Shouldn’t we be weeping?

“We are living in unprecedented times,” is a well-known phrase spoken often to describe the divided state of the world today.

The meaning is that there are no historical points of reference that can help us move through these uncharted waters of broken relationships, alliances, promises.

And, no part of our lives have gone untouched: We are fractured personally, politically, economically, societally and religiously. With the most unprecedented aspect being the breadth and depth of these divisions.

“Paper Girl” is a recently released (Oct. 2025) book that describes, what Author Beth Macy, calls “a fractured America.” It is written from the experience of someone who grew up living in poverty in a small, middle-class town in Ohio.

Macy writes about her hometown having a healthy economy and thriving schools during her youth in the ’70s and ’80s. But after leaving for college and then pursuing a far-away career in journalism, she returned in 2020 to take care of her ailing mother and discovered that her hometown had become poorer and angrier over the years. Her book chronicles how she maneuvered through relationships with old friends and relatives with whom (after years of separation) she had cavern-sized ideological differences.

Although Macy’s stories are only about a few people in one small town in America, they are also a microcosm of the sad divisions being suffered throughout the country. This is especially true in her dealings with family and friends who have wide divides from her own political ideology.

Like never before, people all over this nation and world are frantically trying to maneuver through stressed and broken relationships caused by deeply-held political and religious beliefs. Scores of professional and self-help gurus are cropping up all over the internet, offering help to people frantic to stay connected to loved ones with whom they have fundamental ideological differences.

Macy wrote about some tactics she employed with family and friends attempting to stay close or, at least, on friendly terms. Although she was forced (out of a need for self-preservation) to excommunicate some, she mostly kept doing what she called “throwing things at the wall to see what would stick” in order to keep fading bonds from dying.

She put boundaries up; refusing to talk with certain people about certain topics (mostly political). She worked to hold her tongue when some divisive topic got through her boundaries.

She did a lot of what relationship professionals are suggesting. She kept the door open when conversations got heated despite all of her attempts to keep the peace; she tried to keep people with whom connections had frayed in mind; she was deliberate about staying vulnerable whenever unavoidable encounters happened with people who had distanced themselves from her.

In one of the many recent public interviews about her book, she slipped beyond giving advice to people who asked “How do I get through Thanksgiving with my family?” into complete honesty. “It’s hard work,” Macy admitted to a packed room of people. “It really tears at the heart. It hurts.” And then she posed a question that has evaded her throughout the years of trying to heal broken relationships, “How do we love beyond what we can’t understand or agree with?”

The pivotal word in the question is “love.” How do we continue to love each other?

Almost all of the advice available to help people through this pandemic of brokenness consists of things you can “do.” However, as we have asserted many times in this blog, it is more about “being” than doing.

Acting on some of the advice is valuable; such as building a closer relationship outside of the disagreement, mining common-ground memories and shared-beliefs, asking questions to understand a different viewpoint, and avoiding confrontational language. But many times the best that these measures can achieve are “white knuckle” relationships where there is a constant need to avoid the pitfalls and deal with an underlying uneasiness.

At these times when there seems to be no real answers to the very real problems we are facing, what becomes necessary is to envision and move into a “new reality.” How about getting really honest with ourselves about the immense losses we have suffered? How about getting in touch with the sadness this has caused us? How about grieving the loss? How about weeping?

Walter Brueggemann, author of “Prophetic Imagination,” wrote that grief is a necessary step in moving from denial to hope to healing after the destruction of certainties (like relationships) in our lives. An honest expression of the loss will pave the way.

By engaging our grief, we can break free of our past into a refreshing newness found in God – an authentic end of the old and the beginning of the new.

Jesus is our reference point. He refused to accommodate, what Brueggeman calls the “royal consciousness,” which blocks us from imagining a new reality and forbids the grieving that would usher it in. Jesus refused to abide by the world’s reality where new arrangements and configurations are mostly just rearrangements of the same old pieces.

He spoke out another reality that gives way to real change. 

Jesus wept.


Lord, help me, I pray, to open my heart. May I grieve for the pain in this world. When I see injustice, racism, oppression, and violence, may I mourn. Help me not to harden my heart, Lord, even and especially against those with whom I disagree, or those whose behavior I disparage. As I weep over the state of our world, may I also join you in your mission of peace. Amen.(Derived from the writing of Dr. Mark D. Roberts, a senior fellow for Fuller’s Max De Pree Center for Leadership.)

Image: “Jesus Weeps” by Linda Richardson

Love your neighbor

Love your neighbor, no exceptions - The Chimes

Illustration by David Rhee/Chime

A child dies at home.

The police are called about a child not breathing and rush to the residence. The exterior of the home looks much like others in the suburban-like neighborhood where homes are close. From the outside view, there is little evidence that all is not well with this family.

That all changed when the police open the front door to expose rooms full of garbage and mold and find an six-month-old child dead inside. The medical examiner’s report attributes the death of the youngest member of the nine-child family to the conditions within the home.

Neighbors gathered in the street are interviewed by local news media. They say that they called the police about suspected problems with the family several times. One neighbor says she “knew” no one would do anything until one of the children “passes away.”

Strangely and tragically, that’s exactly what happened.

What seems to be in play here is what is called a self-fulfilling prophesy, which is an expectation that brings about its own fulfillment. If you believe something to be true, you’ll act as if it were true.

A self-fulfilling prophesy can influence behavior (positive or negative) in a way that ushers the belief into reality. Essentially, it can shape action that leads to those expectations being realized. 

Expecting something to go wrong, you might fail to take steps that could turn things around.

“These expectations can play a part in stereotypes, racism, and discrimination,” according to Kendra Cherry, a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist and psychology educator. “Expecting the worst brings out the worst.”

Whether or not the real-life psychological effect of self-fulfilling prophecy was a factor in the death of this child is conjecture, since the truth will only be revealed as much as those involved are interested in revealing it. One thing is for sure, however: The people who knew or suspected that this child was in danger and failed to take action (other than making calls to authorities), will feel the weight of their inactivity for a long time and maybe for the rest of their lives, as would any of us, under similar circumstances.

So many questions. Did any neighbor go inside the house and see the severe unhealthy conditions? Did any neighbor offer to help if they knew the dangers inside? Was assistance offered but rejected by the adults living in the house? Did any neighbors befriend the family?

This incident – involving actual neighbors – brings much clarity to Jesus’ words written in Matthew 22:36-37. “And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

A commandment to love? This doesn’t seem like something you can or should command. How can you make or require someone to love; whether God, another human or, really, anything?

But this is Jesus (Emmanuel – God with us) saying this, so it has to be right and true. Understanding comes by looking at the original language used in Matthew, which is Greek.

The word “love” at the center of this Bible passage is a translation of the Greek word “agape.” Knowing this, it is easier to understand why Jesus would issue a command to us to “love” God and each other. This is because the Greek word agape doesn’t describe a feeling, especially a mushy feeling.

Rather, it describes a God-created force that is felt in some way or form by every entity in the universe from atoms up to entire societies, according to biblical scholar Arie Uittenbogaard, an Abarim Publications writer. So, Matthew was not as much commanding us to generate a personal feeling for God, ourselves, and others but highlighting the concept that we are created with a natural “love” force that compels us into action to help others.

Agape is God’s love language. It isn’t something we choose to feel, it is established by God, into every inch of his creation. Agape love is something we will do – just as Jesus commanded – naturally, unless we choose not to. Doing or being better for our “neighbor” is about believing in, and saying “yes” to our God-created design. We were made for this!

Holy beings created by a Holy God

We are holy as our Creator is holy.

A holy Creator can only create that which is holy.

Just as parents pass on their DNA to their children, a holy creator passes on his holy DNA to His creation.

Holiness is a condition of being and not doing. We aren’t holy because we act holy. We are holy because we are created holy.

The direction given by God in Leviticus 19:2 that the Israelites “shall be holy” is not a command to be carried out. It is a pronouncement about the truth of our being. This is who we are.

This is understood through the definition of holy in both the dictionary meaning and in the Biblical context. In each, the definition of holy does not include any suggestion that holy is a condition that can be achieved.

The dictionary definition of holy is “dedicated or consecrated to God” and the Hebrew word for holy is “qodesh,” which means “apartness, set-apartness, separateness, sacredness.”

There is no evidence that holiness is something we can gain through behavior. Also, nothing in the definition suggests that holiness, once conferred, is something that can be lost through behavior.

Even in 1 Peter 1:16 the urging to be holy “in all your conduct” is directly tied to the pronouncement that all God’s created humans (and all His creation) are created to be holy as He is holy. “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” Stating the truth about our created holy condition, Peter is desiring that our actions be in accord (line up) with our created holy condition.

If this wasn’t the case, what conduct is Peter suggesting would cause us to be holy; i.e. dedicated to God, set apart, and sacred?

No, Peter is telling his Gentile audience the “good news” that they are created holy and that it would be good for them to conduct themselves in accord with this truth.

It is through our holy God-created nature that we understand the meaning of sin. Since we are created holy, falling short of that causes pain and suffering – to ourselves and others. This is sin.

Our moral compasses are set to guide us in our holiness. Acting contrary to that nature often causes us great discomfort. It’s what we refer to as a guilty conscience. Our conscience has been identified by sociologists, psychologists, and behaviorists as “an internalized set of values and objectives that guide a person with regard to ethical behavior and decision-making.”

Just as Adam and Eve hid and lied as a result of the shame they felt from using – for the first time – their freewill in opposition to God’s will, we know when we are not acting in accord with our created holy nature. As a result, we perform all kinds of gyrations (sometimes going to great lengths) to hide our sin.

Sin causes us to hurt others (as well as ourselves) blame others, cheat, steal, and anesthetize our shame with all sorts of addictions and dangerous behavior.

Hearing the truth about our created holy nature should have been good news to Peter’s audience and it should be to us. We don’t need to strive to be holy, as has been taught for many years in the Church. We are already holy. We have the Holy Spirit living within us. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God . . . ” 1 Corinthians 6:19

God’s gift of free will, given to His human creation, gives us the ability to decide to act in opposition with our created holy nature. This is clearly seen in the story of Adam and Eve. But when we veer into sin, our holy nature beckons – urged on by the Holy Spirit within us – a return to “be holy, as I your God am holy.”

However, it is clear that living without sin, which means acting in accord with our created holy nature, is an impossibility without Jesus’ Spirit.

From creation to the time when Jesus walked the earth, man had veered widely away from acting in accord to his created holy nature. According to Isaiah 9:2, Jesus came to “people who walked in darkness” and “dwelt in a land of deep darkness.”

They had lost their way.

Jesus came to live among men to reintroduce them to their Holy Creator, reveal God as their unconditional loving spiritual Father, and expose the “lost” human condition steeped in sin and the truth of man’s created holy nature. In all ways, Jesus was resetting man’s moral compass and pointing it to the Father. He was the example of living an earthly life in perfect accord with His holy nature.

Best of all, Jesus sent His Spirit as our helper

Hallelujah!

Loving God or Angry God?

Which did you hear about in Cathechism, Sunday School?

What do you know? God is even better than we ever imagined. More loving. More freeing. More intimate.

What good news!

This was the reaction of a small group of mostly Catholics at being introduced to “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God.” Brian Zahnd’s book began a years-long discovery of a modern Christian movement, which we have come to know as “The Beautiful Gospel”.

Our exuberance for Zahnd’s book and its message has not waned over the years. In fact, it had been bolstered over-and-over again with the discovery of subsequent books by Zahnd and other writers who carry similar and related messages, including Brad Jersak, C. Baxter Kruger, William Paul Young, and Fr. Richard Rohr.

So what do you do with over-the-top good news that is so good that it begs to be shared? Our immediate thought was to host an online book club to explore the books of the “Beautiful Gospel” writers with others. So, we did.

It seemed natural to start with the book that drew us into this journey and that led us to a God a thousand times more loving than we ever learned in Sunday Mass, weekly catechism classes, and summer school led by black and white-clad nuns.

An open invitation was posted on every available social media outlet to which we had access. We advertised the book club as a “no judgment” discussion around thought-provoking questions.

As we waited for responses, it came to us that Zahnd might have written his book for more of a Protestant/Evangelical audience but that our fellow Catholics would also benefit greatly from meeting a better-than-we-knew Creator. We were hopeful that at least a few potential book club members would be Catholics.

What a surprise when the response resulted in the book club members being 100 percent Catholic! To clarify, the final count was four with all but one being members of the hosting team.

From the very first meeting, our suspicion about Zahnd writing his book primarily for a non-Catholic audience became more certain. All of the members knew nothing growing up of Jonathan Edwards’ famous 1741 sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which was the focus of Zahnd’s book. The sermon was preached to Edward’s own congregation in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Also, the idea of God being angry or mean was not something that the book club members recalled as being a part of their religious upbringing. The God in Catholic formation teaching was loving, kind and a wonderful Father, the members reported.

The over-the-top description, in Edwards’ sermon, of a God who “holds you over the pit of Hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire” was not only totally foreign to the Catholic membership growing up but completely rejected as the truth during the club’s discussions. Similarly rejected as truth was Edward’s even more hateful rhetoric that God “abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; His wrath towards you burns like fire, He looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire.”

That this sermon was accepted as truth and highly influential among Protestant Christians, was a puzzle to members of the book club. They were dismayed to read that Edward’s “angry” God theme influenced the believers of large segments of the Christian church and was the catalyst for the Great Awakening that ignited a revival movement among Protestants.

Edward’s use of fear, to inspire people to repent and follow Christ, is called into question by Zahnd throughout his book. Book club members were in complete agreement.

According to reports of people in attendance when Edward presented his sermon, incredible fear spread throughout the audience at hearing his words. “Before the sermon was done there was a great moaning and crying out through the whole house — “What shall I do to be saved?” “Oh, I am going to hell!” “Oh what shall I do for a Christ?” and so forth — so that the minister was obliged to desist. The shrieks and cries were piercing and amazing,” wrote Rev. Stephen Williams in his diary entry of what he witnessed during Edward’s sermon in Enfeld, Conn.

It is believed that Edward’s purpose for presenting such a terror-inducing sermon was to “awaken” Christians from a state of complacency about their faith and relationship with God into greater awareness about the consequences of sin. The responding widespread renewal to individual piety and religious devotion among Protestant Christians is seen as evidence that his purpose was fulfilled.

The movement that was born out of the Great Awakening in the United States is evangelicalism. This segment of the Christian church emphasizes individual piety, religious devotion and a belief in the necessity of being “born again.” Evangelicalism also affirms traditional Protestant teachings on the Bible’s infallibility, authority and historicity.

While all of these deeply (and long) held Evangelical beliefs were not seen as problematic to the truth about the unconditional loving nature of God, Zahnd’s book begs the question about the foundation of Evangelicalism if it was formed on the mistaken premise of an angry, retributive God as described by Jonathan Edwards in his famous sermon.

The unanimous conclusion reached by the book club members was that the faulty foundation of Evangelicalism in the United States is exactly why Zahnd wrote the book “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God.” Having spent most of his life as a member and pastor of Evangelical churches reinforcing the vision of an angry, violent vision of God, Zahnd’s passion to counter the damage done to Christians by Edwards’ “angry God” sermon and almost 300 years of reinforcement by many other Evangelical leaders and major figures is palatable throughout his book.

This all culminates in the last chapter, “Love Alone Is Credible,” in which Zahnd blasts his heart-felt belief in a loving God all over the pages. This was the book club members’ favorite chapter.

“If John 3:16 is to mean anything, it must mean that God gets what God wants through love or not at all,” he writes among his final words. “If I believe that love never fails, it’s because I believe that God is love. To believe in the sufficiency of God’s love to save the world is not naive optimism; it’s Christianity.”

Finding the Truth

Agreement doesn’t go very deep in the Body of Christ these days. Just search Google for critics of your favorite Bible teacher or ministry leader and watch detractors come out of the woodwork.

Or, look through the Christian conference resource table and find certain “truths” being promoted in books on one end of the table and just the opposite in ones on the other end; only a few feet away.

This sows confusion at the least and deep division at its worst. So what are we to do? Where do we find truth? Who has the definitive answers?

The most often heard direction from Christians is “look in the Bible.” But that won’t get us much closer to unity of thought since many of the biggest, long-standing disagreements are about interpretation of Scripture.

“Just listen to Jesus,” is another common answer. This usually means that we should put a higher truth value on the words in the New Testament attributed directly to Jesus. But, again, the meaning of Jesus’ words as recorded by the Gospel writers have been debated, sometimes hotly, since He spoke them over 2,000 years ago.

However, regardless of the pitfalls of biblical translation, “listen to Jesus” is exactly the right answer. The first Christians knew this as Jesus words came directly from His mouth and into their ears bursting with great authority and truth, 

Jesus spoke directly to the first Christians and then (after His death, resurrection and return to sit at the right hand of the Father) made provision for all of us to also hear directly from Him. We find this in Jesus’ words recorded in John 14:13-15:When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

The “Spirit of truth,” of course, is the Holy Spirit who descended on Jesus’ disciples as they were gathered in one place some time after His Resurrection. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit . . . “ Acts 2:2-4

So, it happened just as Jesus said. The Spirit of Truth, The Paraclete (Helper), came. And it is significant that the “tongues of fire,” depicted in the story of Pentecost, rested on each and every person present.

There is great – although not total – agreement in the Body of Christ that the fire rested on each person individually because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is meant for each of us. We each have the ability to be guided by Jesus through His Spirit, who resides in each of us.

Believing this is Jesus’ plan for His Spirit to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), we must go inward to “hear” the Truth in our hearts where it will resonate.

Just as Jesus got out of the fray and bent down to write in the sand in the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), we need to get away from the world’s contradictions and disagreements to seek the voice of the Spirit of Truth inside.

Bartimaeus II

He moved from the economy of the world to the economy of heaven.

image

The story of Bartimaeus, more than any other in the Bible, draws clear distinction between the economy of the world and the economy of the Kingdom of God.

In the world’s economy, Bartimaeus was a poor, blind man subjugated to a life of begging in the streets. Every day the seeing public would walk passed the sightless Bartimaeus sitting in the waste of humans and animals and give him little more than a glance. The suggestion that Bartimaeus’ situation could be different, would be quickly dismissed with the thought, “What else could that poor blindman do?”

In the world economy, playing out in ancient Palestine, disabled and sick people were outcasts. This was because no illness, disease, sickness, or malady was curable. Given the permanency of their disability and the futility of their lives, they were left to their fate. Nothing good was expected for them or of them.

The blind were deeply shunned; i.e. the societal unwritten rules of behavior not only required that blind people be avoided but also extended the same to anyone who might make the mistake of interacting with them

Blindness was regarded as the lowest degradation that could be inflicted on a person. Hence, a popular form of retaliation against an enemy was to gouge out eyes.

Jews of Jesus’ day believed that bodily ailments and defects were the punishment for social or religious transgressions. The ancient Hebrews thought that the maimed, and especially the blind, possessed a debased character.

Before Jesus “stood still,” blind Bartimaeus was tied to the world like Gulliver in the satirical work of Jonathan Swift. The fictitious tiny Lilliputians in Gulliver’s Travels used ropes to restrain the giant, Gulliver, from which he could easily escape. The societal restrains that tied Bartimaeus, however, were impossible for him to escape. He was held down with no known possibility of release or escape.

This was Bartimaeus’ reality in the kingdom of the world but now having encountered the Kingdom of God he is freed. Jesus removes his restraint – his blindness – as effortlessly as Gulliver overcame the Lilliputians ropes, which were intended to keep him bound to the earth.

The prevailing attitude of the day among Jews living in the same world as Bartimaeus was that he would remain blind, poor and outcast for the rest of his life. Scripture, however, paints a different picture of Bartimaeus’ attitude. He had hope that his life could change for the better.

We are not told by the gospel writers if Bartimaeus sat every day praying for the promised Messiah, who would open the eyes of the blind (Isaiah 35:5) or if he had only just heard about Jesus as the word spread about His imminent appearance in the area where he sat begging.

Regardless, it was evident that Bartimaeus had hope: either long lived or recently raised. His impassioned cries to Jesus came out of a hope-inspired heart.

Bartimaeus’ use of “Son of David” in addressing the passing Jesus is evidence that he knew well the words of Isaiah: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

Blind Bartimaeus heard the crowd referring to the passing celebrity as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Mark 10:47) but he cried out “Jesus, Son of David.”

Using these words, the blind man reveals his belief that this Jesus of Nazareth person is the promised Messiah: God’s son born of a virgin. (Isaiah 7:14)

Also, had Bartimaeus been told (or possibly heard firsthand) that this Jesus of Nazareth person had boldly proclaimed in the temple to be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy? “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the suffering and afflicted. He has sent me to comfort the brokenhearted, to announce liberty to captives, and to open the eyes of the blind.” (Isaiah 61:1)

Isaiah’s prophecy, written hundreds of years prior, might have been the source (in fact, the only source) of Bartimaeus’ hope that he would see again. Nothing else in his world offered any probability that he would one day – some day – be healed.

Bartimaeus accepted Isaiah’s prophecy as a promise from God. Further more, his belief wasn’t just in the promise but also in the God who would fulfill that promise in his lifetime.

Is it any wonder then that Jesus credited Bartimaeus’ faith as the source of his healing? What a faith he had. Hoping, day in and day out, in a promise made and written hundreds of years before he was born. Year-after-year holding on to the promise that one day God would come in the form of a man (Immanuel) who would “open the eyes of the blind.” (Mark 10:52)

Immediately, effortlessly, Jesus did what was impossible in the economy of the world. With the Kingdom of God at hand, Bartimaeus “regained his sight.”

Bartimaeus’ story seems to follow along the same lines as so many well-known rags-to-riches, pauper-to-prince tales that we might have heard as children propped on our grandfather’s knee.

Transition is unexpected and dramatic. Just when it looks like the sad, destitute life-in-focus will never change, something remarkable happens. A lost treasure is found. An inheritance comes from a far removed rich relative. A played number wins the lottery.

For Bartimaeus, the miraculous restoration of his sight must have felt like finding lost treasure, receiving a substantial inheritance and winning the lottery all wrapped into one. And then, even more.

His transition was total. Not one semblance, not one shred of his past life survived. He who was blind now sees. He who was considered cursed by God was now blessed. He who begged could now give. He who sat in the animal dung now walked tall.

Still Bartimaeus’ story is not like the rest. In fact, it stand’s heads and shoulders above any other.

Worldly treasure does not get credit for this man’s transition. This rags-to-riches blind man experienced, what Bishop Barron (founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries) describes as a breaking in of “divine life.”

In only a few minutes using only a few words, Jesus reorders Bartimaeus’ entire life by shattering the “narrow confines of nature” so that he can truly live.

Divine grace broke into Bartimaeus’ life. He received from Jesus a generous, undeserved, spontaneous gift from God in the form of divine favor, love, and a share in the divine life.

“When the Holy Spirit breaks through (bringing grace) it’s like a ride on the wind,” said Bishop Barron.

Unbelievable but true. This all happened to Bartimaeus in an instant after his encounter with Jesus who says, “Go; your faith has made you well.”

Sounds heavenly, doesn’t it? Freedom from the narrow confines of nature. Sharing in the divine life of God. Riding the wind.

The only problem is that Bartimaeus didn’t die and go to heaven – just then, anyway. He continued to walk in the same dirt, breath the same air, and eat and poop just like every other human living on the earth.

So what exactly changed?

He moved from one economy to another. From the economy of the world to the economy of heaven.

Bartimaeus

image

Bartimaeus screamed into his darkness.

“Jesus, Son of David have mercy on me!”

His solo target audience unseen, the blind beggar’s words pepper-sprayed the crowd. His cries were heard and quickly judged as offensive to the day’s code of conduct. Blind beggars don’t demand. Blind beggars beg.

He was sternly ordered to be quiet.

But desperate hope amplified Bartimaeus’ voice.

“Jesus, Son of David have mercy on me!”

Suddenly, his cries pierced the status quo and “Jesus stood still.”(Mark 10:49)

Through his darkness, Bartimaeus heard, “Take heart; get up, He is calling you.”

With those words Bartimaeus’ past and present dissolved. Forgotten were the circumstances that resulted in the blindman sitting alone on the roadside begging but his future rose like a bright and beautiful sunrise. Having been called by Jesus, a life of begging and blindness was shed with as little effort as it took to him to toss off his cloak.

Springing to his feet, Bartimaeus followed the voices directing him to the one he’d heard about; the one who made the dreams of blind men come true. And Bartimaeus, just like all other sightless beggars, had the same dream; to see.

Meeting Jesus was also just a dream to Bartimaeus, as he sat begging along side the road in Jericho. Then one day the miracle worker came within hearing distance.

In the moment’s excitement, Bartimaeus may not have been immediately cognizant of the gravity of his impulsive actions. But the simple act of tossing off his cloak, put his very survival in jeopardy.

The common mental picture generated by the gospel writer’s description (Mark 10:50) of Bartimaeus “tossing off” his cloak is that he grabbed the cloth drapped around his shoulders and threw it into the air. According to ancient historians, however, the beggar’s cloak was most likely spread out in front of him as he sat on the ground. Since law-abiding Jews didn’t come near to blind beggars, they would throw alms into their cloaks.

It’s not hard to imagine coins flying through the air as Bartimaeus tosses his cloak off of his lap and legs. The accuracy of this picture is backed up by Mark’s report that the beggar tossed the cloak and then sprung to his feet. The substantial cloth would have encumbered his standing and needed to be shed first.

What Bartimaeus had just “tossed off” was probably the most important of his few possessions. The heavy cloth may have been his sole source of shelter and warmth.

Clearly nothing was more valuable to Bartimaeus at that moment than going to Jesus.

So the blind beggar, stumbling in his darkness, quickly moved through the crowd assisted by helping hands. Everyone was desperate to get Bartimaeus to Jesus. All were eager to see a miracle but none more than the blind man.

This was his chance. And what Bartimaeus didn’t know, this was his last chance. Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem where he would die. He would not pass that way again.

Bartimaeus’ short walk to Jesus took him out of one world and into another. With the toss of his cloak, he shed his old life. Left laying on the ground behind him with the cloak were poverty, struggle and blindness. Ahead of him was freedom and sight.

“What do you want me to do for you?” are the words of Jesus recorded in Mark 10:51. “My teacher, let me see again,” is Bartimaeus’ reply.

Then he hears, “Go; your faith has made you well” and before he can even understand what Jesus’ words mean, Bartimaeus’ sight is “immediately” restored.

Joy unspeakable hit Bartimaeus like a lightening bolt. The dream had come true. The Son of David had extended mercy and he saw.

Now there was no thought of returning to his former world; that of a beggar forced by the economy of the day to the lowest place; sitting in the dirt, animal waste and human sewage depending on everyone around him, friend and strangers, to sustain his very life. Bartimaeus leaves that place with no hesitation, no regrets.

But where does he go? According to Mark, he followed the one who healed him and whose face was the first face he saw when his sight was restored.

Why wouldn’t Bartimaeus leave? His old life had nothing to offer him. But in Jesus’ world, in God’s economy, he had everything.

What is sin?

step forward

This blog, as well as all others on this site, are primarily devoted to communicating what we believe is the true character and nature of God. There is no agenda or other motivation. We are aware that long held beliefs could be challenged and some offense taken but we trust the Holy Spirit to bring clarity and dispel error.

There is no argument here that what ended up in scripture has been inspired by God. There is something for us to learn in all of it, whether factual or story-telling, and whether it exposes how to act or how not to act. What could and should be questioned is that the human lens used to interpret the bible may not always be accurate. After all, we have our prejudices and it’s a very human thing to project our wants and our ways onto God, but as scripture says, “my ways are not your ways” (Isaiah 55: 8-9). This is the very thing that got Jesus into so much trouble with his well-versed Old Testament-savvy contemporaries. He came with a message that turned the world upside down – in a good way.

Having said that, let’s look at sin. The first thing we must get settled is that when we talk of sin, we are only referring to its impact in this world – the human realm. Everything having to do with sin happens with humans living on earth. Here – in earth – is where we sin and where the consequence of our sin is felt and played out.

Even the spiritual evil presence (the Accuser of the Brethren, the adversary, deceiver), whom we invite to assist us in our sin, is described in Scripture as existing in the human realm. We all know the story of the fall from heaven and the reappearance in the Garden with man. Almost all biblical scholars’ interpretation of the story, point to the earth as the place where God sent “morning star, son of the dawn.” (Isaiah 14:12)

The Hebrew definition of sin is “missing the mark.” That seems simple enough, until it comes to assigning definition to “the mark.” Although there may be agreement on what constitutes “the mark” among some cultures and other people groups, there is absolutely no agreement among biblical scholars and theologians outside of strict adherence to the Ten Commandments. And when local norms, traditions, and beliefs are added to the mix it gets even more convoluted. No wonder there are constant disputes over who did what to whom and was it wrong or justifiable, so much so that the world had to develop a highly complex judicial system to sort it all out as best as humanly possible.

So what standard are we to rely on to give the correct meaning to “the mark.”

Let’s start with what we know: “God is love.” We also know that God’s love is something we can never be separated from. “Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8: 38-39).

We also know that God is all about life. Jesus is called “the Author of life”(Acts 3:15).

It makes sense then that our all-loving God would prefer that we choose only what is life-giving, for both ourselves and for others. “For the wages of sin is death . . .” (Romans 6:23)

Included in this scripture verse is a whole array of possibilities other than physical death. Just look at Adam and Eve, who are universally seen as the world’s first “sinner.” The story goes that they were told they would die if they ate from the tree of good and evil. Well, they did eat but went on to live outrageously long lives. However, there were severe self-inflicted consequences to their choice, including painful shame (which caused them to hide from God) and loss of access to the garden and, with it, abundant life.

Obviously, this was not a life-giving choice.

If only Adam and Eve (and us by extension) would have trusted that God was always for them and never against, they would have avoided bringing vast amounts of pain and suffering upon themselves (and us by extension). So, our conclusion is that “the mark” is choosing what is life-giving and whatever doesn’t bring harm to ourselves or others. 

If we hope to be salt and light to a dark and hurting world, the cycle of “hurting people hurting people” needs to be interrupted. Hitting “the mark” by making life-giving choices is a vital part of this.

We love Pope Francis

Pope Francis Meets Fiances on Valentine's Day

Having declared this, however, it’s important to add (in this time of cult-like attachments to high profile people) that this isn’t an idol worship thing. We recognize Pope Francis as leader of the Catholic Church and as an important shepherd within the worldwide Body of Christ. We also see him as an imperfect human being with struggles and challenges. Just like the rest of us.

So how do we love Pope Francis? Let us count the ways.

Before we start listing the specific ways, however, let us first give the overall and underlying reason: i.e. Pope Francis personifies the character and nature of Jesus Christ. Unconditionally loving, gentle and pure of spirit, were the attributes of Christ when he walked on the earth (as reflected in the Gospels).

All the reports we have read about Pope Francis chronicle him as possessing similar qualities. We especially point to his kind and loving demeanor with all people (whether rich or poor, young or old, Christian or not) and adherence to his God-ordained mission in the face of attempts to pull the Church into the current political fray.

This declaration on the true mission of the church shows Pope Francis’ dedication to the Christ-ordained mission of the Church.  A healthy church is a church that feels passion for spiritual growth, that speaks in a way that is understandable to the men and women of its time, that feels sorrow for the division among brethren, and that quivers with anxiety to proclaim Christ to the nations. (From Pope Francis’ address to participants in a Plenary Assembly February 8, 2024 in Rome)

We love Pope Francis because:

1. He based his comments about world ecological problems through the lens of inequality and poverty in his 2015 encyclical letter ‘Laudato Si – On care for our common home.’ “Today, we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of jus­tice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor,” Pope Francis wrote.

2. He praised a document by bishops in Argentina saying that priests could offer the sacraments to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics as a way to support those living in “irregular family situations.” This has been interpreted as the Pope’s interest in a broader examination of how the church deals with changing modern families.

3. He puts God’s true character and nature – unconditionally loving and forever forgiving – front and center in any discussions about the existence of hell. During a 2015 interview with the Catholic News Service, Pope Francis explained that hell is the absence of God, who is the source and essence of love. “This is hell,” explained the Pope. “It is telling God, ‘You take care of yourself because I’ll take care of myself.’ God doesn’t send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there. Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God’s love. This is hell.”

4. He opened the door to recognizing the love shared between same-sex couples by stating that same sex unions could be given a “blessing” from the Church. He made it clear, however, that this “blessing” is not the same as the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. His intention was to ease the alienation from the Church felt by some same-sex couples wed in civil ceremonies.

5. Christ’s humble nature is seen in Pope Francis’ choosing to lead a simple life such as: Living in a simply furnished apartment rather than a Bishop’s mansion, riding mass transit while a Bishop in Argentina, taking a minivan with the other cardinals after he was elected pope, and after being elected pope, standing on the same level as the cardinal-electors rather than sitting in a throne.

6. He recently broke with historic tradition and gave women the right to vote at the 2024 Synod of Bishops. In doing so, he has indicated his hopes of giving women greater decision-making responsibilities in the male-dominated Catholic Church. “The Church cannot be understood without them (religious women and consecrated laywomen),” Pope Francis said in a 2022 video. He encouraged women religious to fight when they are treated unfairly, even within the church.

7. He is always looking for ways to build bridges with people; both inside and outside the Catholic Church. Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge” comment, which he has directed to gay Priests and same-sex couples, is equally applied to everyone as an extension of his own life experience. “I am a sinner … I am sure of this. I am a sinner whom the Lord looked upon with mercy,” Pope Francis said in an interview published in the Italian magazine, Credere, on Dec. 2, 2015.

So there you have it: Pope Francis always concerned with the poor, the disenfranchised, the marginalized and, most of all, representing the true character and nature of God. 

Pope Francis has become a controversial figure among the various factions of Catholics – conservative, fundamental, and liberal. In fact, there are large numbers of Catholics who don’t like Pope Francis for one reason or another. The feelings against Pope Francis go deep. Some Catholic clergy have even publicly condemned him as a heretic.

As for us, however, the more we come to know Pope Francis the more we see Christ reflected in him and the more we love him.

(Credit for photo: Null Getty.)

A Christian nation vs a Christ-like nation

A lot of effort has been expended in the past 30 years by some Christians trying to make the case that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Feeling that they’ve proven their claim, mostly through historical research and analysis, they are advocating for a return to what they believe are the country’s legitimate fundamental Christian roots.

While we don’t subscribe to this thinking, we wouldn’t have any problem supporting measures that would have the United States identified by the rest of the world as a nation that personifies Jesus Christ. But accomplishing this would mean that we go in a completely different direction than that being pursued by the conservative Christian Political Right in America today.

The current focus of the Christian Right is to advance the Kingdom of God by winning elections and gaining political power. But this doesn’t do anything to change the hearts of men. You can’t legislate hope. You cannot legislate mercy. Nor love. Nor compassion.

Powerful political Christians on television news broadcasts sound every bit like their non-Christian counterparts.The country isn’t better off because we have Christian politicians in government. The country will be better off when the Christians in government act according to the true character and nature of Jesus Christ.

A main argument posed by political Christian conservatives is the concern that if they let go of their stubborn grip on government policy-making, our country (without their antagonism) will fall into moral ruin and our children will be gobbled up by a secular humanistic society.

But is this any different, or not analogous, to the structure of the government in Jesus’ time? The Romans, left to their own devices, would have completely ravished Jewish culture and religion. Any thought that was un-Roman was a dangerous thought in the Empire.

Jesus had children – the children of Israel – but was He worried about the government’s influence on them? Was Jesus trying to change the laws and policies of Rome in order to secure a sound and moral upbringing for them? Not at all! Jesus sent His children out as “lambs among wolves.” (Luke 10)

Instead of the tough, proud reputation that Christian conservatives would want for America, a nation professing to be Christian should exude meekness and humbleness. Instead of an America that is tough on crime, to the point of using the death penalty, a Christian America would be known for its success in rehabilitating criminals and returning them to society as productive lawful citizens. Instead of a nation with the world’s strictest laws criminalizing abortion, America – known worldwide as a Christian nation – would be heralded for having the lowest rate of abortion due to a system of well-supported, caring crisis pregnancy centers. Instead of an America which diligently polices and fortifies its borders and is relentless in tracking down, imprisoning, and deporting illegal aliens, the words written on the Statue of Liberty would be lifted up as the nation’s ideal.

The title, “America: A Christian Nation” with the subtitle “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,” represents the true nature of Jesus Christ better than a thousand Ten Commandment plaques hanging on the walls of a thousand county courthouses or a million public school children reciting a rote prayer every morning in their classrooms.

A Christian Nation that personifies Jesus Christ would be known world-wide for its efforts and success in making the lives of the “least of these” better. (Matthew 25:40-45)