Coronavirus...

How sad it is that some are making the COVID-19 epidemic a political issue, when it is a medical threat to the well-being of so many, particularly those at risk (currently defined as seniors and those with medical conditions that compromise their ability to fight this aggressive virus).

COVID-19 is a respiratory virus that is easily spread. Rigorous hand-washing, limiting "touch greetings" such as hugging and hand-shaking, and avoiding public crowds or other large gatherings of people are ways to help curb the spread of the virus and to avoid being infected, oneself.

As has been reported, wearing facial masks is only effective if YOU have the virus, and helps prevent you spreading it to others around you by coughing, sneezing, or even breathing in close proximity to others. Masks are generally not helpful in preventing infection for the wearer, as they don't adequately screen airborne droplets that may contain the virus. Don't go buy masks, as this has depleted the supply from those who legitimately need them, especially those in the medical field.

St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Allison Park will be following the advice from the Allegheny Health Department, and is seeking to comply with the recommendations emanating from the Center for Disease Control (the CDC). Here are the current precautions we are taking:

-curtailing hand-shaking and other "touch" greetings in our weekend greeting lines

-dispensing hand-sanitizer to all taking Holy Communion at our 8:30AM Communion Service

-cancelling Communion on Palm Sunday, April 5, at all services except the 8:30AM service

-encouraging any members and friends who may be in one of the "at risk" groups to refrain from attending public worship until the crisis has lifted

-encouraging any of our folk who are ill to stay home and attend to your health

As I mentioned earlier, if more stringent measures are recommended (or, heaven forbid, required) by the health officials, we will certainly cooperate. We are also taking measures to "live stream" one of our weekend worship services so those who are forced to stay home, or choose to, may "tune in" and participate remotely.

I believe these measures to be prudent, and in keeping with the love and concern for persons modeled by Jesus. We should not take this "Coronavirus" lightly, as it may be a life-threatening issue for some in our community. Besides, the precautions we take and the systems we create to limit the spread of it may also prepare us for the potential spread of other, more dangerous viruses that may come our way in this age of the "superbugs." Being careful is putting "feet to our prayers."

Our prayers continue to be with those who have lost loved ones to this virus, and for those both infected and exposed to it. It is a time for smart actions and wise counsel, and certainly a time to pay close attention to the experts in the medical and scientific communities. Please do not listen to some of the "Christian" charlatans who are using prayer as their only prophylactic or selling the latest incarnation of "snake oil" as a cure for it. And while a healthy diet may benefit you in many ways, and even "boost" your immune system, it will not shield you from viruses.

Keep your wits about you, beloved. Don't give in to inordinate fears over COVID-19, but don't listen to those who tell you not to be reasonable and prudent with your health! The more we work together, the quicker we will see this threat pass, and the more folk will be spared even the harm of exposure. Shalom, Dear Ones!

Rest in Peace, Lawrence Tesler...

The New York Times reported this week that Lawrence Tesler died at 74. "Who in the world was Lawrence Tesler," you may ask?

In the 1970s, Tesler was a young researcher at Xerox, working on computers.

Computers then were massive "mainframe" devices that used cathode ray tube (CRT) workstations to input data, an improvement over the punch cards which were their predecessors. But still, input had to be in the form of some type of "code" to write programs, and text typed cryptically into "command lines" to run them. One needed to be pretty computer savvy to run and use a simple word processing program in those days, and editing a document produced on one required either memorizing a thousand "alt-esc" or "^" commands, or having a massive template taped to your keyboard. Even when the first "luggable portable" computers came onto the market, with their "green screens" and crude cursors, one still needed to be a "geek" to use "Wordstar" or "Lotus 123."

Tesler thought computers should be easier to use. "Wouldn't it be nice if, when editing text on the screen, what you SEE is what you GET," and moving around through the text wouldn't require holding down one of those little arrow keys for 30 seconds? So, he spearheaded inventing a more user-friendly screen format that came to be known as WYSIWYG (pronounced "wizzywig," but obviously standing for What You See Is What You Get). The screen would resemble how the final printed page. And to move around the text? How about a small box with a button on the top, connected to a wire "tail" to the computer? Tail? Let's call it a "mouse," he thought. He and his team went on to invent things we take for granted like "blocking text" and "copy/cut and paste."

Xerox wasn't real interested in these early innovations, but to humor Tesler and his team of young engineers, they invited other Silicon Valley computer pioneers and start-up geeks in for a show and tell of this new "GUI" (pronounced "gooey," but standing for "Graphic User Interface") idea. Xerox offered to allow any of them to use the technology for free, if they wanted it. Being accomplished computer wizards quite used to command lines and dim green screens, most of them shrugged their shoulders and left. One stayed behind and asked a lot of questions Tesler would later say impressed the daylights out of him. His name was Steve Jobs.

Jobs took the GUI idea AND Tesler, offering him a job at his new company, Apple. Together they designed Apple's first graphics interface computer the LISA (named after Jobs' girlfriend), which soon gave way to the Macintosh, which exploded on the scene like the Beatles. There's a lot more to the story, including how Jobs paid another computer geek to design his software for the Macintosh, based on Tesler's and Jobs' ideas. And that young fellow--Bill Gates--and his start-up company, Microsoft, was later sued over its "Windows" program, which Jobs contended was stolen property. But that's for another day.

Today, I pay tribute to Lawerence Tesler. I'm writing this overdue blog post on a 21.5 inch Macintosh with a "Retina" screen that makes my typing look just like a paper-white page. And when I make the beaucoup errors I always make, I just grab my little "mouse," block the text, and fix them, or "cut and paste," as the need arises, all thanks to Tesler and the late Steve Jobs.

Imagine where we would be if no one had listened to Tesler's "out of the box" idea? Or where Xerox would be if they HAD, back then? They, like IBM were "giants" in the technology field, and could have cemented their status for decades to come. Even IBM wasn't immune to closed thinking. Thomas Watson, their CEO in that era, publicly stated that he thought the world would never need more than five computers. I'm told my CAR has about 100 of them managing its functions, today.

So, what's the moral of the story, beyond memorializing Lawrence Tesler? (We preachers ALWAYS have to have some kind of a moral.) Here are a few: new is often good; don't limit your thinking to what is easy and comfortable; believe in evolution--technological and human; as a person of faith, imagine your faith not as an anchor to the past, but as a firm footing for what comes next. The world is growing, changing. The culture is growing, changing. How are we responding to these facts? Cursing the "darkness" of change, or lighting a "candle" of progress and hope?  You decide, Beloved.

[Writer's note: I was tempted to launch into an additional discourse on how the WYSIWYG phenomenon could be illustrative for the United Methodist Church, but I thought better of it, choosing to just leave this here. Still, I keep thinking of the words of Prospero in Shakespeare's The Tempest: "O brave new world, that has such people in 't!” (copied and pasted, in memory of Mr. Tesler.)]

Rip and Read...

I was going to write about the recent "State of the Union" speech, but after trying to write something that wasn't just another slam against the current president, I ripped it up.

As one with a degree in journalism and communications, I remember the days of delivering the news on our college radio station (a 3000 watt station broadcasting to the entire community, not just a campus wide "carrier current" station). We were supposed to write news stories using as many sources as we could muster, including interviews with the newsmakers, themselves, if possible. Quotes were helpful, but even better were "actualities," or recordings of portions of the interview. Today, we might call these "sound bites."

However, if we were running late from a class, or got caught up in a chat session with a friend, we might just "rip and read," meaning we would go to the teletype machine and rip off a long strip of news from the Associated Press or the New York Times News Service and just literally read it verbatim on the air. The problems with "rip and read" were many fold: the stories may not have much--if any--interest to our local audience; even from one of these major press outlets, they may have been hastily and poorly written, making the on air talent sound like a moron; or they could be just a glorified headline, with the actual story to follow at a later time. Our professors hated "rip and read." It wasn't our work (for the better writers among us, it clearly wasn't our work, and for the lousy writers among us, it clearly wasn't their work, either!). And even if the story had a local angle, with no follow up or consulting a local source, "rip and read" would take what could be a "hot" local story and turn it into a bland piece of stock copy that got no ones attention and sparked no interest.

Today's "Breaking News!" is yesterday's "rip and read." No one in the studio really knows the story, as they are just handed the headline, and even if there is a live reporter on the scene, she or he is just as clueless, running around with a microphone and a trailing camera, asking any live body questions  willy-nilly. And often the spur-of-the-moment inquiries shot by anxious reporters at witnesses or victims on the scene come across like pouring acid in a deep gash. "Breaking News!" is often just that, b-r-e-a-k-i-n-g news, as in smashing it to the ground and stomping that sucker flat, as they say. Little, if any, information is imparted to the listener/viewer, and one often comes away feeling more like a voyeur than one who has been informed. I'll bet my professors still wouldn't like it (if any of them are still alive). "Rip and Read," by any other name such as "Breaking News!", is just "Rip and Read."

There are news reporters out there who are doing excellent work, and who are guided by a "nose for news" and journalistic integrity, and who know how to tell a story, whether in print or on the air. And then there are the others--opinion-casters who weave together goose-droppings of real facts in order to create the "air" of legitimate news. Pulitzer and other lesser regional prizes such as the Golden Quill are given sparingly to good reporters for unbiased, quality journalism. Unfortunately, ratings often go to the goose-poopers. And, like in the world of politics, high ratings may not translate into factual content. I once heard a famous broadcast blusterer say about a criticism leveled at him by a responsible broadcast journalist: "Oh he's just mad because I have 50,000 watts and a microphone just like him." Well, no, he's just upset that you are giving real broadcast journalists a bad name.

Speaking of "Rip and Read," let me suggest in closing this fine piece that this is also a dangerous way to take in the Bible. It's one thing to read it "devotionally" for edification and personal spiritual growth, but when formulating doctrines, or developing criteria for whom to include or exclude, or in labeling someone else's lifestyle as "sinful," "Rip and Read," as opposed to an in-depth, serious study with commentaries and enlightening feedback from people who understand this stuff (pastors, maybe?) is a bad idea. And yanking "clobber passages" out of biblical and historical context to use as justification for personal prejudice or bigotry is parallel to the "goose poop" reporters mentioned earlier, only with people consequences, not just a mangling of journalistic integrity. If you ever find yourself saying "The Bible says..." followed by a criticism or condemnation of another soul, you had better have done some serious homework, and consulted a few experts before lowering the boom.

So, what's the moral of this story? Well, read (or listen) responsibly. In the case of news, consult sources that have been recognized for unbiased, journalistic excellence. In the case of the Bible, if it's for your benefit, knock yourself out. If it's to lay down the law for another, it's probably beyond your pay grade, unless you've checked into the "village" of biblical interpreters. Otherwise, both of these pursuits are victims of the "Rip and Read" phenomenon. And in all cases, please reject "alternative facts," regardless of the shiny rocks from under which they may have come.

Grace through separation? Maybe...

So, when is "coming apart" a good way to hold something together? If it's a car engine you are working on, it may be better restored to health by taking it apart, replacing and/or re-machining some of its parts, and reassembling it. Isn't this kind of what surgery is? Psychoanalysis is a kind of "taking apart" in order to reassemble one's head, too. I'm sure if we thought about it for awhile, we could come up with many other examples of times when breaking something down is a way to put it together better.

Unfortunately, this is also what happens in some divorces. Oh sure, some marriages break apart when one party or the other is unfaithful, or if physical or emotional abuse is involved, but the leading cause of divorce is something called "irreconcilable differences." Two people may just come to a point where the reasons they got together in the first place have been eroded by life, or they just change in divergent ways. In order for the bonding power of relationship to be renewed, a separation from the current partner becomes an inconvenient truth and a pathway to future happiness. Long ago, the majority of Christian denominations, while supporting the sanctity of covenantal relationships, came to recognize the possibility of divorce as the beginning of healing for some of their people, and stopped discriminating against or disparaging divorced persons. While rarely something to celebrate, it may be affirmed, in many cases.

While I have never heard the expression "grace through separation," I can see its potential efficacy. Recently, a group of United Methodist leaders representing the key factions and organizations embroiled in the denominational controversy over how the church treats LGBTQ persons and their pastors, got together for a professionally facilitated/mediated series of conversations. The results of this deep rumination is something called "Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation." What is being proposed is a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and a separation that may allow both parties to "get on with their lives," so to speak.


What it is:

--a road map to a benevolent separation that could create two or three new denominations in the Wesleyan tradition that may cooperate on services such as the Board of Pensions (Wespath, as it is known) and UMCOR (our relief and disaster response agency), as well as our United Methodist related colleges and seminaries

--a plan that would leave most of the current United Methodist agencies under the larger "centrist" church, while a collective of traditionalist churches, pastors, and possibly Annual Conferences split off, receiving $25 million of shared resources to help structure and solidify this new traditionalist denomination; $2 million would also be made available to it if a third more progressive expression of Methodism formed

--the centrist denomination would continue as The United Methodist Church, while the traditionalist denomination would choose its own name (Wesleyan Covenant Church?), as would the more progressive body, if it chose to separate

--presumably, the centrist United Methodist Church would, at a future conference, vote to remove all prohibitive language regarding "homosexuality" and LGBTQ persons from their Book of Discipline, while the traditionalist group would maintain and/or enhance its restrictive stance on this issue; the centrist United Methodists could choose to adopt a stance similar to the One Church Plan advanced to the specially-called General Conference of last February--permitting but not "requiring" pastors and churches to be fully inclusive of our LGBTQ siblings--while a more progressive posture could be adopted by that group, should they, too, separate

--the protocol also calls for both (or all three) new denominations to contribute $39 million to dismantling racism and supporting other justice-related efforts central to the theology of all in the Wesleyan tradition; I believe this element was introduced to keep the necessary laborious task of forming and rooting these new denominations from totally derailing our common work for justice

What it is NOT:

--it is NOT legislation, in itself; now that the protocol has been advanced by this committee, legislation must be written to be presented to the May 2020 General Conference

--it is NOT a done deal; General Conference must approve suspending the rules to allow this post-deadline legislation to be considered; the Judicial Council (U.M. "Supreme Court") must be willing to make a declaratory decision as to whether the plan meets U.M. constitutional muster; and a majority of the 2020 delegates must approve it

--it is NOT, like any divorce, something to be celebrated, as it results from a failure in our ability to find common ground that would allow for a unified denomination; it may offer the same kind of grace we pray for when a loved one is seriously ill or dying

--it is NOT a solution to theological diversity of thought and even widely differing opinions on matters ranging from biblical interpretation to human sexuality, as these will continue in all camps, even after the "split"

--it is NOT a solution for LGBTQ persons who "live" within the traditionalist camp because most of their theological views are conservative, in spite of their sexuality, and it is NOT a balm for the harm children and youth may experience growing up in the traditionalist denomination, but who discover themselves to be other than cisgender


As one whose theological views on biblical interpretation, authority, and christology compel me to be fully inclusive of all persons, including LGBTQ siblings, and to minister to all persons, including my willingness to perform same-gender weddings, and advocacy for LGBTQ ministerial candidacy, this protocol offers hope. Judging from their willingness to participate in this process, and in their support of the protocol, it appears those on the other side of the theological spectrum find hope here, too.

Separation may be inevitable; exceedingly abundant grace is available; the protocol may be acceptable; that we need any of it over this issue is lamentable. But forward we must go, or continue to be paralyzed as a church.

Let us be in prayer for all parties, for the power-brokers and delegates, and for any who may become caught in the vice of schism. May we use this imperfect tool to, with God's help, find shalom.

Christmastime...

Halloween used to be a day. Now, it's a season. Christmas beat it to the punch. While Halloween is rapidly becoming the "most decorated" time, Christmas has held that title for a couple thousand years. Don't ask a liturgical scholar when Christmas begins and ends, as their answer doesn't match what has been going on in the popular culture for centuries, actually. Is it appropriate to sing "Christmas hymns" before Christmas Day? The popular culture is on to things like "Last Christmas" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." Tell modern church-goers (the ones who still come) we don't sing the few hymns they may actually know like "O Little Town of Bethlehem" or "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing," until after Christmas Day, and they will soon join the ranks of those who DON'T come anymore. Are there still folk who like to observe liturgical correctness? Of course. Most of them have at least an M.Div. degree or attend a traditional liturgical church, say Lutheran or Episcopal. There is a place for such liturgical traditions, and I'm not meaning to disrespect them. However, as a pastor whose personal mission statement includes "connecting people with God and people to people," maintaining a liturgical rigidness adds a degree of difficulty I can't accept.

I'll not get into the whole "contemporary" or "modern" worship debate in this brief piece. I believe these are wonderful and viable "flavors" to add to Christian worship, as they speak to the hearts of many folk, and serve to help make the relational connection to God I believe to be Priority One. Personally, I still prefer what we label "Classic" or "Traditional" worship, but only because it falls more squarely within my comfort zone. I read enough music to like to occasionally drop down to the bass line and sing harmony, and can, with enough instrumental backup, sight-read a new piece of worship music. Words on a screen, accompanied by gifted vocalists who like to "bend" the melody line artistically, while fine from a "spectator" perspective, don't adequately encourage me to embarrass myself by trying to sing along. Of course, for us "traditional" folk, this technique would keep us coming back, as after we have heard a worship tune for six or seven times, we might pick up enough of it to get brave.

This same argument, with a few edits, will be used by those of you who love contemporary Christian music and worship songs. You don't see the point in hymns, especially when sung at a slogging pace. You're not at all inspired by an invitation to "raise mine Ebenezer," or signing on to "we, too, will thither..." Interestingly, many of the younger set are gaining a fresh appreciation for the pipe organ. This promises a revival of the type to which I can exclaim, "Hallelujah!" The world is populated by so many significant examples of this magnificent instrument that this new development is essential to its survival. Pipe organs are decidedly "high maintenance." Now, if we can just get a raft of these newbies to sign on to learn to play the things!

Sorry for the tangent. (This is why I never became a stand-out preacher, in spite of being an excellent student of homiletics.) Back to the extended session we call Christmastime.

I'm OK with it. The four-month Christmas Season, that is. Nothing gets folk talking more about religion, God, the Bible, and "church" more than the onset of Christmas, even if it does start before Halloween. (Politics will do that, too, for some, but that's when the fight breaks out...) I love the idea of generosity and giving gifts that goes along with Christmas, although I do wish we could get beyond that "gift for everybody" mindset that has begotten smelly, fast-burning candles and brightly-decorated tchotchkes with a wall-hanger, both of which the giver expects to see displayed proudly when they visit next Christmas. My wife puts "Holiday Traditions" on our satellite radios as soon as it debuts. I'm OK with that, too, because she is just the cutest thing, and I'd love her even if she liked Country music (however, I say a prayer of thanks, daily, that she doesn't, other than an occasional Johnny Cash number). We used to collect Nativity sets until we down-sized and moved into a townhouse. We did keep some of the most significant ones, which are still proudly displayed. I was able to find a young lad in our current church who was happy to receive my Veggie Tales Nativity, still one of my favorites. (I didn't say that my "educated" Christianity was without schmaltz!)

I say "Happy Holidays" so as not to disparage my friends and colleagues from other faith traditions. This year, though, I got a beautiful Christmas card from my dear friends at the Muslim Association of Pittsburgh, North, and the first "Merry Christmas" text I received was from my Rabbi friend. I do, therefore, try to stay on top of when their holidays and festivals are so I may return the kindness. I know that, because of the popular culture, they can't avoid Christmas. Still, it is a sin to "rub it in" by insisting on saying "Merry Christmas." That's crusading.

I decorate. Not to the Clark Griswold level, but I decorate. While my beloved wants to downsize our Christmas Tree, I'm resisting. It is already a pretty humble-sized, artificial one, but It is still taller than I am, which is the acid test. We have a twinkling, colorful tree on our back deck, because no one else decorates their back deck in our plan. Just the rebel in me. Oh, and I have one of those green and red laser things panning the front of our townhouse. I like lasers, and eschew ladders. I like the lights of Christmas--they are a wonderful and universal metaphor for the incarnation, and make a statement that the light of Christ is alive and well in the world and on Village Green Boulevard. East.

I read a story recently about a pastor who was visiting a parishioner several months after Christmas. As they were chatting, his eyes wandered to a shelf where a lone Christmas Tree ornament was displayed. His host saw the puzzled look on her preacher's face, and explained, "No, it's not a mistake. I pick one ornament from the tree each year to keep out, just to remind me that the Joy of Christmas is not just a seasonal thing--it's for every day of the year. Indeed. Now, which ornament to choose...

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Yinz...oh, and Merry Christmas!

Hopers, not Mopers...

Last Sunday, I told our congregation that the world needs HOPERS, not MOPERS. In a season of hope, Christians and other people of faith are called to mobilize a message of encouragement, welcome, and hospitality. There is no longer any room for "no room in the inn." Christians believe in a Jesus who opened the door to hope and refuses to close it--to the least, the last, the lost, the outcast, the shunned, the dismissed, and the hopeless causes. Jesus also welcomes the privileged, the wealthy, the "entitled," the majority, those in power, and those for whom "struggle" is a dirty word--just please leave your pretenses at the door, and be prepared to sit at the far seats at the table.

Hope, for the world, is a kind of wish. "I HOPE this will happen"..."I HOPE my friend is OK"..."I HOPE I will keep my job." Outside of the teachings of faith, hope doesn't offer much, well, hope. One of my parishioners thought it would be a good idea to buy Christmas tree ornaments with the four words of the Advent journey on them: Peace, Hope, Joy, and Love. She could only find ornaments with Peace, Joy, and Love." Hope was nowhere to be found. Apart from faith, hope has little traction.

People of faith, including we Jesus-followers, are blessed with a very "meaty" hope! In the scriptures we read, "Faith is the substance of things HOPED for..." Our relationship with God, our experience with answered prayers, the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of God's continued agency in our daily lives breeds a "hope" that is far more than a wish. This hope is a promise. Our faith has the power to reverse the effects of entropy--as we trust in God, we may actually gain passion, energy, insight, and optimism, instead of eroding them, along with the natural course of things. We are empowered to be HOPERS. Entropy--the natural "winding down" of things--may create an orbit of MOPERS--people who, at the least, string complaints and gripes like pearls on a necklace. At the worst, they suck the energy from everything around them. Mopers could write their own scripture verse: "Don't spend much time worrying about today, as you can count on tomorrow being worse."

The world needs HOPERS. The church needs HOPERS. For the life of me, I can't see how "more clearly defining our rules" and adding punitive measures against those who violate them can possibly generate hope in the church. I can remember a time when we evangelicals* cared most about "the lost," and in helping people find a relationship with God. It seems now that in an age of increasing "moping," Evangelicals are more focused on judging, trying, and dispatching dissenters. Is it any wonder why the church is bleeding young people?

It IS a season of hope! Advent is about the coming of the Christ--define that how you choose, but Christians believe any "coming" of Christ, whether celebrating the current presence of Christ in us, anticipating the "second coming" of Christ, or even remembering that night when Christ was born into the world--yields HOPE. However you experience the approaching Christ, let his presence plant a seed of hope in your soul. Purpose to be a HOPER, not a MOPER. Start small, as moping has a lot of entropy working for it, and will try to drag you down at every turn. And don't walk in your own strength, alone. Let the Spirit of God juice you up with passion for compassion, strength for service, and words for witness! HOPERS love, hopers serve, and hopers offer good words to others in a time of critical rhetoric.

Shalom, Dear Ones!

*I use “evangelical” with a small “e” to indicate that, as a true Wesleyan Christian, I am compelled to “offer them Christ,” out of love for all God’s people. “Evangelical” with the capital “E” has come to mean a right-wing, political manifestation with a small agenda that excludes and judges.

The Best Beat in the Bible...

⁴ God shall judge between the nations,
    and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
    and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
    neither shall they learn war any more.

I remember hearing this text many, many years ago as a teenager, sitting in the balcony of Grace United Methodist Church in Oil City, PA. I'm sure it had been read in previous Advent seasons, but I was at an age when the war in Vietnam was still raging, and one of my neighbors had been killed there. The highlighted section hit me like a brick between the eyes. I remember thinking, "Wow, how COOL, and it's in the BIBLE!" (As a teenager, I was more skeptical of the ancient wisdom of the scriptures than enraptured.) 

We read this passage, still, during Advent. It is a wonderful promise that many believe is an eschatological one. But does it have to be only a promise of some far-off future? What if God already gave us the ability to fulfill most of the promise--beat our swords into plowshares? 

Rocketry was invented to lob bombs into an enemy camp by the ancient Chinese; Germany perfected it in the V-1 and V-2 to devastate London during World War II. After that war, the U.S. and the Soviet Union divided up the German rocket scientists and used them to begin what we now know as the space program, including the race to the moon, ultimately "won" by the Americans. Years later, the two super powers would collaborate on the Apollo-Soyuz project and eventually the International Space Station. Rocket technology has launched humans and space probes to other worlds and beyond for the purpose of exploration instead of destruction. Swords into plowshares?

The brilliant minds of Einstein, Teller, and Oppenheimer collaborated in the Manhattan Project to build the world's largest bomb--a nuclear one. Only two of them have ever been exploded in war, but the outcomes for the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cataclysmic. By harnessing nuclear energy for peace, massive amounts of electrical power have been generated to drive the technological revolution of many nations, medical uses of that same energy have saved millions of lives, and space probes (Voyager 1 and 2) and a Mars rover (Curiosity) will explore our near universe for decades more. Spears into pruning hooks?

ARPNET was a system of communication using computers, designed by the U.S. military to move information between battlefields and bases. ARPNET was turned over to the universities, where it morphed into what we know as the Internet, today. While the Internet has brought its share of issues to the human community, there is no doubt that it has revolutionized our communications, world-wide. We carry it in our pockets, shop with it, send photos of our grandchildren, take courses and engage serious academic research. Need information? Just "Google" it! Swords into plowshares?

Again, give credit to the U.S. military who launched and used the first Global Positioning Satellites (G.P.S.) to steer bombs and artillery accurately. Turned over to us, it guides our cars, planes, boats, and steps to specific addresses and coordinates. For those of us who get lost at the drop of a hat, GPS, whether through our car navigation systems, a Garmin, or a cell phone app, is a true godsend. Another spear into a pruning hook?

Why, even the military "Jeep" from World War II resulted in today's all-wheel drive Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) that most Americans drive today, making us safer in wintry weather and on wet, slippery roads.

Mikhail Gorbachev launched reform in the Soviet Union he called "Glasnost." Through his peace overtures to the U.S. and President Reagan, the Soviet Union eventually dissolved into its separate states, and the "Doomsday Clock" was dialed back several hours. My late brother-in-law, who was a corporate attorney, worked for a company that got contracts to go into the Soviet Union to help them hold up their end of a peace accord with the U.S.--the dismantling of a large number of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with nuclear warheads. After the warheads were removed and their nuclear material re-purposed, the metal of these missiles was melted down and used to make tractors for the farming industry--LITERALLY swords into plowshares! When I suggested to my brother-in-law that he was helping fulfill a biblical prophecy, he was amazed.

After Glasnost and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States responded to this relaxed threat by using some of the dollars no longer needed for national defense for more benevolent purposes. Some went to education, some to research (medical and technological), and some to social programs to aid minorities and low income Americans. This was called the "Peace Dividend," and while it lasted only a few years before the attacks of 911 and the rise China and Putin's Russia as new threats, tremendous advances were recorded, especially in technology and medicine. This peace dividend gave us a small sample of what our world can look like when at peace. Unfortunately, we now have more enemies in the world than before Glasnost, and we are again pumping billions and billions of dollars into new ways to destroy. But we EXPERIENCED a sample of peace, and it was astounding!

While I would not suggest that the Divine did not have some part in these "swords into plowshares" endeavors, they were largely human efforts. God HAS given us the ability to create peace and to disarm our world. I told our congregation that if we don't work for peace, we will be overcome by war, as that is what will fill the vacuum. 

Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Jesus IS the Prince of Peace. If we believe in the presence of Jesus in the world today, we have the secret to both world peace AND inner peace. While not wanting to delay our efforts toward peace and justice in the larger sphere of our existence, I do believe that the popular hymn "Let There be Peace on Earth" is right--"...and let it begin with me." The message of the gospel focuses first on the human heart. What within you is at war with you? Are you facing challenges too great for you to conquer alone? Are you at war with your body? Your mind? Do you suffer from the kind of self-esteem that needs a ladder to kiss a snake's belly? Jesus touched INDIVIDUALS as he walked this earth, bringing healing and peace to their souls, even as he taught us how to bring peace to the wider community. Yielding to the "peace initiative" of God may yield a balm for the human heart and soul. Once we have built a bridge to peace WITHIN ourselves, we may have the heart--and method--to expand it outward.

As Advent begins, may this be for you a season of Peace, dear ones! And may we use the gifts God gave the human community to build a peaceful, just, and inclusive realm for ALL of God's people! Shalom!