Christmas was a month ago.

I'm still wondering about something... Peace on Earth?

Currently there are around 30 armed conflicts of one sort or another on this earth. That's a few less than 10 years ago, but it's hardly Peace on Earth yet.

Not all wars are acknowledged as such -- "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict." Civil disputes, insurgencies, ethnic or religious conflicts, border skirmishes, political power struggles all come and go, some lingering so long that the world stops thinking of them as wars.

Even in Sudan, where a year ago the world formally agreed that what's happening there is genocide, it continues to this day, and we (the rest of the world) essentially allow it to continue.

We swore after Rwanda that "never again" would we let this happen. But genocide IS happening now, in Sudan, and every government and individual who goes to bed and wakes up in various parts of the world, while this takes place, bears a part of the responsibility.

Many armed conflicts, after months or years have passed, cannot be claimed by either party or outside observers to have been "worth" the loss of life, the years of hatred, the spent energy or the price of daily turmoil, in light of what if anything has been gained.

Sacrifice should be legitimate and also worthy. War, when there is no alternative, should at the very least be just. There is a solid body of careful reason, history, and Biblical theology supporting this concept.

I am not a pacifist, but I don't care for war and from what I read in scripture I don't think God likes or condones it. God's original creation did not feature war, only the freedom to follow or ignore God's ground rules.

Old habits die hard. While sin and its consequence linger in this little world of ours, there is by definition an ongoing conflict between the core essense of who God is, and the forces of rebellion against that core essense. The "dark side." It isn't only out there, it's inside of me and you. No wonder we are fascinated with Star Wars, Tolkien, and Narnia. This fiction is also our real life history.

The Bible is full of stories about wars that have been fought between human parties, sometimes with God taking a side. There are war metaphors about armor, swords, shields, and helmets; spiritual battles not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers. While the language sounds metaphorical, many Christians know to take spiritual conflict seriously.

On a personal, micro level, we talk about "choosing our battles." We've all fought some personal battles that we later felt were not worth the cost, or turned out to be less important struggles than those which would better deserve our limited time and energy. Even some battles that we lost by winning.

Rather than bullets or missiles, our personal battles involve limited ammunition like words, attitudes, power, strategy, influence, relationships, favor, persuasion, time, money, energy, elbowgrease, and passion. Many personal battles can be good battles for worthy causes. Many are not.

"Choosing our battles" is a metaphor for the strategy of channeling our limited energies into the places that are most important. It's the recognition that we can't do it all, we can't fight for every worthy cause we know about; we need to choose the ones that are truly most important.

Any mature person can relate to choosing important battles and discarding the temptation to waste ourselves on peripheral matters. For Christians, this criteria needs to be guided by values that are distilled from what God has communicated in Scripture about what's most important and what's not.

And there should be some consistency. It wouldn't seem very balanced to diligently do the laundry but never wash the dishes; or to fervently sweep the floors but never vacuum the carpets. If finished chores or clean floors were life's biggest challenges, inconsistency would be the flag of failure.

Similarly, it wouldn't be very consistent to be "pro life" about one specific issue (oh, let's say for example abortion or stem cells) while expressing or acting with hatred or disgust or indifference toward some of the other lives God created; or neglecting the many other places in society where the sanctity of human life as God created it is threatened. If human life is sacred at all, then ALL of human life is sacred. This means that if we are consistent, poverty and injustice and suffering must be abhorrent to us, and we should actively battle them.

That's why I could never be a one-issue or two-issue voter.  If God could be dismayed, it might be the times when we say we care about something and then we do something else. Like those people of whom Jesus said, "You call me 'Lord, Lord,' and then you go your way."

Clearly these people had some reason to call Jesus Lord. But they also had other priorities in conflict with Jesus' Lordship. Other battles to fight, other cares to chase. Priorities that were proven in the pudding.

Why do Christians so often expend too much of our energies on a few narrowly selected battles at the expense of many other concerns that we should know are very much on God's heart? Why do our battles (even if they are worthy) sometimes lack the consistency that would demonstrate they grow out of the core values of God's revealed truth in scripture? Why do we hone in on some truth and ignore other truth?

The causes to which Jesus calls those who follow him are daunting from a human perspective. A few of these battles, all on their own, are bottomless lifelong challenges, like serving the poor, or loving my neighbor, or considering the needs of others as more important than my own. Who has accomplished these things?

Jesus reminds us where the true battles are...

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
- John 18:36

Peace, in a geopolitical sense, has proven to be very elusive.

But I wonder if the peace Jesus offers is not the absence of war, but the peace-giving presence of God in the hearts of those who make the space. Out of this peace, when we let it take root, grow and thrive by God's spirit, can come fruit that is supernatural -- the fruit of forgiveness, tolerance, peacemaking, humility, and sacrificial love.

Now THAT would be peace. By my own human capability it feels very out of reach, and perhaps that is the most important point of all.

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
- John 14:27

I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.
- John 16:33

Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after multiple strokes. With brain damage, he's not expected to resume his duties as Israeli Prime Minister. This has thrown into uncertainty the tenuous threads of a peace process that were being woven with the participation of Sharon's political leadership.

The "promised land" has been the soil for so many generations of bitter war. In recent memory, occasional possibility for peace and willingness to compromise have been followed by cycles of provocation, violence, and retribution from both sides.

Why is the promised land compromised by such conflict?

From what I gather, most Israelis and Palestinians have had enough of the fighting already, and want a peaceful cohabitation. They want their children to grow up and play in the streets in safety; get a good education; have enough to eat; enjoy the sunsets; live free from fear of a rocket landing on the house or an uninvited suicide bomber riding the bus or showing up for dinner at a restaurant.

They -- Israelis but especially the Palestinian Muslims and Christians who have the very short end of the stick economically -- want an opportunity to make a decent living, live freely in their communities, and to interact freely with the rest of the world.

What people would not hope for at least this much in life; and who would deny people anywhere this hope?

There continue to be a minority on both sides of this conflict who cling stubbornly to the displacement or eradication of the other party, and refuse to accept peaceful cohabitation as an acceptable outcome.

As long as a large enough minority, however small, holds this line, they minimize the prospects for peace for all of their neighbors, Jewish and Palestinian. Just a few bad apples maybe, but the fruit of their persistent hatred could be yet another generation who will grow up in a place of daily fear and suffering.

Unlike some former years when it appeared he rejected the existence of a Palestinian nation, in latter years Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has taken some bold steps toward lasting peace, making some of the concessions that are essential to getting there. The most recent and notable move was Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year, and he had promised to give up at least some of the West Bank land which Israeli settlers now inhabit.

Sharon's removal from the process has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the Palestian elections scheduled for next week (Jan 25) and the Israeli parliamentary vote on March 28. It was looking like Sharon's new party might win the election, but now that's very unlikely and it's unclear whether the peace process itself will take steps forward or backward.

Whose land is this? It depends on who you ask. Is there any possibility of Jewish and Palestinian communities sharing this land in peace? Again it depends on who you ask, and how much optimism they have.

Whose land is this according to the Bible? How should we interpret and understand God's promise to the "chosen nation" of Israel to have their Promised Land?

I readily admit that I have not studied Biblical history and prophecy to reach a carefully informed opinion. I am just a guy on a learning faith journey.

I also admit that I am skeptical about reading books on this matter. While I expect there are some very helpful books out there, I don't know which ones they are, and I am sure that among them are books with an axe to grind and a willingness to sift selected scriptures in support of a preconceived conclusion. Who among us is really objective about things like this? It's rare.

It doesn't help matters when people like Pat Robertson, who professes to be a Christian, make statements like he made last week, that Sharon's stroke was an act of God's wrath for "dividing God's land." Who is this guy, to label which personal health tragedies are direct actions of God's wrath?

The fact that this man is still alive and broadcasting his stuff could be ample evidence that God still chooses to withhold the judgement and wrath we deserve. And the fact that a million or so listeners tune in to hear this man's opinions, some of which repeatedly contradict the very essense of Gospel of Jesus Christ, could be evidence that God mysteriously chooses to give us an insanely wide latitude, more than most loving (human) parents would remotely dream of giving their children. Strange, isn't it?

As observed by comedian Jon Stewart, and at the time he wasn't trying to be funny, besides God's wrath shouldn't we also at least consider "fat, age, and stress" as possible contributing factors for Sharon's stroke?

In response to the wave of criticism over Robertson's remarks, a spokesman for the 700 Club said, "What they’re basically saying is, 'How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?' This is what the word of God says. This is nothing new to the Christian community."

Wait a minute. Quoting a thin slice of the Bible is one thing, but proclaiming what God's overall perspective is on a broad issue ought at the very least attempt to incorporate ALL of what scripture seems to say on the subject. Especially issues that span history, span the Old and New Testaments, and span the multiple levels with which God has chosen to engage with creation.

A literal view of literal land that God promised to a literal chosen nation is only one fraction of what scripture teaches on this subject.

What about the eventual extension of God's covenant ("promise") through Abraham to bless ALL peoples -- as it turns out, through the person and work of Jesus? What about the extension of God's chosen people and royal priesthood, beyond the ethnic nation of Israel to include all those who follow Jesus under the New Covenant? You know, the thing we remember every time we have communion.

What about the New Jerusalem?

What about the revelation that God's biggest promises and best mysteries have to do with much more than physical soil and mortal life on this planet, which will come to an end some day?

How dare we shrink the larger concentric circles of what God appears to be doing in redeeming all of creation, and try to store new wine in old wineskins?

What wineskins does Mr. Robinson prefer? What wineskins do you prefer?

I guess it's understandable that some of us would prefer to constrain the eternal, incomprehendable God's interaction with the human race to a box-sized, containable, literal interpretation of portions of what God has communicated, selecting and discarding layers of God's revelation to suit our finite minds.

But just because some interpretations are more accessible to our minds doesn't make them more accurate depictions of what God is up to.

And what about the contingencies on the (literal) promised land under the Old Covenant? There was some responsibility involved too, not just free cotton candy.

Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers.
- Deuteronomy 8:1

The proven outcome, however, of the old covenant and the law, was that nobody could follow it or afford the fees. No sooner was a person returning from offering a sacrifice than Whoops, I did it again. I hate it when that happens... time to turn around and head back for the temple. Now I'm really going to be late for supper.

God's creation couldn't hold up our end of the bargain. Surprise: God knew this ahead of time.

And when many disasters and difficulties come upon them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath."
- Deuteronomy 31:21

And on a practical level, what would the Pat Robertsons of the world -- with their determined allegiance to the tiny plot of physical land that they imply represents God's little yard on this planet which must not be divided, oh no -- what would these advocates recommend be done about the Palestinian people who today live there as well? Bid them farewell? Move them somewhere? Where? Let them be refugees to fend for themselves? On what basis?

What about Jesus' constant teaching and demonstration of love for the poor, the downtrodden, the persecuted, the hungry, the ostracized and disenfranchised? What about justice, and injustice? What about love and mercy?

What about the sheep and the goats, a.k.a. those who serve the poor and those who don't? Jesus could have tempered or qualified these words in Matthew 25, but he did not.

To anyone who is a follower of Jesus, perhaps even including Mr. Robertson... what does the God you claim to follow, and your God's Bible, and your God's only Son, really say on the whole about the promised land? And how should whatever we learn on this learning journey inform our political participation, our moral responsibility, our rhetoric, and our love for God and love for our neighbor?

It's curious, how if we allow it to, a literal chunk of soil could possibly expand to completely occupy our tunnel vision about Jerusalem and the promises of God, at the exclusion of so much else that God has also revealed about truth and the reconciliation of all creation.

I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

- Revelation 21:1-5

There is an interesting story on BBC's website about the annual Voodoo Festival in Benin, the origin of the practice of voodoo. Prayers and animal sacrifices are offered in this annual festival.

Voodoo is an official religion in Benin, the West African country where about 60% of the country's seven million people practise it.

Forms of voodoo also exist in Togo, Ghana, Haiti and Brazil.

It's interesting to read the comments in this article about voodoo, posted by many people from all over the world, many of them Africans.

If you have the time, I encourage you to read them, prayerfully, and think about these questions as you do, and as you find yourself responding in agreement or disagreement with various comments:

• Why do I agree or disagree with this comment or perspective?
• Is it an emotional response, or intellectual, or spiritual?
• What scripture comes to mind that speaks to this perspective, either endorsing or contradicting what is said?
• How do I judge and evaluate truth and falsehood, while not judging human beings that God created and loves?
• If Jesus walked among the Annual Voodoo Festival, in what ways might he interact with the people?
  

Here's the story and comments. (news.bbc.co.uk)

Also, note that there is an IFES group of Christian students in Benin. Pray for them!

Here's their website, translated via Google from French.

In this news story in Italy (Did Jesus Exist?) a man is suing his childhood friend in an attempt to settle his assertion that Jesus did not exist and that Christianity is a fraud.

Luigi Cascioli claims that priest Enrico Righi, his former friend from teenage years and his seminary buddy, and by extension the whole Church, has broken two Italian laws.

The first alleged offense is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona," or impersonation.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of historians and scholars today do not question the historical existence of Jesus nor the existence of the teachings with which Jesus is credited.

On the other hand, there are atheists who dispute the evidence that Jesus lived and died in first-century Palestine. They do this not necessarily out of serious scholarship of history and literature, but in some cases starting from a preferred alternate conclusion and working backward.

This news story reminds us that every single human being makes choices of faith, and there are many influences on those choices, including influences that may repel us from certain faith choices, and influences that may attract us to certain faith choices.

Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is

"being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Every person chooses to have faith in something.

A scientist who might choose to have faith in science alone can't prove all aspects of science, and can't explain how everything that exists got its start, but might find enough foundation to form a basis for his or her faith, sometimes at the chosen exclusion of other beliefs. Other scientists are able to thoughtfully integrate their science with other spiritual beliefs.

A Muslim chooses to have faith in the Quran as believed to have been revealed to the prophet Muhammed. You might observe that part of that faith choice, at least in its popular form in Islam today, is to discard or de-emphasize as inferior the prior written revelations from Allah including the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament), and the Injil (the Gospels).

Although Islamic teaching holds that it is impossible for Allah's revealed word to be destroyed or corrupted, most Muslims do not have an explanation for how these prior revelations from God would be destroyed or corrupted (where did they go?), or why some of the revelation from the Quran and teachings from the Sunna would contradict the prior revelations from Allah.

The point here is not to start a debate with Muslims, this is not the forum for that. My point here is to show that faith is faith... it's based on a series of influences, assumptions, and choices. At some point for every person there is a decision to simply believe (or disbelieve), and I would confidently say it is never entirely based on irrefutable evidence, because we are finite.

We can be gullible creatures; and it appears that we're plenty vulnerable to undue, ungrounded influences on the assumptions that inform our faith choices.

Faith isn't fact. An atheist can't prove there is no god, any more than a believer can prove there is.

A Buddhist, Christian, or follower of any other faith starts from certain assumptions, and in many cases never returns to question those assumptions, either because it doesn't occur to them beyond a certain point, or because it may be a difficult and uncertain process to question prior assumptions.

Faith is faith.

We are, after all, talking about human perception of an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful God (if you are inclined to believe God does exist), and by definition our minds are not going to comprehend and map out the fullness of this God. (Unless we have decided to believe we ARE God, which I personally believe is the most foundation-less faith choice out of all the options one might consider. But it's an arbitrary step, or leap, of faith that some people do make.) 

There's also nominal faith, which can be found in virtually every society -- association with a faith system as part of one's cultural clothing. In this case, the real faith of the person is not in their outward religious association, but rather in something else. Nominal faith is just a familiar outward framework, usually a "safe place" in society. In the life of someone with nominal faith, motivation for living and conviction about what's most important comes from somewhere else.

I have been in friendship with nominal Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even a nominal atheist who couldn't really explain why he was an atheist. Nominal faith is usually a "default setting."

Choosing to postpone faith is also a choice of faith.

So, what influences our faith?

• things we hear and experience
• things we were taught as children
• things our parents and extended family believe
• things we hear and observe that are convincing and seem to be true
• things our society accepts or rejects
• things we are convinced by our society to pursue, like consumerism or pleasure
• internal natural inclinations toward self-benefit rather than self-sacrifice
• aversion to fear, pain, conflict, etc.
  
• desire for love, acceptance, security
• ideas put forth in written scriptures believed to have been revealed by God
• ideas we decide to reject (influencing in turn which ideas we will embrace)
• hypocrisy we may observe at any age which (rightly or wrongly) turns us off to an associated faith system
  
• questions that may well up within us or be introduced by outside influences, for which we long to find satisfying answers
• the spirit of God within us
  

In my opinion probably the biggest two influences over genuine faith are the spirit of God within us, and being made in God's image (both of which are themselves, obviously, points of faith -- not everyone holds these assumptions). If we're made in God's image as I believe we are, part of our makeup is a yearning for truth, meaning, and restored relationship with the one who created us. If we respond to this inclination, by definition we are moving toward a closer relationship with God rather than away.

I find it invigorating to discuss faith with people, including those who have chosen other places to put their faith than what I have chosen. I have to believe, based on everything I see in the written scriptures of my own faith and in the spirit of God that speaks, that God cares about and willingly interacts with and offers a path to every person who seeks to know God and God's truth, wanting and working for this desire to come to fruition.

I don't know about suing people who disagree with my own faith convictions like this man in Italy is doing, but I would be priviledged if I could be a significant catalyst of the faith journey for those with whom I have a friendship; just as others -- Christians and non-Christians, made in God's image -- have played this role in my own life.

Consider this interaction from Mark's Gospel between Jesus and a man whose son was possessed by a spirit.

A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not."

"Oh, unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me."

So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?"

"From childhood," he answered. "It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us."

" 'If you can'? " said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."

Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil spirit. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again."

The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.

After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting."

Honest faith acknowledges its own vulnerability and shortcoming, yet as an ongoing journey, faith can provide real hope and even a certainty in things that we do not see with physical eyesight.

What have we learned about nonviolence in the last forty-some years?

"I have a dream," are the famous words uttered in 1963, and which we remember today. As we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's 77th birthday I find myself wondering what lasting changes might have materialized in this country, about which Dr. King dreamed and for which he struggled and ultimately gave up his life.

In part of his famous speech he said,

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

As we look at the United States today, it would be a stretch to argue that we have yet lived into this dream as a nation.

The most prominent example of this for me today is that we are almost three years into a war that our government initiated, against the advice and judgement of most of the rest of the world and in violation of international law. Over a hundred thousand lives, mostly civilians, have been cut short. Some hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this and we're only midstream. Although hope may not be lost, after three years there is no resolution yet in sight, and no decrease in violence or the loss of life.

Preemptive war, especially when it doesn't meet even half of the criteria of "just war" theory, is a very long way from MLK's dream and his words above. I wish I could claim otherwise, but the words above just don't reconcile with the war in Iraq.

Our nation is also in an ongoing abstract "war on terror" where the enemy (terror) is elusive and faceless. In my observation we only very briefly in the few weeks following 9/11, and even then only a segment of our nation, took a posture of serious introspection about how our conduct and influence in the world might provoke some people to such hatred and violence toward our country; and how we might reasonably conduct ourselves differently so as not to unnecessarily provoke such a response.

As a nation we are not meeting this challenge with anything that resembles "creative protest" or "soul force" as Dr. King pointed us to, but rather primarily with physical force.

So as a nation, we have almost nothing to teach the world about nonviolence or peacemaking, which happen to be prominent characteristics of the character of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.

What about the church?

To some extent, even the church (in the U.S.) is somewhat complicit here. Not all, but sizeable segments of the American church have endorsed our nation's pursuit of this war.

Meanwhile, I personally know people for whom the American church's silence or tacit support of violence in the form of covert and overt armed conflict in other parts of the world is a deep offense that has repelled or prevented them from considering Christ on his own terms. In essense, out of a similar indignation as Jesus showed toward sinfulness and hypocrisy in his day, these people who do not yet follow Jesus are stumbling over some of the messengers, without having been offered the opportunity to simply engage the Message.

These offenses -- if and when we cause people to stumble in their journey toward faith in God -- are the kinds of offenses that Jesus is expected to examine when he returns as judge, and they should make all of us tremble and pause for prayerful introspection -- as individuals and also as a nation.

Looking domestically, our society is increasingly full of violence. Prisons are overflowing. It's no longer the sole domain of postal workers (or terrorists) to reach a point of exasperation that leads them to a shooting spree. We've seen even young school children reach this place as well. The likelihood of committing gun (or any form of) violence increases significantly for those who have witnessed gun (or any form of) violence.

We see physical force everywhere. Police brutality. Primetime television. The school playground. Our neighborhoods. Domestic abuse. Gang violence. Out-of-control parents at their kids' sporting events; or athletes and spectators for that matter.

Violence is common in our media, news, commercials, and entertainment. Some video games are rated M for "mature," as if to keep younger children from playing them (many will anyway). But what "mature" adult at what age is somehow appropriately prepared to get a legitimate or healthy entertainment fix by committing acts of brutal violence and murder against other human beings in a virtual game world? And who can seriously claim that these virtual playgrounds never spill over into real life?

Somewhat understandably, in a consumer society, nonviolence does not sell. People refraining from something is not "news" and it's not very entertaining.

So we can celebrate MLK's birthday today, and close schools and government offices today, but in what way if any has our generation materialized Dr. King's dreams? Where in our world do we see models of people meeting physical force with "soul force" as MLK dreamed of? I believe they're out there, in micro examples of individual lives and choices, but they don't make the headlines. We need to go far out of our way to hear these stories, if we can find them.

Gandhi, the well known advocate for nonviolent resistance, in reference to Jesus and the old testament prophets, predicted the outcome of answering violence with violence in this way: "...an eye for an eye, making the whole world blind..."

Like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man and we celebrate his life, but as a follower of Jesus he was inspired by someone greater.

In his the famous Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" Here, Jesus was quoting the law of the Old Covenant, which by his life and death and resurrection he came to both fulfill as well as to make complete. If the Old Covenant -- The Law -- was sufficient there would have been no need for a New Covenant. If it was already complete Jesus would not have come to make it complete.

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

This last sentence is a reference to a practice of Roman soldiers who would unfairly and arbitrarily enlist citizens to carry their gear for a mile for no compensation.

In other words, Jesus is saying, live a life of extravagant generosity and service, even in the context of injustice or the abuse of power. Un-do the un-justice of oppression by your obedience to Jesus. Go the extra mile.

According to Jesus, what is an appropriate response to terrorism or violence? Are we really called to "rid the world of evildoers," or are we called to meet violence with mercy, and hatred with love rather than force?

"Do not resist an evil person." Did Jesus really mean that? I think so. When Jesus was beaten, pierced, crucified, did he respond with any hint of violence? No, he did not even curse his enemies. He prayed for them. "Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing."

OK, so he was God in human form, and we're not. In response to his teachings, Jesus' own disciples murmered to each other (as they probably did many other times), "This is a hard teaching; who can accept it?"

Granted, it's much easier for me to look externally at the decisions of others and question or even condemn their use of physical violence based on Jesus' teaching than it is for me to look at my own heart and invite God to make me a more nonviolent person.

I don't think of myself as a violent person to begin with. In my 42 years I have hit someone in anger or self defense maybe twice. But many more times than two, I have thought angry and essentially violent thoughts toward others, regardless of the reason I might have hoped my indignation was justified.

As one who is influenced not only by my own faith in Jesus Christ, but also by my society and the media of our culture, the violent imagery in the "entertainment" I expose myself to, and the very real violence in our world which is portrayed in the news, I am sometimes surprised to find I have quite violent impulses inside when I see injustice or when I see violence meted out on others. While I do not act out on them, Jesus makes it clear that the inclinations of my mind and heart are tantamount to action.

As the songwriter Bruce Cockburn sarcastically observes about this destructive cycle of the instinct to stop violence by force, "If I had a rocket launcher I'd make somebody pay."

Jesus does not appear to leave wiggle room for any notion that violent thought or action is justified in some cases.

We could easily forget that while God does call us to be a conduit of justice in this world, God never actually put us in charge of physically carrying out our carnal idea of a deserved consequence in the heat of the moment. We are warned against putting ourselves in the judge's seat.

One of the things I've learned as I've tried to follow Jesus is that he doesn't call his followers to do things that are impossible. They may well seem quite impossible. But if the act of following Jesus had no supernatural element to it, it would be just a human effort. Jesus didn't call us to help with simple chores, he called us to take up a cross and follow his radical example.

Jesus acknowledged this in Matthew 19 when the astonished disciples, hearing his teaching about how difficult it is for a rich man to "get eternal life" by his own actions, said "Who then can be saved?" Jesus makes a way to do the impossible that he calls us to do, if we choose to follow him. "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Taking up the cross and following Jesus is not possible on a human level. Nor is meeting violence with love. But both are possible through the supernatural work of God living in us.

To be fair, I should acknowledge that there is some intense violence in the Old Testament, sometimes even apparently sanctioned by God, and I don't understand some of it in light of the other characteristics of God's character revealed to us in scripture. And Jesus says in Matthew 10, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Still, I don't have much difficulty agreeing with Dr. King that the net effect of Jesus' teaching is that mercy, love and peace are the answer to hatred and physical force. But the meaning of these parts of the Old Testament, and Jesus' words here, make up one of the faith mysteries that I pray and wrestle to understand.

Be they Dr. King's or our own, dreams are not nullified if we fall short of them. Dreams are a mark on which we set our sights, and we push forward toward that mark in spite of how far we still have to go.

Paul says in Philippians 3:
"Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."

What would "soul force" look like in simple terms, for we who live in a violent world, have a multitude of influences toward violence, but a stronger belief in God's preference for non-violence?

It would start with individuals, then communities, then churches across our nation and around the world, striving toward what Jesus highlighted as the two biggest dreams God has laid out for how we should live our lives: A) to love the lord our God with all our heart, mind and soul, and B) to love our neighbor -- whomever God brings into our path -- more than we love ourselves.

May God do supernatural things in our hearts every day so that we can meet physical force with soul force, with lives of creative protest.

You can read the text of MLK's "I have a dream" speech here.

an accidental symbol
for this season
to begin with

oh christmas tree
which for a time
lived among us

and we saw your
glory, light of
grace and truth

now you wait broken
and forsaken by
the cold curb

to be chipped into
mulch for the sake
of future trees

a better metaphor
than ever intended
of a love appended

and in early
observance, here
comes a winter rain.