The Christmas Stories We Don't Talk About

Slaughter of the Innocents,
by Giacomo Paracca, c1587

At Christmas time we expect to hear about the manger scene, the angelic chorus, a star in the east, shepherds and wise men. And we should, the story of Jesus' birth still inspires us today. Northern Hemisphere culture has added Santa Claus, evergreen trees and December 25th. It’s all good.

But it's not the whole story. In fact, there are parts of it that we'd prefer to avoid or ignore:

• Mary is an unwed mother that without divine intervention Joseph would have divorced. (Matthew 1:19)
• The monarch then in power, Herod, responds to the news of the new-born King of Israel with an order to kill every male infant in and around Bethlehem, 2 years old or younger. Jesus, Joseph and Mary will become refugees to Egypt as a result (Matthew 2:16-18).
• The gifts of "gold, frankincense and myrrh" (Matthew 2:11) are veiled references by the author and redactor of the gospel Matthew that this baby is born to die the death of a martyr; the three gifts each are associated with death and burial traditions.
• When Mary sings her magnificent song of praise to the God who acts in the life of a poor, unwed youth to work out the divine plan of salvation, she sings:

"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty." (Luke 1:52-53)

Can this be good news for those of us in the most privileged social classes of the most powerful nation on earth as we dash about buying up Christmas presents? We don't hear that preached very much in North America these days!

We are quite selective about the Christmas story. We miss something significant in the homogenized telling.

For example...

I’ve got a good friend who is exploring atheism. The other day we discussed the biological impossibility of the virgin birth, the contradictory traditions of the dating of Jesus’s birth and the atrocities of war and violence one can find in the Bible as proofs that no reasonable person should believe in God as described in the Bible, especially the Christmas story. The point that “we hide” the parts of the story we’d rather ignore was only more evidence of our shallowness to my friend.

Fair enough. Explaining that divine conception was a typical literary device in the Ancient Near East or that historical documentation was often manipulated for political purposes back then made little impact on my friend who was looking for evidence not to believe. If you are seeking fault you will always find it.

If you are looking to expose the hypocrisy of a faith tradition that proclaims “God is love” (I John 4:8) and has a history of bloodlust you don’t have to go very far in the Bible to find it. Both Hebrew and New Testament scriptures report incidences of genocide, murder and mayhem (Just as examples note: Genesis 4:1-16, 19:12-f, 34:1-f, Exodus 12:29-32, 32:25-35, Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, Mark 6:14-29, Acts 5:1-11, 7:54-8:1).

This has long been an argument by atheists to reject faith. Asserting divine authority in irrational and violent texts is an excuse to do all manner of evil in “God’s name”. Certain stories of faith in Abrahamic monotheism have been used to justify the very cruelty and injustice it preaches against. If you are on God’s side you can do just about anything to one who isn’t, including colonizing their nations, burning of their cities, raping their women and killing their children.

The dichotomy is often explained away with selective interpretation. We pick out the parts of the Bible we like, which agree with our point of view, that justify our opinions and ignore the rest. We all pick and choose to what we will pay attention in life so it may seem natural to do the same with sacred writings.

The opposite approach is also argued suggesting that since it is written in the Holy Book each and every believer adheres to each and every word. Thus if there is sanctioned violence in the Holy Book then the believers must be violent people.

The most contemporary example of this notion is "Islamophobia"; the irrational fear of Islam and Muslims.

The Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, contains verses that justify violence. Islam was born out of a violent history and warred against the West for centuries. Islamic terrorism and terrible interfaith violence are realities of our times in all too many places. Yet to suggest that all 1.2 billion Muslims are out to kill non-Muslims because of what is written in their Holy Book is based on fear. It ignores the reality of Islamic diversity in thought and practice, as diverse as Roman Catholic and Protestant sects in Christianity. Islamophobia asserts that there is a single-mindedness in Islam that has never existed or appears to be non-existent only due to a very successful global conspiracy of stealth jihad among 1.2 billion people (?!).

Even the most strident Christian literalist will not argue that the Lord is literally a "shepherd" (Psalm 23) as if tending sheep in a heavenly pasture or that God is literally a "rock" just because God is called "a rock" or "my rock" 19 times in the book of Psalms. Christians don't cut off their hands or pluck out their eyes just because Jesus said to (Matthew 5:29-30,18:7-9). Poetic metaphor and symbolism has long been an aspect of Christian interpretation. No one lives by the Bible's literal "each and every word", let alone all 2 billion followers of Christ as if we were single-minded simply because we call ourselves the same name.

Although they all have the same Holy Book the Hebrew community has known significant diversity in interpretation and practice for centuries. Why would anyone suggest that all Muslims think and intend to act the same way because they have the same Holy Book?

It’s hard to argue against the atheist's denunciation of hypocritical, violent religion. There are too many historic and contemporary examples to ignore of the failure of religious communities to live up to their ideals. But the atheist misses an essential point basing such condemnation on the selective interpretation of sacred texts or blind and irrational devotion.

The Abrahamic tradition that posits both a loving and violent God is describing a dichotomy that is in each one of us. Most of us will not admit it but we all have the capacity for great acts of compassion and/or cruelty. Sacred texts combine myth, metaphor, theology and history recording the capacity of human love and violence in the most obvious terms. It may be a dichotomy we would just rather avoid. But the thoughtful reader and/or adherent is left to choose not just which part of the story they will believe but which aspect within themselves they will nurture and act upon. The choice is always ours and we need to face it. The saga of the Abrahamic faith forces us to do so.

If we avoid the dichotomy of our traditions as expressed in our Holy Books we avoid it in ourselves. And by avoiding it in ourselves, we remain isolated in our small worlds of logic, reason and fear. Our atheist friends dream of a world ruled by reason, logic and science as if those values are the best guarantee for a human future. History is full of examples of human carnage and exploitation when those values aren't anchored in moral and ethical grounding often found in the very sacred texts the atheist rejects.

Indeed the specifics of the Christmas story may be hard to believe if one insists on reading it through the lens of 21st century rationalism, without appreciation for the historical context from which it came. Virgin birth, stars in the east, angels singing from heaven are all part of a saga trying to grasp the possibility of incarnation.

We who embrace the story lose a lot if we avoid the implications of those parts of Christmas that don't fit with our cultural sentimentality:

• The birth of the Christ child has political ramifications for those who rule by greed and power. And still does.
• The death of Jesus on the cross will be the ultimate act of unconditional love and the authors of the gospels Matthew and Luke where we find the origin of the Christmas story want their readers to know this was no accident of history.
• If the values of love, peace and justice were to govern human society, the rich and powerful would indeed be sent empty away as the world would be organized to insure that everyone had enough. Millions still make that a dream worth living.

I don't mean to wash-way the challenges of faith or specifically the implications of violence in the Bible but having to wrestle with it there and in ourselves makes it very important that the whole story is told.

Fifty Shades of Grace: #1

R.A. Dickey had the professional baseball season of his dreams.  After more than ten years in the Minor Leagues, multiple up and downs with Major League Teams, Dickey landed a starting pitcher role with the New York Mets and made the most of it.  His record was 20-6 with an ERA of 2.73, leading the league in strike outs on what was a very mediocre Mets team.  He pitched in the All Star game.  On November 15,  it was announced that he won the Cy Young Award, the highest individual honor for a Major League pitcher.

I was rooting for R.A. Dickey all season long.  This may seem shocking to many who know my devotion to the San Francisco Giants.  I was not rooting for Dickey to beat the Giants.  I was rooting for his success against all other National League teams.  More than that I was and am rooting for this guy to succeed as a person and as a pitcher.

I found his autobiography Wherever I Wind Up: My Quest for Truth, Authenticity and the Perfect Knuckleball (with Wayne Coffey, Blue Rider Press, 2012) compelling.  His story is inspiring.  Raised in poverty with an absent father and alcoholic mother, Dickey was an outstanding athlete in all sports from an early age.  He survived childhood sexual abuse.  He played on the US Olympic baseball team.  He was a Collegiate All American pitcher.  On the day he was to sign a lucrative contract with the Texas Rangers the final medical report came back describing that he was born with a congenital muscle condition in his pitching arm and the contract offer was rescinded.  Determined to succeed in spite of his physical limitations, he learned how to master the mysterious knuckleball, thrown by only a handful of successful professional pitchers in history.  

Bouncing around the Minor Leagues, living on odd jobs and the devotion of his beautiful wife, he tried everything to make it into the Big Leagues to no avail.  A “born again” Christian, Dickey betrayed all who loved him and himself by committing adultery.  After confessing his failure to the mother of his three children, he lived on his own and at times contemplated suicide.  It has only been by his wife’s patience and understanding, the support of friends and teammates, and the long hard work of an excellent therapist that Dickey has been able to rebuild his life, all the while learning to pitch the knuckleball.

Finally at the age of 37 he has found peace within, reconciliation with those who love him and a devastating knuckleball that on a good day is impossible for opposing hitters to hit.    He had two successive one-hitters this past spring!

His biography is confessional.  This is a flawed man who has had more than his share of brokenness.  He doesn’t pretend to be something he is not.  His goal in life is to provide for his family.  It would appear that he sincerely seeks to grow closer to God and others.  Professional baseball has simply been the venue for his journey.

I watched the box score of each of his games.  I cheered his successes and mourned his losses.  I don’t know the guy.  He is a New York Met, for crying out loud.  But his story is so much my story….so much like all of our stories.  He has overcome brokenness and pain, while stumbling along the way.  He has tried to learn from his mistakes.  He honors the ones who have stuck with him even when he didn’t deserve it.   He has discovered the loving the God who welcomes home the Prodigal (Luke 15) again and again.

I am rooting for R.A. Dickey and all of the R.A. Dickeys of the world!

“Redefining” Marriage?

The concerns that “we are redefining traditional marriage” by extending marriage to same gender couples escape me. 

I have many good friends, well read, intelligent and without a homophobic bone in their bodies who passionately insist that the word “marriage” must be reserved in our society for one man and one woman commitments.  They will often insist that they want same gender couples to have all the same rights and responsibilities in civil unions or domestic partnership as heterosexual couples do in legal marriage.   "Just don’t call it marriage”.   A few will quote the Bible to justify the point as well, which confuses me even more.  Here are my concerns:

Equality        

Same gender couples in states which currently offer civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are not entitled to over 1,100 Federally recognized rights and responsibilities as do those in heterosexual marriages.1 By not offering same gender couples a legal marriage license, we deny law abiding citizens....tax paying, socially contributing, at times members or veterans of our military services....equal protection under the law.

History        

Concepts and institutions of marriage have been “redefined” throughout history.  In European cultures historians record the practice of same gender unions, marriages and their celebrations in the ancient Greco-Roman society up until the Middle Ages.2

Government regulation of the marriage contract between adults is a relatively recent occurrence in history.3 Up until the 1600's marriage was a private contract between two families.  At times church bodies would recognize the vows of the marriage covenant between consenting adults and record it in parish records but this held varying legal authority based on location.

In North America, there are examples of marriage licenses issued by local governments as early as the colonial era in the 1700's, but government marriage registration and licensure was not a nation-wide practice in the United States until after the Civil War.   Along with insuring the rights and responsibilities of each partner, the first marriage licenses also restricted who could make such contracts; race, religion, nationality, age and social class were qualifiers.  The Chinese Immigration Act of 1882 denied the right to marry between people of Asian descent and Anglos.   Mixed race marriages were not nationally legalized until Supreme Court decisions in 1967 (Loving vs. Virginia).

Change

Concepts and institutions of marriage are being “redefined” as we speak.  The changes in our culture’s expectations and norms for marriage have been revolutionary in my lifetime.  Social values regarding pre-marital sex and child birth have been turned upside down.

Procreation has always been assumed as one of the goals of marriage but in modern society is not required. People get married without the expectation of having children all of the time.  Modern science has extended the options of childbirth way beyond "traditional coupling" with IV fertilization and other technologies.

Forty years ago it was shocking to learn of a couple living together prior to the wedding.  Today, in pre-marital counseling, I am surprised if the couple is not already living together and has been doing so for some time.  Mature adults and seniors commonly "couple" without marriage for all sorts of financial reasons.   In 1960 5.3% of American babies were born out of wedlock, by 1992 it was 30%; today for mothers under 30 years old, 53% of their children are born without married partners.4  Our divorce rate in the United States has stabilized in the last ten years but remains the highest in the world.5  

There are many factors redefining marriage today, for good or ill.  Including same gender couples in the legal institution of marriage would certainly change the expected definition but it is not the only thing redefining marriage.

Fear 

Government legislation and a host of non-profit and/or religious agencies have the mission to “defend marriage”.  This implies a threat to existing heterosexual marriages and families by the mere existence of same gender couples and/or families.  "Defense of marriage" agencies suggest that by legitimizing same gender families we would further degrade the moral standards of our nation and risk the wrath of God.  Some would go so far as to blame the growing acceptance of the LGBT community and same gender families as the reason for the divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth statistics cited above.

Unless one is seriously suggesting that hurricanes or global recessions or health epidemics are God's acts upon a sinful nation...and there are those that do...."defending marriage" is simply a code word for history's latest scapegoating.     

According to the U.S. census there were 646,000 same-sex-couple households in the U.S. in 2010, 115,064 with children.6   How does their existence threaten any one? It certainly hasn’t affected my heterosexual marriage of 39 years.

The Bible?    

The Bible as the defining source for the institution of marriage?  Really?

Is it "traditional marriage based on biblical principles" when Abraham begets Ishmael with his slave Hagar because his wife Sarah is barren? (Genesis 16:1-f)  Is it when Jacob and his two wives Leah and Rachael, and the slaves Zilpah and Bilhah, bear him children, including the twelve sons who will become the twelve tribes of Israel? (Genesis 30:1-f) Is the standard King Solomon and his 700 official wives and 300 concubines? (I Kings 11:1-3)  Are we talking about the law requiring the death by stoning of a bride who on her wedding night is found not to be a virgin or the death of those who commit adultery (Deuteronomy 22:13-24).  The Apostle Paul preferred that we would not marry at all (I Corinthians 7).

So what are we talking about when we refer to the Bible as the “standard for traditional marriage”?

My assumption is that the phrase “Biblical institution of marriage” most often refers to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:4-6:

He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

Jesus is referring to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as he confronts the Pharisees' arbitrary use of the divorce writ, leaving women literally in the street without social or economic rights.   Consider how Jesus redefines marriage for his generation in this text.  In a patriarchal society where women were treated as property and marriage was the primary form of regulating an economic exchange between families, Jesus is insisting that it be defined as a sacred bond between two equal persons.7

 

For more than 40 years United Methodists have understood the words of Matthew 19 in their historical context. The Master is concerned about the spiritual consequences of the male use of capricious divorce laws on both parties and the gross injustice levied on women by divorce.  Unlike some other churches, United Methodists have not interpreted this text as the basis for the restriction or exclusion from the life of the church of those who have gone through divorce. Divorced individuals can join United Methodist churches, receive our sacraments, be ordained our clergy and consecrated our bishops.  

Divorce is something to be avoided.  Marriages are worth every effort to maintain and nurture.  Our clergy are trained to assist in all appropriate ways to promote the sacredness of marriage.  Yet we United Methodists have for decades refused to condemn, shame or restrict the divorced from the life of our congregations.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus equates divorce with adultery, an abomination punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10).  A pronouncement certainly not found in the United Methodist Book of Discipline!  

Consider how Jesus redefines the essential commitment of sexual faithfulness in the marriage contract with his teachings on adultery.  In a patriarchal society where men freely manipulated law, social and economic status to meet their sexual needs Jesus is insisting that "even looking at a woman with lust in your eyes" is adultery (Matthew 5:27-30).   To the men who bring a woman caught in the act of adultery to be stoned Jesus says, "...he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8).  When the mob goes away, the Lord says to the woman, "...is there no one here to condemn you?  Then neither can I...go and sin no more."   Jesus radically applies an equality of both sin and grace never seen before in his time to one considered "outcast" in scripture.

The Bible is the living Word of God.  Its truth is not confined to the ink on its pages. We discover that truth again and again in the dynamic journey of faith; in the relationship between the page and the believer’s experience of God.  Today we know that the earth is not flat, the center of the known universe (Genesis 1:1-10).  In North America, Bible verses are no longer used to justify slavery or a second class citizenship for women.  God did not stop speaking in the 4th century when the Biblical canon was codified.  The Bible remains the central springboard for revelation in new and changing times. To insist on a static and literal interpretation of certain verses while ignoring or adopting others is all too convenient for “conservative” or “liberal” alike.  

For United Methodists who welcome and include the divorced, and openly minister to and with today's "outcasts", to then use these same texts as the basis to refuse to honor the committed relationships of same gender couples, even in states where gay marriage is legal, is a capricious and arbitrary use of the scriptures to justify a social prejudice.  Something we have done all-too-many times in history.

Conclusion

I once had a parishioner who married late in life suggest "...if gays can marry it will cheapen my marriage to "Bob", something that I waited my whole life for...."   The comment took my breath away.  I didn't know what to say and still to this day don't comprehend all that means.  This came from a good and faithful church woman, convinced that homosexual people are something less than she.  For them to share the same word..."marriage"...would degrade her own.  The Bible verses suggesting that "we are all children of God" were restricted to people like herself alone.

If that is the underlying concern of the "gay marriage will redefine marriage" argument, then maybe it is time that we did.

1          General Accounting Office cited in "A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts", infoplease.com

2          John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Vintage, 1994, note: Boswell was former S. Whitney Professor of History at Yale University until his death in 1994.

3          "Taking Marriage Private", New York Times, Stephanie Coontz, November 26, 2007 4     KJ Dell’Antonia, “For Younger Mothers, Out of Wedlock Births Are the New Normal”, Motherlode/New York Times, 02/19/2012

5          NationMaster.com

6          CNN.com  05.12.12

7          “equal”: “male and female he created them” Genesis 1:27 in the first creation poem (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) suggests that both male and female are equal creations of God.  To the Pharisees Jesus did not refer to the second creation poem’s (Genesis 2:4b-3:24) hierarchy of gender with the man created first out of the dust of the earth and the woman created second out of the bone of the man Genesis 2:21-23, a clear bias towards patriarchy. Rather by tying these two texts together our Lord is suggesting reciprocity between genders that is unheard of in his times.

Also note; is a homosexual man not “male” or a lesbian woman not “female”? Those referring to this text to justify heterosexual relationships to the exclusion of other sexual orientations suggest that God did not create gay men or lesbian women.   Modern science suggests that sexual orientation can begin at birth, have genetic origins and go through stages of ambiguity throughout a person’s life.  Ambivalent gender differentiation, physical and/or chromosomal, is common enough at birth that medical specialists are called into consult every 1 to 1,500/2,000 births (Intersex Society of North America). 

The entire verse from Genesis 1:27 reads “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.”   The poet suggests that God encompasses both genders in “his image”.    Why then would those born with varying gender identities and sexual orientations not be considered “children of God” if God is both male and female? 

God's Plan Revised

In his recent interview with FOX News’s Sean Hannity (07/19/12), George Zimmerman, shooter of Trayvon Martin, suggested that "it was God's plan" that the unarmed 17 year old die that night in Florida.  People were saying similar things on Christian talk-radio shows following the recent Colorado mass gunman killings, "...it must be God's plan or things wouldn't happen like this...” 

Such notions are not new.

Augustine of Hippo’s (354-430) vision of God has framed both Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding of divine sovereignty.  This God is in control of all events, causing or allowing tragedy for some greater purpose we may never understand, or will only learn about at the End of Time.  There is an ironic comfort in such notions.  The surviving victims of tragedy can take heart that God will use the evil forced upon their loved ones for some greater good.  Believers are called to have faith in that greater, unknown good even in the face of terrible circumstances.  Although God could end evil and suffering in his sovereignty, God allows and even uses our evil for a greater good because God loves us.

This was the theology preached by missionary priests in the conversion of the Bolivian indigenous people to justify their enslavement by the Spanish conquistadors during the 18th century in order to plunder the silver mines and future of that nation. 

It was the same Christianity used by white churches in the United States to resist the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, "people of color should not complain or agitate about the conditions of their living.  Whatever life throws your way, grin and bear it because God will use it for a greater good ‘in the sweet bye and bye’."

You can understand the dilemma.  If God is both “good” and “powerful” the only rational conclusion in the face of the atrocities of history can be deferred justification.  Augustine argued that ultimately there is no such thing as “evil”, for what we experience as such will be used by God for that mysterious greater good.  Augustine would have us trust our lives to a God with the power to stop evil but who chooses not to do so out of love.

 

Most people yearn for a sense of “divinity in control”.  We use that sense to justify the capricious suffering in our lives and in the world.  For example, when we survive the car accident we say “Thank God!” as if God saved us from harm.  But in doing so are we assuming that the person(s) that died in the accident or went to the hospital were not so blessed by the same God?  Did God want, will or allow them to suffer for a greater purpose while sparing us the same?

If God is “good”, “ultimately in control” and choosing to allow the atrocities of history to happen out of “love”, what can “love” possibly mean?

To those who question such logic in the murder of an unarmed teenager, or the slaughter of movie goers or in the preventable deaths of the thousands of children each day of hunger and malnutrition related disease (UN/WFP), evil is no illusion and cannot be rationalized away by “pie-in-the-sky” theologies.

This commonly held definition of God as “all powerful” has direct Christological implications.  Does Jesus’ death on the cross buy our way into heaven?  The doctrine of substitutionary atonement makes this rationalization for a God who plans, allows and implements the death of “his only begotten son” for the ultimate greater good.  Scriptural references in both Old and New Testaments support such conclusions but not without other ways to understand who Jesus is as well.

In the gospel of John, Jesus is considered the incarnation of the God of Creation (John 1:1-18).  A good God with all-controlling power that can only be understood by believers at the End of the World would not proclaim “the Kingdom of God is at hand!” in the present tense (Mark 1:15) or suggest that the promise of God’s eschatological future has been fulfilled in his reading of the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:16-21).  Nor would the incarnation of a God who says evil is only a tool of his benevolent deity teach “…for God makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45).

Jesus takes the hand of the dead daughter of Jairus and gives life (Mark 5:21-43).  Jesus raises a widow’s only son from death (Luke 7:11-17).  Jesus weeps at the funeral of his best friend Lazarus and then raises him from the dead (John 11:38-44).  How could this Jesus be the incarnation of a God who could look the parent of a murder victim in the eye, admitting divine authority to stop the slaughter but choosing not to do so, and say “just trust me…I love you…”?!

Maybe our definition of power is misdirected.  God doesn’t cause or allow the evil in our lives.  What if God’s “power” is not the ability to control and determine?  What if God’s power is that which lures us in each and every moment to the best possibility but does not control the results?  What if the future is open-ended rather than determined?  What if God’s love is in the power of inspiration, creativity, relationship and forgiveness…all powerful forces indeed?

Like a loving parent teaching the child not to touch the hot stove, God doesn’t make the child touch the stove but in teaching the child not to do so out of love gives the child the freedom to choose and face the consequences for good or ill.

Then the freedom into which we are created is really free.  And the evil of the world is really evil.  And the God of love that dies incarnate on the cross shares our lot in life (I John 4:8).  Then the God of creation is real love, and not the charade of some promised future to which believers must adhere in order to belong.

Hierarchy of Tragedy?

12 are shot dead, 58 are wounded by a lone gunman in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater on July 20, 2012.  It is front page, breaking news:  "A nation mourns the gun violence of yet another mass killing."  Vigils are held.  Debate over gun control continues.  President Obama orders the nation's flags at half-mast.

During their Sunday worship on August 5, 2012, 6 Sikh men and women in Oak Creek, Wisconsin are murdered by a “skinhead” who also wounds 3 others including 2 policemen who heroically confront the gunman and treat the wounded.  The nation is shocked.  Vigils are held.  The President shares his and the nation’s grief.  The Attorney General of the United States is assigned to represent the President at the Memorial Service. 

14 men, women and children die and 11 are seriously injured in an overcrowded pick-up truck accident, 90 miles outside of San Antonio, Texas on July 22, 2012.  It is suspected they are undocumented workers in the United States illegally.  The reports are in the back pages of the news.  There are no national vigils or debates.  The President orders no flags flown half-mast.

Why not?  Is there a hierarchy of tragedy?

There were 11,493 gun murders in the United States in 2009. (Census)

There were 35,900 auto accident deaths in the United States in 2009. (Census)

There are tragic losses to be sure in both situations, gun murder or car accident, yet why the attention, the nationwide mourning, over mass shootings by a lone gunman?  How is it that auto accident deaths, three times the number of gun related deaths, are not the occasion for national mourning?

Half of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides (FBI).  Suicides are barely mentioned beyond the local newspaper. 

Every day on average in the United States 10 people unintentionally drown (over 3,600 each year).  Of those who drown, 20% are people under the age of 14.  Drowning is the fifth leading cause of unintentional death in the U.S., yet unless we are directly affected, we rarely even hear about it when someone drowns (CDC).

Are some lives more worthwhile than others, more deserving of our attention, our mourning?  Is the capricious vulnerability of mass shooting victims our worst nightmare?  Is it because the Aurora, Colorado victims...or the Tucson, Arizona victims (6 dead, 13 injured including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, 01/08/11)...or the Columbine, Colorado High School victims (13 dead, 21 injured, 04/20/99)...these victims are like "us," part of the dominant culture, middle class folk?  Is it because the victims are folks we can relate to, folks we would see at the movies?

Not "illegals" crammed into a truck.  No national mourning for them.

Is there a special grief for the innocent, as if the families of undocumented workers are guilty?

Then why don’t we mourn the over the 30,000 women and children who will die today of malnutrition related disease (UN/WFP)?  There’s rarely a headline about them.

Jesus has a bewildering word to say about tragic death, found only in the gospel of Luke:

At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.  He asked them, ‘Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did.  Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem?  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.’ (Luke 13:1-5)

In a culture which assumed that God punished the sinner and rewarded the righteous these words must have been puzzling indeed.  Jesus is suggesting that we all, sinner or righteous, stand in equal need of forgiveness and grace.  He seems to be suggesting that there are times when bad things happen to good people without any reason at all.

Is there a hierarchy of tragedy?

Jesus would seem to be saying "no."  Any life taken outside the natural order of things is an affront to the God who creates life and who wants nothing more than for each of God's children to have life abundantly (John 10:10).

Was President Obama correct to lower the flags to half-mast for the innocent deaths of movie-goers in Colorado?  In extending recognition usually reserved for those who serve our nation in uniform or office, does this gesture suggest an even larger national unity?

When the innocent suffer we all suffer.  When any of our community is lessened, we all lose.  And if that be the case, how could the boundaries of nation, race or class ever define the limits of our compassion? 

Jesus would seem to be suggesting that they don’t.