DJT and the KKK

A friend asked me the other day how I could possibly deduce that a man flying a swastika over his house in a wealthy suburb of Philadelphia recently was connected to the outcome of our country’s most recent presidential contest.

Since then, there has been a public Neo-Nazi demonstration in Columbus, Ohio (pictured here) which President Biden has publicly denounced but President-elect Trump has not. Meanwhile, in various places in Indiana (including Carmel, Westfield, and Fishers), the Ku Klux Klan have been distributing flyers (pictured above). The flyer portrays Uncle Sam giving the boot to some folks who have come to the United States from Latin America. In big, bold letters, the flyer reads: “LEAVE NOW. AVOID DEPORTATION.” In his right hand, Uncle Sam is holding a piece of paper that has a “Proclamation” on it. If you look carefully at the proclamation document, you can see it is dated January 20, 2025 (inauguration day). And the proclamation calls for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. So, Uncle Sam is asking for your help by reporting them to the proper authorities.  

This is why I see a connection between the recent spike in public activity among white supremacists and this year’s election outcome. It is because our President-elect has promised the very thing the flyer is talking about on “day 1” of his presidency.

This gives me chills since it is the sort of thing Nazi Germany did when they wanted to “cleanse” the land of its non-Aryan inhabitants. It is important to keep in mind that, at that time, the German government was able to do this because they enjoyed the cooperation of much of the general populace.

It is sobering to me to contemplate that this was done in the name of Christianity and with the full backing of the vast majority of churches. What gives me hope, however, is that there was an underground resistance movement of Christians during this time. One of the notable figures in this resistance was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, founder of the Confessing Church.

Prior to founding the Confessing Church, Bonhoeffer lived in America for a short time and was influenced by Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem (NYC), the largest Protestant church in the country at the time. Here Bonhoeffer heard “the Gospel of Social Justice” preached from the pulpit and he was moved by Christ’s call to rectify the injustices suffered by people in racial minorities.

Returning to Germany in 1931, Bonhoeffer taught systematic theology at the University of Berlin. But then Hitler rose to power in January 1933. In a radio broadcast two days after Hitler was installed as chancellor, Bonhoeffer went on record denouncing Hitler’s leadership and the Nazi party. He warned that German Christians were succumbing to idolatry by swearing allegiance to a leader (führer) who was really a “misleader” (verführer). Perhaps it is no surprise to hear that the signal was cut before he could finish the broadcast.

As you can well imagine, during this time the church in Germany was divided regarding the Nazi party. In the end, the Nazis managed to garner the support of around 80 percent of Germany’s pastors…with just a small minority standing in opposition.

Even if you are not familiar with his story, you can probably guess how it ends. Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 and was hanged about 2 years later in Nazi Germany’s last push to wield their ugly, hate-filled power before the war was finally over.

Key to Nazi Germany’s power was the way the leaders were able to manipulate and guide the social imagination of the general populace. By creating a scapegoat for the country’s troubles, Germany’s new leaders united the people around the idea of a common “enemy within.” Together, they would purge the “poison” from their midst. By laying blame for their societal ills on the backs of others, they were able to nurture the hope of a new age for their fatherland and all those they deemed as true patriots. With the toxic power of a nationalistic mindset draped in the garb of Christian tradition and armed with the malice of scapegoating outsiders, the foundation was laid for a holy war...the Holocaust.

I tell that story because I find the parallels to our country's situation today to be quite striking and sobering. We have just elected a man who has the full-throated support of white supremacists, people who (mind you) invoke the cause of Christianity in their hateful ideology. Indeed, they are counting on the government’s resources and energy to implement their vision to “cleanse” our country of all those they detest. And it is not lost on me that about 80 percent of white evangelicals have given their implicit (if unconscious and unintended) support to this purge by casting their vote for Trump because he will continue to champion the pro-life cause.

In this way, the government and the church have conspired to create a scapegoat. That scapegoat is “the enemy within”...which includes not only those “outsiders” they would purge from our midst but also select “insiders” who do not share the social imagination of the looming power structure. On this front, it is important to keep in mind that the language of “the enemy within” (a phrase that Trump used with increasing frequency as the campaign season progressed) is received by white supremacists as a kind of code, mobilizing their ranks as a battalion in the righteous crusade to “make America great again.” That is why I believe we are witnessing a spike these days in public displays of blatant white supremacy. It is like the commander telling the troops to prepare for the attack. If this is not the intention, someone should tell the President-elect to stop using such an expression. It is the least we can do.

My friend Brian, who comes from a Jewish background and is a follower of Jesus, recently commented on our responsibility to say something when we see demonstrations like these. He has noted with great concern that neither Trump nor Vance have issued statements condemning the Neo-Nazi demonstration this past week in Columbus. When challenged about the views he expressed, my friend Brian replied: “I do not mean to paint all or even most people on the political right to defend or support such right-wing extremism. Sadly, at multiple rallies for Mr. Trump, there were chants of, ‘Jews will not replace us’ and symbols of hate toward Jews and Muslims. These were from a very small portion of the crowd. However, I did not observe anyone telling them to stop, or getting booed. Most people just ignored them. I cannot understand why these extremists cannot be openly condemned by public officials. I am a believer that we must ‘police our own’ and we are failing to do so.”

I think of my uncle Ivan when it comes to standing up to hateful bullies like these. Ivan was one of the many soldiers in WW2 who fought on D-Day. I cannot tell you how proud I feel just being part of his family and sharing the same last name as him. I can only imagine the horror he witnessed, the courage it took for him to charge that beach, and the endurance that was required to get him through it all…to see the light of another day.

It is important to remember that Ivan did not do this for himself. He did it for the sake of others. He did it because a power even greater than the white supremacists of Columbus held the fate of millions of people in their hands. And he did it because the Nazis had already sacrificed millions of beautiful souls on the altar of Christian nationalism, their vision of the ideal empire. I think of how Ivan would respond today if he were to witness the complacency of the new President-elect regarding the demonstration in Columbus. I can see in my mind’s eye the anger that would grow within him and the utter disgust he would express at such complacency. Is this why he risked his life on that fateful day in 1944? Certainly not! Someone should say something! Someone should do something! To do nothing, to say nothing, is to approve of it.

I think we fail to speak up because we ourselves benefit or, at the very least, are not affected when we remain silent. We are fond of invoking the familiar saying that describes the scenario of those in power coming to oppress various people groups while we fail to speak up…until they come for you and your own people group. It is a wonderful saying (I’m sure you’ve heard it) but the problem with it is that there is always one group that those in power do not come for: themselves. Those on the inside will never be adversely impacted by these oppressions because they are the oppressors (whether they realize it or not) through their action or their inaction. This is the problem with scapegoating: it fails to extract the poison of hate from the scapegoater. It always locates the problem outside oneself. So, the oppression just continues.  

How is it, though, that we fall for a tactic like scapegoating? I think it happens for good reasons. It is fueled by a hopeful picture of a better tomorrow, to be sure. The problem with the picture, however, is that it is too narrow. It leaves out the suffering that will be caused by our “good reasons.”

In this instance, it must be noted that the reason many people voted for Trump was because of his policies and promises that support the pro-life movement. I bring this up because I in no way wish to imply that those I know who are vocal advocates for pro-life legislation identify with hate groups like the KKK, the Proud Boys, or other white supremacist groups. On the contrary, it would be a sure bet to say otherwise. All of them, if asked, would unequivocally condemn them—of this I am sure. This is why what I want to say next to my pro-life friends is offered in the spirit of love…with gentleness, respect, and genuine care.

As you think about just what it means to be pro-life and how far-reaching such a posture extends, I am sure you can understand why I feel that this program of cleansing (which is dreamt about by white supremacists and will be carried out with government resources/personnel) is far from “pro-life.” And, if you feel otherwise, I encourage you to sit down with some of these immigrants and hear their stories first-hand. It would not take long to realize that these are people in need of compassion and care. Indeed, to help them by providing a safe haven from the terror they are fleeing is to be pro-life in the purest sense of that term.  

Now, I know this may feel upsetting to hear, so believe me when I say that I know what a difficult spot such a challenge puts us in. And believe me when I say I hear your concerns about the question of immigration itself. I know you are passionate about people living here legally. I know you are concerned about the toll the influx of immigrants is taking on our economy and public schools. I, like you, feel the emotional anxiety that comes with the change that comes with such demographic shifts, and I am aware of the potential of criminals to exploit such a vulnerable situation.  

I know all these things that are on your heart…AND I am asking you to trust that there is a better way than the white supremacist vision of mass deportation and detainment. As I think of “a better way,” I appeal to the witness of those heroes of the faith who have gone before us when they were faced with similar circumstances in which their country just wanted to purge the “outsiders” from their midst. In addition to Bonhoeffer, I think of Corie ten Boom, that great heroine of the church who risked her life to hide people who would otherwise have been arrested, detained, and, eventually, snuffed out. You may have even read her book, The Hiding Place, and been inspired by her bravery. And she was not the only one who did this. There are many stories like hers of bravery in the face of such challenges.

This is why I consider myself to be one of the few (20 percent) who object to the program of mass deportation/detainment. And I am writing this in hopes of encouraging my fellow “20 percenters” to stay the course. And I am writing this in hopes of explaining why, from the standpoint of my faith, I stand with the minority. I am writing to share why I feel it is not only legitimate to dissent…but entirely Christlike. And, so, I am writing to those in the 80 percent who also want to live a Christlike life…in hopes that I might be able to persuade you to open your hearts and change your mind regarding our country’s collective posture towards immigrants. I’m not asking you to regret voting the way you did. I’m simply asking you to take a stand against the cruel treatment that will surely come if we just stand by and do nothing.

So, in keeping with the open heart, this is also an invitation to all (no matter who you voted for) to share our resources and open our very homes (like Corrie ten Boom did) to provide shelter and safe haven for those who will be harassed and helpless by the powers that be should this planned purge come to pass. May we stand with the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Corrie ten Boom, dear friends. As it was with them, so may it be with us. Amen and amen.

…………………….

DJT and the KKK

reflections by rev. troy cady

.

.

.      

The Bread of Presence in Times of Crisis

The Bread of Presence in Times of Crisis

reflections on Ruth and Naomi

based on the book of Ruth, chapter 1

by Troy Cady

For the past two weeks I have felt like the world has been spinning out of control. For starters, I felt helplessly indignant as our President refused to cooperate with a Congressional impeachment inquiry.[1] Meanwhile, I learned that this fall the Supreme Court will hear a case in which it’s expected they will rule to expand gun ownership rights,[2] though U.S. citizens already own 227,000,000 guns (far outstretching any other country in the world).[3] And this is from the same legal system that goes easy on a white person for killing a black man in his own home but would throw the book at the perpetrator if those roles had been reversed.[4]

But, wait: there’s more. Just last week it was reported that in the past year one million people were apprehended on the southwest border of the United States,[5] clamoring for entrance.[6] Many of those are children who have been separated from their parents.[7] And, as if that is not enough, the situation in Syria worsened as Turkey cleared out thousands of vulnerable people. There were already at least 25.9 million refugees around the world[8] and now there will be even more.

Ruth, Naomi and Orpah by Markham Kyra

In times like these, it is easy to feel hopeless. It’s as if the whole world is caving in and you’re trapped, gasping for air, craning to catch even a sliver of light. And that is the situation thrust upon us in the text from Ruth 1 where, in the opening lines, we read about a famine and a family with two sons leaving their home to live in Moab where there is food. By the end of verse 3, the husband and father dies so, the text says, Naomi is “left with her two sons.”[9]

But all is not lost: Naomi’s sons get married and this is cause for celebration--but don’t get your hopes up, yet: her sons also die.

So, Naomi is left without her husband and two sons in a foreign country. She’s old and can barely take care of herself, let alone these two women who are not blood relatives. At that point, there is at least a little hope: she hears that the famine has passed back home, so she decides to return. Because she couldn’t possibly ask these two women to leave Moab, she tells them not to worry about her but to return to their own families who will be able to take care of them better. So, after much weeping, Orpah returns to her family—but Ruth decides to stick with Naomi. And Ruth’s words at this point sound like sublime poetry:

“Where you go, I will go;

where you lodge, I will lodge;

your people shall be my people,

and your God my God.”

In the midst of unimaginable suffering, we finally have a sense in this story that something good is going to happen. To be sure, they have no idea how it’s all going to turn out, but they do know this: they will have each other and they will have Naomi’s God.

Speaking of God, the book of Ruth is striking because God is hardly mentioned and when God is spoken of by Naomi at the end of chapter 1, it sounds like she’s itching for a fight. In contrast to Ruth’s uplifting poem, Naomi utters a lament of tired and bitter resignation, if not protest. When the women of Bethlehem welcome her back, she replies:

“Call me no longer ‘Sweet’,

call me ‘Bitter’,[10]

for the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me.

I went away full,

but the Lord brought me back empty…”

I’ll be honest: reading that makes me want to say, “Umm, Ruth: you might not want to stand that close to Naomi right now because I’m afraid lightning’s about to strike.”    

Ruth as more than a romance novel

I love the story of Ruth because it’s honest and we can relate to it. It reflects how we experience life—all of it: the good, the bad and the ugly all mixed in together. That’s why I think it’s a pity this story has been treated essentially as a romance novel too often. As I think back to college, I recall one of my professors who interpreted Ruth this way. In his lecture, he felt compelled to point out that, as Boaz and Ruth were still “dating”, Naomi told Ruth to bathe, change her clothes and put on some perfume so she would smell nice and pretty for Boaz who would surely come to her rescue if he found her attractive enough.[11]

While it may be true that Ruth is a love story, when we look at it closely it doesn’t reinforce the literary trope of most romances where some dude with ripped abs and a chiseled chin saves a petite damsel in distress. For starters, the story recounts how God comes to the rescue through the primary agent of Ruth—who is, of course, a woman who comes to the rescue of another woman.

The title of the book alone focuses our attention on Ruth’s salvific role, but, in case we would miss it, the author of Ruth connects her story with the epoch that precedes it: the book of Judges. In Judges, we hear mostly about a cast of male leaders but, in every instance, it is only a matter of time before the country loses its way again. The book of Judges underscores this theme by repeating a certain phrase throughout: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”[12]

It’s against that backdrop that Ruth is presented, and it’s as if the author wants us to notice three things. 1) If no Israelite will lead rightly, God will choose someone outside of Israel to lead. 2) If no man will lead rightly, a woman will show what’s right. and 3) Ruth leads not by might, like the judges of previous generations, but by compassionate concern and selfless service. Ruth, thus, brings to a close the time of the judges and sets up what follows when David will be king.[13]

Yes, Ruth is so much more than just a romance novel. In fact, interpreters of Ruth see in it not just a single story but a story of several stories that occur before and after it.

Ruth and God’s promises to Abraham

First, the story of Ruth is connected with the story of Abraham. Recall that in Genesis 12 and 15, God promised to Abraham a land, a people and a blessing.

What’s interesting about Ruth is that the author presents the gift of the land in light of Israel’s exile from it and return. Chapter 1 serves as a kind of echo chamber for this theme of return as that specific word (“return”) appears a total of 12 times in 22 verses.[14] That’s one “return” for every tribe of Israel. Between Naomi’s family and the figure of Ruth, we catch a glimpse of what Israel experienced as a nation overall: the Israelites were exiled and returned to share the land with foreigners.[15] In this light, Ruth’s story has some challenging things to say to evangelical Christians today about the question of Israel sharing the land with others.

In addition to the land, there are some equally interesting outcomes regarding how God would constitute the people of Israel. Notice what Ruth says: “Your people will be my people and your God my God.” The story of Ruth surprises us by telling us that even Israel’s great king David would be born through a foreign people. Israel was, thus, always to be understood expansively, as inclusive of non-Israelite people.

And that is how God would fulfill the promise to Abraham that all nations on earth would be blessed. In this vein, Ruth 1 includes both blessings and curses, echoing the language of Genesis 12 that also speaks of both blessings and curses. Observe how this plays out: as Naomi intends to move back home, she blesses the two Moabite women to return to their own families. But, when Ruth replies, she calls down a curse on herself should she ever forsake Naomi. It seems that Ruth, more than Naomi, understands what the truly blessed thing to do is.

Thus, it is through Ruth that God’s promises to Abraham (concerning 1. the land he would give, 2. the people he would make, and 3. the blessing they would be) develop in ways we would hardly expect.

Ruth and the story of Job

But the story of Ruth doesn’t stop there. There’s another story here for us to see as Ruth is also a retelling of the story of Job with an interesting twist. Recall that the story of Job is about a man who, early in the narrative, loses everything but his faith in God. Shortly after, some of Job’s friends show up and they have a dialogue about the meaning of suffering in which Job’s friends don’t really help Job a whole lot.

In Ruth, Naomi serves as the Job figure as the writer very quickly relates how Naomi loses everything. Then, the first chapter concludes with her lament, which sounds a lot like something Job would say: where once life was sweet (that’s what “Naomi” means), now it is bitter (that’s what “Mara” means); she went away full and came back empty. Everything has been stripped away.

But, then, here’s the surprise: in contrast to Job’s companions, Ruth serves as a true companion—for Ruth does more than accompany Naomi back to Israel, she sides with her in every respect, up to and including the adoption of Naomi’s God.

a. compassion and physical need

As we consider how Ruth's story is connected to the story of Job, there are some important lessons for us to notice regarding how the church can be a healing presence in a world filled with suffering. The first lesson deals with the importance of tending to the physical needs of those who are suffering. Theologian Jürgen Moltmann alludes to this by playing on Friedrich Nietzsche’s assertion that “God is dead.” Over against that, Moltmann challenges the church to remember that, to the poor, God is not dead; rather, “God is bread.”[16] The text in Ruth 1 underscores this truth by repeated use of the imagery of bread. As Naomi and her family leave Israel because of a famine, it is significant that the town they leave is Bethlehem (or Beit-lechem), literally “the house of bread.” Then, in verse 6, Naomi is prompted to return when she hears that the Lord had given them food. The word in Hebrew there is even more specific than “food,” however. The text literally says the Lord gave them “bread” (lechem). Thus, in verse 19 Naomi and Ruth return to the “house of bread” (Beit-lechem) and in verse 22 we learn the barley is ready to be harvested in Beit-lechem. In the next two chapters, Ruth then works to take care of Naomi who is too old to work—and God provides beyond their need through the generosity of Boaz.

This is something I love about the church in which I serve: we understand that one of the best things we can do to ease suffering is by tending to the physical needs of others. That’s why I love that our little church runs a food pantry. Through such a ministry of compassion, we are saying to our neighbors: “God is not dead; God is bread.”

b. companionship and the essence of the church

Ruth not only tends to Naomi’s physical needs, she also tends to Naomi’s emotional and spiritual needs. On this front, it's important for us to notice that Ruth does this simply by being with Naomi. In 1:16 Ruth expresses it this way: “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge.”

At the church where I serve we’ve been exploring what it means to live “missionally” and “incarnationally”, both personally and collectively. The expression is a fancy way of saying that just as the Father sent the Son to dwell among us so the Triune God sends us to be fully present to the world. And Ruth exemplifies this perfectly. Observe this dynamic in her language:

“Where you go, I will go.”

Ruth is sent.

And “where you lodge, I will lodge.”

Ruth intends to be fully present.

The irony is: it is only in leaving her home that Ruth finds her home.

At any rate, in learning from Ruth's example Christians do well to keep in mind that as we move out of our comfort zone, we will truly be a blessing to all and find ourselves more at home in the world.

c. compassion, companionship, and justice

In the middle of all this, there beats a heart of justice. In chapter 1, Naomi blesses Ruth by saying she hopes the Lord will “deal kindly” with Ruth as Ruth has dealt kindly with Naomi (since Ruth tended lovingly to Naomi’s husband and sons when they died). The story goes on to show how Naomi’s blessing comes to fulfillment in Obed’s birth, the grandfather of King David. But, prior to this, we get a foretaste of God’s fruitful blessing on Ruth, when she avails herself of a provision in Jewish law that instructs landowners not to harvest all the way to the edges of their field but to leave some crops for the poor to glean. Through this distinctive Hebrew custom, God reminded the people that it is just, right and good to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

The word used to describe this orientation is “hesed.” Like “grace” or “love” it is one of those words that means so much. It can be translated as lovingkindness or mercy, but it also connotes faithfulness and goodness. One scholar translates it here in 1:8 as doing or showing “good-faith.”[17] “Doing right by others” is another way of putting it.

What’s interesting about the text in Ruth is that usually the term hesed is used to describe how God treats us but here the term is used to describe what Ruth has done.[18] Ruth did what was right in God’s eyes, unlike those in the time of the judges when everyone only did what was right in their own eyes.

The text commends to us some lessons regarding social justice. Too often today working for social justice equates to thinking the right things or saying the right things regarding matters of equity. But Ruth shows us that justice goes beyond words; it is about action. And the action is up-close and personal. Ruth’s brand of social justice is incarnational. It puts us in contact with people. It’s so much more than “taking a stand” for something on Facebook.

And the story is even more fascinating because in the Hebrew Scriptures we would expect Naomi, the Israelite, to be cast as the one who resembles Israel’s God—yet here it is the foreigner who mirrors God’s hesed. Centuries later, Jesus would reflect this theme in a parable about a good Samaritan where Israel’s finest do NOT do what is right in caring for the beaten man but an outsider does. Just as Ruth reveals something to Israel about their own God, so the Samaritan outsider reveals something to the insiders about who will really inherit eternal life.

I encourage Christians to let this reversal challenge us afresh today in our own setting. We Christians often assume that we are the ones who are in and others are out. To break down this divide, we try various ways to help “outsiders” feel they are welcome with “us.” But the story of Ruth reverses this scenario and casts the outsider in the “welcoming” role. Notice: it is through Ruth that Naomi’s faith is restored. So as we think about extending a warm welcome to outsiders, I encourage us to take a step back and consider how it is that we can know God better as we are welcomed by “them.” And, of course, what God really wants is that there will be no more “us” and “them.”

Ruth’s story as a New Creation story

As we live this way, we are essentially cooperating with God in making a New Creation story. Beyond the stories of Abraham and Job, the book of Ruth reaches back into the creation account itself as Ruth and Naomi find true rest in clinging to one another and clinging to God. What’s significant about Ruth’s pivotal poem is that it comes on the heels of Ruth literally clinging to Naomi (in verse 14) after Naomi tells Ruth she wishes her to find “rest”[19] (in verse 9). Those images of “rest” and “clinging” echo the creation story in Genesis 2 where we read of God’s rest[20] and of the first humans clinging to one another.

Here the story of Ruth shocks us yet again by casting Ruth in the role of the man as we notice that in Genesis 2 the text says the man will leave his family to cling to his wife, thus making a new family. Yet, in Ruth 1 it is a woman who leaves her family to cling to Naomi, another woman—and together they find rest as they make a radically new family made of both Jews and Gentiles. Galatians 3:28 echoes this narrative as it says that in Jesus a new family is created where distinctions between male and female, Jew and Gentile no longer matter. Ruth’s story gives us a new understanding of family and it is through this new God-creation that we find true rest.

Conclusion

Thus, the story of Ruth is more than just a sentimental romance. Ruth can turn us upside-down as we follow her example of leaving our comfort zone and making a home with others, ministering compassion, mercy and justice, breaking down dividing lines of in and out, and becoming a new family by a continual openness to be re-made through the hesed-love of God. In times of crisis, this is just what the church needs to be: the very bread of the presence of Christ in the world. Amen.

---

[1] On the extent to which this presents a genuine “constitutional crisis” see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/9/20905503/trump-white-house-letter-democrats-impeachment

[2] See https://www.npr.org/2019/10/07/765091522/the-supreme-court-march-to-the-right-fast-and-furious-or-incremental

[3] See the data set from 2017 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

[4] Though Brandt Jean’s offer to forgive Amber Guyger for murdering his brother Botham is inspiring, many feel justice was not properly served as they grieve the light sentence she received and observe that punishments for black people are often harsher than punishments for white people. See the wrap-up of this case at https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/us/botham-jean-amber-guyger-trial-wrap/index.html

[5] According to Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Patrol. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/nearly-1-million-migrants-arrested-along-mexico-border-in-fiscal-2019-most-since-2007/2019/10/08/749413e4-e9d4-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

[6] For annual comparisons and a month-by-month breakdown of apprehensions along the southwest border see official data published by the United States Custom and Border Patrol at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

[7] About 80,000 children under the age of 18 were unaccompanied by an adult and were among those apprehended during fiscal year 2019 (which ran from September 1, 2018 to August 31, 2019).

[8] According to a briefing published by Exodus World Service, accessed 10/17/19. The briefing notes that over half of the world’s refugees are under the age of 18. See the briefing at https://exodusworldservice.org/why-refugees/

[9] This essay follows the NRSV translation.

[10] My translation, see the explanation later in this essay.

[11] To be sure, the scene described occurs in Ruth 3:3. Still, we tend to read modern (Western) notions of romance into the story. As I observe later in the essay, the story of Ruth addresses other interests that would have been more important to the original audience.  

[12] Most modern translations render “every man did what was right in his own eyes” in gender-neutral language. For example, NIV renders the text as “everyone did as they saw fit.” Even the NRSV renders the phrase as “all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” But the subject in the Hebrew text is “ish”, a word translated as “man,” literally. Its predicate is: “in his own eyes,” a third person masculine singular expression. Biblical scholar Stephen E. Fowl asserts it should be translated as “each man did what was right in his own eyes.” He explains: “Although the NRSV opts for a gender-neutral translation, ‘all the people did what was right in their own eyes,’ this translation misses something important about both Judges and Ruth. Judges is full of stories about men doing what is right in their own eyes in ways that often result in disaster for women.” See Fowl, “Ruth 1” in Judges and Ruth (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2018), 217.

[13] This is to observe simply that Ruth as a text is positioned between Judges and I Samuel in our canon. Later in the essay, I note why many scholars date the writing of Ruth to the post-exilic era. Still, thematically, the text of Ruth takes us from the time of Judges to set up the time of the kings, of whom David serves as exemplar.

[14] The Hebrew word is “shub” and it appears in verses 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 (twice), 16, 21, and 22 (twice).

[15] This is one reason many scholars date the writing of Ruth to the period after the exile. Another factor in this determination follows from the supposed interest of the writer to address the question of inter-marriage between Jews and Gentiles, which was a distinct concern in the book of Nehemiah that records what happened to the Jewish people after the exile. See Bruce Birch, et. al. “New Life, Renewed Community, New Crises” in A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, 2^nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 452.

[16] “In a global view, we are all working in a circle which is making the rich nations ever richer and the poor nations ever poorer. From this circle there is emerging a world nutritional crisis which will spell starvation for millions. For the poor and starving in this vicious circle, ‘God is not dead—he is bread.’ If, with Paul Tillich, we define God as ultimate concern, then for them his concrete presence takes the form of bread.” See Jürgen Moltmann. “Bringing Peace to a Divided World” in The Experiment Hope, trans. M. Douglas Meeks (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 180-181.

[17] Stephen Fowl. Judges and Ruth (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2018), 220. “Moreover, although to show hesed clearly requires an inner capacity for mercy and kindness, hesed is primarily displayed in a pattern of action (hence, ‘do good-faith’).”

[18] “The book makes clear that both God and humans can be agents of such love. Naomi asks that God act in such a fashion toward her daughters-in-law (1:8)…However, humans can act that way as well, as…Ruth demonstrates in her loyalty to Naomi (1:16-17).” See Bruce C. Birch, et. al. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, 2^nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 452.

[19] The Hebrew word is menuhah. NRSV translates it as “security” but it would be more accurate to translate it here as “rest.”

[20] Hebrew scholars note that on the seventh day God created rest (menuhah).

Two Kings and the Golden Rule

Two Kings and the Golden Rule

reflections on laboring for a just society

by Troy Cady

“I believe that standing up for the truth of God is the greatest thing in the world. This is the end of life. The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may.”  -Martin Luther King, Jr.[i]

These are the words of a man captivated by the vision of a just society. It is a society that, according to the quote, does “the will of God, come what may.” It is a noble vision. It is why we strive as we do. It is why we sacrifice. That is why today in the United States we remember and honor the work of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King worked for justice and we continue that good work. He was an imperfect man, to be sure, but the United States (and, indeed, many other places in the world) owe him a great debt of gratitude for the tireless, sacrificial way he put his life on the line for the cause of the oppressed. Though we remember him most for his efforts concerning the civil rights of black people in America, his work serves as a model for any endeavor to right the wrongs of injustice, in whatever form it appears. 

My theme in this essay concerns the source from which Dr. King’s work is derived and the scope of such work. At the close of the essay, I invite you to consider how we can honor Dr. King by following his example and I invite you to consider how his legacy is needed now more than ever.

It is well known that Dr. King was an ordained minister. As a minister myself, I’m especially drawn to that aspect of King’s work. In other words, I believe King did what he did because of his King. He made that abundantly clear in his writings, of which the quote at the beginning serves as a small sample.

The Basis of Dr. King’s Nonviolent Protest

All great reformers look to those who have gone before for their inspiration. When the going gets tough, they persevere because they have firmly fixed in their mind and heart a vision of the future that is derived from great moments and leaders of the past. King’s inspiration was Jesus and there is much in the account of Jesus’ sayings and actions that informed King’s nonviolent way of protesting injustice.

Many people are familiar with sayings from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, for example:

“Blessed are the peacemakers,

    for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,

    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:9-10)

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”  (Matthew 5:11-12)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:43-45a)

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

That last saying is an interesting one. Most of us know the middle phrase very well: “…do to others what you would have them do to you…”

We refer to this as the Golden Rule. It’s astounding, to be sure. It’s astounding because throughout history there has yet to come anyone to surpass this saying. If everyone kept this one rule, King believed, there would be no more injustice. It’s what Jesus taught.

That’s why it’s important to keep in mind that the middle phrase is encased by two other phrases.

Injustice Anywhere…

First, Jesus says, “So, in everything do to others…”

That is our problem. We don’t keep the Golden Rule “in everything.” That is really what Dr. King worked towards. He wanted to see us keep the Golden Rule in everything and he saw that we did not keep it with respect to the lives of black people, so he directed his efforts towards putting that right.

But we should keep in mind that, though King’s work had a particular focus, he once said that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”[ii]

In that respect, King’s work was about much more than racism. It’s also about sexism, ageism and ableism, to name a few. Anyone, by virtue of being human, should be afforded basic rights, regardless of their race, sex, age or ability.

While King is remembered for his focus on the issue of race, Jesus addressed every one of the injustices listed above. Indeed, that is why Jesus was King’s King.

For example, in Matthew 15 (and the parallel account in Mark 7) there is a story that touches on the question of ageism. I will look at that text later in this essay, because it presents a fine case that demonstrates in action what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount (and what King endeavored to do).

Before turning to that case, however, we need to look at the final phrase of the Golden Rule. It, too, is included in Jesus’ vision of a just society.

What is the Basis of a Just Society?

I have italicized the last phrase of the Golden Rule: “…do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

The word “for” indicates the rationale for “doing to others what you would have them do to you.” Though it is unpopular to say so, the end to which Jesus instructed us to practice the Golden Rule was so that we might honor the Law and the Prophets (that is, to live according to the vision of a just society as it is presented to us by them). Jesus believed, along with other Jews of the first century, that living according to the Law and the Prophets would form a world where humanity and creation would flourish.

Contrary to what many claim, Jesus did not simply come to jettison the Law. Rather, he sought to help us embrace the Law rightly, interpret it wisely, and observe it without hypocrisy. Jesus’ condemnation was not the Law itself. It was the way in which the Pharisees had twisted it and used it as a tool to enslave the populace. Put another way, Jesus sought to liberate the Law from its Pharisaical trappings, but he did not seek to abolish it.

He made this clear at the beginning of his Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Indeed, in verse twenty, he directs this statement specifically with respect to the Pharisees when he says: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

I do believe this is the one aspect of Jesus’ ministry that most modern-day people do not appreciate, including Christians. But, I also believe Dr. King understood the importance of this part of Jesus’ teaching because the work to which he dedicated himself indicated such understanding.

What I mean to say is: the last part of the Golden Rule indicates the value of working for justice on a systemic level, not just an interpersonal level. The Law, to the first century Jewish person, was a Constitution. It was systemically concerned, even if it needed to be practiced personally. It presented to them a way of life by which they would all be governed; more precisely, it was a vision of “the good life.” When the Law and the Prophets were fully kept, they believed, all would be well.

What Sets Jesus Apart in the Cause of Justice

What set Jesus apart as a leader in his day was the authority he exercised with respect to the Law. The priestly, rabbinic and scholarly community helped the people embrace, understand and observe the Law as it had been handed down to them. They were stewards, but over the years their interpretation of the Law and practice of it became corrupted.

And this is what Jesus addressed, specifically. In some instances, he upheld what had been handed down to them, seeking to illuminate the original meaning of the Law. In other instances, he modified the Law. In still other instances, he overturned the Law, teaching them those aspects that were no longer needed, no longer in keeping with the spirit in which the Law was originally given.

In any case, what informed Jesus’ ministry was a vision of a society where the good Law, as God gives it afresh, is cherished and observed so that people and creation might flourish.

But, Jesus was also set apart from everyone else because he wisely pointed out that this System of Law could only be fully embraced as the human heart underwent a transformation.

Thus, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus quotes the Law “do not murder” while observing that the source of murder is in the human heart in the form of hatred. In a similar way, Jesus quotes the Law when it says “do not commit adultery” but he goes on to teach that the source of adultery is in the human heart in the form of lust.

Jesus taught that if we learn not to hate, we will not murder; if we learn not to lust, we will not betray trust. To transform society, we need to transform the human heart.

But, notice, that is not all Jesus taught. He taught that personal transformation was necessary to achieve the end to which the Law was directed; namely, the realization of a just and flourishing society—a world where God’s will is done “on earth as it is in heaven.”[iii] That world is a world of joy and freedom, hope and provision, love and honesty. It’s a world where no one kills, no one lies, no one cheats, no one steals and everyone is at peace with one another. It’s a good world.

That’s what the Law championed and that’s what Jesus championed; namely, personal and systemic goodness.

An Example: What’s Most Important?

Of course, another aspect that set Jesus apart from the religious leaders of his day is that he actually practiced what he preached. He truly upheld the Law and he was truly good from the inside-out. In him, there was no hypocrisy. Not so, the Pharisees.

In Matthew 15[iv], we read how Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount applied in a real, live context. We see Jesus’ concern for both personal transformation and systemic justice. The story shows us the nature of the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and I want to look at it because we will be better able to grasp the nature and significance of Dr. King’s work through it (since Dr. King based his engagement of injustice on the values embodied by Jesus).

At first, you may wonder what the story in Matthew 15 has to do with the work of Dr. King but it has everything to do with it. It’s an excellent example of what it means to work for justice holistically (that is, both personally and systemically).

The story begins when the Pharisees and teachers criticize Jesus and his disciples because they don’t observe the custom of washing hands before eating. The custom was tied to their life of worship and rooted in the Levitical code.  Jesus answered them with these words:

“Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

‘These people honor me with their lips,

    but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain;

    their teachings are merely human rules.’"

One can see at the outset that Jesus seeks to honor the Law and the Prophets. He does this by quoting the prophet Isaiah. Jesus bases his ministry on that of the prophets.

He doesn’t just quote the prophet, however; he asserts that the words of the prophet are being fulfilled even as they speak to one another. Jesus, therefore, serves the role of a prophet himself. He claims an authority that critiques the status quo. One could say he is not only the King of Kings, he is also a Prophet of Prophets.

In interpreting the prophet Isaiah, he goes on to say to the Pharisees: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” (Mark 7:8)

Notice Jesus’ view that the commands are good. He does not throw them out. What he wants to critique are the “human traditions” that were entangled with the commands of God.

What is striking about this is that the Pharisees observed this practice of washing hands because of their adherence to the Levitical code, which they believed contained a detailed description of how to keep the Ten Commandments. To the Pharisees, the practice of washing one’s hands was a command, in that sense. Thus, they were unable to differentiate what was a command and what wasn’t.

This is where Jesus modified the Law as they knew it and this is what got Jesus into trouble. He was calling into question their very way of life (which, to them, was a vision of the good life, keep in mind).

Matthew continues the narrative by including a parable Jesus told them: “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (Matthew 15:11)

Peter doesn’t understand what Jesus is saying, so in verse 15 he asks Jesus to explain the parable. Jesus replies:

“Are you still so dull? Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” (Matthew 15:16-20)

Significantly, Mark adds this comment to the story: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19)

In a single short bit of teaching, Jesus ingeniously underscores the need for personal transformation and he overturns a key aspect of the Law so powerful it governs the lives of Jewish people still today: observing kosher dietary restrictions.

So far, in this interaction we have observed Jesus modifying the Law and overturning it. What of upholding it? That aspect, in fact, was the first thing out of Jesus’ mouth when responding to the initial criticism by the Pharisees. I skipped over it because I wanted to keep the best for last. Let’s look now at how Jesus initially responded to the Pharisees, for we will see in it how he upheld the Law and it will become more apparent how the work of Jesus links with that of Dr. King.

How Jesus Upheld the Law and Challenged the System

Certainly, it could be argued that Jesus can be seen upholding the Law in the exposition we’ve offered already. Even in the instance where Jesus overturns the Law, he does so because he wants us to embrace the spirit of the Law, not the letter of it. In other words, even when Jesus overturns the Law, his intent is to uphold it, to champion the Law’s vision of a just society.

In this respect, it’s telling what Jesus initially said to the Pharisees when they criticized him:

“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus, you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:3-6)

Here we see again Jesus’ concern for keeping the Commandments. To be sure, there is another story of Jesus where he overturns the death penalty as punishment for sin.[v] Thus, Jesus is not saying here in the text by Matthew that the Pharisees should put to death anyone who “curses their father or mother.” The emphasis in his reply is on their hypocrisy, that they do not keep the main part of the Law, which is the Fifth Word to honor one’s father and mother.

That is where Jesus upholds the Law, specifically. He reiterates the necessity of the Fifth Word of the Decalogue[vi] and asserts that the Pharisees, in their religiosity, broke the very commandment God wants everyone to keep.

Basically, the Pharisees were neglecting to bless, honor and care for their own elderly parents because they were withholding material support from them. In this way, they were increasing the suffering of the aged. The irony is that they were doing this because they wanted to give God more. They thought they were doing a good thing but, far from adhering to the Law, the Pharisees were breaking it—and thereby creating an unjust society.

In calling out their sin, Jesus addressed the issue of ageism, common in his time (and in our time, too). It is the practice of withholding basic human rights especially to the very old (but also to the very young). It is a matter that concerns society’s “margins” and it was a concern rooted in the original giving of the Law.[vii]

What Happened Next and How Jesus Responded

Jesus called out their sin and challenged their system. Predictably, the Pharisees take offense.

Jesus’ disciples draw his attention to this. They say: “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

And Jesus answers: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

I love the New Living Translation of this text. It renders the expression “leave them” as “ignore them.” It reads in a matter-of-fact fashion.

Because this piece is intended to highlight the work of Dr. King, let’s apply this exposition now to his work.

Concerning Dr. King

Above, I wanted to look closely at the work of Jesus so we can see how Dr. King followed his example. MLK followed suit in several respects, five of which I mention below.

As the work of justice is never done and wide in scope (and we still have a long way to go concerning race relations in America), I invite you to consider these principles as we honor the examples of Jesus and Dr. King by our words and actions.

First, to work for justice is to work for personal transformation. Both Jesus and Dr. King model this for us. In his lecture upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, Dr. King said:

“There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.

“Every man lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals, and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms, and instrumentalities by means of which we live. Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live…This is the serious predicament, the deep and haunting problem confronting modern man. If we are to survive today, our moral and spiritual ‘lag’ must be eliminated.”

Second, it is not enough to work for personal transformation. We must also endeavor to change the system itself that nurtures injustice.

In their book Divided by Faith (which concerns race relations in America) authors Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith document the propensity of white Christians to cite personal and interpersonal issues in fighting racism, but a reluctance (or inability) to see the problem of racial injustice in systemic terms.  White people often content themselves with stating “I’m not a racist” while at the same time ignoring there are other factors that make a society racially unjust beyond personal attitudes or behaviors.

Yet, the black church in America sees the inequity clearly—because they experience the injustice first-hand. A black person may experience an individual white person who is not a racist, but that does not mean the black community enjoys equity in the system.

Even as Dr. King worked to raise our consciousness regarding the dignity of every person, he worked practically (systemically) to secure the right of black people in America to enjoy the same liberties as white people. He sought to change the system, as did Jesus.

Third, we should follow the example of Jesus and Dr. King by simply speaking truth to power. That is what prophets do and today we are in need of such prophets.

Consider the power of these ideas. Dr. King (like Jesus) trusted in the proclamation of the simple truth. Notice how, like a prophet, Dr. King draws from the biblical tradition in this excerpt from his Nobel prize lecture.

“We still have a long, long way to go before the dream of freedom is a reality for the Negro in the United States. To put it figuratively in biblical language, we have left the dusty soils of Egypt and crossed a Red Sea whose waters had for years been hardened by a long and piercing winter of massive resistance. But before we reach the majestic shores of the Promised Land, there is a frustrating and bewildering wilderness ahead. We must still face prodigious hilltops of opposition and gigantic mountains of resistance. But with patient and firm determination we will press on until every valley of despair is exalted to new peaks of hope, until every mountain of pride and irrationality is made low by the leveling process of humility and compassion; until the rough places of injustice are transformed into a smooth plane of equality of opportunity; and until the crooked places of prejudice are transformed by the straightening process of bright-eyed wisdom.”

These words are filled with inherent power because of their truth. Thus, in working for justice do not fight power with more power. Simply speak truth to power and simply trust in the power of truth.

Fourth, I believe that Dr. King’s approach followed the example of Jesus in exercising wisdom as to how to respond when faced with opposition.

“Ignore them,” Jesus said.

There were many who opposed Dr. King’s message and they were vocal and forceful in their opposition. But, what did Dr. King do? He ignored them and carried on proclaiming the truth, taking a stand for justice. Like Jesus, he paid for it with his life, but the truth prevailed and many were changed because of it.

This way of working for justice is especially under threat today, I do believe. But “ignoring one’s detractors” especially follows from the third principle of simply speaking truth to power. The two go hand-in-hand. If we really believe in the power of the truth, we don’t have to engage in a tit-for-tat regarding every bit of opposition we face.

Yet, far from exercising discernment regarding wise responses to one’s detractors, we nitpick at every jot and tittle someone offers in disagreement.  I find this is true especially on Facebook these days.

I cannot think of a time in the last three months when someone posted a political opinion that wasn’t met with counter-argument, counter-counter-argument and counter-counter-counter-argument…you get the idea. And in a most unwise and uncivil fashion.

I can’t help but feel those types of interactions dishonor the great heritage of civil discourse we have inherited from people like Dr. King.

The word of Jesus and the example of Dr. King to simply “ignore them” is in sore need of observance, I feel.  In the time it takes to answer our detractors, we could write ten times as much buoyed by a positive vision of hope, vision, freedom and joy.

If “the best critique of the bad is the practice of the good”, to maintain focus on writing and speaking the good comes in a close second. There will always be naysayers. Don’t worry about them. Just do and speak what’s true, good and noble. Trust in the power of truth.

A fifth lesson we can learn from Jesus and Dr. King as we endeavor to work for justice is this: don’t give up; persevere, even if it costs your life.

If you are ever faced with the choice to die for the truth or to live while hiding the truth, choose the former. Most of us will not have to die for the truth, thankfully. Most of us will simply need to persevere speaking truth to power, working for systemic justice, softening (and, simultaneously, strengthening) our own hearts.

We need to persevere, because, as we are aware, there is still much to be done in the interest of justice.

It is sobering that more than half a century after Dr. King received the Nobel prize many feel these words which he spoke in his lecture are apt for today, too, but in a different way. In speaking of the progress that has been made, Dr. King said:

“Another indication that progress is being made was found in the recent presidential election in the United States. The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path.”

Those words, and the fact that I include those words in this essay, no doubt will raise the anger of some of my readers. All I have to say is: when I read those words earlier today they struck a chord of truth in me that I cannot deny. The “extremism” of which Dr. King speaks presents a danger not only to America but to Europe and many other places in the world.

That is why I am a minister. That is why I write. I believe that, with God’s help, we are able to become more gracious and loving. I believe that trust in God engenders trust in each other. I believe we can lay down our weapons and defenses, open our arms like the crucified Christ and experience the freedom and resurrection that attends such forgiveness, compassion and mercy. I believe in a gentler way; I believe in the power of gentleness. I believe humility is strong and courage can be kind. I believe the lamb can lay down with the lion. I believe that with humans this seems impossible, but with God (with the Truth of God), all things are possible.

We honor Dr. King best by working for justice the way Jesus worked for justice. May we truly fulfill the Golden Rule by working for justice in everything we do: personally, systemically, speaking truth to power, captivated not by the opposition, but by a vision of love, even if it means ultimate sacrifice.

Amen.  

---

[i] from A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. edited by James M. Washington.

[ii] from “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” (italics mine)

[iii] Matthew 6:10b

[iv] In my exposition, I also draw from Mark’s parallel account of this same incident, since Mark includes a few additional (yet complementary) details. It’s found in Mark 7.

[v] That story is in John 8:1-11.

[vi] …which we refer to as the Fifth Commandment.

[vii] Originally, the Law to “honor your parents” was especially directed at adult children of elderly parents. The concern was the honor one grants a parent when the adult child cares for their parents who are no longer able to care for themselves. It’s a question of human dignity as we age and it represents a significant issue of social justice. Today, we interpret the Fifth Word mainly with respect to young children. This is the subject of another essay, but it is the very thing Jesus wanted to restore that had become distorted to his first century listeners. I include it here to demonstrate the need to work for justice on a systemic level, beyond the personal ramifications.