The video below shows “American tacky” in all its glory. A man who loved Burger King dies and his family honors him by taking the funeral procession through the Burger King “drive thru.” Free Burgers for all on the way to the Cemetery, hearse and all.
I’ve seen worse, I have to admit. Probably at the top of the list is and “Funeral Home Drive- thru” where the deceased is actually on display in a window. No need to get out of your car and actually visit the family. No, that’s too much trouble and lacks the kind of convenience we Americans both deserve and expect. No, just drive through and say something cheesy like, “Don’t he look like himself?” Hit the gas and you’re back to your day.
And while I’ve not yet seen it, I am sure it has already happened that there are “Webcam” options for wakes now as well. Just go to the funeral home website, click through on the deceased’s name, choose the webcam option and shazam, there he is with Hammond organ music playing in the background. (Perhaps a special zoom option could be provided too, for closer viewing). And the guest book could be signed “virtually” as if to say, “I virtually made it there (without the inconvenience of leaving here)!” For an additional fee one could either add a flower to a virtual bouquet, or light a virtual vigil candle, saying, “I virtually care.” 🙂
But seriously, folks. I think the line that most stands out in the video is where a relative says regarding the Big Mac drive-thru, “It Started as a Joke, and became a reality.” For my money, it should have stayed a joke.
And while I’m not all that worked up about this (people have been doing silly things at funerals forever), I do think that sober reflection is more proper to funerals. Death, while conquered by Christ, remains a moment for sober reflection. It entered the world through sin, and remains a punishment due to sin.
Further, the deceased goes to the Judgement Seat of Christ. And even for the faithful who rightly trust in the Lord’s mercy, our particular judgement is an honest conversation with the Lord. Yes a very HONEST conversation: none of the sweet little lies we like to tell ourselves, none of the papering over of the things we tend to minimize, none of the shifting of responsibilities we so easily do here.
Yes, an honest conversation of which Scripture says,Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account (Heb 4:13). Perhaps too we will not only see our sins, but also be surprised by some of our goodness we never knew, or discounted. But it will be an honest conversation. Of the the judgement of our deceased loved ones, we should ALWAYS pray.
But in too many funerals today all this is thrust aside by corny chatter and often silly remarks about how “Joe is up there now playing poker with St Michael” etc. Sadly too often such remarks even come from clergy.
In all of this balance is required. Strong and confident hope is appropriate on behalf of the faithful who die. But it ought to be balanced with a sober acknowledgement that, even if it brings relief and an end to suffering, death is a very deep mystery, and in the realm of a tragic blow humanity suffered in the wake of sin.
Jesus, even knowing he would raise his friend Lazarus in mere moments, stood before his tomb and was deeply moved (the Greek text says he was brimming with anger) and he wept (cf John 11:33ff).
Purgation is needed – And, given the holiness of God, and the promise given to us of God-like perfection (Matt 5:48) and our present lowly and unseemly state, the strong likelihood for those who do die in grace, is that they must undergo final purification to inherit these promises. And this too balances our behavior, we are confident for the faithful, but vigilant unto their purification.
A final reason for sobriety at funerals is the solemn reminder that we will all die and must properly prepare for death. At funerals I never fail to earnestly preach conversion and preparation for death. This is no time to play around and tell lots of goofy jokes. There are many people at funerals who never come to Church at any other time, and many of them are in very serious sin, and in a very degraded spiritual condition, they are, plainly, in great danger of Hell. If I am going to reach them, I have to do it then.
I plea at every funeral for all of us to be serious about preparing for death and judgment. I remind us all of the many warnings of the Lord himself in this regard. An old song says, Sinner please don’t let this harvest pass, and die, and lose your soul at last.
So there, some pastoral reflections elicited by a video. I mean no harm to the family involved. But pastorally this sort of stuff is to be avoided. Funerals need not be times of utter gloom, but neither should they display a forgetfulness that death is ultimately a very serious matter. And even death when it brings relief suffering, it opens the door to a judgement about which we should be prayerfully sober.
Going through burger stands (or telling goofy stories in homilies etc. ) is probably a bad idea that helps neither the deceased nor the rest of us maintain the poise, the balance that is appropriate, a balance that, at the death of the faithful I would describe as sober and prayerful confidence.
The video below is a Coca Cola commercial from about five years ago that takes up the Christmas theme of the star of Christmas.
Let us review the impact that Star of Christmas had on the wise men, the Magi.
The star moved them to seek meaning outside themselves. It made them look out and up.
The star called them beyond what was familiar in their own country and world and expanded their horizons toward Christ and His kingdom.
The star summoned them to seek Christ, and when they found him, to worship him.
The Star drew them to be generous to a poor family in Bethlehem, and to make sacrifices, as they lay costly gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh before the Lord.
The star roused them to conversion as they “returned to their country by another route” following the straight and narrow path, rather than the wide and destructive one.
Yes, it is a fact that no one encounters Jesus Christ and goes away unchanged. A blind man went away able to see, the deaf went away able to hear, the lame could walk, the hungry went away satisfied, the ignorant were instructed, the guilty forgiven, and sinners were converted.
And the call of the nations to new life and to change began with a star. And the light of the star opens the way to the Light of World, Jesus. The star of my life is Jesus.
In the commercial below we see Santa (a name which means “Holy One”) send forth a star, a star that touches people and radiates a light that transforms them.
A woman sees the light of that star and is able to forgive her husband and be reconciled with him.
A young soccer player sees the light of that star, surrenders pride and steps aside to let another player share in and get a shot at glory.
A young girl sees the light of that star and forsaking some of her own beauty seeks to beautify a public park for others.
A guard at the local museum sees the light of that star and shows mercy to the guard dog with him (this was a silly one).
A father sees the light of that star and permits his son a moment of growth.
Yes, there is something about that star that changes everyone who looks at it. They become more forgiving, more gracious, aware of others, more connected to others, more loving.The light of the star, and the light of the world is Jesus. And his light is meant to have that same effect and more besides.
In the background of the commercial plays an old Elvis song:Wise men say only fools rush in, But I can’t help falling in love with you. Shall I stay, would it be a sin? If I can’t help falling in love with you.
Here of course the “love” that is portrayed is not the romantic love of the song but the brotherly and agape love that Christ gives. Like the Magi of old who found Christ by the star, no one sees the star of Jesus and encounters him and then goes away unchanged. Indeed if we authentically encounter Christ, we are equipped to love, just as the people in this commercial are. We are equipped to forgive, to bring healing, to help others find strength and glory in the truth and to come to full maturity in Christ. A person who knows Jesus and has encountered him cannot help loving others, not in some merely sentimental way, but with a strong, vigorous love rooted in the truth. The same love Jesus has for us all.
At the end of the commercial there is an admonition in Spanish that translated says, Give the world the best of you. The best of me is Jesus.
Idyllic – I did not live through the 1950s (born 1961), but it would seem that many of the TV shows presented a kind of idyllic picture of marriage and family life. To be sure there were shows like “The Honeymooners” that showed another side. But shows like “Father Knows Best,” “Ozzie and Harriet,” and “Leave it to Beaver” showed the American Family on its best behavior.
Cynic – Some who lived in that time, like my parents (now deceased) said the shows were very popular, but also bred a kind of cynicism, because unrealistic expectations often cause resentments when they are not met. “Why is my family not like that?….”Why are there all these nuts falling out of my family tree?…..Why can’t my Father be like Ward Cleaver?” And lets not forget the lovely June, doing her housework in high heels, a lovely modest dress and pearls gracing her snowy neck.
I don’t know somehow I think I did get a little of that idealism growing up in the 1960s. We lived in a decent neighborhood in a house not unlike the Cleavers. Mom did often wear a dress and Dad came home round 5pm. I had a flat top crew cut and rode my bike with friends.
But them came the War and dad was off to Vietnam. He came back, a year later and the war had changed him somehow. The military moved us away from Chicago, and things went south by my estimation. By 1969 the cultural revolution and the nihilism of Haight Ashbury was reaching the suburbs, no-fault divorce was sweeping the land and shredding families, and the sexual revolution was devastating innocence.
By High School in the mid 70s the revolution was in high gear and the idealism of the 1950s was replaced by an increasing cynicism of and toward traditional values, including marriage and family, a cynicism that has reached a kind of peak today when more women 25-40 are unmarried than married, and more then 40% of children are raised in single parent families.
There were many songs that singled the shift in the 1970s toward cynicism. One of them was a rather melodic, even gentle song by Carly Simon called “That’s the Way I’ve Always Heard it Should Be.” I don’t suppose I ever paid much attention to the lyrics back in the 1970s (few of us really did). But frankly the words are a bitter dismissal of marriage, dripping with disenchantment and resentment. They speak of darkened homes, distant and out of touch parents, and married friends living phony lives that hid desperation and a loss of self-identity.
Consider the words:
My father sits at night with no lights on
His cigarette glows in the dark.
The living room is still;
I walk by, no remark.
I tiptoe past the master bedroom where
My mother reads her magazines.
I hear her call sweet dreams,
But I forgot how to dream.
But you say it’s time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me –
Well, that’s the way I’ve always heard it should be:
You want to marry me, we’ll marry.
My friends from college they’re all married now;
They have their houses and their lawns.
They have their silent noons,
Tearful nights, angry dawns.
Their children hate them for the things they’re not;
They hate themselves for what they are-
And yet they drink, they laugh,
Close the wound, hide the scar.
But you say it’s time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me –
Well, that’s the way I’ve always heard it should be:
You want to marry me, we’ll marry.
You say we can keep our love alive
Babe – all I know is what I see –
The couples cling and claw
And drown in love’s debris.
You say we’ll soar like two birds through the clouds,
But soon you’ll cage me on your shelf –
I’ll never learn to be just me first
By myself.
Well O.K., it’s time we moved in together
And raised a family of our own, you and me –
Well, that’s the way I’ve always heard it should be,
You want to marry me, we’ll marry,
We’ll marry.
Hmm…. Welcome to the modern world. If perhaps the 1950s presented an extremely idealistic picture (at least it called us to come up higher), the reaction of the 1970s and later was the other extreme, an extreme that confirms the worst and says that everything is just phony. It neither inspires nor dreams, it just depresses and calls forth cynicism.
And yet, how many have one extreme or the other about marriage today. Either people have highly idealistic (and unrealistic) notions of what marriage can and should be. Or they are utterly cynical about it.
The idealists often struggle to find the “right” (ideal) person of their dreams. And even if they do, in wanting their marriage to be ideal, when there is any ordeal, they quickly want a new deal. Illusion gives way to disillusionment.
As for the cynics, they just dismiss marriage and live in serial polygamy.
But what if marriage was just like the rest of life…a mixed bag? What if it had some good things about it and some challenges too? What if imperfect marriages and families could still be good families and that imperfection was an acceptable outcome? What if, instead of having the perfect family I was willing to have the family I actually have, realizing that good and bad are often mixed together, and that all are sinners in need of mercy? What if I could accept that my family is imperfect first of all because I am in it? What if, instead of waiting for the perfect or the better I worked with what was reasonably good and tried to make it better?
Well you get the point. I’m not crazy about reality but it’s still the only place you can get a decent meal. And there’s just something about reality that’s a good starting point when it comes to living life. Idealism may have its place, but be careful, for too often it ushers in resentment and cynicism when its promises are not fulfilled.
I’m not sure its fair to say that 1950s TV was completely unrealistic, (I did experience some of what it portrayed), but there were aspects that were perhaps too idealized. The reaction it set in is still visible on the hideous, crass, boorish, broken-down “family” sitcoms of today, that hold up only garbage and dysfunction and tell us that the family in nothing but laughably stupid. It’s Carly Simon’s song on steroids.
Pray for families, pray for marriage. Work also at and for both.
There is something about books, something wonderful, something mysterious. We have somehow symbolized reality by a miracle we call language. And one of the most precious and enduring form of language is the written word. Where did we ever think to denote our sounds with the lines and angles and curves we call letters. And where did we think to combine them endlessly into words, phrases a sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, and libraries. Yet here you and I are now, mysteriously connected through this medium called language and the written word. Somehow these shapes on the screen symbolize reality and light up our mind.
There is an old saying, “Paper has perfect recall.” And thus, even as language and culture change, our books have held a kind of lasting memory of human thought and creativity. Even when living humans forget, books can remain on a shelf, only to be rediscovered many years later. People are forgetful, but paper has perfect recall.
Thank God the Jewish people and the early apostles and disciples carefully recorded what Jesus said and did, indeed, what God had done for thousands of years. Their paper and parchments have perfect recall and left us a careful accounting of what God said and did more lasting than mere human memory.
In this electronic age, I fear one day a terrible magnetic event or nuclear pulse will wipe clean the cyber space in which we currently write. I have sought to treasure what I write by making physical copies of it on CD and even printouts, for too frequently today, we write on what amounts to thin air. What of our electronic and virtual age will remain if (and when) that terrible magnetic event sweeps away most of what we generate today in the virtual (i.e. not quite real) word of cyber space (i.e. thin air)?? Much could well vanish if the event is global.
But our books may well remain. Yes, paper has perfect recall.
I thought of all this when seeing the video below. A young man sits writing and reading, quite enchanted. And suddenly a great storm sweeps everything away. Even the page he is looking at goes blank; all swept away in an instant.
In the aftermath of the storm he beholds a barren landscape, ruined and gray, all color gone.
But suddenly on the wind comes a beautiful woman, borne aloft by books, like so many balloons. She has vivid color and smiles and she tosses him a book. Yes, though most is gone, there are still the books.
And as he takes up the book, he regains his color and is led to a library of books. The world is once again enchanted, musical, colorful and creative. And he sets to preserving the books and dispensing them to sad souls, gray and dull, who come by the library. Taking the books, they regain their color.
Yes, there is just something about books. Paper has perfect recall. Be careful about converting too many things to electronic form. At least keep the important stuff physically etched to a CD-R or other physical format. The thrilling book One Second After details how our virtual world could collapse in an instant by way of a pulse bomb.
Enjoy this video which has a similar message, and reminds that books are wonderful things and that paper has perfect recall.
The video at the bottom of this post is a commercial that caught my attention the other day as emblematic of how coarse our culture has widely become. And, as I watched it I thought “We have lost a lot in the recent cultural revolution.”
I suppose I shouldn’t expect a lot from a commercial for hard liquor (Skinny Girl cocktails). I have nothing against such products intrinsically, and even enjoy a usual nightcap of a shot of Bourbon (just one) mixed in a diet cola. But honestly, alcohol, by definition, doesn’t usually promote sober reflection and, if anything, it encourages stinkin’ thinkin.’ And frankly there’s a lot of “stinkin thinkin” in this commercial.
In the first place it ridicules the culture of the 1950s and early 1960s. The woman who exemplifies that era in the commercial is shown as stuffy, pretentious and extreme. She is finely attired in a pleated skirt, heals and a pearl necklace. But her “big hair” and poorly layered clothing seem intended to make her look “frumpy” and frankly, a big fake. Her unnaturally sultry voice also ads to the impression that the 1950s were “fake and stupid.”
Disclaimer – There is no claim here that the 1950s were some sort of idyllic period. Surely like any era there were problems and troubles. I am also under no illusions that all housewives strolled about like June Cleaver in heals and pearls, with a skirt perfectly fitted to their hourglass figures.
But as the commercial rolls on, I think we see that we have lost a lot. The picture flashes away from the elegantly dressed woman, careful for modesty and dignity (though excessively portrayed), to the modern scene where we are suppose to rejoice and approve at how far women have come.
And what do we see? Half drunk women, with painted nails and flip flops, liquor bottles in abundance, and the indelicate and boorish behavior of those who have been drinking too much. Further there are numerous displays of immodest dress, immodest posture and unbecoming behaviors. In effect, if you ask me, it is a celebration of all in our culture that is boorish, immodest, indelicate, and excessively informal.
To the ad to its credit, does not show these women exhibiting these behaviors before men. But the overall effect remains the same, a “celebration” of how far we’ve come from the uptight 1950s. Yes, look how far: crass, boorish, indelicate, inelegant, lowbrow, rough, rude, uncouth, unrefined, and largely vulgar behaviors, a mighty long way from what we once knew. As if to say, “Take that 1950s with all your formalism and restrictions…take that traditional values…We’ve come of age!”
Now of course folks in the fifties knew how to have fun and relax, it just doesn’t seem they had to be so boorish, under-dressed and uncontrolled to do it.
I did not grow up in the 1950s but did have a substantial period of my early years in the early to mid-sixties, before the revolution really set in. And again, we knew how to have fun, and even dress down occasionally. But as a general rule we were expected in those years to observe higher norms, to have manners, to dress up to go to restaurants, to Church, and to behave in certain ways in “polite company.” As a you young man I would never think to go to Church without trousers and a button down shirt with a tie. I had special clothes for Sunday. We might rough-house in the back yard in shorts and a tee-shirt, along with sneakers. But when we went into town, we “put on decent clothes.” This was true even when going to the grocery store (see photo upper right).
When company was coming we were expected to dress for the occasion. Table manners were important, and a young man was expected to treat a lady like a lady. Language which might not always be perfect around “the guys” had to be cleaned up when a lady or girl was in the room. Further, our posture and behavior were to be adjusted in the presence of a lady, and also when adults were in the vicinity. Respect and decorum were important ways of showing honor to others.
These days, much of this has been lost. We almost never dress up any more in our culture. Perhaps the closest we get is work. Beach attire seems more the norm in places where such attire would have been unthinkable in the past, places like Church, restaurants, movies, and other public gatherings. Manners are usually considered pretentious, as the commercial below mocks them. People laugh and look incredulous when someone suggests any sorts of limits to informality in most occasions: “What do you mean I should wear a shirt with a collar, what business is that of yours?”
I am under no illusions that we are going to make a sudden return to the more formal (and I would say polite) world I knew briefly in my youth, but the main point is simply that I think we have lost something. If, perhaps we were too formal and stuffy in the past, I think we have over-corrected. If perhaps, in the past we were somewhat phony, it does not follow that full disclosure and sociopathic, no-limits “honesty” is good either. Maybe in hot weather it is nice to wear cooler clothes, but it is interesting to me that in the years when air-conditioning was almost unknown, we managed to wear a lot more clothes to cover our nakedness. Somehow, despite the heat, we thought decency and modesty mattered.
I don’t know, look at the Commercial and tell me. Have we lost something? It is not necessary to use all or nothing logic, as if the 50s and early 60s were all good, and we are all bad. Perhaps there’s room though for a discussion in the middle ground where we may have simply gone too far, lost too much, and need to take a few steps back from the edge of an increasingly coarse culture; perhaps not back into poodle skirts and pleated trousers, but at least back to some sense that manners, modesty and more careful behavior have a place.
“Enjoy” this commercial and tell me what you think.
When looking to Scripture it is clear that many historical events are being recounted. And while parts of the Scripture recount that history in the “strict” and modern sense of history, yet, many different genres are also used: poem, drama, moral tale, epic saga, wisdom saying, parable, apocalyptic, gospel, and so forth.
But all the Scripture amounts to a kind of sacred history where God, through his prophets, and apostles, his sages and scribes, gives us a prophetic interpretation of reality. As if to say, “What ever you think is going on, this is what is REALLY going on.”
In Scripture, God the Holy Spirit, does not just tell us what happens, but interprets its meaning. Events are not simply locked in ancient history but speak to us today. These are not just stories about what they (the people of old) did, they are stories about what us and what WE do, and what it means. I am Peter, Moses, Elijah, Mary, the Woman at the Well, and so forth. We are the ancient Israelites and their story is our story.
As such, Scripture prophetically interprets reality for us. It explains what is really going on, as God sees it, and as God gives it to his sacred authors to set forth. For us who believe that God the Holy Spirit is the Supplier of this perspective, it makes Scripture an invaluable source as a prophetic interpretation of reality.
With this brief (and perhaps inadequate) background in mind, it may be of some value to look at a passage from the Book of Judges that we are reading in the Office of Readings. And as we look at we ought to ask, “How is this a prophetic interpretation of reality? What does it have to say to us of the reality in which we are currently living? How does a passage like this explain to us what is really happening in our times?
The passage is at the beginning of the Book of Judges (2:6-3:4) and serves as a bridge text between the Book of Joshua, and the time of the Judges which followed. Lets read it and see how it prophetically interprets reality for our times. (My Comments are in red):
When Joshua dismissed the people, each Israelite went to take possession of his own hereditary land. The people served the Lord during the entire lifetime of Joshua, and of those elders who outlived Joshua and who had seen all the great work which the Lord had done for Israel.
Joshua, son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, was a hundred and ten years old when he died; and they buried him within the borders of his heritage at Timnath-heres in the mountain region of Ephraim north of Mount Gaash.
It was Joshua who had warned the people to put away strange gods from among them and wholly serve the Lord God and carefully keep his precepts. If not disaster would befall them.
And here is the first interpretative key to reality for us in this passage: that we were made to know God, to serve Him and love Him. And in so doing, and seeking to base our life on his instructive and saving precepts, we will see long life, and as many blessings as this exile can provide. But if we do not follow that for which were made, burdens will multiply, blessings diminish and disaster will follow.
But once the rest of that generation were gathered to their fathers, and a later generation arose that did not know the Lord, or what he had done for Israel, the Israelites offended the Lord by serving the Baals. Abandoning the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had led them out of the land of Egypt, they followed the other gods of the various nations around them, and by their worship of these gods provoked the Lord.
Note the beginnings of the problem: a generation arose that did not “know the Lord.” In the Scripture, “know” almost never means a merely intellectual knowing, but, rather, an experiential knowing. Thus, troubles begin when the next generation turns away from the primary reason for which they were made: “to know the Lord.” That is, to be deeply rooted in the experience of God in their lives; to keep an open door in their hearts for God; to seek His face, as their hearts admonish (1 Chron 16:11; Psalm 105:4) and to strive to know his ways.
This is our glory and our calling. And trouble begins when we turn from this to other and lesser “gods.”For ancient Israel, the lesser gods were the “Baals.” For us, the lesser gods are the things, people and thoughts of this world.
Some turn from God to idolize money, or things, or popular “idols” in the latest celebs or gurus. Some idolize the latest “movements” of the world. Some idolize “scientism,” the error that subordinates everything to the judgment of the merely physical sciences. Others embrace materialism, the error that says only physical matter is real. Yet others embrace pseudo-Christian heresies and syncretist versions of faith. Still others cling to agnosticism and atheism in a sinful way, never seeking to overcome their doubts or difficulties.
In all these ways there is a turn from what, and Who we were truly made for: God, and his truth. Many today will turn to anything and anyone but the one true God, and they dispense with the One of whom their heart says “Seek the face of the Lord.”
Note the second problem, they did recall “what God had done for Israel.” For God had delivered them, fed them, given his law, led them, and set them in a good land.
Yet so easily and quickly we forget the blessings that God has given. One day the Lord asked the disciples, “Do you realize what I have done for you?” (Jn 13:12) So easily we forget that we have been delivered from the futile ways our fathers handed on to us (cf 1 Peter 1:18), and forget that we have been given lives filled with hope at the glory that lies ahead. So easily we walk from the God who has given us every good thing, and who even makes the difficult things work ultimately for our good (Rom 8:28).
Yet, forgetful, and thus ungrateful, we grow sour, demanding and grasping. Lacking gratitude we become fearful, we hoard, we buy things we cannot afford, we become greedy, and are afraid to help the poor. Being more rooted in the world, we become enslaved to it, and give it our loyalty. We turn from God and even become hostile to his reminder that we were not made for the world.
And herein lies the second interpretive key to reality for us: that Gratitude, the disciplining of our minds to count our blessings and daily recall the enormous and immense blessings of God, is essential to our well-being and freedom. Forgetting to root our praises and gratitude in God we become enslaved to the world and mistake its passing blessings, as the true meaning of our lives.
And the cruel “Baal” of this world feeds us just enough to keep us alive, but still hungry and increasingly enslaved; so enslaved that we are literally willing to sacrifice our children, our families and our very lives on the altar of this cruel “Baal.”
Among the central ways that God will save us from the cruel enslaving world is gratitude. It is no accident that the central act of Catholic worship is called the “Eucharist” (the great Thanksgiving).
Because they had thus abandoned him and served Baal and the Ashtaroth, the anger of the Lord flared up against Israel, and he delivered them over to plunderers who despoiled them. He allowed them to fall into the power of their enemies round about whom they were no longer able to withstand. Whatever they undertook, the Lord turned into disaster for them, as in his warning he had sworn he would do, till they were in great distress.
Even when the Lord raised up judges to deliver them from the power of their despoilers, they did not listen to their judges, but abandoned themselves to the worship of other gods. They were quick to stray from the way their fathers had taken, and did not follow their example of obedience to the commandments of the Lord. Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, he would be with the judge and save them from the power of their enemies as long as the judge lived; it was thus the Lord took pity on their distressful cries of affliction under their oppressors. But when the judge died, they would relapse and do worse than their fathers, following other gods in service and worship, relinquishing none of their evil practices or stubborn conduct
And here we encounter and often misunderstood concept in Scripture: the wrath of God. Fundamentally the “wrath of God” is His passion to set things right. It does not mean God has anger like we have anger, that he is a moody God who looses his temper from time to time. Since God is love, we must understand his anger in this light. We must also understand his punishments in this manner.
The Book of Hebrews reminds us that God disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son (Hebrews 12:6). It further states that God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness (Heb 12:10), and that this discipline produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Heb 12:11).
God’s wrath, His anger, is his passion to set things right for us and for others. And thus we see in this passage that God used various means to draw his people back on the right path. the sending of warnings, judges (charismatic, prophet-like and military leaders), and finally delivering them for a time into the hands of their enemies.
And here we see the heart of sacred history, the keynote of the prophetic interpretation of reality: that unfaithfulness, ingratitude, and stubbornness are disastrous and at the heart of most of our suffering. It is our failure to heed God’s warnings, to hear his prophets, and to return to knowledge of Him and His ways, that is the deepest source of our problems.
Put more positively, our only true hope is to collectively return to God, to know Him, Love Him, and Serve Him. Our only real solution is to turn from our “Baals” and seek mercy and grace from the One True God. Our only hope, and it remains a standing promise, is God’s tender mercy, his abiding grace and his saving Love.
As an interpretive key to reality, this passage tells us why we are in the mess we’re in. Why are our worldwide economies devastated? Is it not because we have yielded to greed, and spent money for years on things we cannot afford? Is it not become we have become enslaved to our desires and that, even when we know we cannot go like this, we still do it? And are we not slaves because we have worshiped the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever (Rom 1:25)? Is it not because we seek our joy and meaning in passing things rather than God? And have we not heard the warnings of the gospel against amassing wealth and of not seeking first the Kingdom of God?
And now God, after many warnings, has handed us over to our own stubbornness. And what are the “nations” that now trample despoil and plunder us? Is it not the crushing burden of our own debt, and the disgraceful and embarrassing bill we leave our children?
If you want to name a nation call it China, but in the end, China is not the problem, we are. We just can’t stop our addictive spending, our demands for more and more benefits, and our demands that “someone else” pay for it all. We can’t stop it would seem, unless God allows it all to crash.
The judgment of God is on us as never regarding our collective greed, our insatiable appetite for more. I offer this (humbly) as a prophetic interpretation of reality, not in the same sense that Scripture can, but in the sense of applying what Scripture says of God’s ways when we stubbornly refuse to repent. What is clearly scriptural is that our problem is our sin.
The same could be said of the grave sexual confusion of our times and the increasing dissolution of our families. After decades of reckless sexual misbehavior through fornication, adultery, homosexual activity and pornography, our families are in disarray and a host of social problems beset us; problems that are so deep, it is hard to image anything but a total collapse can return us to our senses. Problem after problem mounts: AIDS, Sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancy, single mothers, divorce, abortion, broken homes, broken hearts and children raised in messy and confused situations. There are also declining birthrates and the social dynamite that implies.
And what are the nations that will surely despoil and plunder us. At one level it is the Muslims are are set to simply replace the Europeans whose birthrate implies they have decided to abort and contracept themselves right out of existence. In effect God’s judgement is on the sterile West: If you do not love life, there are others who do and they will replace you and populate your cities and, (as we have seen in increasing ways), oppress you.
God then concludes his prophetic interpretation of reality in this way:
In his anger toward Israel the Lord said, “Inasmuch as this nation has violated my covenant which I enjoined on their fathers, and has disobeyed me, I for my part will not clear away for them any more of the nations which Joshua left when he died.” Through these nations the Israelites were to be made to prove whether or not they would keep to the way of the Lord and continue in it as their fathers had done; therefore the Lord allowed them to remain instead of expelling them immediately, or delivering them into the power of Israel.
In other words: “This is a Test.” Will we choose to follow God and see an end to many of the disasters that have befallen our culture, or will we persist in our stubborn disobedience and see things worsen? The decision is ours.
Now again, this is a prophetic interpretation of reality. In other words, the passage, and others like it tell us what is really going on. We, in the West like to analyze our problems in worldly ways. Hence some say our problem is a lack of resources, or the wrong political party in power, or the International Monetary Commission, or some fictional Trilateral commission, or the wrong credit to cash ratio, or not enough AIDS medicine, or contraceptives in the “third world” or, or, or….
But God says our problem is a sinful stubbornness, our mistaken and sinful priorities, our idols, our greed, our lust and our refusal to repent. This is a prophetic interpretation of reality and we may go on ignoring it, and this sinful and unbelieving world may even ridicule such an interpretation. But we ignore it to our peril and ultimate demise as a nation and culture.The enemy is within and the blame is ours.
Pay attention, this is a prophetic interpretation of reality. Are we listening?
Here’s a little call to conversion I put together last year:
Last week on the blog we spoke briefly of tolerance in the discussion about Sloth. For it sometimes happens that what some call tolerance is more of a disinterestedness of discovering the truth and living by it. But there is such a thing as true tolerance and it has an important place in the human setting.
Permit then some further thoughts on the issue of tolerance, a frequently misunderstood concept. This post is not intended as a systematic treatise on tolerance. Rather just some thoughts on a what some have called the only “virtue” left in our increasingly secular society.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Tolerance and toleration:
Toleration — from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer — generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. [1]
It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today:
[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” [2]
In effect tolerance involves putting up with something we consider wrong or displeasing but not so wrong that we must move to constrain it. Tolerance does NOT mean we approve of the tolerated thing as something that is good. This essential point is often glossed over by those who often demand that tolerance mean approval, and that to disapprove of something makes one “intolerant.”
Of itself, tolerance is a good and necessary thing. But, like most good things, it has its limits. As a good thing, tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without tolerance we might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members who are people we like but, as with every human person, they also have annoying or less desirable traits. Without tolerance we would be locked in a power struggle and a fruitless battle to make each person perfect to us. As it is, we tolerate less desirable aspects of people for higher goods such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness and the like.
However, there are limits to tolerance. There are just some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example serious and persistent lies breach the trust necessary for relationships and such behavior is not tolerated reasonably. Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) ought not be tolerated and often makes it necessary to end relationships or establish firm boundaries.
In wider society tolerance is also necessary and good but has limits. For example we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others. This is so even if some of the places they go, (e.g. a brothel), do not please us or win our approval. Without such a general tolerance of movement things would literally grind to a halt. But for the sake of the value of coming and going freely we put up with the less desirable aspects of it.
However this tolerance has its limits. We do not permit people to drive on sidewalks, run red lights or drive in the left lane of a two way street. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We restrict unaccompanied minors from certain locales, etc. In effect, every just law enshrines some limit to tolerance. Conservative and Liberals debate what limits law should enshrine, but both sides want civil law to set some limits. Even Libertarians, while wanting less law, see a role for some law and limits, for they are not anarchists.
So, toleration is a good and necessary thing but it has its limits. Our modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:
The definition of tolerance, as we have discussed, is flawed. Many people equate tolerance with approval, and many call disapproval, intolerance. But, as we have seen, this is flawed. Without some degree of disapproval, tolerance is not possible.
The second problem centers around the limits of tolerance. In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. A lot of this behavior centers around sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance despite the fact that their behavior leads to diseases, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent families, sexual temptation, divorce, and all the ills that go with a declining family structure. Abortion proponents also demand tolerance of what they advocate, although this behavior results in the death of an innocent human being. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been transgressed in matters such as these.
Rapprochement? – The debate about toleration and its limits is not new, but it seems more intense today when a shared moral vision has largely departed. Perhaps we cannot as easily define the limits of tolerance today. But one way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval, a greater respect will be instilled in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.
Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, find homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. But on account of our disapproval of homosexual behavior we are often called “intolerant,” (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).
But tolerance is really not the issue. Most Christians are willing to tolerate the fact the people “do things in their bedroom” of which we disapprove. As long as we are not directly confronted with private behavior and told to approve of it, we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. But what has happened in modern times is that approval is demanded for behavior we find objectionable. When we cannot supply such approval, we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.
And further, what if our objections do not simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance? Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots. Neither does it mean we are wholly intolerant and seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to patrol streets and enter bedrooms and make arrests.
We are not intolerant, we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. And, according to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval, that permits us to show forth tolerance. Perhaps such a consideration might instill greater respect in these debates and less name-calling from our opponents.
An aside– Gay “marriage” is a more complicated matter since it involves existing law and a demanded change in that law by proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Most traditional Christians see a limit to tolerance here since we consider that God defined and established marriage as described in Genesis 1 & 2. Hence we cannot favor attempts to substitute a human redefinition of something we believe instituted by God.
Finally a thought as to who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christians often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves. But the paradoxical result of this is a “holier-than-thou” attitude is an increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-claimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions of the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square are increasing. Financial exclusion of Catholic Charities from Government money used in serving the poor are becoming more common as well. In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops are being sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very “tolerant.”
Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us, the same tolerance they ask of us.
Please add to this discussion.
This video demonstrates comically and in extreme form how even those who demand tolerance often exhibit intolerance themselves.
My Father was a great fan of Charlie Chan movies, a series of detective movies from the 1930s featuring a fictional Chinese-American detective. My father had every one on them on video tape. Not only did he watch them often, he also collected Charlie Chan sayings. For in every movie there would be dozens of wise, witty, and insightful sayings. He jotted them down as he watched and once presented me with a collection of the sayings.
On Friday’s I like to blog on lighter fare and this Friday evening is no exception. I simply want to present the list my father gave me with later additions by me. This list is long, but many of the sayings are well worth the read. Not all of them are of equal value, but there are some real keepers in the list. Many indeed are in deep conformity with the biblical tradition.
If you want to print a convenient list, I have put this in PDF version of them here:Â Charlie Chan Sayings
But for light reading and edification enjoy this list of Charlie Chan sayings:
Admitting failure like drinking bitter tea. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
After dinner is over, who cares about spoon? (Docks of New Orleans)
Always happens – when conscience tries to speak, telephone out of order. (The Black Camel)
Ancient ancestor once say, “Even wise man cannot fathom depth of woman’s smile.” (The Shanghai Cobra)
Ancient ancestor once say, “Words cannot cook rice.” (Charlie Chan in Reno)
Ancient proverb say. “Never bait trap with wolf to catch wolf.” (Shadows Over Chinatown)
Ancient proverb say, “One small wind can raise much dust.” (Dark Alibi)
Anxious man hurries too fast and stubs big toe. (Charlie Chan’s Courage)
Bad alibi like dead fish – cannot stand test of time. (Charlie Chan in Panama)
Best to slip with foot, than with tongue. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
Biggest mysteries are not always crimes. (1935 Pennsylvania Referendum Message)
Blind man feels ahead with cane before proceeding. (Charlie Chan’s Courage)
Boy Scout knife, like ladies’ hairpin, have many uses. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
Can fallen fruit return to branch? (Docks of New Orleans)
Cat who tries to catch two mice at one time, goes without supper. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
Charming company turn lowly sandwich into rich banquet. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
Chinese funny people; when say “go,” mean “go.” (Docks of New Orleans)
Confucius has said, “A wise man question himself, a fool, others.” (Charlie Chan in City in Darkness)
Confucius say, “Sleep only escape from yesterday.” (Shadows Over Chinatown)
Cornered rat usually full of fight. (Shadows Over Chinatown)
Curiosity responsible for cat needing nine lives. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
Deception is bad game for amateurs. (Shadows Over Chinatown)
Deer should not toy with tiger. (The Golden Eye)
Detective without curiosity is like glass eye at keyhole – no use. (Charlie Chan in the Secret Service)
Dreams, like good liars, distort facts. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
Drop of plain water on thirsty tongue more precious than gold in purse. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
Easy to criticize, more difficult to be correct. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
Elaborate excuse seldom truth. (Castle in the Desert)
Even draperies may have ears. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
Every fence have two sides. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
Every front has back. (Charlie Chan in London)
Every man must wear out at least one pair of fool shoes. (Charlie Chan Carries On)
Every maybe has a wife called Maybe-Not. (Charlie Chan Carries On)
Favorite pastime of man is fooling himself. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
Fear is cruel padlock. (Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum)
Foolish rooster who stick head in lawn mower end in stew. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
Foolish to seek fortune when real treasure hiding under nose. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
Front seldom tell truth. To know occupants of house, always look in back yard. (Charlie Chan in London)
Good detective always look for something unusual. (The Red Dragon)
Good tools shorten labor. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
Grain of sand in eye may hide mountain. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
“Great happiness follows great pain.” (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
Guilty conscience always first to speak up. (The Feathered Serpent)
Guilty conscience like dog in circus – many tricks. (Castle in the Desert)
Guilty conscience only enemy to peaceful rest. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
Guilty mind sometimes pinch worse than ancient boot of torture. (Dangerous Money)
