My Desire, My Vulnerability, My Prostitution

Reduce your wants and supply your needs. Our needs make us vulnerable enough. Why increase our vulnerability? – M. K. Gandhi

Welcome to the season where the machinery of human avarice walks and talks: Christmas. Unchecked desires stalk us, weakening our moral immune system and enabling all kinds of embarrassing acts, such as unchecked acquisition.

My thesis for this post is that we are the products of our desires, and often this means the unwitting slaves of our unexamined desires. Using street language with my students, I say, “We’re all prostitutes – every last one of us; some of us command higher prices, and some of us walk the streets.”

Desires are good only when understood how they work on us, how they get submerged into our inner souls, and then merge with thoughts and emerge as behavior. Unexamined desires are always bad. Always. There is no "Ignorance is bliss" place to stand. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” according to Socrates.

Let’s say that a particular desire influences you. It could be anything, but the Big Three are power, money and sex. However, in this case, you are blissfully unaware of this desire. For example, one could be unconsciously desirous of acceptance. Needy acceptance. And so, one goes through life stumbling in relationships because one’s unexamined neediness takes up all the oxygen. Nothing healthy can thrive. All the resources go to feeding one’s unexamined neurosis. And one wonders why one is so alone.

Buddhism is the world’s foremost faith for directly confronting desire. Its first teaching is that our #1 problem is unchastened desires. Until we solve this we will be revolving around our own self-ignorance, and such ignorance is always – at some level – freely chosen. Oh, we can rationalize it a hundred ways, but there’s always a moment when we caved, and “settled” for enslavement over freedom.

I mention Buddhism because it is perhaps our world’s most sophisticated technology to uncover desire. Becoming desireless is so important that the faith cites one’s destiny is staked upon it. Its program for becoming desireless is relentless self-examination to see how desire taints even what we think is our best. Even the desire to be a self-actualized individual can be rendered suspect because of the motives involved.

Here’s what’s at stake for us all. Proceeding through life without adequate self examination of desire renders us – as individuals, as societies, and even as nations – vulnerable. The places of our unrebuked desire map out our vulnerabilities, opening us up to exploitation. Repeat that sentence until it makes sense; it cannot be emphasized enough.

Unknown and unresolved desires are our addictions; there’s no difference. And so we go pell-mell into our world, in denial, wreaking havoc in far-flung places we understand even less than our desires, and we lose wars because we know not why we go to war. We are rendered not just vulnerable but impoverished by our desires. Plato warned: Poverty is not the absence of goods, but rather the overabundance of desire.

The person or nation driven by undisputed desires is a puppet, a non-living human-like figure. The puppet knows not what wires or strings have been inserted into its body, and so it hasn’t an inkling of who controls the business ends of those tethers. Ignorant puppets we are, denying what makes us behave as we do.

The addicted are sad because of their enslavement to desire. My desires are perhaps obvious to all (save myself). Understood desires, however, are no longer controlling addictions, but rather, tools. Desires reveal who we are, and that often must be very sad news before it becomes good. 

Please feel invited to comment on the relationship between ignorance, desire and vulnerability in your own life.

What is God?

If horses could conceive of the gods, they no doubt would conceive of them in the form of horses. – Xenophanes


Things known are known in the form of the knower, said Thomas Aquinas. His idea helps us understand “anthropomorphism” – the depiction of the non-human in human shapes, or with human experiences. My thesis here is that most everything important to us carries in it some human attribute or characteristic. Many of our activities have some anthropomorphic aspect. Some examples include:


Cloud-watching. You’ll see clouds obviously in the form or shape of things we know. David Hume agrees with Aquinas: “We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds.”


Movies about aliens. Usually friendly aliens arrive in human form, sporting human emotions (e.g., “E.T.”, or “Close Encounters”), and the hostile ones are more unrecognizable. They’re easier to hate.
We esteem animals as “cute” or “useful” in direct proportion to how they correspond to human understandings of these two categories. Meanwhile we blithely neglect the vast masses of the animal world because of their apparent non-human form or function.


Rule #1 in human relationships: If it ain’t inside us, we won’t recognize it outside us. If things known are in the form of the knower, then things unknown are things not recognized – data not in the form of the knower.


An important issue arises. Aquinas’ thought applies to the category of god. By definition, god is indefinable. “God” has to be so different from humans and our “stuff.” There must be a continental divide (“intellectual distance,”) between “god” and our wars, our Hitlers, our destructive passions.


Jewish and Muslim faiths are the most aware of this holy difference between the divine and human. Each faith imposes severe restrictions on depictions of the divine, so the two categories shall never suffer an identity crisis.


However, many religions in the world rather blatantly concocts recipes for divine images using human materials. We like our god(s) familiar, and so give god a family: Father God, Mother Mary, and Son Jesus.


We infuse these heavenly persons with essential human qualities. A short review of the traditional Western attributes for the divine will confirm this: all-powerful, -knowing, and almighty; loving, merciful, wise, good, beautiful, just, friendly, and even territorial. We usually see divine beings with gender (and if THAT’S not anthropomorphism, I don’t know what is!). Finally, we render this divine personage very similar to us in our dominant desires, hatreds and passions. What society feels important gets torqued into the idea of the divine. Marx is our guide here: “the ruling ideas of each age are ever the ideas of its ruling classes.” Feminist Mary Daly makes some sense: “When the male is god, then god is male.”


I’m not proposing god is female, or male. Gender is a human category uploaded into the divine. What other human categories do we confuse with the divine?


Genesis 1:26 says God made humans in the divine image, but I wonder if we’ve not returned the favor and rendered “him” in ours? Ideally, “god” is a placeholder name for our experience of the transcendent and the sublime. But when we make “him” the root of our nationalisms, or the heavenly Wanter of all we happen to want, have we not just made an idol of ourselves? When our idea of god becomes pretty much one-on-one with our own human ideas, is god really in our ideas? How different from us does god have to be, to be divine?


What is god, after all? Makes one think, doesn’t it?

Jesus vs. Christianity: Pre-positions & Positions

Jesus called: He wants his religion back. – bumper sticker

It is better to merciful in the name of Buddha than to be cruel in the name of Christ. – Kosuke Koyama

Prepositions in English are among the last details for non-native speakers of English to master. Some never do (including native speakers too!). This post explores the difference between the prepositions “of” and “about”.

Is the religion that passes for Christianity in these parts the religion “of” Jesus, or the religion “about” Jesus? Does worship and religious activities glorify Jesus’ person, or does it seek to personify Jesus’ mind and heart in the world today?

It seems that a balance of the two is called for, but I think American Christian experience is more “about” him, not “of” him. (Your comments below should try to confirm or disprove this assertion!)

For the first two centuries of Christian history, Christians were known as Quakers and Mennonites are today: practitioners of communal property, strict moral conduct, manual labor, detachment from wealth and honors, and above all, detestation of war.

The promotion of Christianity to a state church in 313 by Emperor Constantine, strengthened and united a severely fragmented, radically diverse upstart religion that dwelt on Jesus as the Messiah. Constantine probably saved Christianity, or at least gave it a future.

In 325, Constantine called together more than 250 church leaders to hammer out what the core beliefs of the religion were – and were not – to be. This council at Nicaea changed the faith substantially and to the core. We would not recognize the pre-Nicaean versions of Christianity, I can pretty much promise you.

I cannot prove that Christianity before Nicaea was a religion of Jesus, but it certainly became more “about” him afterwards. Gone or diminished were his hard teachings; now the religion was more about HIM. Christmas and Easter became more important as worship acts than loving one’s neighbor as 1acts of worship.

          Jesus’ religion was not about himself. He did not sing praise songs and worship himself. His faith was Hebrew scripture Judaism in a colonized and brutally oppressed land. His faith always sought out the stranger, the misfit, the outcast, and yes, even the enemy, in order to be converted to love by them. Not to convert them, but to be converted.

          Jesus’ religion remains about transformation of self and world. If Christianity today is not about these holy tasks – if it focuses more on his person than his passion – then it is a sham.

Here’re some questions: Would Jesus be would happier if you were transformed than if you worshipped? If you loved rather than adored? Is transformation of the world (not just the self) the supreme act of worship?

This will be on the test.

Religion “about” Jesus gets into all kinds of wheel-spinner debates: Intelligent Design, homosexuality, beginning-of-life debates, prayer in public schools, inerrancy of the Bible, whether to go to war or not, and other nursery games that can occupy time and titillate the mind.

A Tony Campolo quote tests which preposition we use: I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

A religion about Jesus gets upset at paltry four-letter words. The religion of Jesus will be more concerned with the needless deaths of 30,000 kids.

Religion about Jesus is quite popular, but ultimately wrong-headed. The world awaits Christians to start practicing the religion Jesus himself practiced. It all hangs on a preposition to determine one’s position.

(Further reading: see the classic text on the subject, H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture.)

Bewildered and Bewilderning Job

Satan: “What do you think would happen if you reached down and took away everything that is his? He'd curse you right to your face, that's what.”
God replied, “We’ll see. Go ahead -- do what you want with all that is his. Just don't hurt him.” From Job 1

The gloves come off. When natural evil occurs, if God, who should know it’s coming down the pike, does nothing to prevent it, then an all-powerful God cannot be considered “good.” If God is all-good but cannot stop evil, then God is not all-powerful. Neither concept fits our classical concepts of “God.”

Job knew this contradiction in his own family and body. The Bill Gates + Mother Teresa of his day, Job had it all, and he was good. He was unique in these respects. Got it?

Before you read further, read the first two chapters of Job (I’ll wait while you do; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201-2&version=MSG has it.). Now that you have read these chapters, notice something really strange? Without telling Job about it, God and The Satan have a conversation which ends up with God entering into – not one, but two – barroom bets with The Satan.

(When I say, “The Satan,” this is the direct Hebrew translation. Not at all the Devil of the Christian Scriptures, “The Satan” is on God’s payroll, with a job description similar to an FBI sting operator.)
Back to the bets. God wagers with The Satan that Job is so good that no matter what sting operation he pitches to Job, Job’s faith and goodness will never waver.

This happens twice…

Now wait just a minute! Think about what you’ve just read. Here’s the wonderful, great and good God you may worship, love and pray to, the One we tout to our children as trustworthy and good, allowing one of His employees to throw his full bag of dirty tricks at Job. Cattle and livestock die. Shepherds die. Job’s children die. All for the sake of some capricious bet on God’s part, who, by definition, shouldn’t have to bet because He knows everything.

God places dice, and people die. Is there anything right about this picture?

Nothing is right in this picture depicted in Job. Who needs a God like this? Who would tell this story as a bedtime story to children? (And the moral of this story, little Johnny, is you cannot trust God not to throw a little evil your way for no good reason.)

Through it all, Job suffers mightily, but not in silence. There is no “patience of Job” in the book of Job. He demands what lawyers call certiori, or legal standing at a court of law. He wants to bring his case into God’s court and bring God’s motives and actions to trial. Job demands accountability, and answers from God: “What were You thinking when You made those bets?”

Job refuses to listen to his so-called friends – who still populate religious circles today – who explain Job’s problems with insipid pabulum. And in the end, God does not answer Job, but only throws him off-balance with questions that have nothing to do with Job’s questions.

Here’s the sports commentator: “God fakes! God punts! God wins!”

What is at stake here? Job, you and me – learning about God from childhood as the supremely moral and good God worthy of worship, and putting goodness into practice every time that we can – turn out to be more moral than God.

That troubles the hell out of me. You?

Czech Republic Series - A Bone to Pick with God

Whatever you say about God you should be able to say standing over a pit full of burning babies. – Elie Wiesel

God either wishes to take away evils and is unable; or He is able and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them? Epicurus: b.341 BCE

OK, so I preached in the Czech Republic. Big deal. I think the sermon (which you can request) did a fair job in addressing one of my life themes, and one of the gospels: You can’t rely totally on habit and custom to craft any future dealings with God.

This sermon was prepared before the visit…

…Before Auschwitz.After Auschwitz, "future dealings with God" seem an unseemly choice of words. Even "God" seems vapid, like cotton in the mouth.

Time at Auschwitz-Birkenau focused my attention on the here-we-go-again issue that I’ve addressed in the classroom and personally, academically and faithfully: theodicy. How can one call God "good" in the light of real evil? But this time it was different.

I mean this: When Harvard’s chaplain Peter Gomes starts off a new rendition of The Lord’s Prayer like this – “Our Father, Who art in Heaven (except for 1939-1945)…” – I get this.

“Where was God at Auschwitz?” is the traditional phrasing of the question, and I worry that it gets phrased so often that it’s become vapid.

It’s against the vapid that I write today. What could I preach that would not offend victims of Auschwitz with its utterly empty vapidity? “Don’t worry, in the end, God will provide an answer.” Please.

One person has suggested “The Laments” and I guess that Psalm 102 is a good place to start if one has to break a word-fast and say something, or anything.

Hear my prayer, O LORD; let my cry for help come to you.

Do not hide your face from me when I am in distress. Turn your ear to me; when I call, answer me quickly. For my days vanish like smoke; my bones burn like glowing embers.

Psalm 56:8 speaks about the faith that one’s tears are recorded in God’s scroll.

The Laments seem to be a good response, except they seek to convert the very nexus of the problem, hidden in plain sight: “God, who art in Heaven, except for 1939-1945.” For the Laments imply that only if God really knew what we were going through, that would be enough. Does that satisfy you?

As bitter as we may cry, weep, grieve, rail, tear our clothes and point to the smokestacks of Auschwitz, it seems at the end of this never-ending conversation that we are more moral than God. That somehow, God’s silence implies that the deaths of millions, at the hands of hatred, advanced the divine and inscrutable will. That a Larger Purpose is at work, and needed these sacrifices. Please. May I ask here, "Do you feel better now?" and not be dismissed?



I cannot go to Larger Purpose-land. Might as well be Never-Never Land. So a horrific agnosticism tempts me. Just throw up my hands, and say, “I really don’t know.” But this lets God off the hook. Is not “no answer” an escape hatch, wiggle-room for God? One less human being to worry God?

What can I preach in a Christian church, after Auschwitz, with a silent God with Whom I sometimes think (out of habit?) it is still worthy to contend? Is not my name Israel (“God-contender”) with a God-habit he cannot shake?

If I shake it, am I reduced to ethics? An Ethic without God? The Golden Rule spread as horizontally as I can, which sees the fellow human as no less than divine, and that how I treat others or neglect them is how I do the same to God?

Is that it? I mean, I have to leave out an afterlife! Easter! The church becomes a social service agency. Doctrine? I don’t think so. What kind of faith-life is this, where the beginnings and ends of things are less important than the here-and-now? Is this more real, more faith-full?

I can preach this, but people hate it. We don’t like to be reminded of our current obligations to do better. And is there something short-changed in Christian faith when all we are reduced to is, “Jesus loves you, and we gotta do better!”? I can ramp it up: “Jesus is every one of the victims, and the victimizers. Let’s be careful out there.” Will that ramp launch enough good news?

There’s a story out of one the concentration camps. For hours one Friday some Jewish men had argued the goodness of God from the context of their immediate life-circumstances, without resolution. When sundown came, someone said, “OK, time out. It’s the Sabbath.” And they all took off their hats and started their Sabbath prayers.

Is that a rare and deep faithfulness, or an abysmal lapse of it?

I cannot control God, and my questions here imply that I want to. God is wild and free, more so that I can say. But it seems that such freedom is purchased with the most horrible human circumstances possible.

Free Will?

There is one escape hatch here that I have not yet mentioned. Free Will. If we have it, and we are truly free, then whatever we do has no chance of being interrupted by the Interrupter upstairs. Free Will is the #1 rationale against a true theodicy where one is reduced to head banging against impossible answers. Free Will says that Hitler could have done otherwise, and people of equal free will and good will could have stopped him. Why rely upon God for that which we can and should be doing already? That question will preach, no doubt.

And if we constantly badger God to do these difficult human assignments for us – and God does – then what good is that to us in the long run? (And if we are free, then why pray?)

Free Will portrays God with hands behind her back. And the world is considered a better place because of this indeterminacy. We think of ourselves as most human when we have/exercise freedom. We think that our decisions add to God’s decisions. If you have all things created, decided, written down in ink, then human freedom is destroyed. To be free, one must really be able to choose something freely. The issue: To be free means that we introduce unintended consequences. Moral evil exists because of this freedom of creation.

Make no mistake: The free will defense questions God’s divine power. It means that God is happy with creating free agents who can choose good, and can also choose evil. Hitler is somehow allowed. The world is supposed to be a better place because Hitler is here. Or, the world is better with a devil on it, as someone said, as long as we keep our foot on its neck.

(The back-door problem to this is the foreknowledge of God. Does God know that we are going to choose something. Does God have knowledge of our future? If so, are we really free? If so, does that mean God has determined us to choose what we think we have freely chosen?)

There is no answer. And I have a head/heartache. It’s the only honest response to Auschwitz. What can I say about the dead that would not enrage by its vapid triviality?


Silence. 

Well, if God does it, then I can do that, too.

Czech Republic series: Walter Ziffer Ends the Word-Fast

Across the street from his uncle’s former home, now totally remodeled and unrecognized, stands the only one of seven synagogues in Cesky-Tesin still standing. It now houses a Christian gathering called “Agape.” There is also a night-club on site. (For Christian groups to occupy former Jewish places is not uncommon in Europe. I ran into it often in Spain.)

In this packed former sacred space, Walter spoke of what it was like to be Jewish in this town, and to be the last remaining-alive Jew from the region. As far as we know, there are no Jews from that time still residing in the region.

It was an emotion-packed speech, about 45 minutes long, and ended with little-known or -read Proverbs 24:10-12 passage:

“If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small.
If you hold back from receiving those taken away to death,
Those who go staggering to the slaughter …

If you say, “Look, we did not know this –
Does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it?
And will he not repay all according to their deeds?”

[Standing ovation.]

Q & A afterwards, during which he said a couple of quote-worthy lines:

1)            Without freedom you cannot make decisions.
2)            It takes a long time to recover decision-making ability after one has been a slave.

These remind me of a third quote I like from him:

3)            If you don't ask questions, you are asking for trouble.

After his speech, designated people read aloud the names of all the Jews lost from the region. Sitting next to Walter, I heard him speak out: “My cousin … my aunt … my uncle … my friend, Wow! Ahhhh… My Hebrew teacher … I didn’t know he was there." Oh, the sighs.

An old man came forth at the last, one pictured in a slide show from this morning as the only Jewish person in the region. He claimed, and was believed, that he and Walter shared their first camp together.

I cannot tell which was the more important - the huge impact Walter has had on this small town's Christian population, as they realize their ancestors' bit-parts in the anti-semitic dramas of Europe...

or...

the huge impact upon Walter of coming here and bearing witness to his experience in front of his home-town.

Czech Republic series: "Reconciliation Conference"

The Konference Smireni
The “mir” in Smireni transfers from the more-known Russian word for peace, and “Smireni” means “reconciliation”.

An amazing demonstration of forethought and planning, this conference is! Jewish traditional songs on the P.A. system, scenes from Israel flashing on the screen, and live Jewish music, bordering on the klezmer style.
On the opening night, a German woman – the first speaker – brought tears to many eyes as she linked the purpose of the conference to Jesus’ story of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. What have we done, or not, to the least.

Walter’s opening comments set a tone as well, and a couple of passages from that:

“Some might think: “What can a reconciliation or peace conference like this one ever really accomplish? We are a small town in a small country! How can the words and acts of our small community hope to influence the greater political global situation? … When I encounter such pessimistic attitudes, the words of Rabbi Tarphon, a 2nd century Talmudic Jewish sage from Israel, comes to mind. He used to say, “The work is not upon thee to finish, but neither are thou free to desist from it.”

“Many years ago, I had the privilege to participate at an international conference on the Old Testament, in Rome. My major professor … introduced me, still a theology student, to Augustin Cardinal Bea, during the reception. After hearing about my interest in Jewish-Christian dialogue, Cardinal Bea took me aside and said to me: “Young man, remember this: Jews and Christians will not succeed to bridge their differences until Jews honestly dig down to the bedrock of their faith and until Christians dig down to the bedrock of their faith. Once they’ll have done so, they will discover that they stand on the same rock! And only at that point will they realize that, in fact, they are brothers and sisters.” [Applause]

Auschwitz-Birkenau

Silence and No-Words should be the word today. Lots of empty spaces.  So, a poor poem.

Incompletion in Oscweicim

Perception
Deception
Regulation
Explanation
Evasion
Oration
Vindication

Humiliation
Beration
Interruption
Isolation
Emigration
Irresolution
Inaction
Construction
Exhaustion
Destruction
Ruination

Privation
Ration
Elimination
Cremation
Eradication
Extermination

Liberation

Aryanation
Anynation
Imagination

Czech Republic series: First Day in Cesky-Tesin

Tuesday September 15. Prague --> Cesky-Tesin.

"I am tired, forgive me, of hearing about Holocaust Stories." As we travelled to Csesky Tesin, at a McDonalds, the topic again was that of Jews, Jewish history, Nazi Holocaust, and etc. “Did you happen to see, Walter, the video about the woman who saved so many Jews during the Holocaust?”

“Forgive me for appearing insensitive,” Walter began, “but I have seen enough of such things. I do not doubt their veracity, but they do not affect me. When I get emotional, it's when I talk about my father.”

Later that afternoon, we heard about his father. Now, in Cesky-Tesin, we spent a long late-afternoon walking about this small town, stopping every once in a while, to hear a “Walter-Story” about what happened in that place, in this house. We found out what was still there, and what was missing. We heard about how everything changed for his family once Goebbels had a gathering in the town square … people who were used to being friendly to “Dr. Ziffer” and his family could no longer look them square in the eyes.

The house in which Walter came to live when he was two days old is “the last house before you get to Poland,” beside the river bridge, across which one can walk undeterred to Poland.

One Chain of Unbelievable Stories
The evening meal at the restaurant turned into a marathon story-fest by Walter of his experiences in some of the seven camps. The theme was luck, prosaic as it might sound. Through a remarkable sequence of luck, Walter is here. Any of a numerous string of incidents could have been the interrupting factor that led to his being elsewhere than right here in this hotel with us.

In one story, he was on a train, and a guard came in asking if anyone knew how to play chess. Walter raised his hand, alone in all the car who did. He was led to the General’s car, and told to play him in chess. During the match, his car was evacuated, the occupants going to who knows where, and probably their death. By him staying with the general, playing chess, he survived.

He wrote down this story once, and sent it in to Reader’s Digest. They wrote back, saying that they get lots of stories like this, but have a policy whereby they don’t print such unbelievable stories.

Czech Republic series: "Sleeping in Dust"

Sleeping in Dust –

Monday, September 14 was rainy at first, then cloudy the rest of the day. Walter’s nephew Risha had a full day of Jewish history for us to witness. Folks like us can purchase a single ticket for entrance into about 7 different sites.

We began, however, at the main Wenceslas Square. John Hus’ statue dominates the plaza. One of the famous clocks – part of an old church – commands the tourists’ attention at the top of the hour.          

From the two small windows at the top of the top time-measurement circle, a succession of church history personages – puppets on a conveyer of some sort – appeared for about 50 seconds. 

They we went to the historic Jewish area. Each place had strict signs and attendants to enforce their message: no video. The Meisel Synagogue, the utterly fascinating Jewish cemetery, the building housing the cemetery accoutrements required for burial, the Old-New Synagogue (oldest in Europe), a museum chronicling the life-cycle and the holy days (Sabbath to Rosh-Hashanah), the Holocaust Memorial (a building in the form of a synagogue, with all the names of the Czechs, by region, killed in the Holocaust. Lots of people tearing up here. Then, at last, the thrillingly beautiful Spanish Synagogue, with tiles and art work in the Moorish fashion.

It was the cemetery that most fascinated me. Thousands of grave markers, not a single one straight up and down, and always cheek-by-jowl next to each other, posed the question to the unsuspecting visitor: “How do so many people get buried in such a situation? I mean, there are sometimes ten stones marking graves where in the USA there would be one.”

Walter explained it thus: in each era a person would be buried and a marker erected. In the next era, when the cemetery would seem “full”, either there was more soil and more was brought in, to make a second layer. The stone markers from the first were raised to the new ground level. And so on … 7 times. Perhaps 60,000 persons were buried thus, sleeping in dust, awaiting their resurrection. To tamper with any of the burial rituals might mean their chances on the Day of Resurrection might be diminished.

Lunch at The Colonial Café, where we met Bob Deutsch and his brother Morris. Bob lives in Asheville and Morris in Washington. Both are attorneys.

Then we circled back to the Wenceslas Square and some of the constricted side streets, to the John Hus Church, and back home to a meal at our hotel.

Walter, his nephew and wife, and I sat together for 2.5 hours, exchanging stories, and then I was happy to go horizontal.

Czech Republic series: "A Day in Prague"

Arrival in Prague – The best two things not to do when traveling overseas is not to give in: not to your first money-changer, and not to sleep. I made the first a mistake, and the second a success, though the pace of the first day has me a cold.

Walter’s nephew and his spouse met us at the airport, and we taxied to the hotel half-way between the city center and the airport. The hotel – Krystal – used to be a university dorm; half of it remains so. Our rooms reminded us more of college days than the Holiday Inn. $40.00 per person per night, it comes out.

We met Walter’s ex-brother-in-law, also at the hotel, and then the six of us walked to the bus stop and rode a bus and then a subway into the city center.

Oh, the walking we did. The more I could do of it, the less tired I felt. When we stopped, I could sleep almost standing up. Our walking tour wound through new parts, old parts, and extra old parts.

The part of Prague (Praha in localese) I most wanted to see was the Charles Bridge. A few years ago Walter had preached at my church, and used a picture of a Christ figure from this bridge, a figure often questioned as to what-the-hey’s going on here. They say, “Wasn’t Christ a Christian?”

The Charles Bridge was completely covered in tourists. It is not a car-traffic bridge. However, adding to the thousands of people, several lanes were sectioned off for reconstruction. Huskers selling gim-gaws, art, and caricatures, performing music and tricks, begged the ever-slow moving river of people on the bridge to slow down yet more.

From there, a wonderful meal at the Casanova Café – Italian. As the conversation lagged, so did my eyes close!

Then up to the castle … ever-tightening streets, 20-30-degree angles, the tourist trade in full swing in the old houses. An old church with perhaps the most colorful stained glass I’d ever seen:

Long walk cut short: Back to the hotel for an 11 hour sleep.

Thanks for reading!

Czech Republic series: "Can I Buy A Vowel?"

AVL -->MUNICH  -->PRAHA -->CESKY TESIN

Strč prst skrz krk, or “Can I buy a vowel?”

As we took off from Asheville, I took hold of Walter’s hand, shook it, and savored the moment. This trip is long in planning, audacious in scale and energy, and sponsored by others (Mars Hill College and others).

Arrived in Prague from Munich (from Atlanta, from Asheville) at 10:00 AM Sunday morning. We were the last two people on the plane in Munich … it was that close. Good flights, thanks to Ambien!

I had forgotten I’d order special vegetarian meals, and for the first time ever, the airline actually delivered. This meant that for dinner and for breakfast, I was served first!

The hotel is half-way between Prague and the airport. The Krystal is a dorm/pension styled place. Walter’s nephew Risa and his wife met us at the airport. We caught obvious manifestations (infestations?) of McDonalds and KFC on the way in.

The title of this piece comes from the often severe lack of vowels in the already-difficult-to-pronounce words. Strč prst skrz krk = “Stick your finger through your neck”. Don’t think this trip will be one for working on the language thingie.

Czech Republic Report

Later this week, I shall accompany a Holocaust survivor on his return trip to his hometown on the Polish-Czech border, where he will speak at a Reconciliation Conference. That Conference is produced by the Christian churches in town, and headed up by an Assembly of God pastor. I'll be preaching at his church.

We'll also be taking in the sights of Prague and visiting Auschwitz.

Look for regular postings here.

Lessons in How Really to Take God's Name in Vain

Keep using my name in vain, I'll make rush hour longer.
– (Highway billboard ascribing authorship to God)

If I say “God” and “damn” together, have I taken God’s name in vain? Or just demonstrated poor taste? Most think this Third Commandment is to keep God's family name from being “damn” Growing up in Southern religion, that combo is hard to hear, and remains impossible for me to say.

But is this what it really means? What does two rather arbitrary sounds put together in Asheville in 2009 have to do with what Moses actually heard on Mt. Sinai? The first place to go (which most don't do) is to Sinai, to try to hear what Moses heard. Hard, as it is necessary.

Ancient Israel respected the name. The four letters forming their spelling of God's name were so sacred that they never wrote them out, and assigned them a completely different sound than the letters would suggest. God’s name was so holy that to write or to pronounce it was spiritually risky business. Whenever “God” was spoken or thought of, one couldn’t slouch or muddle through it. Instead, one had to be alert, be on best behavior and use the best possible thoughts. Since all talk and thought about God is incomplete at best, or misunderstood or even wrong, this commandment points us toward humility.

God-language, the thinking went, must remain holy, expensive, and not subject to literary inflation. Invoking the divine name as an aid to cursing is not what is going on here. Cursing is merely socially unacceptable language; it changes over the generations. It is cultural, not religious. Putting the “G” and the “D” words together only introduces how to take God’s name in vain. It is much, much more than mere impolite language.

It also means using God-language without thinking, such as mindless repetitions of “Praise the Lord,” and “I swear to God,” and other phrases, or praying the same prayer over and over again without it meaning anything.

Most importantly, the Third Commandment warns against passing off our causes, prejudices, crusades and passions as God’s will. As if God gets angry and happy at the same things I get angry and happy about.

When a parent, politician or religious person uses the name of God to get what he/she wants, that is offensive, and takes the name of God in vain. Examples: calling a war a holy crusade, blessing policies that divide people with references to God, or using one’s association with God as a ticket to public office, power or to greater acceptability. Let me be clear. The following take God’s name in vain much more than putting two little words together:

• When a religious person uses God as backup for inhuman theology (e.g., denial of civil rights).
• When a president justifies his wars and policies using God or biblical language, policies which result in hate, killing and anti-life actions.
• When a Supreme Court justice nominee is advised to parade her Evangelical faith to make her more acceptable.
• When a parent invokes “God’s gonna’ get you” as part of the disciplining process.
and let me get controversial ...
• The “Jesus Fish” on advertisements as a means to gain new business.

Substitution of self for God’s will is what the Commandment is all about. It’s about power, ethics and money. This Commandment questions our true intentions when we seek to bless our vain ploys by stealing (another Commandment!) God’s name. I think, in all humility, that God damns that.

The Street Preacher

The Street Preacher

Last evening at “Asheville’s “Downtown After-Five” Street Fair, I ran across a street preacher. I observed him for awhile, and noticed he had lots of curious onlookers. Every few minutes one or two would venture forth and get into some kind of argument with him. His sign said: “God Hates Our Sin” and had the biblical references of Psalm 5:5 and 7:11.

I can’t say that he was inviting of real conversation. In a crowd of casual street-fair attendees, his attire was … well, dorky. His old style glasses, oily and bumpy face suggested some avoidance-behavior … like he did not really want to be there. I could be wrong.

I finally went up and identified myself and asked his name, gave him mine, and introduced myself as an ordained Baptist minister. His mien did not lighten up. A few others who knew me gathered around to hear what might be heard.

I asked him which sins was he thinking God was in hate with. That seemed a no-brainer to him: “Alcoholism, drug use, and homosexuality.”

“Really?” I asked. “Have you seen such here?”

“Everyone with a drink in their hands is an alcoholic, and haven’t you smelled the marijuana yet (No, I hadn’t.) And I’ve seen 5 women couples walk by, hand-in-hand.

“And you are sure that God hates that?” I wanted to be sure.

“Yes, it says so in the Bible,” which he unhooked from under his arm.

“Where?” I asked. “Can you point us to these places?”

That’s when he really started to dislike me, I think.

He couldn’t point me to those places.

“Can you tell me what these two verses in Psalms say, these verses referenced on your sign?”

He couldn’t do that.

“Man,” I said, “You’re making me look real bad here. I am a minister, a follower of Jesus, a lover of God, but when you go public like this and don’t even know some basic stuff that you are advertising, then other Christians look bad, too. It might be good if you knew your stuff, so you could be more persuasive.”

He scowled at me.

May I humbly suggest another sign? I guarantee you’ll get a better response, and you’ll talk with more people, and have fewer arguments. Want to hear it?”

He nodded.

“OK, try this. I think the gospel is this, and it may go on your sign: God is in love with you. Let me show you how.

“I triple-dare you to raise that sign next time.”

As I walked away he was calling someone. I wonder who.