Nor can I imagine the feelings of whoever penned Psalm 137, the psalm that begins, “By the waters of Babylon — there we sat down and there we wept.” This psalm is often set to music, but never do we sing the last three verses:

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of
Jerusalem’s fall, how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear
it down! Down to its foundations!’

O daughter Babylon,
you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay
you back what you have done to us!

Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them
against the rock!
Most of us just can’t fathom the hurt and anger of those terrible verses. It’s easier to sing of picturesque waters of Babylon than to put our selves in the place of those who would happily kill children.

That this and similar passages appear in Scripture is evidence that God is all too familiar with the feelings and twisted logic that motivate acts of terror. What, after all, could justify nailing an innocent man to a cross? I suppose it’s the same anger, fear, and loathing that motivates two young men to set off bombs in crowded places.
God alone knows our hearts, and God alone judges our actions. May God have mercy on us all.

The Shelter is now a full-fledged agency with close to a million-dollar budget.  It has been many years since I was on the Board of Directors of the Shelter.  I have no role in its governance, but I do have a heart for its mission.

I do not want to second-guess the Shelter’s Board.  I have good friends on that Board whom I respect.  I have every confidence that they are doing their best to address the issues raised in recent weeks.  All I want to do in this column is make some observations about how the scene has changed since the Shelter’s early days.

• Mel Eby, the Shelter’s Executive Director, has become the face, voice, and public persona of the Shelter.  As the Shelter’s website puts it, Mel is “Our Legendary Director.”  I can think of no other agency in town that is so closely identified with its Executive Director.  As with every charismatic leader, passions run high when Mel’s name comes up.  I know people (some homeless, some not) who speak of Mel in reverential tones. I know others who regard him as a less-than-benevolent dictator.  (I know pastors who evoke similar passions.)

• The population of people dealing with homelessness has grown.  We thought we had a problem back in 1986.  In the last point-in-time survey, the tally reached almost 1,000.  The actual number is probably four times that total.

• The demand for the Shelter’s services far exceeds its capacity.  About 200 people sleep in, or near, the Shelter every night.  That’s roughly double the number of beds inside the building.  People who aren’t assigned bunk beds sleep on mats on the floor; others sleep outside.  The Shelter has been operating in “overload mode” for years.

• Programs to address homelessness have expanded.  In addition to the Hope Community operated by the Coalition for the Homeless, there are programs for veterans and programs targeted for the “chronically homeless.”  These are the people who comprise about 16% of the homeless population, but use the lion’s share of services.  Several church-based ministries also provide housing.  In other words, the Shelter is one of several agencies battling homelessness.  By no means are these services meeting all the needs of homeless neighbors.

• A splendid model of inter-agency cooperation has emerged.  The Renaissance Community Center, funded entirely by  private dollars, has proven that agencies can work together to help people coping with homelessness.

• NIMBYism is here to stay.  Back in the late 80’s it was relatively easy to set up a shelter on West Tennessee Street.  The City and County were helpful, and there was little neighborhood opposition.  That dynamic has changed.  These days it is much more difficult to find a home for people who have no home.

A crisis, painful as it can be, can also be an opportunity.  Now is the time for our community to re-think our approach.  We can’t continue to cram people into an inadequate building.  And we can’t we rely on a single person to be the face and conscience of the community.  As grateful as I am to Mel and to the Shelter Board, we have to move forward.  The focus must be on what’s best for neighbors who are homeless.

As managers scramble to cut their budgets, programs that provide housing vouchers for poor and disabled neighbors – many of them elderly – will suffer.  So will WIC, the program that helps low-income moms get milk and healthy food for babies, infants, toddlers and young children.

The New York Times reports: “In Washington and across the country, families and individuals generally need to have very low incomes to be eligible for federal assistance. Public housing residents in Washington have an average annual income of just $12,911. More than 40 percent are either children or the elderly, and more than a quarter live with a disability. In the (housing) voucher program, the annual income is even lower, just over $10,000 a year, and similarly large proportions of residents are elderly, disabled or young” (“Where the Cuts Will Fall,” March 4, 2013).

People can disagree about whom to blame for this meat-cleaver approach to fiscal policy.  Is it the Democrats for holding out for a “balanced approach” to reducing the federal deficit or is it the Republicans for refusing to consider any increase in revenue?  I’m tempted to say “A plague on both your houses.”  I have my own opinion about who bears the greater responsibility, but my opinion won’t keep disabled, elderly neighbors from losing their homes or put nutritious food in the stomachs of poor children.

I believe government should play a role in caring for the most vulnerable among us.  I also believe that this nation has the resources to care for what the Bible calls “the least of these.”  The question isn’t capacity; it’s priority.

The 25^th chapter of Matthew makes it clear who is served by programs that assist the very poor and who it is who will suffer most from sequestration. It’s the Lord who says, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me” (Matt. 25:45).

It’s a truism that “God, Guns, and Country” are closely associated with a certain strain of Christianity.  While I respect Christian brothers and sisters who disagree, I find it very hard to conceive of Jesus endorsing the NRA’s position.  The song “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition” was a hit back in 1942 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but these days that sentiment makes me cringe.  “WWJP” (What Would Jesus Pack)?  The answer is not found in the text of the Second Amendment.

Even though I have strong convictions about this issue, I hope that the discussion does not end up generating more heat than light.  One of the goals of the Village Square is to provide a model of thoughtful, reasonable discussion of controversial matters.  I’m open to perspectives different from mine and am willing to be persuaded.  I don’t want the discussion to disintegrate into ad hominem attacks and slogan slinging.

Maybe the planners thought a guy wearing a clerical collar would be a calming influence.  If so, they obviously don’t know me well.  Nevertheless, I will strive to treat my interlocutors as I would like to be treated.  I’m sure Jesus would approve of that.

I received an e-mail from a grandmother in Pensacola who is passionate about this issue.  She wants elected officials to:

1) ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds,
2) require background checks for all gun purchasers,
3) report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF,
4) limit the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.

I don’t see anything on that agenda about banning all guns.  I do see what look to me like common sense approaches to a serious problem.  Actions like this will not eliminate the gunlust that plagues our culture, but they might be steps in the right direction.

At any rate, the discussion on February 28 at 6:00 p.m. at St. John’s Episcopal Church ought to be interesting.  I just hope all the salvos will be rhetorical.

Sometimes the panel brings in another person to help with the discussion.  Dr. Richard Mashburn did an excellent job this month leading a discussion about racial inclusion in religious congregations.  For the February 8^th meeting I’ve been asked to lead a discussion about social justice.

I’m certainly no expert on the subject, but I do regard “the promotion of social righteousness and the exhibition of the Kingdom of heaven to the world” as two of the “Great Ends of the Church.”  Whatever I say has to be brief and targeted to a mixed audience of believers, non-believers, seekers, and people who just like to take part in a stimulating conversation.  Here are some points I want to make:

• Social justice is key to Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
• Biblically speaking, “justice” or “righteousness” is both individual and social.
• Genuine “spirituality” demands justice.  Perhaps you can be spiritual without being religious, but you can’t be spiritual and ignore the call to justice.
• Biblical justice involves both the right administration of law (judicial) and the fair allotment of the earth’s resources (distributive).
• Biblical “prophecy” is not about predicting the future as much as it is a call to justice.
• Jesus stands in the line of Biblical prophets.  Although Christians believe he was more than a prophet, he was at the very least a prophet.
• Christians distort the gospel when they emphasize “charity” to the exclusion of “justice.”  (Christmas baskets for migrant worker families are good; just wages for farm works are better.)
• The way forward for inter-religious dialogue lies not in papering over our dogmatic differences, but in pursuing a just society together.
• From a Christian point of view, it doesn’t matter if we don’t win on every issue.  The point  is faithfulness.  (For Calvinists the point is gratitude!).  Ultimately, God’s will shall be done with our without our help.

If I have time, I want to mention justice causes right here in Tallahassee that need the attention of our faith communities.

What do you think?  Send me your ideas.  I could use all the help I can get.  My e-mail is brant@oldfirstchurch.org.  The program on February 8 at First Baptist Church begins at noon and is free to the public.  If you want to eat the excellent cooking of the First Baptist cooks, come at 11:30 and pay $10.00.  To register, go to www.tothevillagesquare.org.

Last Sunday I broke the rules (sort of).  I included the non-baptized in the invitation to the Lord’s Table.

There is a lively debate going on amongst theologians about whether the Lord’s Supper (Communion/Eucharist) should be open to those who are not baptized.  The Presbyterian Church (USA)  Book of Order states that “all the baptized faithful are to be welcomed to the Table,” but in effect “fences” the Table from the unbaptized.  To limit the invitation to the Table to the baptized is in keeping with the practice of the early Church and two millennia of tradition.

However, Jesus himself practiced “open commensality,” as one theologian puts it.  He dined with sinners and outcasts, including the folks orthodox religionists of his day rejected.  The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which is rooted in the meals of Jesus as well as the Passover Seder, anticipates the eschatological Supper of the Lamb, to which people “from north and south, from east and west” will come.  The Supper is more than a ritual meal for the community of the faithful; it’s a symbol of God’s inclusive love for the whole world.  That being the case, “fencing” the Table seems inconsistent with the gospel.

I would never want to sever the link between Baptism and Communion.  Baptism is the sign of entrance and welcome into the covenant community.  Communion is the “family meal” of the household of God, but it is more than that.  To eat and drink at the Table is to offer oneself as “living sacrifice” in service to the Triune God.

Although it is hospitable to open the Table to all present, I would not want the Eucharist to be reduced to a ritual of mere hospitality.  There is a mystery at the heart of the Supper.  It is, spiritually, a sharing of the body and blood of Christ.  Who should be invited to share that mystery?  Only the baptized?  Or should the Supper be open to those seeking the “the way, the truth, and life?”

Central to Reformed theology is the notion of “prevenient grace.”  Divine grace always “goes ahead” of human response.  If Presbyterians didn’t believe this, we’d have no business baptizing infants.  The same grace enacted in Baptism is the grace enacted in the Supper.  When we baptize – and when we come to the Table – we are responding to the Spirit’s gracious prompting.

Last Sunday was the Feast of Epiphany.  Epiphany it is the celebration of God’s manifestation to the Gentiles – outsiders.  The Magi remind us that we do not control the workings of God’s grace revealed in Jesus Christ.  Standing at the Table last Sunday, I could not NOT welcome everyone who is hungry to come to the feast.  By broadening the invitation to the Table I broke (or at least bent) the rules.  That goes against my nature as a Presbyterian.  Sometimes, however, grace trumps decency and order.

If the Session of my church concurs, I’d like to change the wording in the bulletin regarding who is welcomed to the Table to something along these lines:  The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is open to Christians of all denominations and to all those who are hungry for the Bread of Life.  Our Savior invites all who love and wish to serve him to share this holy meal.

On the third Sunday of Advent, while the news from Newtown was fresh,  he was still around, just like Old Dan Tucker.  A voice still crying in the wilderness.

This week it has been funeral after funeral, memorial service after memorial service, in Newtown, Connecticut and surrounding communities.  I opened the morning paper on Friday to see ads for last-minute sales of a toy version of the MP5 assault rifle.

There is still time to buy your child a scaled-down model of the gun that killed 20 school children.  On the other hand, there is still time to repent.

I’d hoped that the National Rifle Association, silent for a week, would come out with a reasonable proposal to end the sale of weapons that no earthly use except to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Never place your hopes in the N.R.A.

On the Fourth Sunday of Advent Mary sings her “Magnificat.”  My congregation will hear this prayer, written by John Bell with verses added by this pastor:

Though hope desert our hearts,
though strangeness fill our souls,
though truth torment our troubled minds,
you have been here before.

Though confidence run dry,
though weary flesh be sore,
though conversation bear no fruit,
you have been here before.

Though havoc haunt our dreams,
though grief impose its dread
though parents weep and nations mourn,
you have been here before.

In Christ who, on the cross,
felt all our hurt and more,
and cried in deep abandonment,
you have been here before.

There is no threatening place,
no trial we could know
which has not known your presence first:
you have been here before.

Through Mary’s song of  joy,
through advent born of pain,
help us to welcome you anew,
O come, Lord, as before.

I never intended to cease praying for loved ones in danger. (I thought that was clear, but obviously it wasn’t), but rather to offer those prayers without endorsing the “Support the Troops” jingoism that has become endemic in American culture.  When a professor at the United States Naval Academy and an officer in the Marine Corps warns that “Uncritical support of all things martial is quickly becoming the new normal for our youth,” I think its behooves Christians to pay attention.  It is one thing to pray for loved ones in the military.  It’s another to bless militarism.

The discussion also revealed resentment that the names of military personnel are printed in the Lord’s Day order for worship while the names of others are read out loud.  The perception seems to be that military folks are given short shrift if their names are not voiced.

I have to admit that hadn’t occurred to me.  For me, it seemed sensible to print a list that hardly changes from week to week, and to read aloud a list that has constant updates.  My notion was that the assembly could hold the people on both lists in prayer without ranking them.  I’m certain God doesn’t rank them.

We’ll probably go back to the practice of reading all the names on the prayer list out loud.  However, that approach also prompts objections.  At least one thoughtful church member thinks that practice leads to the trivialization of prayer — so many names and so little time.  That person would rather we print all the names and take a good deal more time for intercession during the Lord’s Day service.

As a worship planner and leader, I just have to do the best I can.  Not everyone will approve, of course, but it is nice to know how passionate people are about prayer.  That warms this pastor’s heart.

Uncritical support of all things martial is quickly becoming the new normal for our youth. Hardly any of my students at the Naval Academy remember a time when their nation wasn’t at war. Almost all think it ordinary to hear of drone strikes in Yemen or Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. The recent revelation of counterterrorism bases in Africa elicits no surprise in them, nor do the military ceremonies that are now regular features at sporting events. That which is left unexamined eventually becomes invisible, and as a result, few Americans today are giving sufficient consideration to the full range of violent activities the government undertakes in their names.

Regarding the spiritual impact of militarization, Mr. O’Connell writes:

But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.

I began including Lord’s Day prayers for loved ones in military service shortly after 9/11.  As a child of the Viet Nam era, I wanted to be sure that, in a time of national crisis, we did not demonize those who serve in uniform.  Then came the invasion of Iraq, which I felt was unjustified.  To me, it didn’t matter that I did not support that war.  I felt it was pastorally appropriate to pray for those in danger.

I have become increasingly uncomfortable with that long list of names of military personnel we print in the bulletin every Sunday.  What began as concern for those in harm’s way has become, I fear, an endorsement of perpetual war.  I still want to pray for those in danger, but I wonder if I have unwittingly undermined the Gospel’s message of peace.

I’m open to suggestions.  Is there a better way to pray for those we love without endorsing the increasing militarization of our nation?

Miroslav Volf, Director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture, has written an extremely helpful guide for Christians who vote.  He discusses Christian values, the biblical rationale for those values, and the questions that should be asked.  His paper is too long to quote in its entirety, but can be found here. These are the values Volf  thinks should guide Christians. (Everything below is excerpted from Volf’s paper).

0. Christ as the Measure of All Values

The ultimate allegiance of a Christian is to Jesus Christ, the creative Word (become flesh) who enlightens everyone, and the redeeming Lamb of God who bears the sin of the whole world. Christian ought not embrace any practice, no matter how prudent it may seem from the standpoint of national security or national competitive advantage, which conflicts with their allegiance to Christ.

1. Freedom of Religion (and Irreligion)

All people are responsible for their own lives, and they have the right to embrace a faith or way of life they deem meaningful and abandon that with which they no longer identify without suffering discrimination.

2. Education

It is important for all citizens to understand the world in which they live, to learn to reflect critically on what makes life worth living, and to acquire qualifications for jobs that increasingly require complex skills. We should strive for excellent and affordable education  for all citizens.

3. Economic Growth

Economic growth is not a value in its own right because increasing wealth and money are not values in their own right. They are means—indispensible means, but only means—to human flourishing, which consists more in righteousness than in possessions.

4. Work and Employment

Every person should have meaningful and, if employed for pay, adequately remunerated work. All able citizens should work to take care of their needs and to contribute to the well being of others and the planet.

5. Debt

As individuals and as a nation, we should live within our means and not borrow beyond what we can reasonably expect to return; we shouldn’t offload onto others, whether our contemporaries or future generations, the price of our overreaching or risk‐taking; instead, we should save so as to be able to give to others who are less fortunate then we.

6. The Poor

The poor—above all those without adequate food or shelter—deserve our special concern.

7. The Elderly

Those who are frail on account of their advanced age deserve our special help. They need adequate medical assistance, social interaction, and meaningful activities. (The humanity of a society is measured, perhaps especially, by how itmtreats those no longer capable of doing “useful” work.)

8. Unborn

Unborn human life, just like fully developed human life, deserves our respect, protection, and nurture.  (Volf acknowledges that there is a legitimate debate about the point at which life that can plausibly be deemed human begins and whether the best way to reduce abortions is to criminalize abortion or to improve the living conditions of the poor (for instance, through fighting poverty in inner cities, providing education for women, making available affordable child‐care).

9. Healthcare

All people—poor or rich—should have access to affordable basic healthcare, just as all are responsible for living in a way conducive to physical and mental health.

10. Care for Creation

We are part of God’s creation; we must seek to preserve the integrity of God’s creation as an  interdependent ecosystem; and, if possible, pass it on to the future generations improved. Above all, we should not damage creation by leading lifestyles marked by acquisitiveness and wastefulness.

11. Death Penalty

Death should never be punishment for a crime. Since out of love Christ died for every human being (“the world”), no one should rob a human being of a chance to be transformed by God’s love, and no one should put to death a human being who has been transformed by God’s love.

12. Criminal Offenders

Mere retributive punishment is an inadequate and mistaken way of dealing with offenders. We need to find creative ways to reconcile offenders to their victims and reintegrate them into the society.

13. World Hunger

Given the world’s resources, no human being should go hungry. As individuals and as a nation, we should be committed to complete eradication of hunger

14. Equality of Nations

No nation represents an exception to the requirements of justice that should govern relations between nations. America should exert its unique international power by doing what is just and should pursue its own interests in concert with other nations of the world.

15. War

War is almost never justifiable, and every successful justification has to show how a particular war is an instance of loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies.

16. Torture

We should never torture. It dehumanizes both the detainee and the interrogator by violating the dignity of the one and degrading the integrity of the other, and it erodes the moral character of the nation approving it

17. Honoring Everyone

We should honor every human being and respect all faiths (without necessarily affirming them as true). As citizens, we have the right to mock another religion, but as followers of Christ, we have a moral obligation not to

18. Public Role of Religion

Every citizen—religious or not, Christian, Jew, or Muslim—has the right to bring his or her own perspectives on human flourishing and on the common good to bear upon public life and to do so on equal terms with everyone else.

19. Truthfulness

Those seeking public office should foreswear spin and contempt, being truthful with the public and civil to one another. You can “advertise” but not fabricate; you can criticize but not disrespect.

20. Character

Competence (technical expertise, including emotional intelligence), though essential, matters less than character because knowledge, though crucial, matters less than love.

Personal note: I voted on October 28 after our church sponsored “Souls the the Polls.”  Now I am free to help on Election Day.