When A President Speaks Like God

Readings for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Ezekiel 18:25-28; Psalm 25:4-5, 6-7, 8-9; Philippians 2:1-11; Matthew 21:28-32.

Last Tuesday, before the United Nations, President Trump said he had “a big decision to make.” Would there be a deal allowing Iran to rebuild? Or would he “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and drive its people “into hell with no chance of survival”? Those are his words, as recorded in the available transcript of the speech. They sound like a man who thinks he’s God.

In any case, I keep coming back to the people who would have to live under such threat: a mother trying to get her children to school, a nurse caring for the sick, an elderly man who has already lived through too many wars. What decision have they made that gives an American president authority over their future? How can anyone speak of leaving a people without hope for future generations and call it a choice that belongs to him?

The United Nations was created so that nations would settle their conflicts without threatening one another with destruction. Its charter forbids members to use threat or unauthorized force against other states. Yet there stood the president of the United States, before that very assembly, speaking of annihilation in his illegal war of aggression.

This Sunday’s readings give us a way to judge what we heard.

Through Ezekiel, God asks a question: “Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?” It is a question worth putting to every government that speaks of security while treating other people’s lives as expendable. Would we accept such words from the leader of another nation directed at us? Would we call them statesmanship if our own grandchildren lived under the threatened bombs?

Ezekiel does more than condemn wrongdoing. He says that people can turn from it. The one who has done evil can begin to do what is right and just—and live. The word turn matters. God does not demand that we defend yesterday’s course simply because we chose it yesterday. God calls us to change course when we see where it leads.

That is a word for our president and for everyone helping to prosecute this war. It is also a word for us. Americans can turn. We can refuse to lend our silence to threats made in our name. We can insist that diplomacy, the protection of civilians, and an end to the killing are possible and necessary. Ezekiel will not let us say that it is too late to do what is right.

Then Paul asks us to have the mind of Christ Jesus. In one of the most beautiful passages in the New Testament, he says that Jesus, though in the form of God, did not treat equality with God as something to be grasped. Instead, he emptied himself, took the form of a slave, and accepted death on a cross.

Think of the direction of that movement. Jesus goes toward those with the least power. He shares their vulnerability. He ends among the people an empire could execute.

Christ refused to grasp at godlike power. Our president appears eager to exercise it.

For Christians, that contrast should be impossible to miss. No human being has the right to decide that another people will have no future. And no follower of the crucified Jesus should be comfortable hearing such power claimed on our behalf. We cannot kneel before a man executed by an empire and then applaud an empire’s threat to destroy others.

Paul’s words are addressed to a community. He asks the Philippians to look not only to their own interests but also to those of others. For us, that means asking what the war looks like from beneath the bombs and from inside Iranian homes. It means seeing the people who will suffer before we repeat a government’s account of its aims.

We need not approve of Iran’s rulers to do that. We need not overlook injustice committed by any government. Iranian civilians do not lose their claim on our conscience because of what their leaders may have done. Their lives cannot be reduced to a bargaining chip in a dispute between states.

That brings us to Jesus’ story of the two sons. Their father asks each of them to work in the vineyard. One says no but later changes his mind and goes. The other says yes, sir, and never appears. Jesus asks which one did the father’s will. Everyone knows the answer.

He tells this story to the chief priests and elders. They know how to give the proper religious answer. But when John calls them to change their ways, they refuse. Meanwhile, people they look down upon—tax collectors and prostitutes—hear the call and respond.

It is hard to read that Gospel this week without thinking about the churches. We know how to say yes to Jesus. We praise the Prince of Peace. We recite Paul’s hymn about his self-emptying. Some Christian leaders have spoken against this war and pleaded for diplomacy; Pope Leo has done so. But after a threat as stark as the one voiced at the UN, why don’t we hear church leaders speak with unmistakable clarity about the lives at stake?

And I have to ask the same of myself. It is easy for me to preach against a president. The Gospel asks what I will do once I have finished speaking. Will I make my opposition known to those who represent me? Will I stand alongside people organizing for peace? Will I keep paying attention to Iranian lives when the speech has passed from the headlines? Jesus asks whether we actually go into the vineyard.

Perhaps some of us have supported the war. Perhaps some have feared speaking against it. Perhaps many of us have simply grown weary and stopped listening. The first son gives us reason for hope. His first answer was no. It was not his final answer. He changed his mind and went.

That possibility is the mercy running through all today’s readings. In the psalm we pray, “Teach me your paths.” Ezekiel says that we can turn and live. Paul shows us the path of Christ, who gave up power and stood with the vulnerable. Jesus tells us that what matters is whether we will take that path today.

I pray that our president will turn from the language of annihilation. I pray that our churches will find their voices. And I pray that we, who say yes to Christ every Sunday, will hear the invitation he places before us now: go into the vineyard. Defend the lives being threatened. Work for peace. RESIST. VOTE.

Declaring America “A Christian Nation?” Here’s Hoping 60% of Republicans Get Their Wish!

Readings for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time: AM 6: 1A, 4-7; PS 146: 7-10; I TM 6: 11-16; LK 16: 19-31 

This week’s liturgical readings couldn’t be more relevant to the world that’s unfolding before our eyes. It’s a world where one person dies of hunger every four seconds, while over 215,000 individuals worldwide are now worth more than $50 million.

Ours is also a world where 60% of Republicans find themselves wishing that the United States would officially be declared a Christian nation.

But what would happen if people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ron DeSantis got their wish? What if America were truly Christian?

According to today’s readings, it’s not what Republicans think.

If “America” truly became Christian, we’d have to address the issue of hunger on the one hand and extreme wealth on the other. We’d have to deal with the fact (as Richard Wolff argues in the video above) that the tradition in question favors socialism rather than capitalism. We’d be forced to recognize the truth of liberation theology.

Let me show you what I mean by reminding you about liberation theology and then by showing how today’s readings represent a virtual catechism on the movement as the Judeo-Christian tradition’s most authentic interpretation — its enfant terrible so challenging that even popes feared its world changing potential.

Liberation Theology

Well, you might ask, what is liberation theology?

To answer that question fully, please look at my blog entries under the “liberation theology” button. I’ve written a series on the question. In my blogs, you’ll find that I always define it in a single sentence. Liberation theology is reflection on the following of Christ from the viewpoint of the world’s poor and oppressed. That’s the class of people to which Jesus himself belonged. They constituted the majority of his first followers.

When read from their standpoint, accounts of Jesus’ words and deeds – the entire Bible for that matter – take on depths of meaning and relevance to our contemporary world that are otherwise inaccessible to people like us who live in the heart of the wealthy world.

From the viewpoint of the poor, God passes from being a neutral observer of earth’s injustices to an active participant with the poor as they struggle for justice here on earth. Jesus becomes the personification of that divine commitment to the oppressed. After all, he was poor and oppressed himself. The Roman Empire and its Temple priest collaborators saw to that.

Going back to the Jewish Testament, the Exodus (Yahweh’s liberation of slaves from Egypt) was God’s original and paradigmatic revelation. The whole tradition began there, not in the Garden of Eden.

Moreover, the Jewish prophetic tradition emphasized what we now call “social justice.” Even more, Yeshua of Nazareth appeared in the prophetic tradition, not as a priest or king. Jesus directed his “ministry” to the poor and outcasts. The Gospel of Luke (4: 18-19) has Jesus describing his program in the following words:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

After his death, Jesus’ followers continued along those lines. They lived communally, having sold all their worldly possessions and distributed the proceeds to the poor.

Today’s Readings

All of that finds vivid expression in today’s liturgy of the word. As I said, it’s a kind of catechism of liberation theology. The reading from Amos the prophet describes the sin that most offends God – wealth disparity in the face of extreme poverty. Amos decries a “wanton revelry” on the part of the wealthy that sounds like the “American Way of Life” or the “Lives of the Rich and Famous” that we Americans find so fascinating.

The prophet describes a rich class that lives like King David himself – in luxurious houses, overeating, drinking wine by the bowlful, and generally ignoring “the collapse of Joseph,” i.e., the poverty of their country’s most destitute. For that, Amos says, the rich will ultimately suffer. All their wealth will be confiscated, and they will be driven into shameful exile.

In railing against the rich and defending the poor, Amos was calling Judah back to the worship of Yahweh whose attributes are described in today’s responsorial psalm. There God is depicted as loving the just and thwarting the ways of the wicked. The psalm describes Yahweh as securing justice for the oppressed, giving food to the hungry, and setting captives free. He gives sight to the blind and protects resident aliens, single mothers, and their children.

Then today’s excerpt from 1st Timothy outlines the characteristics of those who worship that God by following in Jesus’ footsteps. They keep the commandment which is to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

According to St. Paul, that means pursuing justice and living with devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.

Finally, the gospel selection from Luke chapter 16 dramatizes the sinful relationship between rich and poor and the destinies awaiting both. Luke tells the story of the rich man and “St. Lazarus” who is honored by the poor throughout Latin America and especially in Cuba.

It is significant that Lazarus is given a name in Jesus’ parable. Usually, we know the names of the rich, while it is the poor that remain anonymous. Here matters are reversed. To remedy this anomaly, tradition has assigned the wealthy man a name. He’s called “Dives,” which is simply the Latin word for rich man.

For his part, Lazarus is quintessentially poor, hungry, and lacking medical care. His sores are open and the only attention they receive are from dogs that lick his wounds.

Meanwhile, Dives seems completely unaware of Lazarus’ presence, though the beggar is standing at his very doorstep. Within the sight of Lazarus, the wealthy one stuffs himself with food to such a degree that the scraps falling from his table would be enough to nourish the poor beggar. But not even those crumbs are shared. How could Dives share? He doesn’t even know that Lazarus exists.

So, the two men die, and things are evened out. The rich man goes to hell. We’re not told why. Within the limits of the story, it seems simply for the crime of being rich and unconsciously blind to the presence of the poor. For his part, Lazarus goes to the “bosom of Abraham,” the original Hebrew patriarch.

Lazarus is rewarded. Again, we’re not told why. Within the story, it seems simply because he was poor and Yahweh is partial to the poor, just as he was to the slaves God intervened to save when they were starving in Egypt.

Seated with Abraham, Lazarus feasts and feasts at the eternal banquet hungry people imagine heaven to be. Dives however is consumed by flame in the afterlife. Fire, of course, is the traditional symbol of God’s presence, or purification, and of punishment. This seems to suggest that after death, both Dives and Lazarus find themselves in the presence of God. However what Lazarus experiences as joyful, Dives experiences as tormenting.

And why? Simply, it seems because Dives was rich, and Lazarus was poor.

Conclusion

In the “Ask Prof. Wolff” video posted above, Marxist economist, Richard Wolff responds to the question, “What is the relationship between Christianity and capitalism?”

Prof. Wolff answers perceptively (as does liberation theology) that Christianity started out from its Jewish roots as a slave religion. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition is unique in the corpus of great western literature for recording the experience, faith, and hopes of oppressed people.

However, even within the tradition itself, it’s easy to detect a struggle between Israel’s royal classes (epitomized in King David) and their poor subjects (defended by the prophets). More often than not, the royals wanted to wrest away from the poor their experience of God as on the side of the oppressed.

Professor Wolff points out that that sort of “battle of gods” continued far beyond biblical times.

And so, the tradition’s God of the oppressed was co-opted by ruling classes under imperial Rome, and under systems of slavery, feudalism, and now capitalism. In this way, the ruling classes turned a liberator of slaves into the oppressor of the poor.

The Christianity that 60% of Republicans favor celebrates such a God. “He” (sic) is concerned abortion, LGBTQ+, and trans issues – none of which are even mentioned in the Bible. He even supports American nationalism, a “prosperity” understanding of salvation, and an accompanying disregard and even hatred of any Lazarus people dying every four seconds at our very doorstep.

Today’s readings expose the wrongheadedness of all that. And In the process, they suggest the power of Yeshua’s own understanding of God. The readings address and propose wealth-sharing remedies for the planetary hunger and wealth disparities that plague a world divided between a starving St. Lazarus at our gates and the super-satiated Dives that we Christians have become.