Settling for Less (Lk. 4:1-13)

Do not bother looking for Lent in your Bible dictionary. There was no such thing in biblical times. There is some evidence that early Christians fasted 40 hours between Good Friday and Easter, but the custom of spending 40 days in prayer and self-denial did not arise until later, when the initial rush of Christian adrenaline was over and believers had gotten very ho-hum about their faith.

When the world did not end as Jesus himself had said it would, his followers stopped expecting so much from God or from themselves. They hung a wooden cross on the wall and settled back into their more or less comfortable routines, remembering their once passionate devotion to God the way they remembered the other enthusiasms of their youth.

Little by little, Christians became devoted to their comforts instead: the soft couch, the flannel sheets, the leg of lamb roasted with rosemary. These things made them feel safe and cared for -- if not by God, then by themselves. They decided there was no contradiction between being comfortable and being Christian, and before long it was very hard to pick them out from the population at large. They no longer distinguished themselves by their bold love for one another. They did not get arrested for championing the poor. They blended in. They avoided extremes. They decided to be nice instead of holy, and God moaned out loud.

Hearing that, someone suggested it was time to call Christians back to their senses, and the Bible offered some clues about how to do that. Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness learning to trust the Lord. Elijah spent 40 days there before hearing the still, small voice of God on the same mountain where Moses spent 40 days listening to God give the law. There was also Luke’s story about Jesus’ own 40 days in the wilderness during which he was sorely tested by the devil. It was hard. It was awful. It was necessary, if only for the story. Those of us who believe it have proof that it is humanly possible to remain loyal to God.

So the early church announced a season of Lent, from the old English word lenten, meaning "spring" -- not only a reference to the season before Easter, but also an invitation to a springtime for the soul. Forty days to cleanse the system and open the eyes to what remains when all comfort is gone. Forty days to remember what it is like to live by the grace of God alone and not by what we can supply for ourselves.

I think of it as an Outward Bound for the soul. No one has to sign up for it, but if you do then you give up the illusion that you are in control of your life. You place yourself in the hands of strangers who ask you to do foolhardy things, like walk backwards over a precipice with nothing but a rope around your waist or climb a sheer rock face with your fingers and toes. But none of these is the real test, because while you are doing them you have plenty of people around and lunch in a cooler.

The real test comes when you go solo. The strangers put you out all by yourself in the middle of nowhere and wish you luck for the next 24 hours. That is when you find out who you are. That is when you find out what you really miss and what you are really afraid of. Some people dream about their favorite food. Some long for a safe room with a door to lock and others just wish they had a pillow, but they all find out what their pacifiers are -- the habits, substances or surroundings they use to comfort themselves, to block out pain and fear.

Without those things they are suddenly exposed, like someone addicted to painkillers whose prescription has just run out. It is hard. It is awful. It is necessary, to encounter the world without anesthesia, to find out what life is like with no comfort but God. I am convinced that 99 percent of us are addicted to something, whether it is eating, shopping, blaming or taking care of other people. The simplest definition of an addiction is anything we use to fill the empty place inside of us that belongs to God alone.

That hollowness we sometimes feel is not a sign of something gone wrong. It is the holy of holies inside of us, the uncluttered throne room of the Lord our God. Nothing on earth can fill it, but that does not stop us from trying. Whenever we start feeling too empty inside, we stick our pacifiers into our mouths and suck for all we are worth. They do not nourish us, but at least they plug the hole.

To enter the wilderness is to leave them behind, and nothing is too small to give up. Even a chocolate bar will do. For 40 days, simply pay attention to how often your mind travels in that direction. Ask yourself why it happens when it happens. What is going on when you start craving a Mars bar? Are you hungry? Well, what is wrong with being hungry? Are you lonely? What is so bad about being alone? Try sitting with the feeling instead of fixing it and see what you find out.

Chances are you will hear a voice in your head that keeps warning you what will happen if you give up your pacifier. "You’ll starve. You’ll go nuts. You won’t be you anymore." If that does not work, the voice will move to level two: "That’s not a pacifier. That’s a power tool. Can’t you tell the difference?" If you do not fall for that one, there is always level three: "If God really loves you, you can do whatever you want. Why waste your time on this dumb exercise?"

If you do not know whom that voice belongs to, read Luke’s story again. Then tell the devil to get lost and decide what you will do for Lent. Better yet, decide whose you will be. Worship the Lord your God and serve no one else. Expect great things, from God and from yourself. Believe that everything is possible. Why should any of us settle for less?

 

The Perfect Mirror (Jn 18:1-19:37)

There are many ways to tell the story of what happened on Good Friday. According to John, it involved a collision between religion and politics. While Pilate and the chief priests conspired to solve their mutual problem while managing to remain enemies, Jesus stood at the center of the stage like a mirror in which all those around him saw themselves clearly for who they were. One way we Christians have avoided seeing our own reflections in the mirror is to pretend that this is a story about Romans and Jews. As long as they remain the villains, then we are off the hook -- or so we think. Unfortunately, this is not a story that happened long ago in a land far away.

Sons and daughters of God are killed in every generation. They have been killed in holy wars and inquisitions, concentration camps and prison cells. They have been killed in Cape Town, Memphis, El Salvador and Alabama. The charges against them have run the gamut, but treason and blasphemy have headed the list, just as they did for Jesus. He upset those in charge at the courthouse and the temple. He suggested they were not doing their jobs. He offered himself as a mirror they could see themselves in, and they were so appalled by what they saw that they smashed it. They smashed him, every way they could.

One of the many things this story tells us is that Jesus was not brought down by atheism and anarchy. He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is always a deadly mix. Beware of those who claim to know the mind of God and who are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform. Beware of those who cannot tell God’s will from their own. Temple police are always a bad sign. When chaplains start wearing guns and hanging out at the sheriff’s office, watch out. Someone is about to have no king but Caesar.

This is a story that can happen anywhere at any time, and we are as likely to be the perpetrators as the victims. I doubt that many of us will end up playing Annas, Caiaphas or Pilate, however. They may have been the ones who gave Jesus the death sentence, but a large part of him had already died before they ever got to him -- the part Judas killed off, then Peter, then all those who fled. Those are the roles with our names on them -- not the enemies but the friends.

Whenever someone famous gets in trouble, that is one of the first things the press focuses on. What do his friends do? Do they support him or do they tell reporters that, unfortunately, they had seen trouble coming for some time? One of the worst things a friend can say is what Peter said. We weren’t friends, exactly. Acquaintances might be a better word. Actually, we just worked together. For the same company, I mean. Not together, just near each other. My desk was near his. I really don’t know him at all.

No one knows what Judas said. In John’s Gospel he does not say a word, but where he stands says it all. After he has led some 200 Roman soldiers and the temple police to the secret garden where Jesus is praying, Judas stands with the militia. Even when Jesus comes forward to identify himself, Judas does not budge. He is on the side with the weapons and the handcuffs, and he intends to stay there.

Or maybe it was not his own safety that motivated him. Maybe he just fell out of love with Jesus. That happens sometimes. One day you think someone is wonderful and the next day he says or does something that makes you think twice. He reminds you of the difference between the two of you and you start hating him for that -- for the difference -- enough to begin thinking of some way to hurt him back.

I remember being at a retreat once where the leader asked us to think of someone who represented Christ in our lives. When it came time to share our answers, one woman stood up and said, "I had to think hard about that one. I kept thinking, ‘Who is it who told me the truth about myself so clearly that I wanted to kill him for it?"’ According to John, Jesus died because he told the truth to everyone he met. He was the truth, a perfect mirror in which people saw themselves in God’s own light.

What happened then goes on happening now. In the presence of his integrity, our own pretense is exposed. In the presence of his constancy, our cowardice is brought to light. In the presence of his fierce love for God and for us, our own hardness of heart is revealed. Take him out of the room and all those things become relative. I am not that much worse than you are nor you than I, but leave him in the room and there is no place to hide. He is the light of the world. In his presence, people either fall down to worship him or do everything they can to extinguish his light.

A cross and nails are not always necessary. There are a thousand ways to kill him, some of them as obvious as choosing where you will stand when the showdown between the weak and the strong comes along, others of them as subtle as keeping your mouth shut when someone asks you if you know him.

Today, while he dies, do not turn away. Make yourself look in the mirror. Today no one gets away without being shamed by his beauty. Today no one flees without being laid bare by his light.

 

Life-Giving Fear

When I was a hospital chaplain, the calls I dreaded most did not come from the emergency room, the psychiatric ward or even the morgue. They came from the pediatric floor, where little babies lay in cribs with bandages covering half their heads and sweet-faced children pushed IV poles down the hall. One day I received a call to come sit with a mother while her five-year-old daughter was in surgery. Earlier in the week, the girl had been playing with a friend when her head began to hurt. By the time she found her mother, she could no longer see. At the hospital, a CAT scan confirmed that a large tumor was pressing on the girl’s optic nerve, and she was scheduled for surgery as soon as possible.

On the day of the operation, I found her mother sitting under the fluorescent lights in the waiting room beside an ashtray full of cigarette butts. She smelled as if she had puffed every one of them, although she was not smoking when I got there. She was staring at a patch of carpet in front of her, with her eyebrows raised in that half-hypnotized look that warned me to move slowly. I sat down beside her. She came to, and after some small talk she told me just how awful it was. She even told me why it had happened.

"It’s my punishment," she said, "for smoking these damned cigarettes. God couldn’t get my attention any other way, so he made my baby sick." Then she started crying so hard that what she said next came out like a siren: "Now I’m supposed to stop, but I can’t stop. I’m going to kill my own child!"

This was hard for me to hear. I decided to forego reflective listening and concentrate on remedial theology instead. "I don’t believe in a God like that," I said. "The God I know wouldn’t do something like that." The only problem with my response was that it messed with the mother’s worldview at the very moment she needed it most. However miserable it made her, she preferred a punishing God to an absent or capricious one. I may have been able to reconcile a loving God with her daughter’s brain tumor, but at the moment she could not: If there was something wrong with her daughter, then there had to be a reason. She was even willing to be the reason. At least that way she could get a grip on the catastrophe.

Even those of us who claim to know better react the same way. Calamity strikes and we wonder what we did wrong. We scrutinize our behavior, our relationships, our diets, our beliefs. We hunt for some cause to explain the effect in hopes that we can stop causing it. What this tells us is that we are less interested in truth than consequences. What we crave, above all, is control over the chaos of our lives.

Luke does not divulge the motive of those who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. The implication is that those who died deserved what they got, or at least that is the question Jesus intuited. "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?"

It is a tempting equation that solves a lot of problems. (1) It answers the riddle of why bad things happen to good people: they don’t. Bad things only happen to bad people. (2) It punishes sinners right out in the open as a warning to everyone. (3) It gives us a God who obeys the laws of physics. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Any questions?

It is a tempting equation, but Jesus won’t go there. "No," he tells the crowd, "but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did." In the South, this is what we call giving with one hand and taking away with the other. No, Jesus says, there is no connection between the suffering and the sin. Whew. But unless you repent, you are going to lose some blood too. Oh.

There is no sense spending too much time trying to decipher this piece of the good news. As far as I can tell, it is meant not to aid reason but to disarm it. In an intervention aimed below his listeners’ heads, Jesus touches the panic they have inside of them about all the awful things that are happening around them. They are terrified by those things -- for good reason. They have searched their hearts for any bait that might bring disaster sniffing their way. They have lain awake at night making lists of their mistakes.

While Jesus does not honor their illusion that they can protect themselves in this way, he does seem to honor the vulnerability that their fright has opened up in them. It is not a bad thing for them to feel the full fragility of their lives. It is not a bad thing for them to count their breaths in the dark -- not if it makes them turn toward the light.

It is that turning he wants for them, which is why he tweaks their fear. Don’t worry about Pilate and all the other things that can come crashing down on your heads, he tells them. Terrible things happen, and you are not always to blame. But don’t let that stop you from doing what you are doing. That torn place your fear has opened up inside of you is a holy place. Look around while you are there. Pay attention to what you feel. It may hurt you to stay there and it may hurt you to see, but it is not the kind of hurt that leads to death. It is the kind that leads to life.

Depending on what you want from God, this may not sound like good news. I doubt that it would have sounded like good news to the mother in the waiting room. But for those of us who have discovered that we cannot make life safe nor God tame, it is gospel enough. What we can do is turn our faces to the light. That way, whatever befalls us, we will fall the right way.

 

Escape From the Tomb (Jn. 20:1-18)

When I was a girl, I spent a lot of time in the woods, which were full of treasures for me. At night I lined them up on my bed: fat flakes of mica, buckeyes bigger than shooter marbles, blue jay feathers, bird bones and -- if I was lucky -- a cicada shell, one of those dry brown bug bodies you can find on tree trunks when the 17-year locusts come out of the ground. I liked them for at least two reasons.

First, because they were horrible looking, with their huge empty eye sockets and their six sharp little claws. By hanging them on my sweater or -- better yet -- in my hair, I could usually get the prettier, more popular girls at school to run screaming away from me, which somehow evened the score.

I also liked them because they were evidence that a miracle had occurred. They looked dead, but they weren’t. They were just shells. Every one of them had a neat slit down its back, where the living creature inside of it had escaped, pulling new legs, new eyes, new wings out of that dry brown body and taking flight. At night I could hear them singing their high song in the trees. If you had asked them, I’ll bet none of them could have told you where they left their old clothes.

That is all the disciples saw when they got to the tomb on that first morning -- two piles of old clothes. Mary didn’t even see that much. She was too distraught. The moment she saw the door to the tomb standing wide open, she ran to tell Simon Peter and the other disciples that Jesus’ body had been stolen. They beat her back to the tomb and found that she was right, at least about his body being gone.

Only why would grave robbers have bothered to undress him first? Without even going inside, the beloved disciple could see the linen wrappings all lying in a heap. When Peter went inside, he saw more. The cloth that had been on Jesus’ head was rolled up in a place by itself. Odd, that someone should go to all the trouble of rolling it up.

None of it was making any sense to them, John says, because no one who was there that morning understood the scripture, that Jesus must rise from the dead. Still, when the beloved disciple followed Peter inside the tomb and saw the clothes lying there, he believed. Believed what? John does not say. He simply believed, and without another word to each other he and Peter returned to their homes.

The rest of the story belongs to Mary. She is the one who saw the angels. She is the one who saw the risen Lord, who had gotten himself some new clothes, incidentally. Someone recently pointed out to me that there is a naked gardener in this story somewhere. Either that or Jesus found the extra set of work clothes down by the fertilizer and the rakes. Peter and the beloved disciple saw none of this. They saw nothing but a vacant tomb with two piles of clothes in it. They saw nothing but emptiness and absence, in other words, and on that basis at least one of them believed, although neither of them understood.

Any way you look at it, that is a mighty fragile beginning for a religion that has lasted almost 2000 years now, and yet that is where so many of us continue to focus our energy: on that tomb, on that morning, on what did or did not happen there and how to explain it to anyone who does not happen to believe it too. Resurrection does not square with anything else we know about physical human life on earth. No one has ever seen it happen, which is why it helps me to remember that no one saw it happen on Easter morning either.

The resurrection is the one and only event in Jesus’ life that was entirely between him and God. There were no witnesses whatsoever. No one on earth can say what happened inside that tomb, because no one was there. They all arrived after the fact. Two of them saw clothes. One of them saw angels. Most of them saw nothing at all because they were still in bed that morning, but as it turned out that did not matter because the empty tomb was not the point.

The tomb was just the cicada shell with the neat slit down its back. The living being that had once been inside of it was gone. The singing was going on somewhere else, which may be why Peter and the other disciple did not stay very long. Clearly, Jesus was not there. He could have stayed put, I guess, sitting there all pink and healthy between the two piles of clothes so that everyone could come in and see him, but that is not what he did.

He had outgrown his tomb, which was too small a focus for the resurrection. The risen one had people to see and things to do. The living one’s business was among the living, to whom he appeared not once but four more times in the Gospel of John. Every time he came to his friends they became stronger, wiser, kinder, more daring. Every time he came to them, they became more like him.

Those appearances cinch the resurrection for me, not what happened in the tomb. What happened in the tomb was entirely between Jesus and God. For the rest of us, Easter began the moment the gardener said, "Mary!" and she knew who he was. That is where the miracle happened and goes on happening -- not in the tomb but in the encounter with the living Lord.

In the end, that is the only evidence we have to offer those who ask us how we can possibly believe. Because we live, that is why. Because we have found, to our surprise, that we are not alone. Because we never know where he will turn up next. Here is one thing that helps: never get so focused on the empty tomb that you forget to speak to the gardener.

Dazzling Darkness (Lk. 9:28-36)

Those of us who spend a lot of time in church have heard Luke’s story of the transfiguration so often that we may think of it as a public event. According to Luke, it was not. Only three other people were there, which means it was an event not for the many but for the few. Let us forget for a moment that Luke’s story may not be a factual account of an historical moment. We are not concerned with historicity here. We are concerned with epiphany, which ordinary time and space cannot contain.

Luke’s story begins with Jesus’ wish to pray. He did not wish to pray alone, however, so he took Peter, James and John with him to the top of "the" mountain. Why "the" mountain instead of "a" mountain? Maybe because it was the mountain with which they were all familiar, the mountain Jesus always chose when he was in the area. Or maybe it was because every mountain, no matter where it was, was a ringer for the mountain that towered in the Hebrew imagination. Once the people of Israel had seen Mount Sinai smoking with the presence of the Lord, there were no "a" mountains anymore. Every mountain was "the" mountain, the place where the fiery God might be encountered again.

If that was the case, then Peter, James and John may have had some inkling that this was no routine mission. Then again, maybe not. Perceptiveness was not high on their list of virtues, after all, but even they could not miss what happened next. While Jesus was praying, he caught fire from within. His face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Then, in the circle of his spotlight, two other figures appeared -- Moses the lawgiver and the prophet Elijah -- dead heroes of the past alive in the present, as if time were nothing but a veil to be parted and stepped through.

"They appeared in glory," Luke tells us, which is to say that they appeared inside a white-hot sphere of light. That light had given them their lives, and yet the topic of their conversation that day was death -- Jesus’ death. They did not use the word "death" for what was about to happen, however, and they did not speak of it as something that would happen to him. They used the word "exodus," translated here as "departure," and they spoke of it as something he would accomplish.

With Moses standing right there, the parallel was hard to miss. Jesus, like Moses before him, was about to set God’s people free, only it was not bondage to pharaoh they needed freeing from this time. It was bondage to their own fear of sin and death, which crippled them far worse than leg chains ever had. Whenever they got too brave and eloquent in the face of death, all someone had to do was threaten them and they would go back to being good slaves again, minding their own business and forgetting who they were. So God had planned another exodus for them -- in Jerusalem this time -- where the Red Sea of death would be split with a cross and Jesus would lead his people through.

Elijah’s presence was the divine seal of approval on this plan. He was the one whose reappearance meant the Messiah was due. To see him standing there with Moses and Jesus was like seeing the Mount Rushmore of heaven -- the Lawgiver, the Prophet, the Messiah -- wrapped in such glory it is a wonder the other three could see them at all. But they did see that epiphany, and then they could not see anything anymore, because the cloud swallowed them up. It was still God’s glory, only it was dazzling darkness this time, not dazzling light. For us, they are opposites. For God, they are the same.

Later, when Jesus’ exodus got under way and they saw what it meant for him -- when they saw that shining face bloodied and spat uppn, those dazzling clothes torn into souvenir rags -- I’ll bet they had to rethink what that glory was all about. His face did not shine on the cross. No chariot of fire swooped down to spirit him away; and you have to wonder about that. Why did God hide all the glory on the mountain, where no one could see? Why didn’t God save it for the cross?

I guess because then it would have been a different kind of death from the kind most of us die, and that would not have worked. To lead our exodus, Jesus had to die like we do: alone, with no particular glory. Otherwise he would have been an anomaly instead of a messiah, and it would have been hard for us to see what he had in common with the rest of us.

As it was, he died very much like those who died on either side of him, one of them begging to be saved from what was coming, the other asking to be remembered when Jesus got where he was going. Jesus could not do anything for the one who wanted to be spared, but he did a great favor for the other. He told him that the darkness was a dazzling one, with paradise in it for both of them.

I think it was something he learned on the mountain, when light burst through all his seams and showed him what he was made of. It was something he never forgot. If we have been allowed to intrude on that moment, it is because someone thought we might need a dose of glory too, to get us through the night. Some people are lucky enough to witness it for themselves, although like Peter, James and John, very few of them will talk about it later.

What the rest of us have are stories like this one, and the chance to decide for ourselves whether we will believe what they tell us. It is a lot to believe: that God’s lit-up life includes death, that there is no way around it but only through, that even the darkness can dazzle.

 

As a Hen Gathers Her Brood

On the western slope of the Mount of Olives, just across the Kidron Valley from Jerusalem, sits a small chapel called Dominus Flevit. The name comes from Luke’s Gospel, which contains not one but two accounts of Jesus’ grief over the loss of Jerusalem. According to tradition, it was here that Jesus wept over the city that had refused his ministrations.

Inside the chapel, the altar is centered before a high arched window that looks out over the city. Iron grillwork divides the view into sections, so that on a sunny day the effect is that of a stained-glass window. The difference is that this subject is alive. It is not some artist’s rendering of the holy city but the city itself, with the Dome of the Rock in the bottom left corner and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the middle. Two-thirds of the view is the cloudless sky above the city which the grillwork turns into a quilt of blue squares. Perhaps this is where the heavenly Jerusalem hovers over the earthly one, until the time comes for the two to meet?

Down below, on the front of the altar, is a picture of what never happened in that city. It is a mosaic medallion of a white hen with a golden halo around her head. Her red comb resembles a crown, and her wings are spread wide to shelter the pale yellow chicks that crowd around her feet. There are seven of them, with black dots for eyes and orange dots for beaks. They look happy to be there. The hen looks ready to spit fire if anyone comes near her babies.

But like I said, it never happened, and the picture does not pretend that it did. The medallion is rimmed with red words in Latin. Translated into English they read, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,

and you were not willing!" The last phrase is set outside the circle, in a pool of red underneath the chicks’ feet: you were not willing.

The same lament appears in Matthew’s Gospel, but Jerusalem does not mean the same thing to him that it does to Luke. Luke’s Gospel begins and ends in the temple in Jerusalem. Zechariah learns in the temple that he and Elizabeth will have a child. Mary and Joseph bring their own child there when the time comes. Simeon and Anna deliver their prophecies there, and Jesus returns when he is 12 years old to take his place among the teachers of Israel.

All told, Luke mentions Jerusalem 90 times in his Gospel, while all the other New Testament writers combined mention it only 49 times. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Luke loves the place -- so rich in history and symbol, so dense with expectation and fear. Jerusalem is the dwelling place of God, the place where God’s glory shall be revealed (Isa. 24:23). It is also the place where God is betrayed by those who hate the good and love what is evil (Mic. 3:2). Nothing that happens in Jerusalem is insignificant. When Jerusalem obeys God, the world spins peacefully on its axis. When Jerusalem ignores God, the whole planet wobbles.

If the city were filled with hardy souls, this would not be a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, it is filled with pale yellow chicks and at least one fox. In the absence of a mother hen, some of the chicks have taken to following the fox around. Others are huddled out in the open where anything with claws can get to them. Across the valley, a white hen with a gold halo around her head is clucking for all she is worth. Most of the chicks cannot hear her, and the ones that do make no response. They no longer recognize her voice. They have forgotten who they are.

If you have ever loved someone you could not protect, then you understand the depth of Jesus’ lament. All you can do is open your arms. You cannot make anyone walk into them. Meanwhile, this is the most vulnerable posture in the world --wings spread, breast exposed -- but if you mean what you say, then this is how you stand.

Given the number of animals available, it is curious that Jesus chooses a hen. Where is the biblical precedent for that? What about the mighty eagle of Exodus, or Hosea’s stealthy leopard? What about the proud lion of Judah, mowing down his enemies with a roar? Compared to any of those, a mother hen does not inspire much confidence. No wonder some of the chicks decided to go with the fox.

But a hen is what Jesus chooses, which -- if you think about it --is pretty typical of him. He is always turning things upside down, so that children and peasants wind up on top while kings and scholars land on the bottom. He is always wrecking our expectations of how things should turn out by giving prizes to losers and paying the last first. So of course he chooses a chicken, which is about as far from a fox as you can get. That way the options become very clear: you can live by licking your chops or you can die protecting the chicks.

Jesus won’t be king of the jungle in this or any other story. What he will be is a mother hen, who stands between the chicks and those who mean to do them harm. She has no fangs, no claws, no rippling muscles. All she has is her willingness to shield her babies with her own body. If the fox wants them, he will have to kill her first.

Which he does, as it turns out. He slides up on her one night in the yard while all the babies are asleep. When her cry wakens them, they scatter. She dies the next day where both foxes and chickens can see her -- wings spread, breast exposed -- without a single chick beneath her feathers. It breaks her heart, but it does not change a thing. If you mean what you say, then this is how you stand.

 

Physics and Faith: The Luminous Web

Among the many compelling reasons for religious people to engage science is the human tendency to base our worldviews on the prevailing physics of the day. Our governments, our schools, our economies and our churches all reflect our understanding of how the world works, and when that understanding changes -- as it is changing right now -- all those institutions are up for revision. New discoveries in quantum physics are already changing the way some businesses are being managed. New discoveries in human brain research are changing education. Changes may be in store for the church as well.

The Bible gives us a worldview based on the physics of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In it the round earth sits at the center of the universe (and presumably at the center of God's attention as well). During the Dark Ages, the earth was hammered flat. Conservative clerics insisted that the planets were pushed around by angels, and that no other explanations were necessary. Having little else to do, science went to sleep.

When science woke up again, almost a thousand years later, there was a renaissance of learning in Europe. With the invention of the printing press, intellectual classics that had lain dormant for centuries suddenly be-came both available and affordable. A Pole named Mikolaj Kopernik could not get enough of them. He read his way from Krakow to Bologna and back again, returning home with volumes of Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes and Ptolemy in his luggage. He also came home with the name most of us know him by -- Nicolaus Copernicus, the man who changed our vision of the universe.

Through his observation of the seasons and his reading of the classics, Copernicus believed that the sun, not the earth, belonged at the center of things. He also guessed what trouble that swap might cause, which was why he delayed publication of his work until his death was imminent. Although the church was undergoing its own revolution at the time, both Protestants and Catholics agreed on Copernicus. "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" John Calvin howled, while Martin Luther simply called the man a fool.

In 1611 the King James translation of the Bible was published with a note to readers that creation had occurred on the evening before the 23rd of October in the year 4004 B.C. In 1616 the Catholic Church banned all books that suggested the earth moved at all. An Italian astronomer named Galileo Galilei, who believed Copernicus was right, continued his research in spite of the ban. After publishing a brilliant book on Aristotelian and Copernican cosmologies in 1632, he was ordered to appear before the Inquisition. In his defense, Galileo argued that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific document. "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven," he said (quoting Cardinal Césare Baronio), "not how the heavens go."

His inquisitors were not impressed. 1633, when he was 70 years old, Galileo got down on his knees in the great hall of a Dominican convent in Rome and read he renunciation they had written for him:

Wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and of every true Christian this vehement suspicion justly cast upon me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I do abjure, damn, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally each and every other error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Church; and I do swear for the future that I shall never again speak or assert, orally or in writing, such things as might bring me under similar suspicion.

Galileo spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest in his villa outside of Florence. While his daughter read him the seven daily psalms of penitence that were a part of his sentence, the old man sat by the window, where he could watch the planets through his telescope.

But the scientific revolution could not be stopped. It gathered momentum through the 17th century, fired by the work of a British mathematician and natural philosopher named Isaac Newton. With the publication of Principia, released in 1687, Newton planted the seeds of a new worldview. He laid down the laws of celestial dynamics. Reducing them to four simple algebraic formulas, he revealed a solar system that worked like a vast machine. The machine, he said, was made of parts -- some of them as small as an atom and others as huge as the sun -- but they all obeyed the same four laws. In this way, he not only vindicated Galileo but also unseated Aristotle, who had believed that the heavens and the earth were governed by different laws.

Apparently Newton never meant to unseat God too. At the end of his book he wrote, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He gave God credit for the laws, in other words, but the laws themselves left very little for a deity to do. God may have designed the machine and thumped it into motion, but once the thing got moving it seemed to do just fine all by itself. As far as the universe was concerned, God's job was most like that of a night watchman: someone who dozed in a lawn chair while the stars spun in their courses overhead.

Human beings were so charmed by the illusion of control Newton's metaphor offered that we began to see ourselves as machines too. Believing that Newton told us the truth about how the world works, we modeled our institutions on atomistic principles. You are you and I am I. If each of us will do our parts, then the big machine should keep on humming. If a part breaks down, it can always be removed, cleaned, fixed and replaced. There is no mystery to a machine, after all. According to Newton's instruction manual, it is perfectly predictable. If something stops working, any reasonably competent mechanic should be able to locate the defective part and set things right again.

While religion resisted this metaphor for a while, the illusion of control proved too hard to pass up. Theology became increasingly specialized and systematized. Our "God view" came to resemble our worldview. In this century, even much of our practical theology has also become mechanical and atomistic. Walk into many churches and you will hear God described as a being who behaves almost as predictably as Newton's universe. Say you believe in God and you will be saved. Sin against God and you will be condemned. Say you are sorry and you will be forgiven. Obey the law and you will be blessed. These are simple and appealing formulae, which make God easy to understand. Pull this lever and a reward will drop down. Do not touch that red button, however, or all hell will break loose. In this clockwork universe, the spiritual quest is reduced to learning the rules in order to minimize personal loss (avoid hell) and maximize personal gain (achieve salvation).

The emphasis on individual welfare is no mistake, either. It goes with the Newtonian worldview, in which the atom is the basic building block of the cosmos. In the physical universe, even something as huge as the sun is made up of tiny atoms, which is why it behaves the same way they do. All big things can be broken down into small things, and it is those small things -- those single units of indivisible matter -- that count. No whole creation is more than the sum of its parts. To understand the whole, all you have to do is understand the parts.

When this model is transposed to the human universe, the individual being becomes the atom -- the single unit of social matter that is the basic building block for all social groupings. Once again, all big things can be broken down into small things. Nations, communities, churches and families are all reducible to the individuals who make them up. If a child acts out, take the child to a counselor. Fix the child, without ever inquiring into the health of the family. If a poor woman sells crack, send the woman to jail. Punish the woman, without ever asking about the society in which she lives. There is nothing wrong with the whole that cannot be fixed by tinkering with the parts. In essence, there is no such thing as the whole. The individual is the fundamental unit of reality.

In January I spent a couple of days at a Benedictine monastery in California. It was a gorgeous place, with a courtyard garden full of fragrant orange trees and a retreat house full of antiques. When I first came through the door, one of the brothers glided up to me and said, "I know what you're thinking: 'If this is poverty, I can't wait to see chastity!" For times a day, a bell rang in the courtyard. As soon as it did, the brothers stopped to pray. The rest of us were welcome to join them, but it was not required. If we did not show up then they would pray for us, as they prayed for everyone else in the world -- for those who were present along with those who were absent, for those who were inclined toward God along with those who were not, for those who were in great need of prayer along with those who were not aware they needed anything at all.

Prayer was their job, and they took it seriously. They prayed like men who were shoveling coal into the basement furnace of some great edifice. They did not seem to care whether anyone upstairs knew who they were or what they were doing. Their job was to keep the fire going so that people stayed warm, and they poured all their energy into doing just that.

In their presence, I realized how atomistic many prayers are. So many of us pray chiefly as individuals. We confess our own sins, give thanks for our own blessings, ask God to address our own concerns. Even those with voluminous prayer lists can feel as if they are working alone, racing through the dark with their petitions like a midnight mail carrier

There is another way to conceive of our life together. There is another way to conceive of our life in God, but it requires a different worldview -- not a clockwork universe in which individuals function as discrete springs and gears, but one that looks more like a luminous web, in which the whole is far more than the parts. In this universe, there is no such thing as an individual apart from his or her relationships. Every interaction -- between people and people, between people. and things, between things and things -- changes the face of history. Life on earth cannot be reduced to four sure-fire rules. It is an ever-unfolding mystery that defies precise prediction. Meanwhile, in this universe, there is no such thing as "parts." The whole is the fundamental unity of reality.

If this sounds like the language of Eastern religion, it is not. It is the language of quantum physics, which is causing a revolution in the way we see our world. My own introduction to it came five years ago, while I attended a clergy leadership conference at which Fred Burnham spoke. An Episcopal priest with a doctorate in the history of science from Johns Hopkins, Burnham is dedicated to holding peace talks between science and religion. He was at the conference to talk to us about chaos theory, and in particular about how the science of complexity might be useful to us as parish leaders. While I had read some physics before that, no one had ever suggested that it had anything to do with my life in the church.

When I entered the room, Burnham was pecking at the keyboard of a computer. The machine sat in front of the blackboard on a low desk. The screen remained blank as the group assembled. Then Burnham greeted us, pressed "Enter" and turned his back on the computer screen as he delivered his lecture. At first there was nothing but one thin green line snaking its way around the interior of the screen. First it made something that looked like a lopsided figure eight and then it doubled back on itself -- roughly, not exactly -- as if a young child had tried to trace the design twice.

Burnham was apparently oblivious to what was going on behind him. From time to time, so was I. I did not know one thing about chaos theory. I had always assumed I was incapable of understanding it, but as Burnham introduced us to fractals, complexity and nonlinear equations I had what I can only call a religious experience. I understood why my life would not run along straight lines. I understood why my ten-year plans never work. And rather than feeling miserable about those things, I began to glimpse a deeper level of physical reality at which my life was behaving exactly as it should.

By calling this a religious experience, what I mean is that I experienced salvation in it. All those fractured parts of myself -- the math part, the verbal part, the physical part, the spiritual part -- they all came together that day. I felt like someone whose multiple-personality disorder had been healed. I was rescued from my atomistic understanding of myself in ministry, which I was the mechanic and my parish was the machine I was supposed to run. The new science gave me new models for my life in community, which matched up with biblical models much better than the corporate CEO models I had adopted.

Another way of saying it is that science spoke to my spirit. As I watched the image on the computer screen develop into some beautiful butterfly kind of thing, I thought, "That is math. No one ever told me math could be beautiful." When Burnham finally named the thing -- a "strange attractor" -- and explained how it was the secret pattern underlying apparent chaos, I knew I had found a window on the universe that would occupy me for some time to come.

Since I am not a scientist, I am not always sure what I am looking at, nor do I have the theoretical background to discern all the implications of a particular phenomenon, but as a preacher -- that is, someone who lives on stories--I find the stories rolling in from the frontiers of the new science as rich in meaning as any stories I know.

Albert Einstein did not like quantum theory at all. His objection to it was similar to the objection some Christians have to evolutionary theory: there was too much chance in it, too little design. Earlier in this century, at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, he and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen tried to undermine quantum theory with something now known as the EPR experiment (for Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen). According to quantum theory, a subatomic particle that decays into two particles becomes a set of "twins" -- a single system with two parts, spinning in opposite directions. No one knows which one is spinning up and which one is spinning down until a measurement is made, but according to the laws of physics they must always balance each other.

So far so good. Now imagine those two particles flying apart -- one of them heading around the dark side of the noon while the other lingers in the laboratory above the nimbus of Einstein's hair. If Einstein could nab that one and reverse its spin, he theorized, then the other particle would have to reverse itself too -- even if it was light years away. According to the laws of quantum physics, this is exactly what would happen. Some unimagined form of communication, faster than the speed of light, would allow each particle to 'know" and respond to what the other was doing. Since this eerie idea violated his own theory of special relativity, Einstein concluded that quantum theory is wrong.

Unhappily for him, subsequent experiments proved that there is indeed some kind of instantaneous, supraliminal communication between quantum particles. Once they have interacted with each other, they have the power to influence each other, no matter how far apart they go. According to quantum physics, this relatedness goes beyond human beings to include the whole creation. Physical reality refuses to be compartmentalized. As hard as we may try to turn it into another kind of machine, it insists on acting like a body, animated by some intelligence that exceeds the speed of light.

Scientists think it has something to do with the field theory--fields being invisible, nonmaterial structures that may turn out to be the basic substance of the universe. You know about gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields. If you stand under a high power wire and hold a fluorescent bulb in the air, there is a good chance it will light up, because you are standing in a power field. Well, imagine another kind of field that knits the whole cosmos together, so that a shiver in the Milky Way gives us a shiver right here, faster than the speed of light.

This scientific fact offers a metaphor for the mother who sits bolt upright in her bed in the middle of the night, "knowing" something has happened to her child. It also says something about the strange communication between twins, who, may end up making similar choices in their lives even though they have been separated at birth. What the EPR paradox suggests is that such communication occurs because the two are not really two but one. Each one "knows" what the other is doing not because they happen to be psychic but because they belong to the unbroken wholeness of the universe.

In the light of all this, consider Paul's metaphor of the church as Christ's body. As different as we are and as many functions as we serve, we are far more than a collection of parts. We may act that way sometimes, with the left side pulling against the right and the feet refusing to take a step until the hands have apologized, but there are also times when we clearly participate in some form of communication--or better yet, communion--that puts us in touch with a head much more capable than our own. The more in tune we are, the better we respond. This is not something that only happens to us person by person but something that happens to all of us at once. There is no explanation for it in terms of cause and effect. This head of ours, this guiding mind, does not speak into a tape recorder or send directions by fax, but plenty of us have experienced the communication as real.

In quantum physics, this mysterious action at-a-distance is known as nonlocality, but it is only one of the phenomena that give scientists bad headaches. Another is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which asserts that it is not possible to know both where a particle is and how fast it is moving. If you fix its location, you cannot measure its momentum, and if you clock its momentum, you cannot say for certain where it is. In between your measurements, it exists as a probability wave -- a combination of all the possible ways it could go, which all remain possible until you focus on it. When you take your measurement, the probability wave collapses. It assumes an actual value, but only because you asked it to.

The only possible sense I can make out of this is by way of the game of musical chairs I learned as a child. While the music plays, everyone is in motion around the ring of chairs. Since there is one less chair than there are children, it is best not to wander too far away, but while the music plays, anything is possible. You could end up on that chair, that chair, that chair or the ground. There is no telling how it will end until the music stops. When that happens, everyone runs shrieking for a chair. There may be a brief struggle over who got there first, but the probability wave has been collapsed. The measurement has been taken, leaving one person without a chair.

In quantum theory, there is no way to predict the outcome of this game. The same child will end up on a chair one time, and on the ground the next. One time she will be a particle and the next time she will be a wave. So which is she, really? Quantum theory answers: she is neither; she is both. In a tenet of the new science that sounds more like Zen Buddhism than physics, a thing cannot even be said to be one thing or another until someone interrupts it to find out what it is. Plus, the interruption itself has to be taken into account. In an uncanny exercise called the double-slit experiment, particles of light seem eager to please the experimenter. If you ask them a particle-like question, they will respond like particles, and if you ask them a wave-like question, they will respond like waves. One is left with the weird impression that quantum particles are playing practical jokes on quantum physicists, like a cabin full of second grade campers short-sheeting their counselor's bed.

If you are feeling a little disoriented right now, let me assure you that you are in very good company. The people who discovered all this stuff did not like it any better than you do. Werner Heisenberg, the originator of the uncertainty principle, remembers late-night discussions with Niels Bohr that ended almost in despair. Recalling one of them, Heisenberg wrote, "When at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park, I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?"

Bohr himself said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Erwin Schroedinger, a fellow physicist, was even more blunt than that. "I don't like it," he said, "and I'm sorry that I had anything to do with it."

The reasons for their dismay are manifold. In the first place, the physical world seems to obey two different sets of rules. At the macro level of trees and rocks, Newtonian mechanics works just fine. A tree can be said to have a definite position in time and space, and a rock dropped from a window will fall at a predictable rate to a predictable spot on the ground. Everything in this world happens for a reason and can be explained in terms of cause and effect.

At the micro level of quantum particles, however, these rules no longer apply. A photon may be said to be both particle and wave. If you know where an electron is, you cannot by definition, know where it is going. If you know where it is going, you cannot know where it is. Furthermore, you cannot know any of these things without interacting with them, which means that you will never know how they behave when you are not watching.

How can this be? How can the big, visible objects in our world obey different rules from those of the tiny, invisible stuff they are made of? How can the participation of a conscious observer change the very nature of reality? David Bohm, a prolific quantum physicist, says that the new science requires a radical change in how we conceive the world. It is no longer possible to see it as a collection of autonomous parts, as Newton did, existing separately while interacting. The deeper revelation is one of undivided wholeness, in which the observer is not separate from what is observed. Or, in Heisenberg's words, "The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate."

Is this physics or theology, science or religion? At the very least, it is poetry. As far back as the 13th century, the Sufi poet Jelaluddin Rumi wrote, "You think because you understand one that you must also understand two, because one and one make two. But you must also understand and."

David Bohm spent most of his time on something called relativistic quantum field theory -- which I cannot understand, much less explain. I do know that in this study he caught a glimpse of reality in which the universe neither occupies space and time nor contains many different things.. Rather, he says, it is one interwoven thing that takes time and space seriously but not too seriously -- perhaps by treating them as idioms that the universe finds necessary in order to communicate itself to observers.

I have no more than a glimpse of his glimpse, but what it suggests is that the universe has a memory that predates the Big Bang. Back before that explosion sent energy racing every which way at speeds faster than light, there was the egg of the universe in which all places were one place and all things were one thing. I would call it the garden of Eden, only the beauty of the garden lay in its diversity.. The beauty of this reality I have no image for was its unity, its total coherence. Mind, matter and time were not different yet. They were all floating in the same yolk. Then the universe was born and the one became many. Quantum particles became planets, galaxies, clusters and superclusters. Atoms became blue-green algae, toads, palm trees and swans. Space became here or there, as time be came then or now.

But deep down in the being of these things remains the memory of their being one, which makes them behave in ways that torture scientists. Space and time are not separable. Light is both particle and wave. A particle way over there responds instantly to a particle way over here, as if each could read the other's mind.

If I understand my glimpse of Bohm's glimpse, then our mental torture comes about only because we insist on conceiving reality as many when it is truly and deeply one. All appearances to the contrary, "the universe remains as it was in the beginning, when all places were one place, all times one time, all things the same thing." Explaining Bohm's work, Timothy Ferris suggests that "the universe began as a hyperdimensional bubble of space, all but four of the dimensions of which compacted to form what we today call subatomic particles. Those particles look to us like zillions of individual things, but that is merely their appearance in the four dimension of spacetime. In hyperspace they could very well still be one thing."

Once, during a discussion between John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, two great physicists, Wheeler said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass."

"Why?" Feynman asked.

"Because they are all the same electron!" Wheeler replied.

The writer of Ephesians put it like this: "There is one body and one Spirit. . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all" (4:4-6).

This is a very different picture of divine sovereignty than the one most of us were raised on. In the classical scheme, God is indeed above all, with a throne so high it cannot even be seen from this earth. The throne room is in heaven, which for most people is way up and out there somewhere. God sits above creation, above time, above space, above us. But we come next! As creatures made in God's image, we claim our own sovereignty, which places us above the rest of creation (with disastrous results, I might add). We sit above animals, trees, rocks, earth. This is a pyramid-shaped scheme, in which beings are ranked from greater to lesser with all the power on the top.

But what about the rest of that phrase from Ephesians? What about God who is not only above all but also through all and in all?

When I am dreaming quantum dreams, the picture I see is more like that web of relationships--an infinite web, flung across the vastness of space like a e a luminous net. It is made of energy, not thread. As I look, I can see light moving through it like a pulse moving through veins. I know the light is an illusion, since what I am seeing moves faster than light, but what I see out there is no different from what I feel inside. There is a living hum that might be coming from my neurons but might just as well be coming from the furnace of the stars. When I look up at them there is a small commotion in my bones, as the ashes of dead stars that house my marrow rise up like metal filings toward the magnet of their living kin.

Where am I in this picture? All over the place. Up there. Down here. Inside my skin and out. Large compared to a virus and small compared to the sun, with a life that is permeable to them both. Am I alone? How could I ever be alone? I am part of the web that is pure relationship, with energy available to me that has been around since the universe was born.

Where is God in this picture? All over the place. Up there. Down here. Inside my skin and out. God is the web, the energy, the space, the light -- not captured in them, as if any of those concepts were more real than what unites them, but revealed in that singular, vast net of relationship that animates everything that is.

It is not enough for me to proclaim that God is responsible for all this unity. Instead, I want to proclaim that God is the unity -- the very energy, the very intelligence, the very elegance and passion that make it all go. This is the God who is not somewhere (up there, down here) but everywhere, the God who may be prayed to in all directions at once. This is also the God beyond all directions, who will still be here (wherever "here" means) when the universe either dissipates into dust or swallows itself up again. Paul Tillich's name for this divine reality was "the ground of being." The only thing I can think of that is better than that is the name God revealed to Moses: "I Am Who I Am."

This does not sound like the self-identification of a deity who stands over reality and sometimes stirs it with a stick. Instead, it sounds like the singular utterance of the only One who ever was, is or shall be, in whom everything else abides. For the moment, we see through a glass darkly. We live in the illusion that we are all separate "I ams." When the fog finally clears, we shall know there is only One.

Why We Need the International Court

This has been a good century for tyrants. Stalin killed millions but was never even charged with a crime. Pol Pot slaughtered well over 1 million but never saw the inside of a prison cell. Idi Amin and Raoul Cedras are comfortably retired. Despite recent legal complications, Chile’s General Augusto Pinochet, too, will probably escape trial. Ditto for Slobodan Milosevic, who has chosen to close out the century by brutalizing Kosovo.

There have been few exceptions to this pattern of impunity The most notable exceptions are the Nazis who faced judgment at Nuremberg. Joining the short list of adjudged are the Greek colonels, the Argentine junta, the genocidal regime in Rwanda and some leaders in the former Yugoslavia. But the odds have overwhelmingly favored those who commit atrocities.

Will the 21st century be any better?

The answer may well depend in large part on the success -- or failure -- of the world’s first permanent court with global jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes. Last summer in Rome, by a vote of 120 nations in favor, seven opposed and 21 abstentions, a United Nations diplomatic conference adopted a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague in the Netherlands. It will hear cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity that national governments are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

The ICC will differ from the existing World Court, officially called the International Court of Justice, also located in The Hague. The World Court hears only lawsuits between governments and cannot prosecute individuals. As a permanent global court, the ICC will likewise differ from the special International Criminal Tribunals created by the UN Security Council to address atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Nearly all the world’s democracies—Europe plus such countries as Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, South Africa and South Korea—supported the Rome treaty. Seventy-eight nations have now signed the treaty, indicating their intention to join it. Once 60 countries complete the ratification process (to date only Senegal has done so), the treaty will go into effect and the ICC will be created.

Late blooming 20th-century tyrants have little to fear; the ICC will have power to try only crimes committed after it is established. The current carnage in Colombia, Congo and Sierra Leone, for example, will either go unpunished or be addressed in some other way.

Only two democracies—Israel and the United States—opposed the ICC, thereby joining a rogue’s gallery of regimes like China, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan. Israel’s opposition is regrettable but understandable: the Jewish state has lost so many lopsided UN votes that it fears giving power to an international prosecutor.

The U.S.,too, professes to fear frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers and officials. However, the ICC has so many built-in safeguards against unwarranted prosecutions that the odds of abuse are minimal. Otherwise, the ICC would hardly have garnered support from Britain, France and other countries with extensive military and peacekeeping forces overseas.

Washington’s real grievance is that it cannot control the court. In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, President Clinton became the first U.S. president to announce support for an ICC. But the U.S. insisted on an ICC that would be an arm of the UN Security Council, which would make prosecutions subject to a U.S. veto and insulate Washington from unwanted trials.

The rest of the world found this vision uninspiring. Still, in a fruitless effort to induce U.S. participation, backers of the ICC at Rome offered numerous concessions, including a significant role for the Security Council. The council will be empowered to refer cases to the ICC. Indeed, at least in the early years, council referral is likely to be the primary route by which cases reach the court. While cases can also be referred by states that are party to the treaty or by the prosecutor, the obstacles to doing so will initially be so high that the ICC will depend heavily on the council. The council can also block investigations by voting to defer them for one year, renewable indefinitely.

But these and other concessions were not enough to dispel Washington’s fears that if American troops commit war crimes in another country, that country could have those troops tried in The Hague (unless the U.S. would agree to investigate the case itself). Also, other nations with veto power on the Security Council could block a resolution to defer a case. In short, U.S. control is less than fully assured under the ICC, which pleased neither the Pentagon nor Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jesse Helms, who declared that any treaty to create a court that could conceivably prosecute Americans would be "dead on arrival" on Capitol Hill.

U.S. opposition to the ICC is of a piece with its vote a year earlier against the treaty to ban antipersonnel land-mines, its refusal to pay UN dues, its economic sanctions on allies that do business in Cuba, and its implicit foreign policy of demanding a "superpower exemption" from international rules. It lends further support to the views held by "elites of countries comprising at least two-thirds of the world’s people," according to Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, writing in Foreign Affairs, that Uncle Sam is "intrusive, interventionist, exploitative, unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical, and applying double standards." Small wonder that following the 120-7 humiliation of the U.S. in Rome, delegates applauded for 15 minutes.

U.S. opposition to the ICC not only undermines American credibility and diplomacy but also strains the human rights banner Washington purports to carry. The rest of the world cannot fail to notice that the U.S. supports the prosecution of Yugoslavs and Rwandans for human rights crimes but not the prosecution of Americans. If human rights is no more than a flag of convenience, its rallying power diminishes.

But American participation, while important, is not indispensable. The world’s democracies are likely to go ahead without us. Americans who care more for the dignity of humanity than for the color of their passports should support the ICC, despite its shortcomings, as a first step toward international justice for crimes against humanity.

But does "justice" for atrocities require a court, let alone a criminal court, much less an international criminal court? Volumes have been devoted to defining justice. For ICC purposes, however, we can focus on an operational definition. Justice calls for identification, exposure, condemnation and proportionate punishment of individuals who violate fundamental norms recognized internationally as crimes, and it calls for reparations to victims, by means of fair investigations and fair trials by an authorized judicial body. Thus defined, justice requires criminal courts, including—as experience has shown—at least the possibility of prosecution before international courts.

Like other efforts to capture "justice" in words, this account covers both too little and too much. As Martha Minow has observed, some crimes are so horrific or massive that no amount of punishment can be proportional. And no form of court-ordered reparation can truly repair the loss of even a single loved one, much less of an entire people. At best, successful prosecutions can deliver only a measure of justice.

On the other hand, criminal punishment may not always contribute to a just society As argued eloquently by Donald Shriver in these pages (August 26, 1998), "living with others sometimes means that we must value the renewal of community more highly than punishing, or seeking communal vengeance for, crimes." And while "some forms of justice sow the seeds of justice, some do not. Without peaceful public acceptance of their decisions, courts risk irrelevance at best and social chaos at worst."

The case for an ICC must acknowledge the wisdom of such insights. Yet these comments do not so much counsel against the existence of the ICC as remind us of its inherent limitations. Criminal justice is not, by itself, sufficient to heal either victims or societies.

Still, without at least the credible prospect of criminal punishment, victims and societies are unlikely to wield the leverage necessary to pry out the truth, which is an essential prerequisite to genuine repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation. Pervasive impunity is therefore the enemy of justice in all its dimensions.

How might the ICC contribute to justice?

First, in particular cases, it may identify, expose, condemn, and punish perpetrators and provide reparations to victims. It may do so either by its own prosecutions or by stimulating prosecutions in national courts, brought by governments reluctant to see their officials and soldiers hauled off to The Hague for trial. Either way, an effective ICC could lift the blanket of impunity that now covers atrocities almost everywhere. By so doing, it could provide a measure of justice to some victims. That by itself would justify creation of the ICC.

But such a court would have even broader impact. It would serve to reinforce moral norms. There is no more powerful social condemnation of evil than to label it as a serious crime, for which serious punishment may be imposed. The preamble adopted in Rome elevates ICC crimes to the status of the "most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole." The ICC’s every indictment, arrest, conviction and sentence may serve to remind governments, the media and the public that there is "zero tolerance" for crimes against humanity.

The pedagogical and practical import of such moral messages is illustrated by the current case of General Pinochet. In strictly legal terms, he has suffered no more than deprivation of liberty and freedom of movement for some months. He may never actually be prosecuted. But his hopes of becoming a respected senior statesman and to go down in history as his country’s savior have been dashed. He will now be remembered, above all, as a torturer who got nabbed. Not only has he suffered loss of honor and reputation, but Chile will now understand its history differently. In Chile and elsewhere, a generation of youth has been taught that his alleged crimes, most of which took place before they were born, are so unconscionable that he is pursued for them even today.

Such messages sensitize global consciousness. This, in turn, has practical consequences. Governments may find it more difficult to grant visas, confer political asylum or otherwise treat alleged torturers as if their crimes could be forgotten. Voices of conscience may be empowered; their demands to treat future Pinochets as pariahs will be legitimized.

Of course, to the extent the ICC proves to be ineffective, its moral message will be undermined. An impotent ICC may serve merely to stoke the fires of cynicism. This is one reason why the extensive compromises made at Rome are troubling.

To succeed, however, the court need not be perfect. Consider the case of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzik. In 1995 he was indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Yet he remains at large, because NATO troops in Bosnia to date have not dared to arrest him. Does his case show that genocide is tolerated in practice?

Prior to the Dayton peace agreements, that may indeed have been the message. Until then, few of the suspects indicted by the International Tribunal had been arrested. Karadzik still strutted the world stage as head of the Bosnian Serb "government." But he was barred from Dayton, because he had been indicted and would have to be arrested if he left Yugoslavia. The agreements reached at Dayton also excluded him from any future position in government because, again, he had been indicted. Since then he has lost his official position, and remains hunkered down in Serb territory, unable to travel. Dozens of other suspects have now been arrested or have surrendered.

A similar point may be made on the question of the court’s deterrent value. The prospect of prosecution will not deter a Pol Pot or a Slobodan Milosevic. But not all dictators are fanatics like Pol Pot. And at times, calculating manipulators like Milosevic may be restrained by the threat of indictment. How often this happens may depend on how credible the threat is. That, in turn, depends on how the compromises made at Rome play out in practice.

Two of the Rome compromises are especially troublesome. The first imposes a "state consent" requirement on the ICC’S jurisdiction (except in cases referred by the Security Council). In cases referred by states or by the prosecutor on his or her own motion, the ICC will not be free to prosecute crimes regardless of where they are committed. It will have jurisdiction only by consent of either the state where the crime was committed or the state in which the accused is a citizen. States that ratify the Rome treaty are parties to the court and automatically consent to its jurisdiction. Other states may consent on a case-by-case basis.

The treaty negotiations suggest the significance of this limitation. Germany proposed that the ICC have "universal" jurisdiction, that is, be able to prosecute crimes wherever they are committed. This made legal sense. For centuries individual states have had the right to prosecute piracy, regardless of where it takes place. Treaties now allow states to prosecute genocide, torture and serious war crimes—all within ICC jurisdiction—wherever they are committed. If individual states have universal jurisdiction over such heinous international crimes, why can they not agree to delegate it to an international court?

This legally sensible proposal did not, however, attract much diplomatic support. Most states were unwilling to give the court a worldwide license to prosecute.

South Korea proposed a compromise: Let the ICC hear any case that has the consent of any one of four states: the state where the crime took place, the state of nationality of the defendant, the state of nationality of the victim, or the state having custody of the suspect. While far short of universality, this proposal would have given the ICC jurisdiction in most cases. But the U.S. strenuously objected. Allowing so many states to invoke ICC jurisdiction would allow the court to bypass the Security Council.

In a last-ditch effort to bring the U.S. on board without gutting the court’s jurisdiction, the Canadian chair of the Rome conference whittled the four states in South Korea’s proposal down to two: the territorial state and the state of nationality of the accused. Over U.S. objections, this proposal became part of the final text of the treaty.

To understand the effect of this provision, consider a hypothetical case involving Saddam Hussein. If he commits atrocities in Kuwait, either of two states could consent to ICC jurisdiction: Kuwait, where the crimes were committed, or Iraq, the state of Saddam’s nationality. Since Kuwait would be likely to consent, in such cases— international wars—state consent is not a major obstacle.

But suppose Saddam commits atrocities against Kurds or political dissidents inside Iraq. Then the territorial state and the state of his nationality are one and the same: Iraq, which he controls. In such cases—regimes that repress ethnic minorities or others within their own borders—the ICC may be unable to act.

This kind of situation poses a serious threat to the effectiveness of the court. Except on referral by the Security Council, the ICC could not, for example, prosecute Milosevic for atrocities committed in Kosovo, nor Pol Pot for killing Cambodians, nor Pinochet for "disappearing" Chileans.

Another potentially crippling compromise allows the ICC to hear cases (again, except for those referred by the Security Council) only when the states involved are unable or unwilling to do so. The U.S. likes this provision; it can avoid ICC jurisdiction simply by conducting its own good-faith investigation—even if the result is a decision not to prosecute, or an acquittal.

But what if, say, a Milosevic promises to investigate alleged war crimes by his troops in Kosovo? Unlike the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, which has primary jurisdiction, the ICC would have to defer to a Yugoslav national investigation unless the ICC prosecutor can prove that it is a sham. But how can the prosecutor impeach a national investigation before it starts? In most cases, the 1CC will have to wait until the individual nation has a chance to show its true colors. In the meantime, what may happen to fingerprints, blood samples, autopsies and witnesses? ICC prosecutor and judges will have to keep careful watch lest national prosecutors merely go through the motions, stall and possibly ruin the ICC’S case.

Despite such weaknesses and uncertainties, the agreement on the ICC reached in Rome is the best we are likely to get for the foreseeable future. It deserves support as an essential first step. Once created, it will have a chance to prove itself. If it fails, the need to strengthen it will be demonstrated.

Neither the Clinton administration nor the U.S. Senate is likely to accept the ICC. This is no reason, however, for American supporters to sit on their hands.

It should be stressed that ICC has significant safeguards against abuse. For example, its judges must have expertise in criminal or international law, and can be elected only by a two-thirds majority of states which are parties to the treaty, most of which will be democracies. Its prosecutor cannot begin an investigation of an American without first notifying the U.S. and allowing it to take over the investigation and any prosecution. Even if the U.S. consents, the ICC prosecutor still cannot begin an investigation without reasonable grounds and the prior approval of a three-judge panel, which may be appealed to a five-judge panel. Once the investigation is complete, no trial can be held without another prior approval by the three-judge panel. Even then there are extensive fair-trial safeguards. No judicial system is airtight, but this one comes close.

Supporters can also dispel Pentagon claims that because American troops undertake so many overseas missions they are uniquely exposed to ICC prosecution. In Bosnia as of mid-1998, for example, our troops represented less than 20 percent of NATO forces and only 10 percent of the International Police Task Force.

Bringing international criminals to justice is no easy task. But the ICC gives humanity in the coming century a chance to administer justice that wasn’t available in the 20th century. Let us not miss the opportunity.

The Church as a Global Society

The Church's Governance--Deficiency Syndrome

The first thing Christianity did in Africa was to make people surrender their sovereignty to church hierarchies and governments. African dictators did not learn any lessons in democracy from the way churches were established, like fiefdoms.

Christianity brought to Africa nothing of the modernization, democracy and industrial revolution that the missionaries enjoyed in their own countries. The church made the divine right of political and church leaders part of its curriculum of evangelism. Africa became a junkyard for governments discarded by the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions.

The slave trade and colonialism ended, not because there was any conversion or improvement in western Christianity or democracy, but because slavery and colonialism ceased to be profitable enterprises due to improved technology. Evil carries its own seeds of self-destruction. But self-destruction is not the same as repentance, which means change into a new creation, being accountable and paying the penalty of evil, as God showed on the cross.

The church confused its own mission, instruments, agents, intentions and personnel with the gospel. As a result the church became the judge in its own case without any accountability to the gospel. The church looked in the mirror, saw there the reflection of its own life, mission, evangelism, doctrines, worship and history, and declared itself the gospel for all times and at all places.

But Christianity does not feature anywhere in the gospel, any more than the church's mission, theology, structures, pastoralism and evangelism in Africa. Whatever knowledge of the gospel Africa has, it has acquired it by revolt, as a consequence of a conversion experience.

The gospel is God's work of facilitating of God's reign in the world, as exemplified by Jesus' incarnation. The gospel converts people to convert the world into God's sovereignty. It transforms the world with which it collides. The action of incarnation takes place by changing the systems that receive it. The gospel is not Christianity, church or mission. The gospel was there prior to Pentecost, Christianity, and all the miracles, sacraments, missionaries, theologians, ministers, churches and institutions that it brought into being.

Christianity does not yet know the Lord Jesus Christ as the divine-human model of governance. The reason for churches and governments to stop being absolute is not because they are human and not gods, but because God became human, humble, vulnerable, fallible and subject to penalty for the world's defects.

God does not govern as Calvin and Luther told the pope -- by infallibility and omnipotence. In becoming incarnate, God's sovereignty assumed human fallibility. Calvin and Luther put the pope in a practical and theoretical dilemma by condemning his Godlike infallibility while at the same time not failing to offer the pope the model of God's fallibility and accountability in Christ. Had the European Reformation made a complete theological breakthrough, Christianity and its missionary enterprise would have dropped the theology of the divine right of kings and apostolic succession and adopted a theology of God's accountability with which to make a critique of the societies in which it found itself.

God governs according to the legal principle of vicarious liability. The principal is always liable for the crimes committed by the agent. The Creator is not immune from any faults of the creature that God created. God empties (kenosis) Godself of privilege, advantage and power over creation and becomes available, accessible, answerable and liable for the conditions of sin. Calvin and Luther correctly wanted the pope to stop behaving infallibly like God, but failed to explain why the papacy should be fallible. The reason was that God became fallible in Christ.

This is the kind of God who mobilized Kenyans into mass action. Their relationship with an accountable God made Kenyans accountable for what went on in their world.

God's Example of Governance

God governs according to the legal principle of vicarious liability. The Creator is always liable for the crimes of the creature. God is the seed that sows itself in every kind of human soil, along the path, upon rock, upon thorns, and on good soil.

God assumes culpability, blame and penalty for sin, not because God commits sin -- but for God's own sake (Is 43.25 and 48.9 -- 11). Parents feel pain, hunger and misery when their babies are sick, hungry and wet because they care. God's honour, glory, prestige and integrity would be at stake if God were to abandon anything God made in God's likeness.

Jeremiah 18:1 -- 6: The fact that the clay turned imperfect, right in the hands of a perfect Maker, despite the intention of the Maker to make it perfect pottery, demonstrates that God's governance depends on people's participation for its success or failure, not on God alone. Imagine that! In the very hands of an all powerful and perfect Creator, creation is free to turn imperfect! God is not a Third World military dictator who seizes power and then arranges to have himself elected president with a landslide, and by means of divine manipulation, rigging and bribery. God's grace does not operate by fiat, but submits itself to being accepted or rejected. God does not force me to be a goat or sheep. The choice is mine, the results inevitable.

God is amazing. And funny too. God does not only give freedom to what God s creating to take part in the process of being created, God becomes part and parcel of the process. God cannot be the Creator of things that change without drinking the cup of change with them.

The prophet Jeremiah envisioned the yeast-dough relationship between God and the world where the yeast and the dough worked jointly without compromising their independence. The gospel changes every context in which it becomes incarnate, but it does not lose its integrity. While God becomes human and accountable without losing God's integrity, the church fears incarnation out of fear of losing its western identity.

By not accepting liability for the ravages of capitalism and imperialism, the church becomes a liability. Christianity should stop playing the role of maintenance and repair in the capitalist system. The church cannot cure western guilt with charity, poverty alleviation projects, contextualization, indigenization or Africanization programmes. These are symptoms of the governance-deficiency syndrome and the accountability-avoidance spirituality bequeathed by western history.

God's death and resurrection take place in all cultural, political and institutional and personal situations. The gospel has a life-death-resurrection dynamics of its own and charts its own development. The gospel is for enabling, changing and helping people with the example of how a weak and vulnerable God who became a prisoner, hungry and naked overcame death.

A Quantum Leap of Faith

Africa must make a quantum leap of faith into God's governance out of the church's history, sacraments, ministries and Christianity. This sounds like a good new Reformed theology: quite iconoclastic! This is the gospel Isaiah learned from God when the religion and nation of Judah died, and the city of David, the temple of Solomon and the ethnicity of Yahweh were demolished by Babylon in 586 BC. Yahweh was to rise again, in Babylon, no longer as an ethnic deity, a prisoner of the temple cult, or the enemy of Israel's enemies.

In one of his most radical and uncompromising statements, Jeremiah distinguished God's reign from worldly contexts:

'Thus says the LORD: "If you turn back, I will take you back, and you shall stand before me. If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall serve as my mouth. It is they who will turn to you, not you who will turn to them."' (Jer 15.19)

The gospel is a relationship and not a religion or institution. It is a divine-human relationship in which God becomes Lord to those who elect Christ to govern their lives. From this divine-human relationship flows the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments.

The link between western Christianity and the gospel was broken when the churches formed the doctrines of the divine investiture of kings and apostolic succession without reference to the rights of those who were not kings or apostles. Christianity has yet to bridge the gap between itself and God's word as attested by the gospel in order for the church to have a credible witness and play useful role in African renewal.

The Gospel is not a Soul-Saving Machine

The problem of a politically anachronistic church is compounded by the fact that Christianity avoided the blame for slavery and colonialism by turning the gospel into an entrepreneurial work of trading salvation with souls. The missionary enterprise became a soul-saving machine devoid of any principles, systems and methods of governance consistent with the gospel.

Where God made creation an essential co-creator in being created and in determining the final outcome, Christianity did not allow the objects of its conversion work to play any essential role in being converted. Conversion required resignation and not faith. Where salvation in the gospel is the joint work of God's hand and human hands, submission to soul-salvation took place across the table as a deal between seller and customer, supplier and consumer, the professionals and their clientele. Where faith invites the Holy Spirit to participate in human decisions, in answer to God's invitation to participate in God's work of creating human beings, Africans accepted to be unmade, Christianized, catholicized, presbyterianized and pentecostalized as a price to pay for the salvation of their souls. The church that was conceived and born out of this trade persists with it as a beggar, consumer and client of western Christianity.

The Christianity we have now is a soul-saving machine with no awareness of the demands of the gospel. The main preoccupation of the church is to assure those who have no value in capitalism of the great value for their souls in heaven.

Soul-salvation is a tragedy. Missionaries treated Africans as cartons containing souls, just as poachers reduce elephants and rhinos to carcasses :carrying tusks and horns. This soul-saving Christianity is an anti-biblical heresy because it takes no account of God's responsibility for healing and feeding the body and mind. There is not a single verse in the Bible where salvation is mindless or bodiless. Soul-salvation distorts the Scriptures by making the soul, and not humanity, the heir of eternal life. Had Jesus risen as a soul rather than a person, Thomas could not have touched his hands and feet. The soul-saving enterprise works more or less like a mining company which after digging and extracting souls from the ground leaves the holes gaping and empty, causing environmental disaster.

Salvation is the outcome of the God-creature relationship. It involves faith, reason, conviction, acceptance and participation, not the soul alone. The soul does not have a special position in salvation. The only salvation possible is that of people.

The de-westernization and de-Christianization of the gospel are therefore essential in recapturing the meaning of salvation in Africa today.

The Need for Church Conversion

Africa became Christian by submission, not by conversion. African governments were similarly established, by conquest and not by consent. Democratization therefore means converting the church to the gospel of accountability and fallibility.

Human beings are not products, capital, or possessions fabricated in God's industry, but subjects involved in the whole process of being created and saved. This is one of the cardinal principles of God's democracy: people are not made by God without their participation in being made and in determining the final outcome, even if that means choosing to sin. God allows people to experiment with their freedom, even when their choice contradicts God's intention.

God's governance is a relationship in which people derive from God's love examples for their care for one another. To colonize, oppress or trade with people is the opposite of governance and antithesis of democracy. Governments cannot be governments unless they govern people in the same way as God governs.

Faith is automatically at variance with the governments given birth by African independence because these governments were conceived by colonial rape and autocracy, sexism, racism and tribalism into caring and nurture. Independence was only a shift of dominance from Eurocentrism to Afrocentrism. It was not a genuine independence but a counterfeit, a changing of the guard, a reshuffling of white masters with black masters.

Whatever knowledge of the gospel Africa has, it has acquired it by revolt, as a consequence of a conversion experience. To contain, control and isolate this conversion experience, indigenization appeared. This is why the whole attempt to make Christianity indigenous is anti-gospel. All people, Africans or others, are already created in God's likeness and need no further contextualization into God's image. Adam and Eve sinned not because they tried to be like God, for that is how they were made in the first place, but because they wanted to replace their true likeness with a fraudulent and counterfeit likeness.

The fact that 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God' was Paul's maxim for Gentiles to refuse being circumcised into Jews. If Africa could have received the gospel without being circumcised into European Christianity, the call for indigenizing that gospel would not have arisen.

Mutual Accountability and Infallibility

Faith is the context in which God and humanity accept to be governed by each other. Christ became Lord by taking the risk and bearing the pain of being led and ruled like a human being. The cross is God's referendum on the acceptance or rejection of God's reign. Faith is the process and forum where people vote whether they want God to govern their lives or not. This gospel is the foundation and origin of democracy. We need to convert the American and European models of democracy into God's democracy to make them accountable for slavery, colonialism and the ravages of capitalism.

This year top western leaders, Pope John Paul II, and American president Bill Clinton, apologized for the holocaust and the slave trade visited upon Jews and Africans respectively by western masterdom. The apologies were based on the presumption that the world should recognize John Paul II and Clinton as heirs of western domination. True repentance would have done away with papal domination, freeing women from male domination and allowing them to be ordained. True repentance would have ended American domination. The apologies merely fortified the myths of the White Man's Burden and Manifest Destiny. Neither Pope nor President dealt with the ethos of domination. Apologies put more icons in the toolbox of papal control and more tear-gas in the knapsack of American globalism.

The Christian dualism of saved soul and unsaved body in one and the same church became embodied in the American dualism of free and unfree in one and the same country. When Tom Paine asked Thomas Jefferson why liberty did not include his slaves, Jefferson replied that his slaves were well treated and happy. Paine asked him 'Can you be my slave so that I can treat you well and make you happy?' He said 'No!' This was contrary to God's democracy in which God became the outcast, woman, tax collector, leper and gentile in order to demonstrate God's love for all. God's democracy works by God being accessible and available to all in all circumstances. When citizens fail to conduct their affairs responsibly, for their own good and for the glory of God, God does not claim immunity, but shares the blame.

God shoulders the cost of our failure because God does not profit from human mistakes and weaknesses and has no interest in anybody getting lost. This accountability of Christ for both good and evil, weak and strong, forms the underlying structure of God's kingdom, democracy, grace, politics and economics. Christ is the design model of God's sovereignty for the world. Christianity missed the link with this design in its conspiracy of the divine rights of kings and apostolic succession. The churches' internal architecture is like that of autocratic governments. Their anatomy deprives them of moral authority to speak to the world about Christ as their builder. They need as much alteration in their structures as the governments.

Challenge to Divine Right

Controversy arose in Kenya because my sermons pointed out that, according to the gospel, governments based on the divine rights of kings are not valid. The one-party state and the church were surprised to see the gospel demand governance as a system of accountability and freedom of choice.

'God was accessible and available to all questions. That is how God rules: by reason. And this, according to Njoya, is the way every leader or government should rule, by entering into dialogue with its subjects, who should be allowed to participate in decision-making if they are to develop a reasonable, rather than mystical loyalty and patriotism. Why should Kenyans be presumed to know the Bible, national constitution, KANU manifesto, session papers and important laws without participating in arguments about the wisdom and justice contained in them?'

The sermon opened Pandora's box. It ushered in a new context. It helped faith make a quantum leap from faith to faith (Rom 1. 16-17). This was an unprecedented assault on monolithic power and its religious justification. Bewildered by the new dynamics of faith triggered by the sermon, President Daniel arap Moi expressed shock and exclaimed:

"How could subversive documents come from out of the house of God?" He challenged the authors of such documents to stop hiding behind the church. They should resign and join politics if they want to make political statements. "It is not that we fear the church. We respect the church because it the house of God," the president said.'

Christianity panicked. The churches reacted by teeming up with the government to suppress rather than answer the questions raised in my sermons.

They reacted with such intense and emotional apologetics that they deified Moi, KANU and the government as a makeshift African Trinity.

A series of meetings organized by the Full Gospel Church in Kenya (FGCK) at Afraha Stadium, Nakuru, ended with leaders of the church reaffirming their total support and confidence in President Daniel arap Moi's leadership, the government and the ruling party, KANU. The statement, read at the closing session of the annual meeting by the FGCK secretary general, Rev Simon Kariuki, added that the church supported the Nyayo Philosophy of peace, love and unity as expounded by the president. They said that 'since its foundation in 1949, the Full Gospel Church in Kenya had remained faithful and loyal to the government and would continue to do so'.

In the same vein, an outraged writer said,

'Since the early eighties, Dr. Njoya has ceaselessly hurled attacks and insults against the government and popularly elected leaders. Surely, if Njoya is a true shepherd of God the Spirit of God would have inspired him to uphold Christian principles and teachings. He should have known that governments and authorities are ordained and installed by God and that they must be obeyed. Jesus urged his followers to abide by the laws of the land as well as those of the kingdom of God, as clearly exemplified in these words: "Render the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and to the things that are God's to God." (Mark 17).'

My sermons undermined the common foundations of both the church and state order. Even the radical critics of government corruption turned 'royal'.

'"The church of the Province of Kenya supports President Moi and the one-party system," the primate of the church Archbishop Manases Kuria, said at Nakuru. The Most Reverend Kuria, who was addressing thousands of Christians at Nakuru Stadium to celebrate the Diocese's Silver Jubilee, disassociated his church from the activities of the church accused by President Moi of producing subversive pamphlets in the form of church sermons. On Saturday President Moi said a local church was producing subversive literature in the guise of Sunday sermons and asked how subversive documents come from the House of God. President Moi challenged that the denominations which distribute subversive leaflets in the guise of sermons have been unpatriotic, and their action an interference with matters that do not concern them. Speaking at a crusade at Likoni, Mombasa on Sunday, the head of Ushidi Baptist church, Pastor Joseph Maisha, asked such denominations to put the houses in order... In Kiambu, Christians were told to uphold peace within their families in order for Kenya to maintain peace and stability. The Anglican Bishop Rev. George Njuguna... called on Kenyans to be patriotic and to avoid situations that could land the country in unnecessary problems. He said while it was right to criticize, it was important to offer criticism with love and without desire to hurt. This way, we can avoid unnecessary friction between the church and the state.'

The church, its Christianity and theology are enemies of the gospel as far as the view of governance is concerned. For instance,

'The Presbyterian Church of East Africa (PCEA) yesterday warned Rev. Dr Timothy Njoya against confrontational behaviour toward the government. The Moderator of the PCEA General Assembly, Rev Bernard Muindi, also announced that the matter is being investigated and that another statement would be issued as soon as possible. The PCEA chief went on: "This church has always endeavoured to maintain peace and tranquillity and to operate in the constitution and laws of this country... Rev. Muindi's statement which was also signed by the secretary-general of the church, Rev. Dr Mwaniki, reiterated the PCEA's unreserved commitment for President Moi and government."

KANU General Secretary and Minister of Education Aringo accused the National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK), the umbrella organization of most Protestant denominations in the country, of being riddled with anti-government agitators'. Aringo's charges had the effect of making what up to then had been a campaign centred on Njoya into a general church-state verbal brawl. The secretary-general, Rev. Samuel Kobia, immediately replied with a blistering statement accusing Aringo of needlessly 'dragging' the NCCK into 'Njoya' s controversy.

The churches regarded the divine right of the government as the Christian Q'uran and my sermons as 'Satanic Verses,' Moi as God and the churches as his prophets. The churches need to have basic principles of governance: accountability and participation. They recently jumped into the bandwagon of democratization movement without undergoing any change in their own paradigms. God's governance comes by no other method 'but a change in what people believe, how people act, and how people relate to each other.'

Loving God: Enemies and Neighbours aren't Falling in Love

The gospel helps people not to be dictated to by the church or other worldly authorities. It is not a reaction to prevailing circumstances. One of God's principles of governance says, 'Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.' (Mt 5.39-41)

The gospel is the only context in which everybody has rights and owns the initiative for whatever is happening. There are no winners and losers. Those who are governed assume the accountability for the good and evil affecting them.

'If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.' (Rom 12.20) This pulls the rug from under the feet of caring only for those who earn care by caring for us. It deprives power, advantage and privilege of their initiative. Faith may not be able to avoid blows, insults or the cross, but faith remains untouched by them. It does not respond in kind. This means that those who are governed must assume responsibility for how they are governed.

Evangelism did not take into account the initiative and accountability of the converts. It tilted God's infallibility in favour of westernization at the expense of the converts. David Livingstone invited evangelists to Christianize, commercialize and civilize Africa without consulting the stakeholders. He appointed himself to know what is best for Africans just because he was white, 'civilized' and Christian. He set the modus operandi for dictatorship.

I wish Africa was being sculptured in the image of England, Germany or Canada where people have the right to commission and recall their governments. Kenya would have become a democratic, peaceful, developed and industrialized country. Now we are ruled with impunity by kleptocrats because Christianity made Africa the dumping ground for the feudal and infallible systems that the European Enlightenment and American Revolution discarded.

We still need to cast our lot with the vulnerable God who became the carpenter's son, Immanuel, who, to be responsible for what God had made ended up being crucified by political and religious authorities like a criminal. The church cannot play an effective role in humanizing Africa unless Christianity becomes fallible and accountable like God.

Making Christianity African went no further than amending western Prayer Books and Canon Laws, replacing prayers for the Queen with those for the President. The government followed suit by enacting the Public Order Act, National Security Act, Chiefs Act and other draconian instruments of making imperialism African, absolute and able to torture people administratively with impunity. The government used the euphoria of African pride in independence to Africanize the very imperialism independence was supposed to eradicate. African churches devised African traditional religion (ATR) for their seminaries for the same purpose of Africanizing infallibility.

African traditional religion (ATR) was a top-down attempt by the religious elite to legitimize Christianity with the very paganism the missionaries had demonized. For me, the issue is not whether Christianity is African or European, foreign or indigenous, but the kind of influence it has on politics and economics. ATR did not make political and economic life accountable, spiritual and moral in conformity to principles of God's governance.

President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania adopted a parallel strategy and made socialism Ujamaa. Mobutu and Modbo Keita christened their African versions of Belgian and French colonialism Négritude. The All Africa Conference of Churches baptized indigenization Reconstruction Theology. Before the self-crowned Emperor Bokasa of the Central African Republic died, he boasted, '1 crowned myself Emperor like all other African presidents. My only mistake was that I dared wear the crown.'

Evolutionary Defect

Even though Africa has trained enough people to the same academic levels as in Canada, USA and Australia it cannot democratize or develop unless it first cures the residual effects of the partial westernization, cognitive dissonance, and governance-deficiency syndrome created by missionary Christianity. The current mushrooming of churches and proliferation of Evangelicalism and Pentecostal spiritualities are not healthy phenomena but the results of desperation, disasters, hunger, disease and ignorance. The church is spreading by contagion, and by leaps and bounds, without purpose or direction, like wild fire. The gases (pneuma) fanning this unprecedented religious fervour are from decay.

Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, about 14,000,000 people were sold by and to white men without Christianity being accountable. Between 1980 and 1990, our African governments restored the slave market by bartering their populations for absolute domination. They drove about 14,000,000 women, children and men from their homes, freeing from the Cold War 'National Security'. In Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and Southern Africa governments spawned millions of their own internally displaced. Churches preferred to cushion the crisis with prayer, charity and other mechanisms of conflict-avoidance. Western Christianity gave the churches no gospel of accountability with which to confront governments. If the Nuremberg trials been extended to cover war crimes in Africa, many missionaries would have hanged on the rope for abetting genocide. Bishop Perraudin, a missionary in Rwanda, told a church audience on a Sunday morning: 'To kill a Tutsi is not a sin, it is to wipe out an enemy.' All these evils, corruption, human displacement and genocides took place where churches control 80 per cent of the populations.

The Way Forward

We started by showing that faith had to make a quantum leap from faith to faith in order to participate in God's governance as presented by the gospel. Faith has a life and dynamic of its own, free and apart from Christianity and the church. Had I not outgrown these, I would have suffered many post-traumatic disorders during the many times when the church has disowned me and deposed me from the ministry.

Neither Africanization nor contextualization helped the church to shift from its anachronistic understanding of power to human rights. Human Rights NGOs like the Centre for Governance and Development, Citizens Coalition for Constitutional Change, Human Rights Commission and Mazingira Institute, Law Society and the NGO Council helped to popularize the gospel of accountability as a culture of democracy. The church jumped onto the bandwagon of human rights. Some denominations succumbed to the President's threat to deregister them and pulled out of the National Council of Churches in Kenya. The very Christianity which depended for its growth on an unjust peace is now discovering that its idolatry is vulnerable to rational thinking. To assuage its guilt at dependence on western imperialism it has introduced theologies of reconstruction in the management of accountability-avoidance disorder. If the nationalists really believed colonial domination was evil what gave them the right to baptize, indigenize or contextualize the same domination? Contextualization, as a fetish of conflict-resolution-avoidance, peddled syncretism naming it Christianity. Having killed and buried African traditional religions, Christianity should have gone to celebrate and left the task of exhuming them to archeologists.

What Africa needs is not an extra Christianity, labeled 'Made in Africa.'? Africa needs the change that flows from God's example of governance. Afrocentric pride can be as deadly as Eurocentric pride. Indeed, indigenization is a poisonous strategy stranded between the ethnocentric African myths and abortive westernization.

Africa needs a quantum jump of faith into the future. Africa has potential enough. It has intelligent people and a relatively developed scientific mind. But even the best and most scientific people cannot make systems of anti-governance work, unless they first change them. If the church could make a leap of faith from being a carrier of anachronistic mission and defective theology to being accountable and responsible for both good and evil, Africa would benefit immensely.

Dying Well: A Challenge to Christian Compassion

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?

By Michael Manning. Paulist, 120 pp., $8.95.

A Different Death: Euthanasia and the Christian Tradition.

By Edward J Larson and Darrell W Amundsen. Inter-Varsity, 288 pp., $14.99.

A Time to Die: The Place for Physician Assistance.

By Charles F McKhann, Yale University Press, 268 pp., $30.00.

The fear of enduring unceasing pain, of being trapped by medical machines, of losing bodily integrity and personal dignity and of being an emotional and financial drain on one's loved ones -- such fear lends strength to the movement for euthanasia and for physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Support for euthanasia/PAS has been spurred on by the Hemlock Society, founded by former journalist Derek Humphry and based in Eugene, Oregon. The society's political arm helped draft initiatives aimed at legalizing euthanasia. Ballot initiatives in the states of Washington (1991) and California (1992) were both narrowly defeated by a 54 to 46 percent margin. The defeat of these "euthanasia" initiatives shifted the focus to "assisted suicide," which gives more control to the dying patient.

In 1994 Oregon passed its Death with Dignity Act by a 51 to 49 percent margin, becoming the first state to legalize PAS. The statutes of Washington and New York prohibiting PAS were subjected to constitutional review. In June 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, declaring that PAS is not a constitutional right. This ruling left each state free to make its own decision about whether PAS and euthanasia should be legally permitted within its borders. The Supreme Court ruling recognized that our nation is already engaged in an intense debate about the morality, legality and practicality of PAS, and it encouraged the debate to continue.

Michael Manning, a physician and a Roman Catholic priest, reviews the arguments and takes a stand against euthanasia/PAS. While giving unequivocal support to the Roman Catholic position, his book is fair in its treatment of opposing views. Edward Larson and Darrell Amundsen also oppose euthanasia/PAS. :Larson, professor of history and law at the University of Georgia, has a special interest in the theory and law of modern health care. Amundsen, a professor of classics at Western Washington University, focuses on medical practice and ethics in ancient and medieval times. By tracing attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide from antiquity to the present, the authors offer the historical perspective that has been missing in the debate. They argue that while both Greco-Roman and Enlightenment thinkers accepted the idea of suicide, the Judeo-Christian tradition does not. Charles McKhann, professor of surgery at Yale Medical School, joins the increasingly-vocal minority within the medical community who have begun to question the profession's traditional opposition to PAS. He argues that PAS is accepted as a last resort.

Richard A. McCormick, dean of Catholic moral theologians, once said that we can easily soften resistance to the unacceptable if we confuse it with the acceptable. The easiest way to skew the euthanasia /PAS debate is to see it as a "pulling the plug " issue. But forgoing useless or disproportionately burdensome treatment--which is what we generally mean by "pulling the plug."--is not the same as euthanasia or PAS. Standard medical, moral and legal practices allow competent patients or the surrogate of incompetent patients to select from proposed treatments or to refuse treatment altogether.

The terms voluntary active euthanasia and phyician-assisted suicide sometimes are used interchangeable, confusing the two practices. Voluntary active euthanasia means a deliberate intervention, by someone other than the person whose life is at stake, directly intended to end that life. The patient must be competent and terminally ill, and must make a fully voluntary and persistent request for aid in dying. A common way to think about euthanasia is that a physician gives a lethal injection to the patient who wants to die. The term "mercy killing" is often used in place of "euthanasia" to emphasize that such an act is directly intended as an act of kindness to end suffering.

In PAS (or what McKhann prefers to call "assisted dying" a physician helps to ring on the patient's death by providing the means to do it or by giving the necessary information on how to do it, but the patient performs lethal act. The typical procedure is for the patient to take a lethal dose of poison (by swallowing pills, by injecting himself or by inhaling a gas, for example) that the patient has asked the physician to prescribe for that purpose. In such a case, as in euthanasia, both the physician and patient are responsible for bringing about death.

The ethical arguments for and against euthanasia/PAS have remained largely unchanged for centuries. These arguments can be organized under three themes: autonomy, killing vs. allowing to die, and beneficence. Autonomy is the central issue for euthanasia advocates. "Death with dignity" and the so-called "right to die" are familiar banners in this argument. These expressions are taken to mean that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Jack Kevorkian is the symbolic cheerleader for promoting absolute autonomy as the fundamental moral value.

While everyone agrees that autonomy is an important value, the question is, Just how far does autonomy extend? A counter argument to autonomy as a justification for euthanasia/PAS can be made on the basis of religious beliefs and moral philosophy. While Enlightenment ideas about freedom led rationalists to question the traditional religious strictures against euthanasia and suicide, the Christian opposition to these practices did not weaken.

According to Christian beliefs, the sovereignty of God and the human responsibility for stewardship limit our freedom to control life. God has absolute dominion over life, and we share in that dominion only as limited creatures. Larson and Amundsen convincingly show that the Judeo-Christian perspective rejects the idea that one's life is like a possession -- one's own to control, to use and to dispose of as one sees fit. The Judeo-Christian opposition to euthanasia/PAS is a part of its general opposition to making autonomy an absolute value. Freedom lies not just in having control but also in submitting to what cannot be controlled. We exercise freedom by accepting ourselves as creatures of God and by admitting our powerlessness before death.

The social nature of being human also limits our freedom. We cannot properly classify euthanasia/PAS only an exercise of individual autonomy. Such acts also involve the one doing or aiding the killing and a complying society. Therefore, euthanasia/PAS must be assessed for its social impact on care for the dying and on our general attitude toward life. While a concern for the common good respects and serves the interests of individuals, it upholds the collective good as more important than the good of any one individual. A commitment to the common good stands in constant tension with autonomy because it forces us to ask whether we should forgo some of the things which we want for ourselves so that the good of the whole might better be served.

Manning appeals to our responsibility for the common good in assessing the euthanasia/PAS movement. If we introduce euthanasia/PAS as a legal, medical option, would we risk discriminating against vulnerable groups -- such as those with AIDS, Alzheimer's or spinal cord injuries -- that are perceived as burdens on the system and on society? Would legalizing euthanasia/PAS affect the way we think about mental and physical decline, about suffering, about the obligations of adult children to their parents or of how parents needing care feel toward their children? How would this practice affect the self-understanding of the disabled and their relation to society? How would it affect physicians' attitudes toward their failing patients? How would it affect the way we distribute our resources? Would those who did not choose euthanasia/PAS be forced to justify their refusal?

Closely related to the argument from the common good is the slippery-slope argument. Drawing on examples of what is happening in the Netherlands, where the practice of PAS and euthanasia (voluntary and involuntary) has increased even though not formally legal, Manning, Larson and Amundsen suggest that the policy and practice of euthanasia/PAS would weaken the general prohibition against killing.

An important dividing line in the debate is whether one sees a significant moral difference between killing by euthanasia/PAS and allowing to die by withdrawing useless, cure-oriented, life-sustaining treatment. Advocates of euthanasia/PAS such as McKhann see no moral difference between these two acts. If we are to respect autonomous, informed patients' request to end treatment, so the argument goes, then we ought to respect their request for aid in dying. Opponents of euthanasia/PAS insist that there is a moral difference between withholding treatment when nothing more can be done to reverse significantly the physical deterioration, and intervening to put the patient to death.

The distinction pivots on the way we understand causality and culpability. In killing, the cause of death is the lethal intervention. In allowing to die, the cause of death is the natural biological process. When the cause of death is the impersonal force of nature, no one can be held responsible. But if death results from the human action of injecting or ingesting lethal medication, then someone can be held culpable.

Daniel Callahan, one of America's foremost bioethicists, has argued that failing to hold to this distinction perpetuates the illusion that we can control everything, that we can be masters of nature and death.

The argument from beneficence arises from the desire to relieve pain and suffering and to show compassion and mercy. Three dimensions of beneficence have played a prominent role in the debate: the "character" of medicine as a profession; the "suffering" that is to be relieved; and the "mercy" that is to be shown. That we cannot reach a moral consensus reflects disagreement on the role of the physician and of the very aim of medicine. In wanting to license physicians to kill, McKhann and other advocates of euthanasia/PAS are calling into question the expectation that physicians will be healers committed to preventing, diagnosing and treating diseases and to promoting wholeness. Manning and other opponents of euthanaisa/PAS aruge that "killing a patient" is contrary to the aim of medicine and the responsibilities of the physician.

The obligation to relieve suffering is the context for McKhann's argument, but he is typical in that he does not address the issue of suffering as such. Suffering remains one of the most neglected end-of-life issues, perhaps because we do not know what to do about it or how to make use of it. The argument from suffering reaches beyond medicine's responsibility and competence; it extends into metaphysical questions about the nature of human happiness and what constitutes a meaningful life. To enlist a physician to achieve release from suffering presumes that the physician is competent to judge what kinds of life are worth living. Perhaps this would be true if suffering had only medical causes. As physician-philosopher Eric Cassell has sown, while physical pain may be the major physical cause of suffering, the roots of suffering are more than physical. The degree to which people suffer and whether they find life empty or meaningful depend more on their attitude than on their physical condition. Christian tradition teaches that suffering, while not a value in itself, is not an unqualified evil. It can be transforming. But if one begins with the assumption, as advocates of euthanasia/PAS seem to do, that no one ought to suffer, then the solution to suffering is to remove the sufferer. The Christian imagination, informed by its Jewish roots, presents the possibility for another response. Suffering can become the vehicle for learning to hold lightly to life, for coming to grips with our own creaturliness and for realizing our ultimate dependence on God. While we should not glorify suffering or bring it upon ourselves or others, we need not oppose it at all costs. The story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus tells us that the tragedy of suffering, dying and death, cannot, and will not be stronger than God's love.

Larson and Amundsen show that the Christian opposition to suicide makes sense in the context of a firm belief in God's sovereignty and the humble trust that God makes all things work together for good. God's love, revealed in Jesus, gives us the courage to enter into suffering and death, knowing that life ultimately triumphs. Beneficence is ultimately about mercy; that is, about how we fulfill the demands of covenantal fidelity to one another. What kind of mercy toward the dying fits the commitment first to be faithful and then, whenever possible, to heal? While it may be inappropriate to speak of killing as healing, may killing be compatible with mercy toward those who are dying painfully and find life empty, oppressive and meaningless? Those who argue in support of euthanasia/PAS think so. Those who oppose it fear that granting physicians the license to kill will erode our confidence in them at the very time we need them most.

From the Bible we learn that mercy and compassion are the ways that God loves, provides for and protects God's people. Out of mercy and compassion Jesus restored the broken to wholeness. He healed the blind, taught the ignorant, raised the dead and fed the hungry. The merciful are faithful to those who suffer by compassionately accompanying them, not by killing them. Mercy keeps us from abandoning hope when life is hard. Resorting to euthanasia/PAS is failing to embody the trust that sustains life and the commitment to be companions to one another.

Opinion polls taken during the past 25 years have shown a steady increase in the number of people of all ages and religious affiliations who support legalizing euthanasia/PAS. This popular support has been generated not by ethical arguments but by emotional reactions to the horrifying ways some people are dying. McKhann's experience of his own father's slow death, prolonged by hopeless, cure-oriented treatments, prompted him to write his book.

To counter the movement to legalize euthanasia/PAS, we need to offer a vision of dying well and provide better end-of-life care. Witness is more compelling than argument. Through the ways we live our lives, take care of our health, face our limits, let go of control, bear suffering, relate to others, make room for the weak and unsuccessful, and care for the sick, the elderly and the dying, we can be credible witnesses to our beliefs. We must counter the kinds of stories of poor end-of-life care that McKhann tells with stories of dying well.

For example, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's courageous death touched the hearts of many. When he spoke about suffering, fear, pain and humiliation, he spoke out of his own experience. He showed that we can exercise freedom not just by being in control but also by consenting to our limits and surrendering to what is beyond human control. He joined his suffering with the paschal mystery of Jesus and trusted in the goodness of God.

In addition to personal virtue, we also need communal virtue. Our communal life must witness to those fundamental religious and moral convictions that that nurture a vision of life that includes death as an inevitable outcome. A virtuous community provides the strictures and develops the skills that enable us to provide companionship, sympathy and support in the time of trial. Already a movement is under way to improve end-of-life care by educating health-care providers to respond better to the needs of dying patients, by creating new care settings or improving existing ones, by seeking changes in methods of paying for appropriate care, by educating the public through conferences, town meetings, television programming, and even Web sites (see www.careproject.net), by providing adequate relief of pain, by withholding or withdrawing treatments that only prolong dying, by keeping company with those who are lonely, and by being a resource of meaning and hope for those tempted to despair.

Facing pain, suffering and death in ourselves and in others is the price of being human. While this fact is biologically determined, there is nothing fixed about how we will respond to it. What sickness and the threat of death do to us is one thing; what we make of them is another. If life has no particular meaning when everything is going well, then what can life mean when everything goes wrong? Only if we can compellingly witness to our religious convictions about life, suffering and death will we be able to shape public attitudes toward death.