collection mechanism of His day.  In short, people brought what they intended to give, and cast it into the box.  Money falling in on money, silver and gold, falling on silver and gold, would make noise.  But then, that is the point of public giving, to make noise, to be noticed as you give.  What other purpose to giving in public, where it can be noticed, where it is to be sure it is noticed. 

Add to this spectacle, that Jesus moves near the box.  Ever had the preacher, also pass the plate for offerings, directly to you?  Kinda hard to avoid giving something, when the leader of your church passes you the plate, one on one.  This may have been an inadvertent pressure caused by having Christ, right next to the collection box.  People like the Sanhedrin, would want to publicly embarrass Jesus, by putting large sums of money in the box.  By comparison Jesus had nothing to give, He was not rich.  So the Sanhedrin members could put huge sums of money in the box, they would simply redistribute the funds later anyway, so it was for nothing but show.  The Sanhedrin were declaring by their rich gifts, that the favor of God was obviously upon them.  If Christ had nothing to give, and was so poor, perhaps He was not favored or loved by God. 

Others, those who followed Christ, might have felt compelled to put something in, while Jesus watched.  This was their way of “showing” Jesus that they were His followers.  Once Jesus saw them throw in money, they could rest, and relax, knowing that Jesus saw their one good deed.  That one good financial act, might actually “buy” them enough good will to last the rest of their lives.  A one-and-done version of buying salvation, and if you think about it, no price was too high for that one.  So while they were not trying to embarrass Christ by comparison, they were in fact embarrassing themselves, by withholding their hearts and attempting only to pacify their Lord with coin He did not want.  Their hearts that Jesus truly wanted, would go nowhere near the collection plate.

Commerce continued.  And Peter continues his recollection in verse 42 saying … “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.”  I am unfamiliar with exactly how the currency exchange would work out between this widow in the day of Christ, and our current American dollars.  Therefore, I imagine her gift to be two pennies.  But I do believe her gift to be miniscule by comparison with the other patrons of the Temple.  The reaction of the disciples bears this out.  But here is where the paradox begins.  Motives matter.  She did not give to impress; the lack of quantity would see to that.  She did not give to garner the attention of her Lord, in order to buy His goodwill.  Her lack of funds would surely have prevented that; it was simply too little.  So instead, she gave seeking anonymity.  And Peter through the Holy Spirit continued to grant her some.  Even now we do not know her name, or anything about her story after this.  She could have been someone famous in the church later, or someone who never joined the faith.  We do not know.  We do have insight into her motives, and they were nothing like the others around her.

John Mark records the response of Jesus in verse 43 saying … “And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:”  Jesus does not make a spectacle.  He quietly calls over His disciples to Him, and with a lowered voice He points out the widow and her gift.  He then proclaims something that makes no sense at first.  Monetarily it will never make any sense.  Bookkeepers and Accountants do not value two pennies as much as they do two hundred dollars.  So the facts of what she gave can never be more than her contemporaries.  She was poor after all.  In fact, she was extremely poor.  The other donors in the Temple might have done better to help her out, as nearly everyone had more money than her.  But Jesus takes care not to call unwanted attention to disrupt her anonymity.  He handles this quietly, but purposely.

Jesus continues in verse 44 saying … “For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”  The paradox explodes.  Her entire living, all that she had in this world was the two pennies.  She was poor, extremely poor.  But she gave it all to God.  Every chance she had to trade this world’s money for the food she needed to eat, or the rent she must pay to stay in whatever hovel she could find; she threw it all in the box.  You can always argue two pennies will not accomplish anything in God’s ministry.  You can always argue that she would have been better off keeping it, even Tithing only requires 10 percent of her increase.  She clearly has no increase, or miniscule increase at best.  But she gave it all to God instead of using it on her great need.

Jesus begins by saying “she of her want”.  He identifies that she had wants.  Not silly wants like we do, looking for the latest iPhone, or finding the organically grown Goji berries from Nepal.  No her wants came from a wholly empty stomach.  Her wants were magnified, perhaps driven, by pain and discomfort her life was made of.  What a small pittance she had earned, and without savings, and she gave it all to God.  He had no need of it.  Why ask her to give at all.  The best use they could have made of that collection box, was to empty it in her living room, and help her get her life on track.  But that didn’t happen.  She had given her all, her last ounce of courage, her last measure of devotion, and sum total value was two pennies.

But was it courage?  Could it be we have this story ALL wrong?  Could it be that a widow who had so much faith as to give God everything she had, was not a widow born of desperation, but one born of the surety of the love of our God?  Jesus called her out to His disciples.  But perhaps God had been meeting her needs and sustaining her life, even if not one of wealth and ease, every day she had lived it.  Perhaps our God had done this so often for her, as He has done for so many countless servants in scripture, that there was no doubt in her heart that food would find its way to her stomach.  That shelter would find its way over her head.  Perhaps her certainty of God’s love, backed by years of history, had dulled the need for courage entirely in her.  She was certain He loved her.  She was willing to bet her life on it, because she already knew He saved her life every day.

When she went hungry, it was not because God was unaware.  A missed meal was not a death sentence.  Nor was a night outside.  But to hold back from a God who had sustained her thus far, to deny Him the life He kept giving to her, was beyond inconceivable to this widow.  She had all the wealth in the world, for it was all the wealth God had given her.  To return it, was nothing more than recycling.  She had that much trust.  Lived day to day in His care, putting her everything in His hands, and knowing His love would not fail her.  Abraham put Isaac on the altar only once, I would wager this widow was in the custom of putting her all in the collection box.  Not to be noticed.  Not to achieve salvation, or the goodwill of God.  But because the love of God was all she would ever need.

Now who is the poor one, and who is the rich one in this story.  It turns out, the widow has more real wealth than all of us combined.  For she lives in a way of complete dependence none of us are yet willing to emulate or acknowledge.  She could help each of us out.  As we blindly attempt to give her money, she could teach us that our money is our prison.  It binds us to routines to keep it.  It tempts us to buy what we do not need, and hoard what we have not used in years.  It is an albatross around our necks, weighing us down into a world that values coin over humanity.  Its ethics are self driven.  Its principles scream only for more.  Yet we bind ourselves to it, for fear that without earning a living, we would starve on the street and die.  We never trust our God completely; we only ask for assistance in finding more money to keep us alive.  In money we trust, in God we only ask for help from time to time.

Would that we had the lion’s faith of this widow in the love of our God.  Would that our certainty of His care was as strong.  It has been there all along.  We refuse to recognize it.  We take credit for it.  We are not grateful, because we do not believe He did it for us, we believe we earned it.  We believe He setup of a system of earning it for ourselves, not one of total dependence on Him.  Yet here stands the widow’s story in scripture in stark contrast to our convenient beliefs.  We ask for wealth and blessing in our prayers, never once thinking it may be our poverty that is our greatest gift from Him.  Teaching us dependence may be His greatest lesson for us.  Because it is only through our weakness that He can be made strong.  While we cling to the illusion of strength, we do nothing but hold off His blessings, and suffer from anemic faith, and selfish prayers, that accomplish little.  For it is little we ascribe to Him, and much we ascribe to the power of our careers.

Again I ask, who is the poor one, and who is rich, in the story of this widow?  Her two pennies were her last full measure of devotion to our God, a gift I cannot equal until it is my all cast onto that altar.  What is your two cents worth?