"The Bible" Miniseries - Episode 4

I am supposed to write the fourth of five reviews on the History Channel’s “The Bible” docudrama, according to the goal that I set to myself, but it is getting harder and harder to write these reviews.  I am beginning to wonder what I have gotten myself into with this project. 

Part 4 of the miniseries covered highlights from the public life of the adult Jesus after he recruited the first of his disciples. It included the following:

The feeding of the multitude, walking on water, cleansing of the leper, healing or the lame, sermon on the mount, Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, raising of Lazarus, clashes with Pharisees, Jesus’ riding on a donkey into Jerusalem, cleansing of the temple, the Last Supper, Jesus’ betrayal by Judas, Jesus’ arrest, the healing of the ear of Malchus, and Peter’s denial of Jesus.  Again, a lot of stories are jam packed into less than two hours, and it is unlikely that anybody who’s not already familiar with the biblical storyline would be able to make sense of the life and ministry of Jesus based on watching this docudrama alone.  This hardly can be avoided, given the ambitious scope of the project.

Others have aptly pointed out that there are many places where this episode deviates from the account of the gospels:  words are placed into the mouth of the wrong people, Jesus enters the tomb of Lazarus instead of calling him to come out from the outside, Mary Magdalene pops up in many scenes that she was not part of in the New Testament, and so forth.  For my part, I don’t understand the motives of the producers in making these changes, either.  I don’t understand what may be gained from having the high priest Caiaphas ask “What good can come out of Galilee?” instead of Jesus’ disciple Nathanael. What’s wrong with sticking to the Biblical script?

In watching this episode, I found all the Jewish opposition to Jesus conflated into one.  Somehow, the differences between the Pharisees and the temple authorities (Sadducees, High priest, scribes, etc) got blurred.  To truly understand how Jesus fit into the landscape of first-century Judaism, however, it would have been very helpful to distinguish between the varied reasons that led different Jewish factions to oppose him. 

Instead of further critiquing this episode, though, I’d like to draw your attention to an important scene that the producers added:  While Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.”), the camera cuts away and first shows the High Priest Caiaphas and eventually Pontius Pilate and his wife.  The High Priest gives thanks to God for creating him as a Jew, whereas the Roman couple sacrifices to their ancestor, giving thanks for their lives and good fortune.  Eventually, the camera cuts back to Jesus, who now surrenders to God’s will (“Yet not as I will, but as you will”).

The difference between these prayers is important. In a way, Jesus models to us how we ought to approach God … in life and in prayer.  True faith – Jesus teaches us – implies that we surrender to God’s will, even when God’s will might conflict with our own desires and aspirations.  This attitude of surrender is what distinguishes Jesus from the priest and the Roman couple.  My hope for all who seek to follow in Christ’s footsteps is that we learn to surrender to God’s will as he did.

May Christ’s message of eternal life fill you with hope and peace!

Faith Is from God! - "The Bible" Miniseries - Episode 3

I continue to spend parts of Monday watching the latest episode of “The Bible” miniseries on the History Channel, recorded the night before. As I wrote last week, after watching the first two episodes my expectations by now are rather low, due, in part, to the dramatic dwelling on less import characters (e.g., Samson and Daniel) and the skipping of very important Biblical stories and character (e.g., Jacob, Joseph, Hannah, and King Solomon).

Given that the producers begin each episode with a disclaimer that this is a dramatic “adaptation” of the Biblical narrative, it seems futile to me to criticize the liberties they took in reshaping and inventing parts of the story. After all, each and every movie about the Bible, is an adaptation. One could even argue that the Bible in itself adapts Old Testament stories to make them fit the points that New Testament writers try to make.

Another widespread objection to the miniseries has been that it unclear who is the intended audience of the films. For newcomers to the faith, it would be difficult, indeed, to follow the script. Too many events are packed into the five episodes for anyone not very familiar with the Bible to understand the connections. Episode 3, for example, covered the following events:

· King Zedekiah
· King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the conquest of Jerusalem, and the killing of King Hezekiah
· Daniel in Babylon (3 men in the fiery furnace)
· The Jews in exile in Babylon
· King Cyrus defeats the Babylonians and sets the captives free (Daniel in the lion’s den)
· The Jews return to Jerusalem
· The Roman occupation of Palestine (some five centuries after the return from exile)
· The Jewish uprising in Galilee and crucifixion of the rebel fighters
· The angel Gabriel announcing the birth of Jesus to Mary
· The birth of Jesus
· King Herod, the wise men, and the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem
· The flight of the Holy Family to Egypt
· John the Baptist and his murder by King Herod
· Jesus' Baptism by John
· Jesus tempted by Satan
· Jesus calls Peter as a disciple

All this in 2 hours, interrupted by a great number of commercials! How can anyone not already familiar with the Bible follow the storyline?

Again, many of the scenes were ripe with violence, so much in fact, that did not let my own daughter watch the films. Is it really necessary to show how King Nebuchadnezzar gouges out the eyes of King Zedekiah before dragging him off into captivity? What does this scene contribute to the storyline?

Given that I already addressed some of those issues previously, I want to move on. Today, I wish to talk about are some of the theological underpinnings of this project that I find questionable from a Lutheran theological perspective.

Each retelling of the Biblical story, whether in preaching, in writing, or in film, begins with a plot. Each retelling begins not with stringing together as many stories as one can, but with a conscious or unconscious principle by which the narrator of the story organizes his or her material.

For the makers of the “Bible” miniseries this organizing principle is “faith.” Hero after hero, the miniseries tells of peoples’ faith in God in the face of adversity. Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son, just because he has faith in God. Moses is willing to challenge Pharaoh and lead his people to freedom, because he has faith in God. Samson, Joshua, and Daniel are successful, because they have faith in God. All these heroes succeed in their mission, in result of their publicly professed faith (even Samson who sacrifices himself for the sake of his people succeeds in his mission). On the other hand, all those individuals who do not have faith (Lot’s wife, King Zedekiah, King Nebuchadnezzar) end up either dead, prisoners of war, or insane. In short – faith in God, if it is professed publicly, leads to success in life. There it is! Period.

One really good scene that illustrates this emphasis on faith was part of episode 1, right before Moses and the Israelites crossed the sea. In that scene Moses kept on yelling, “Keep the faith, be faithful, keep the faith, etc…” However, in the book of Exodus we read,

“And Moses said to the people, “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.” (Exodus 14:13-14)

This seems subtle, but it really is not. The kind of faith that is praised in the miniseries tends to be faith that is self-generated and a faith that at times does even not have a direct object. The Bible, on the contrary, shows us how God gives signs and promises which “grant” faith. According to the Bible, faith is from God; it is not generated by us.

One of the special features of the Lutheran faith is that we don’t believe that our story with God begins with us. We don’t believe that the most important aspect of our relationship with God is that we reach out to God, have faith in God, and then profess that faith publicly before others.

On the contrary – Lutheran theology begins with God. Lutherans confess that God is the One who loves His creatures so much that He himself reached out and initiated relationships – whether the relationship with Noah, with Abraham, or Moses, or with you and me today. God is the One who reveals Himself to humans. God is the One who initiates a covenant. God is the One who fights for us. God is the One who becomes incarnate in the person of Jesus. God is the One who lets Jesus die and raises him from death. Whatever we do as God’s creatures follows what God first has done for us, not the other way around.

I wish to thank the producers of this miniseries that – in watching three episodes – I was able to clarify for myself a little bit more where I stand. I now believe a bit more consciously in a God who, among many other gifts, also gave me the gift of faith, the ability to trust in Him and His guidance. Whatever the “Bible “miniseries might suggest to us viewers – I do not believe that publicly professed faith guarantees success. I better leave such ideas to the proponents of the “prosperity gospel” (i.e., the doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one's material wealth).

"The Bible" Miniseries - Episode 2

"The Bible is brought to you by Walmart. Save money. Live better.”

The second episode of the miniseries “The Bible” aired on Sunday, March 10, riding a wave of success after the show garnered over 13 million viewers the first week. This second episode covered the conquest of Jericho through the early childhood of the later King Solomon. In my opinion, the second installment strayed a little too far from actual biblical accounts. While a certain amount of creative license is expected, in some cases it changed the story.

For example, there are numerous details that were changed in telling us how Jericho was conquered, what kind of person Samson was, or how Saul and David were chosen as Israel’s kings. In other instances, important parts of the Biblical story were left out, for example, were hear nothing about Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel and her faith, nor about David’s brothers, nor about how David spent the seven years between Saul’s death and Jerusalem’s accepting him as their king.

Some biases continue from the first installment of the miniseries, for example the flawless portrayal of the men and the fearful, doubting, or deceitful portrayal of the women. Secondly, the main characters all seemed to be living in modern nuclear families with one husband and one wife, whereas the heroes of the Bible has sometimes as many as hundreds of wives, concubines, and children. Thirdly, there are questionable attempts to spice up the action, such as the splitting of rock in Jericho. And finally, there’s the fact that every major Biblical character in the show is white and has a British/Scottish accent. Even God himself, apparently, was a white Brit. Instead, the only true ethnic diversity was a couple of black-Jews and God’s Angels who were of African and Asian descent. Who made that casting choice?

Possibly the most annoying part of this miniseries continue to be the commercials. Talk about overkill. From Christian Mingle, to The Bible App, to Catholics Come Home, the commercials were so blatantly catered to evangelical Christians that I wonder whether the History Channel even expects any non-Christians at all to watch the miniseries. Do not get me wrong: I like everyday low prices as much as the next guy, but it is disconcerting to hear that “The Bible is brought to you in part by Walmart.”

Yet, apart from all these things, there is a bigger issue that comes to my mind. As I imagine people watching this show–maybe people unfamiliar with the Bible–I wonder if they are asking themselves, “What kind of God is this, and do I really want anything to do with him?” As a tool for evangelism this miniseries is a complete failure; it mostly caters to insiders who know the overall storyline of the Bible and are able to fill in the many gaps in the story on TV.

The kind of chopping of the Biblical stories is hard to understand. Why leave out some very important stories (e.g., Jacob, Joseph, and Hannah) and include others, less important stories at great length, freely elaborating on the witness of the Bible?

Take, for example, the story of Samson, the strong hero whose strength resided in his long hair and who got captured once the Philippines found a way to cut off his hair. The film spent way too much time on this relatively insignificant Biblical hero, but it became clear why: the producers are making him into a Christ figure. Samson gave himself up for his people in accordance with God’s will; he is chained to cross of wood; Delilah betrays Samson to the authorities for money and then feels guilty about it; his mother grieves for him at his death. None of this in the Old Testament. I think the choice of focusing on Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and now portraying Samson as a Christ figure–and leaving out Jacob and Joseph–suggests that the producers are emphasizing OT figures commonly thought to prefigure Christ.

On the other hand, the parts of the Biblical story that the show gets right are those parts that show the Israelites as tribal zealots whose God kills their enemies. Take, for example, the scene showing the Philistine general praying to his god that he would deliver the Israelites into his hand so he could wipe them out? The Philistines and the Israelites are both characterized as warring tribes who want to rule by violent means with the approval and support of their god. Why this? Are we supposed to believe that if only we pray fervently enough, success will come to us? Is our God a tribal God who seeks to pitch us against non-Christians and their gods? I sincerely hope that this is not the intention of the makers of the miniseries.

I do plan on watching the rest to see how they handle Jesus, but my bar is set rather low after watching the first two episodes.

"The Bible" Miniseries - Episode 1

I finally was able to watch my recorded first episode of the History Channel's "The Bible" mini-series late last night -- which made it easier to zap through the many annoying commercials that interrupted the story. Now I can begin to make good on my promise to comment on this docudrama and invite you to share our own thoughts.

This mini-series was not conceived as a literary or historical documentary, but as a docudrama. It attempts to do what the Bible in itself does not do, namely, it attempts to tell one single, interconnected grand story that includes transitions, dialog, emotions, and chronology. 

Unlike this mini-series, the stories of the Bible actually have a lot of holes. Sometimes the Biblical stories omit details such as the ages or names of major characters. Rarely ever do we learn about the motives or the thoughts and feelings of many of he Bible's most beloved individuals. At best, we get a few episodes from their lives, often not even that much. At other times, two or even three different versions of one-and-the-same story are told (for example, Abraham's pretending to be his wife's brother to protect himself from pharaoh).

Hence, writers and directors who want to adapt the stories of the Bible to the medium of film have to invent dialogue, whole scenes, and compress other scenes to keep the storyline going. The classical example of such a process was, of course, the granddaddy of all Bible movies, Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments.” Half the movie is either entirely imaginative or taken from later creative sources like Philo, Josephus, and later Jewish literature (look at the opening credits next time you watch it). That’s how DeMille dragged out Moses’ early years in Egypt for about two hours when the Bible’s interest in this period lasts a few verses.

Taking on the challenge to tell the story of the Bible in ten hours is, indeed, not an easy one. The first two hours of the mini-series that were broadcasted this Sunday covered - in broad strokes - the Old Testament narrative from the beginning of the Book of Genesis to the first chapter of Joshua (up to the eve of the battle of Jericho).

The producers of "The Bible" did what many film producers, in fact, what just about every Christmas pageant does had done before them -- smoothing out contradictions (e.g., between the two different creation stories); inventing conversations (as, for example, between Abraham and Sarah); and even inventing parts of the story (Moses' youth at Pharaoh's palace).

The film opened in the ark with Noah reciting the story of Genesis 1-4. Now, on the one hand, this is clearly a means of collapsing the story for time. On the other hand, connecting the stories of creation and the flood reflects precisely how these stories do in fact work together in the biblical narrative. Properly understood, the flood story was meant to be seen an echo of the creation story in Genesis 1. The threatening waters kept at bay above the dome-like heavens allowing dry land to appear (Genesis 1) are brought crashing down upon the earth to cover up all land (flood story). The flood is not just a bad turn in the weather but God’s returning of his creation to its pre-creation state of chaos. God “starts over” with Noah and his family as the new “first humans.”

"The Bible" film gets problematic, though, in the way it portrays men vs. women. On the one hand, we are being introduced to brave, faith-filled men like Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua. On the other hand, we see their fearful, doubting, jealous, plotting, or submissive wives, sisters, and maids -- Noah's wife and daughters, Sarah, Hagar, Lot's wife, and Moses' sister Miriam (whom Scripture calls a "prophetess" and leader of her people, but whose role the film downplays). In the film, the women provide the negative backdrop to the faith and heroism of the men, something Scripture does not do. Is this the story that I want my daughters to learn? Is this how I want them to view themselves? I don't think so!
However, my biggest problems with this mini-series are not gender stereotypes. My biggest problem is that this mini-series makes the Biblical people look, talk, behave, feel, and relate to one another too much like us. Abraham, for example, was not married in today's fashion monogamously to one single wife whom he loved and treated like 21st-century North American husbands treat their files. Like most Old Testament heroes, Abraham actually had many wives, concubines, and female slaves. Monogamous marriage is a concept that did not exist for most of Old Testament times. So, why then do Abraham and Sarah look, talk, and behave more like modern British folks than ancient nomads in this film?

Likewise, while Abraham's trust in one single creator of the universe surely is touching, true monotheism is a much later development and did not exist yet at his time. At the times of Abraham an Moses, the people of Israel believed in the existence of many gods, but they opted to worship just one of them, the One who revealed his name to Moses in the burning bush. So why then does Abraham sound more like a 21st-century evangelical Christian than a Middle Eastern patriarch who slaughtered animals and sacrificed their blood on the altar of "his" god?

One evangelical commentator, Old Testament scholar Peter Enns, points out a number of other absurdities in this first part of the "Bible" mini-series, absurdities that make the Biblical narratives look more like 21st century Hollywood entertainment, rather than the Middle East some 3,000+ years ago. Among others, Enns mentions the "Kung Fu style fight in Sodom, or Sarah running up Mt. Moriah to save Isaac, or Moses looking like a cross between Charles Manson and Mickey Rourke, or the so-called “angel of death” looking like the dementors from Harry Potter."

Absurdities such as these make us forget that over 3,000 years separate us from the times of Abraham and Moses. It would be good for us to never loose track of this fact ... so that we not read our own 21st-century faith, values, world view, morals, and relationships back into the Bible. Precisely the fact that the Bible was written so long ago and precisely that its heroes are so different from us moderns and post-moderns are part of what makes our sacred Scripture so powerful. In and through the words of this ancient witness, God radically breaks into our modern lives and seeks to transform these lives. The moment we blur the tremendous gap between the world of ancient Israel and our own world, the moment we seek to fashion the Bible into a modern book, we strip it of some of its power over us. 

I look forward to hearing what thoughts came to your mind when watching "The Bible". If you have not watched it yet, it is being shown at 9pm on the History Channel on Sunday nights.

Table of Remembrance

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1-2)

This Sunday, we will worship God by celebrating All Saints Sunday.  This Sunday reminds us that we are not alone in confessing our faith in God through Jesus Christ.  Rather, we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.  We stand on the shoulder of famous witnesses to the Christian faith who, in some cases, have paid with their own life for clinging to the gospel of love and mercy and forgiveness; and we stand on the shoulders of many ordinary people who have passed on their values and beliefs to us.  Without their witness to us, our faith in God’s grace, goodness, and love may have crumbled a long time ago. 

As in years past, we commemorate those in our midst who have passed away since All Saints Day 2010.  We will solemnly read their names out lout; and with gratitude we will remember the goodness they have brought into our lives. 

We will also remember this year, in a different way, countless other individuals who have died either recently or some time ago.  When you enter the Bethel sanctuary this Sunday via the narthex (church entry), you will encounter a beautiful display of candles, photos, flowers, and other objects.  I invite you to come to church and help us build this “table or remembrance” by bringing in photos or other objects that remind you of someone dear to you who has died.  We also will have paper available to you to write down names of individuals whom you wish to remember and to celebrate this Sunday.

The idea for this “table of remembrance” is borrowed from the “dia de los muertos” (Day of the Dead) which is celebrated in Mexico and other countries, but with a slight Lutheran twist.   Lutherans, as you may know, refrain from venerating saints in the Roman Catholic or Christian Orthodox manner.  We don’t believe that saints have attained a higher standing before God than other Christians, we don’t believe that they have earned God’s love in a special way, and we don’t pray to saints asking them to intercede for us with God.  

We do, however, believe that there is a strong bond between the church on earth and the church triumphant.  We believe that there is a strong bond between Christians who are confronted daily with negotiating the demands of the world and the demands of faith and Christians who now see god face-to-face in all of God’s heavenly glory.  We also believe that it can be very beneficial to us to listen to the stories of people who, in the midst of conflicting priorities, chose to be on the side of Jesus Christ.  Their stories can strengthen and embolden our own faith, no matter whether they were famous in their own day or not.

Thus – please bring photos or objects to church that remind you of deceased individuals who have been influential in your own life and add them to the “table of remembrance” in the narthex.

Looking back at Yesterday's Oktoberfest Celebration

Ok·to·ber·fest  [ok-toh-ber-fest] noun

1. a traditional festival held each October in Munich, Germany.

2. any similar festival held usually in the autumn.

3. a strong lager made originally in Germany for the Oktoberfest celebration; sweet and copper-colored.

4. an autumn festival that involves merrymaking and drinking beer.

Also, Octoberfest.

Origin: < German; see October, -fest

This Wednesday night, I (rather reluctantly!) participated in my first-ever root beer chugging contest.  The occasion was Bethel’s first-in-many-years Oktoberfest.  Up until a few hours before the event, I had only faint ideas as to what to expect.  While the flyer and map that I had seen, listed an impressive number of entertainment activities, I did not anticipate that the event would turn out this spectacular. 

The festivities began with a delicious potluck dinner consisting of such German staple foods as potato salad, sauerkraut, red cabbage, sausage, and pretzels, followed by “scary desserts,”  followed by an apple pie contest, sponsored Labor Day Retreat Team (MC’d by Molly Schrey and Liz Barton).  The winning pie (out of seven wonderful entries) was Barbara Misch’s delicious creation—judge by all three clergy judges as superior in terms of visual appeal, texture, and taste.  Runner-up winners were Maggie Emmert (2^nd prize) Kathy Arnold (3^rd prize). 

After the apple pie contest, the Oktoberfest activities spilled out from Torvend Hall onto most of the Bethel campus.  There were children’s crafts (corn husk dolls making sponsored by Maggie Emmert), games for younger children (various bean bag tossing games ), games for teenagers and adults (root beer chugging contest sponsored by Bethel’s young adult group, the Network; pie throwing sponsored by Ed Fox; Kathy & Dave Arnold’s home-made  electronic game; various jr. high games sponsored by Robyn Winegardner and Susan Leavitt), children’s book donations (sponsored by Bethel’s library team), card writing (sponsored by Bethel’s Stephen’s ministry group), apple tasting (sponsored by Liz Tribby), and printing on an amazing little letter press (sponsored by Dave Tribby).  For many of these activities, participants could earn raffle tickets.   At the close of these activities, flower arrangements (donated by Sue Jacobus) and gift bags were raffled off in Torvend Hall.  The evening concluded with a closing prayer. 

Thank you to all who made this celebration such a wonderful event that brought together Bethel members and friends of all ages.  In addition to all those who organized games and activities, set up, clean up, and potluck items, a special thank you goes to Patricia Myerholtz, who thought up activities and recruited volunteers for the event. May the fun and joviality of this night bring us closer to each other and help knit the bonds of Christian friendship and love.

P.S.: One question, though, remains for me – given that the Munich Oktoberfest revolves around beer, rather than root beer, was this really an Oktoberfest?

On the Value of Giving

What are the two most frequent topics that Jesus talked about? Was either of the two “love”, “faith”, or “Sabbath”?  No.  The two topics that Jesus addressed most frequently were the Kingdom of God and … money.  Compare that to us modern Christians, and you’ll soon notice that we are confused, at best, about the meaning of God’s Kingdom, and that we are reluctant, to say the least, to talk to one another about money—how we regard it, how we earn it, how we manage it, and how we spend it.  For that reason, I want to do now just that – talk about God’s kingdom and about money.

Two Scripture passages come to my mind – Leviticus 1 and Luke 22.  The former describes in great detail the manner in which the ancient Israelites were to make burnt offerings to God.  The latter retells Jesus’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper with his disciples.  Both are very different passages, both in style and substance.  But both have in common that they present us with acts of giving, acts in which the giver doesn’t expect to receive anything material in return.  In Leviticus, animals, grain, and incense is burnt on God’s altar as a form of thanksgiving to God.  In Luke, Jesus gives himself away – his body, his blood, his very life – without expecting to receive anything in return.  Grain, meat, oil –they were the ancient equivalent of money. When people burnt them on God’s altar, it was as if we were to take our offering plates, place them on the altar, and then tossed in match, burning up everyone’s money or checks (o.k., I know that that’s illegal for us to do in the U.S.).

Offering the grain, the meat, and the oil was an act of worship in ancient Israel, an instance in which the Israelites were invited to give up something of value as a sacrifice to God.  When we are invited to put our money into the offering plates … that’s an act of worship, too.  Contrary to what many may think, we are invited to put our money into the offering plate not because the church needs our money, but because we want and need to give it.  Mark Allan Power writes that “we have a spiritual need to worship God and through our offerings we are able to express our love and devotion to God in a way that is simple and sincere.”[i]

Jesus, however, teaches us that the giving of money or its equivalents is not all that is required of those whom he called to participate in the building of God’s Kingdom.  Jesus did not merely give away his possessions (and asked others to do the same); rather, Jesus gave himself away and his very life in service to others, in service to the salvation of the world. While most of us are not willing nor able to make such a profound sacrifice, Jesus reminds us that those who give themselves away in service to others in the name of Jesus will gain eternal life (Matthew 16:25). 

To me, our service worship last Sunday was a token of such giving away.  The point of the service worship was not so much that the “haves” do something nice for the “have-nots.”  If that were the main point, our service worship would leave the social hierarchies between the well-off and the poor unchallenged and leave unquestioned the economic system that makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. 

I hope and pray that this service worship may strengthen in us the firm belief that Jesus has abolished the dividing line between the rich and the poor, as well as the housed and the homeless.  Jesus has come to remind us that we all are one and need one another.  We are all guests in God’s “kin-dom.”  We are one body of Christ, and together we can do work toward eradicating hunger and abolishing poverty. 

During our service worship Sunday, many among the Bethel community had opportunities to work alongside others, to encounter folks who have less than we, and to learn from them, and be changed in the process.  To me, being changed by God through the act of service is a goal that is just as important as to feed the hungry.  True change, true justice and peace won’t come about until we learn that we all need one another, that we each have something of value that we can share with the human community.

---

[i] Mark Allann Powell, Giving to God: The Bible’s Good News about Living a Generous Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, p. 12.