The Hunger and The Thirst for Righteousness

In the most famous “sermon” in Christian history, Jesus says;

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6).

Most would recognize this as a section from the Beatitudes, or the introduction of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as we have labeled in our Bibles. I have always been intrigued by the Beatitudes and as a result have spent time contemplating them. It seems to me that this specific verse, about the mysterious “hunger or thirst for righteousness,” says much more than may have originally been thought.

Traditionally, at least in my experience, churches and pastors have taught that Jesus is telling of a promise God makes to us. The promise consists of not cause and effect, but rather of an assuredness in our attitude. The idea is that God is saying “Rest assured in your hunger or thirst for righteousness, because I am promising you that eventually it will come. At some point in time, I will restore creation and all humans by bringing you my righteousness. Your thirst will be quenched at that time; your hunger will then be satisfied.” The underlying tone of this message is to be patient. Be patient in hunger or thirsting, because God will fulfill it at some predetermined time that is unbeknownst to humanity.

This understanding I find lacking. Jesus is not giving a “pie in the sky” promise about some time in the future when our hunger and thirst shall be met by God’s fulfillment. He is talking cause and effect here; he is talking about the hunger creating the fulfillment.

Think about this: If one hungers for cake, or thirsts for soda, they may say things like, “I would do anything for cake right now” or “I want a soda so bad.” Already, this desire has manifested itself in their speech. They have acknowledged the reality of their desire. Soon, if the resources are available, their actions will fall in line with their words and they will ACT in a certain way to attain their goals. If they want cake bad enough, and the ingredients are in the house, they will take time from their day and they will make it. If a soda machine is available, they will take time and money and sacrifice them in the interest of fulfilling that desire for themselves. The truth of reality is that if the hunger or thirst is great enough, it will cause us to CREATE the fulfillment of them.

It might be argued that clearly there are people in the world hungry and thirsty for things that they don’t receive. Indeed, many people are dying of hunger or thirst today because the resources are NOT available to them. From this devastating truth, we can realize more of the meaning from Christ’s words: the resources for achieving righteousness are always available to us. If they were not, Christ would be lying in his statement.

If this is the case then, Jesus is not giving a promise, but rather a prediction. He is making a cause and effect statement that would be as simple as me saying, “If I am hungry enough for bread, and there is bread available, I will make sacrifices and change my actions to satisfy this hunger.” Jesus is saying that if we are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, we will change our actions in order to see it fulfilled.

This is akin to Jesus’ strange statement, “ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you. For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8) Jesus is not promising arbitrary fulfillment of desires. He is promising that if we want something bad enough, we will do what is necessary to get it. Better yet, if what we are hungry or thirsty for is righteousness, we have all the resources we need for fulfillment, within us and around us. Do we hunger and thirst enough?
Are we willing to change our actions in order to create the Kingdom of God?

The TEA Party Express

Being in Ecuador right now, I have not kept up on world events as much as I should have simply because of a lack of resources. I don’t have a television here, I don’t use the Internet that often, and all the periodicals are in Spanish (which I am not fluent in.)

However, I recently had the delightful experience of watching the BBC World News Report. I heard things about the British Airways strike, massacres in the D R Congo by the Lord’s Resistance Army, and of course United States healthcare.

It seems that like any other new reform, people are either thrilled or disgusted. On the BBC, they choose to show some of the disgusted population, attending a rally with keynote speaker Sarah Palin.

This rally was put on by a Republican organization called Tea Party Express. I am sure that the historical connection offered them some rhetorical leverage, but in reality the situation surrounding the Boston Tea Party and this healthcare reform are profoundly different. During the Boston Tea Party, angered citizens were boycotting the tea that had been imported from England. This was a nonviolent way to put economic pressure on the tea trade between England and its colony in the New World. The main concern of the Boston protesters though was one of taxation without representation. Without representatives from the colonies serving in the Parliament of England, they had no say on what they were paying taxes for.

In this present day “Tea Party”, with Sarah Palin leading the charge, the sentiment might be similar. If I am a Republican opposed to this healthcare, it is probably because I feel unrepresented in Congress and therefore that I am paying taxes to something that I not only disagree with, but have no say in. I am not sure this is the case though. It seems that the major idea discussed at this rally was not taxation without representation, but simply too much tax. Republicans might feel under-represented, but that is because they are, and no Republican politician is going to bring that up because they know that it is the nature of Congress right now.

So, if it is boiled down to the bottom of the issue, the problem is not enough representation, it is simply a disagreement of where the taxes should be going. One man at this rally donned a sign that read “Taxed Enough Already.” In addition to enjoying his clever acronym, I agree with him. We are taxed enough already. No citizens want to see taxes go up. If we don’t want to see a raise in taxes though, we must communicate more than that to our government. Representatives already know that voters don’t like raised taxes. What they seem to be ignorant of is what we WANT to pay taxes for.

I don’t know what the man with the “Taxed Enough Already” sign really values other than his own money. He doesn’t want taxes to go up. It is true that we could cut this healthcare reform and decrease government spending in the healthcare area. But we are only directing our focus there because it is the most recent legislation. The Republican Party as a bloc is against raised taxes for healthcare, but sees no issue with funding the military.

So, what if we cut spending in other areas? What if we cut funding for our overseas military excursions? What if we cut back on nuclear arms and military bases? Every time an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan pulls the trigger and kills a Muslim, it costs our taxpayers money. We are paying to kill people. We are paying for helicopters, missiles, bombs, grenades, airplanes, tanks and guns. The worst part is, once a bullet is fired, its value has been spent. Once a tank is destroyed, another one must be built. If the tools of warfare do their job, they are rarely reusable. We certainly are taxed enough, and it is invested poorly.

Basically I see a choice. We can say “Taxed Enough Already,” and decide not to accept the addition of taxes, or we can redirect the taxes we are already paying. Can we tell our representatives not only that we want to cut government spending, but also that we want to cut it in specific areas? Can we invest our money in hospital beds, medical equipment and hiring nurses and doctors rather than investing it in bullets, bombs, and soldiers?

Can our taxes be directed towards preserving life rather than ending it?

Thanks, Republicans for showing us the reality of the situation. Taxes are too high. Now together let’s decide where to cut. Healthcare or warfare? Would we still be opposed to healthcare reform if it didn’t cost so much? Because if the answer is ‘no,’ I have a deal. Let’s remove the immense costs of war, and the medical cost won’t seem so daunting.

The Gospel vs. The Constitution

The following is my response to Roger Misso's latest article in the Wayuga newspaper. Misso writes a column called "The New Prosperity."

In response to Mr. Misso’s piece “Among These,” I must argue that the United States is neither a “Christian nation” nor is it founded on “Christian principles.”

First, it must be asked, what is a “Christian nation?”

Is it a country that declares Christianity its national religion? A reading of our Constitution will indicate that Americans have no national religion.

Is it a population of Christians living in the same geographical region? If this is the case we must concede that America is not a Christian nation, but rather one of variegated religious traditions.

Is a Christian nation one that is founded upon the principles discussed in the Bible? With a close look at Christ’s teachings we must say that gospel scripture cannot be the foundation for a country.

There is no such thing as a Christian nation, because a nation consists of a military, laws, and judges. Christ’s vision for the world was one of love, forgiveness, and peace.

Our nation has a military and police force. One provides protection from external foes and the other is intended to provide protection from internal nuisances. Christ teaches that we cannot retaliate to evil. The gospel says “resist not evil” and “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn your other also.” (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) The United States military could not take these guidelines seriously and survive as it is. It would mean unilaterally dismantling the executive branch of the government, as its whole purpose is to resist “evil.”

Our nation has laws and punishments for those laws. Christ teaches only the law of love and gives only the verdict of forgiveness. Always, Christ urges us to forgive, even to “seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:22) The United States justice system could not exist on these guidelines and survive as it is. It would mean the disintegration of our courts and laws.

I agree with Mr. Misso and Jefferson that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” However, once a system is formulated to preserve those rights, the teachings of Christ are abandoned. The system of enforcement for rights becomes the culprit of encroachment on them.

If the gospel is taken seriously, it is apparent that its ideas are to be followed by individuals, and not by governments or policies. The result won’t be a system; it won’t have a military or police force; it won’t be a codified set of laws; it absolutely will not be a nation. It will be “action and truth.” (1 John 3:18) Of what use is a military if every citizen really was to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) and “be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36) Of what use is a judge if forgiveness is always the answer to evils? Of what use is defining rights if each person was taking seriously “do to others as you would have them do to you?” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)

It may be going too far to say that anarchy is the only feasible option that Christ may have supported (though there are many who do; Leo Tolstoy and Jacques Ellul among them) but it is not a stretch to say that the United States is not a Christian nation, nor is any other nation in this world today.

Taking the teaching of Christ seriously will not transform voting decisions or political perspectives. It will transform an individual’s entire way of life; and call to question the assumptions on which elections and debates are based.

In God We Trust?

Recently, I received a chain email begging the American population for help. It was written in urgent tones and affirmed me that in this issue, I could indeed make a difference. In a world of so many social, political, and spiritual problems, I read on in hopeful anticipation of how I could “make a difference.” Ready and poised to take action in a direction that promised results and change, I curiously considered what this ill could be that I had the power to solve. AIDS? Cancer? Poverty? World Hunger? Suspenseful lists in blog posts?

The email was trying to convince people to “refuse to accept” new coins that the United States government has issued. The major problem with these coins was that they lacked the words “In God We Trust.”

Although I don’t recall if the email was rooted in a Christian organization, it represents a large movement in American Christianity. Most Americans are familiar with the “In God We Trust” debate and those issues that run parallel to it, ie; Ten Commandments in courthouses, prayer in classrooms, “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Christianity has effectively convinced its populations that defending these areas of tradition and others are an essential Christian duty. There are fear-mongering preachers who teach that the abolishment of “In God We Trust” from American forms of money would lead to the demise of the United States as we know it. Because we are a God-fearing nation, and we demonstrate that fact proudly to the world on every piece of legal tender, we are in His omnipotent favor and can enjoy the fruits of His providence. But beware! To turn from God by neglecting to print His name on your money is certain destruction!

But what really should the Christian stance on this topic be, if any? In this issue, has a Christian duty become a civil duty or vice-versa? What does scripture say?

It is generally admitted by Christians that money is the second-most discussed topic by Christ in the gospels. Jesus had a lot to say about your relationships, and not much less to say about your pocketbook. And what does he say?

Well, one day Jesus and his disciples are discussing the matters of the world and the kingdom of heaven, and a Pharisee asks him about taxes. Of course, the Pharisee knows that Jesus is a threat to the Roman Empire and if he can catch Jesus saying explicitly: “Don’t pay your taxes because they fund that evil empire of Rome!” then the Jewish teachers and the Roman government can be rid of the nuisance that is the Christ. So the Pharisee pipes up:

“Jesus, what about taxes? Should we pay them?” Jesus, (as he so frequently does) responds to a question with a question;

“Do you have a coin?” Certainly the Pharisee does, and hands it to the Rabbi as the Jewish and Roman crowd anxiously awaits the response. Jesus takes a look at the coin and says to the Pharisee,

“See how it says ‘In God We Trust’ right here in little letters? That means that it is your Christian (or Jewish) duty to pay your taxes. Based on the printing on the coin, you can clearly see that the Roman Empire is godly, as it recognizes God on every piece of legal tender…”

Wait a second…. I thought I remember that story reading differently! Oh yeah, that is not how it went at all! In Mark 12:17, after Jesus does indeed ask the Pharisee what is on the coin and it is established that the head of Caesar is branded in the piece, Jesus says,

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Well, of course, back in Jesus’ time, this answer would work just fine. And now it would work just fine too, except that the government of our empire has slyly printed God’s name onto the coins next to Caesar’s (or Washington’s) head. Now the Christian populace is confused: “render to God, wait… No, Caesar! Wait, no… God!” To alleviate this confusion, those who have their hands in the pot of political interests and their words in the sanctuary of American churches have taught us that by rendering to the government our taxes, we are also effectively rendering to God what is God’s. If the government recognizes the authority of God, then by some hierarchal law of association, what belongs to the government is also Gods. Also, conveniently, our money is now of greater spiritual power! What joy it is to tithe and donate money that has the name of God printed in the side! Certainly God will use this coin more favorably than any other in circulation, because He sees that it bears His name! And certainly, He will look with disdain and disgust on coins that don’t have His name; in fact, He will devalue them!

Jesus is rolling over in his resurrection. The head of Caesar (or Washington) is still clearly there! Do not confuse “In God We Trust” with whom this money REALLY belongs to. It is a clever ploy by men who understand Christianity well enough to manipulate it. Of course, no one is so explicit in their talk of this issue, but read between the lines and cut through the pulpit rhetoric; these trends are there.

I urge you, pay your taxes. But don’t do it as some Christian duty. Do it because you recognize that money that you own is a chunk of metal with the empire’s name on it, and in the end the value that it has is created and defined by them, not God. To God it is worthless.

I urge you, rejoice in the removal of “In God We Trust” for it will be the repealing of a lie. And if “In God We Trust” continues to remain on the coins, ask your political leaders, fellow citizens and yourself to think of whom we trust when they build weapons of mass destruction. Is it God? Or are we trusting in our technological superiority? Whom do we trust as we send soldiers off to Afghanistan to “defend our freedom?” Is it God or are we trusting in our military might? Whom do we trust when we allocate money for economic bailouts? Is it God or are we trusting in the financial leverage we have created for ourselves? Whom do we trust when we open savings accounts, retirement plans and life insurance policies? Whom do we trust when we buy lock boxes for our money? Whom do we trust when we use money as if it were the ultimate power itself? Is it God?