No One Wants a Gold Star

On this Labor Day, I want to remember a group of people who labor within a particular group of individuals or families who never wanted to be members of that special club.  The mothers of this club are remembered on a specific day every year, September 30th, but no one recognizes that day as being set aside for this remembrance.  This day is known as Gold Star Mother's Day. 

"This is not a club any of us wanted to belong to," says Jan Johnson, whose son, Army Spc. Justin Johnson, died in Iraq in April 2004, "but since we are, we must move forward the best way possible."  A motto Gold Star families live by is, "it's not time that heals, it's what we do with the time."  Many families have found ways to assist others who have been hindered by memories or depression.  There are articles on-line if you want to learn more.     

If you haven't figured it out by now, a Gold Star mother is the mother of a son or daughter who  has been killed during wartime.  You've probably seen the banner - a gold star set against a white field, surrounded by red.  Few people know what this banner signifies, and fewer still know that this special day of recognition has been in place for over 75 years.  If you pay attention you might see this banner hanging in the front window of a house when you drive by, or as a sticker on the back of a vehicle.  Military members know what this banner signifies but it seems as if most civilians don't know and often, don't care, unless the death was in the family of someone they know. 

This little banner represents pain, suffering and sacrifice, and not just by the individual that the star represents.  We all know that losing someone we love is difficult and affects people in some way, for the rest of their lives.  It is also generally felt that losing a son or daughter is one of the greatest blows one can suffer in life.  We should remember the sacrifices of military members and their families, including those who have served and those who continue to serve, as well as those who have lost their lives on this day.  No, Labor Day is not usually used as a military day of remembrance for many people.  But perhaps we can remember the families of those who have served and sacrificed on this day, because they too have given much and sacrificed.  Perhaps on this day, as well as on as many other days you think of it, we can remember families impacted by war.

But please don't limit your prayer to those who have lost family members, whether sons or daughters, brothers or sisters, wives or husbands, or even grandparents or grandchildren.  During an Associated Press recent three-month review of Veterans Administration records, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans sought care for the following:

• More than 1,600 have lost limbs, some more than one limb
• At least 156 are blind and thousands of others have impaired vision
• More than 177,000 have hearing loss and more than 350,000 report tinnitus
• Thousands are disfigured, as many as 200 of them so badly that they may need face transplants
• 25% of battlefield wounds requiring evacuation were to the face or jaw
• more than 400,000 have been treated by the VA for a mental health problem, most commonly PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)

This last figure consists of only those who sought care through the VA.  Many military members do not seek care for mental health problems through the VA due to stigmas or fear that their military careers will be harmed if they do.  These individuals also need to be remembered in prayer.  And wouldn't it be nice if our prayers resulted in our own actions?  In other words, don't just pray, get up and move to make a difference in someone's life.

There are other banners you might see.  The Blue Star Service Banner represents that someone in the home is on active duty in the Armed Forces.  This includes members of the National Guard and Reserves.  This banner is only displayed during periods of war and may contain up to five stars.  It is a reminder that there is a cost to war.

The Silver Star Service Banner represents those who have been wounded or contracted a serious illness in a war zone.  However, it can also be flown by anyone as a symbol of remembrance of the sacrifice made for them by so many members of the military.  If it is flown as a flag, it must be flown below the U.S. flag and must be of a small size.  The Silver Star Service Banner can be flown during peacetime as well as during a time of war.  

As United Methodists, we believe that war is not the way of God, so please don't take this posting as a glorification of war.  It is not.  However, those who serve do so out of a personal belief that freedom of self and of country is of paramount importance to who we are as Americans, and it requires great sacrifice.  We honor the sacrifice if not the actions.  Also, please keep in mind that the military is an arm of our government, and is necessary because diplomats cannot always find peaceful means to resolve disputes between nations.  If we could do away with greed and the desire for power, perhaps there would be no more gold star mothers.  Perhaps we if could really understand the message of Jesus Christ and live it out, we would beat our weapons into plowshares and study war no more.  As you pray for those who have lost loved ones, that might be something to lift up as well. 

Daily Survival Kit for Serious Illness

Im reading up and cleaning.  Certainly not something I live for, that's for sure.  But as I do so, I come across things I've saved to use "later."  This is one of them...


Daily Survival Kit for Serious Illness
by Thomas L. McDermitt (1989)
a long-time cancer patient and skeptic

(You don't have to agree with all of this all of the time.  But if it generally speaks to you, try to read all or parts of it every day, or have it read to you.  Part of the help is in the doing, regardless of your attitude or emotions of the day.  On some levels the help is gradual and often not evident)

1.  Today I am going to try to live through this day only, and not dwell on or attempt to solve all my problems at once; just focus on the piece that is today.  I can do something for several hours that would be difficult to even think about continuing for several months.

2.  Just for today, I am willing to accept the possibility that there is a  purpose to this suffering; that it can be a source of meaning and growth for myself and others, though I may not always recognize the ways.  And it seems possible that this suffering will not be in vain, because of what may be some kind of existence beyond.

3.  Just for today, let me remind myself that I am basically a worthwhile person, worth loving, despite my faults and limits.  I deserve the efforts of others to help me through my illness.

4.  Just for today, I want to be aware that it is all right to want too much from others at times.  Illness brings out and intensifies the small child in all of us.  And if I feel hurt when those who care for me cannot be there, it may help to remember that they have needs, frailties, and limitations of their own.  A lack of response does not mean that they are personally rejecting me.

5.  Today I may feeel the need to complain a great deal; I may have little tolerance; I may cry; I may scream.  That does not mean that I am less courageous or strong.  All are ways of expressing anger over this mess, or rightly mourning my losses.  Endurance itself is courage.

6.  It is my life at stake now.  So maybe today I can allow myself to be a little less concerned about the reactions or impressions of others.  Maybe I can allow myself to feel a little less guilty or bad about what I did not accomplish or give.  Perhaps today I can be a little more gentle toward myself.

7.  Surviving this is all so difficult.  At times it seems impossible--that I have had evoug.  Down the line I will know if and when I have had enough, when I cannot push the limits any further.  I will have the right to choose to stop, without feeling that I am "giving up."  But today I think I can deal  with this illness.  Sorrow runs very deep, but I think I can rise again.

8.  Just for today , maybe I can give healiing "the benefit of the doubt."  The drugs are powerful; the natureal healing capacity of my body is powerful.  And who knows, perhaps there is healing power in my will to struggle, and in the collective love and will of others.

9.  Just for today, perhaps I can take heart that we are all connected.  And I may still have some things left to contribute to the family of man; some light to add to the light.  Even now my endurance (however imperfect) is a gift, an inspiration for others in their struggles.

10.  It seems reasonable that there is a season for everything, and a time for every purpose.  Pain, weakness and exhaustion may distort my senses and spirit.  Today, however, I can at least find some hope in nature's way, if not in some master plan.  The chances are fairly good, and it seems worthwhile to hope that I will have some cycle of wellness yet.

Mormonism and Theocracy

Based on dates of postings it appears that I've been ignoring my blog.  Actually, that is far from the truth.  Some time ago I finished a book about Mormonism and I've been working to try to pull together information concerning Mormonism's theology, which can be a bit difficult to do.  If you look back over time since Mormonism's conception you'll find that their beliefs and theology have changed frequently and therefore, at times,  it is difficult to discern exactly what they believe.  Also, the church may support one view or belief internally but deny that view publicly so they will be "accepted" by Christians.  Janis Hutchinson states, "What began as a strategy of secrecy to avoid persecution has become over the course of the 20th century a strategy of minimizing discussion of the  content of theology in order to avoid being treated as pariahs" (Scott, Latayne.  The Mormon Mirage, 3rd ed., 251).  My last comment may make you think, "But Mormons are Christians."  Although they claim to be Christian, their "Christianity" would probably not be considered as such by Protestants and Catholics. 

What you will find when you read what I will post about the Mormon faith will no doubt surprise you if you've never read or studied anything about Mormonism.  Although as a Christian I find their theology strange enough, there is one issue I find a bit disconcerting: the Mormon goal of taking over the United States government.  No, I am not a conspiracy theorist, for this is a documented fact of the church.  

The following are some quotes from The Mormon Mirage by Latayne Scott, a former member of the church, as well as Janis Hutchinson, another member.  I will use quotes so no one thinks I am making anything up or reading anything into their words, though I will not copy the full 3-4 pages.  (253-255)

"Hutchinson documents from LDS and former LDS historians an organization formed by Mormon leadership under Joseph Smith called The Kingdom of God (or, alternately, The Government of God) that was to be ruled by a Council of Fifty who were sworn to secrecy about the organization and its aims and very existence...The express aim of the organization was the takeover of the United States government, not by violence, but by the grooming of Mormons to run for and win political office.  In sufficient numbers, such lawmakers and policy makers would transition the government from a democracy to a theocracy.

Brigham Young had even more far-reaching plans for 'the complete overthrow of the nation, and not only of this nation, but the nations of Europe'  The aim of the subsequent one-world government would be to prepare the world for the second coming of Christ and a thousand-year, literally theocratic kingdom.  At one point LDS leaders were quite open about his agenda...any LDS priesthood holder seeking political office was required to first garner permission from Church authorities.  As recently as the late 1960s, Mormon historian Klaus J. Hansen said of the Council of Fifty that Church leaders of his time were not likely to do away with it.  And as late as 1985...that 'though the ceremony of coronation continues to this day, it is not publicized outside the Church...'

Another  disturbing, and well-documented element...called the 'strategy of secrecy' is the blood oaths that were part of the LDS temple ceremony up until at least 1927.  In these oaths, temple ordinance participants swore enmity to the United States government and promised to avenge the blood of LDS persons who died in conflict with the government.  While there is no evidence that any man in current LDS leadership took that oath, its effect was intended to be ongoing, as noted by author Richard Abanes: 'It required Mormons to promised that they would teach their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to take vengeance on ''this nation.''  (Did current LDS leadership teach this to their children and grandchildren?  The fact that their own fathers would have sworn that oath gives reason for pause.)

In addition to these elements of LDS history...was the firm belief in a prophecy of a future date in which the US Constitution would be in serious trouble, and only saved by the LDS Church.  As a people, it was our aim to produce as many LDS lawmakers, judges, politicians, and legal experts as we possibly could, so as to fulfill and satisfy prophecy.  

Any faithful 'temple Mormon' politician has a dilemma to which Mitt Romney responded in his well-publicized speech about his loyalties.  The issue wasn't just in the minds of potential voters; it is a real dilemma for an LDS politician.  If Romney, for instance, were to be elected president of the United States, he would be asked to swear a solemn oath to protect the Constitution of the United States as a priority over any other loyalties to any other earthly entity.  However, when Mitt Romney 'took out his endowment' (participated in a secret rite in an LDS temple prior to going on his LDS mission and later before being married in such a temple), he swore another oath before God and witnesses...to keep the 'Law of  Consecration': a vow to consecrate time, energy, talents, and material possessions to to the Church for the purpose of  'building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.'  In addition, Romney's 'calling' to be a bishop in the Mormon Church required that he render absolute loyally to the LDS Church and its prophet."

If you want to learn more about Mormonism I'd urge you to read my upcoming blog post concerning Mormons and their theology.

The Cross and the Flame: Faces of Gravel Hill

Here is an ad I made for the church to use, but we have decided not to use it.  I wanted to share it anyway.  I picked the best smiles I had of people, nothing more.  So if you don't see yourself here it's nothing personal.  I might have a photo of you with a great smile, but I tried to use men and women as well as younger and older folks.

Did You Know? - Violence in Judea after Herod's Death

Herod the Great (born ~74 BCE, died ~4 BCE) was the "king" of Judea at the time of Jesus' birth and his influence would have been felt during Jesus' life.  He was not actually a "king," but was a client ruler of the Roman Empire.  Although he was described as a madman who killed many rabbis and murdered many people in his own family, there were reasons he was called Herod the Great.  He is best known for expanding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, often referred to as Herod's Temple, but he also undertook many building projects in Jerusalem (eg. aqueducts, theater, amphitheater) and within the area he ruled (eg. the port of Caesarea Maritima and the city of Samara).   

Herod ruled Judea with an iron fist and he repressed any dissension to the point that Rome did not need to intervene in Judea during his reign.  Unfortunately, his death left a large power vacuum and Judea erupted in chaos when he died.  Why the power vacuum?  Because one of Herod's son would have been designated to assume his rule after his death, but he had killed most of the competent members of his family.  His oldest son was killed by his guards just days before his own death.  He also confused matters by having three wills, the last of which he revoked at the last moment.  

In the absence of an approved heir, the financial aid of the emperor based in Syria, named Sabinus, went to Judea to take charge of Herod's property.  However, because of Herod's extensive property holdings, it was difficult for Sabinus to distinguish between public and private property and he found himself in the middle of the violence that was erupting in Jerusalem during the pilgrim Festival of Tabernacles, while various Jewish factions tried to exert control over the region.  Sabinus thought he could quell the violence with the use of a legion stationed in Jerusalem along and some of his own armed slaves.  The result was intense fighting during the Feast of Tabernacles, and Sabinus' men set fire to the Temple.  The Romans got possession of the Temple treasury and much of it was stolen by the soldiers.  Sabinus appropriated 400 talents for himself.

Fighting broke out all over the country because of the lack of a governing authority as well as anger over the desecration of the Temple.  Soldiers who had been loyal to Herod could not decide whether to side with the Romans or the Jews, and two thousand veterans living in Judea joined the fighting either because of personal gain or because they hated the Jews. 

Judas, the son of a rebel that had been killed by Herod in the 40s BCE, arose in Galilee and captured the royal palace in Sepphoris (a city within about 5 miles of where Jesus spent his youth), taking all the weapons stored there.  Another group burned down one of Herod's palaces across the Jordon river.  Another group followed Simon, a slave of Herod, and plundered the palace in Jericho. Plundering and looting continued all over the country.  Anyone could try to make themselves king and many individuals formed rebel bands who then destroyed their communities, causing huge losses of material and Jewish lives.  All the fighting caused little harm to the Roman inhabitants of the area.

To restore order, the governor of Syria, Publius Quinctilius Varus, brought troops south from Antioch.  He recaptured Sepphoris, sold its inhabitants into slavery and burned down the city.  Josephus tells of thousands of Jews hung on crosses along the road for miles (certainly an event that would have been remembered and talked about in Jesus' time in Galilee). He destroyed Emmaus in revenge.  Jews that were fighting Sabinus in Jerusalem fled upon Varus' approach.  The inhabitants of Jerusalem who had not fled claimed they had been on the side of the Romans all along, and blamed the Jews who had come to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles for the fighting.

Both Varus and the Emperor understood the complex internal power struggles of the region and that most of the fighting had not been due to hostility toward Rome.  The great majority of the people guilty of revolting were pardoned, but the leaders were sent to Caesar.  Although Caesar also let most of the leaders go, he punished members of Herod's family who participated in the fighting because they treated justice in a contemptible manner when they chose to fight against their own side.

Eventually, Herod's kingdom was divided among three of this sons by the Emperor Caesar Augustus.  Archilaus became ethnarch of the tetrarchy of Judea, Herod Antipas became tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, and Philip became tetrarch of the land east of the Jordan. 

Despite some disruptions, the time from the death of Herod until the Jewish uprising in 66 CE is considered to be a time of relative peace in Judea, with no major wars or Roman "invasions" to resume control of the region.  The Jews lived within the governmental framework of the Roman Empire and do not seem to have harbored too much animosity for the Romans.  So, while Jesus lived, he was able to perform his ministry while the population was fairly free of military intervention or major internal strife.  

References:
Goodman, Martin.  Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. New York: Vintage Books, 2007.
Wikipedia.  "Herod the Great." 17 July 2012.  30 July 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great.

Theodicy and Aurora, Colorado

Where was God during the shooting in Aurora, Colorado?  It's simply a questions I've heard asked.  Of course, we could change the question to anywhere at anytime, like where was God during 9-11, where was God during the holocaust, where was God when the Titanic sank, or during WWI...the list goes on.  If God is good, why is there evil in the world?  Is there a good response to this question about theodicy, or should we just sweep it under the rug like we do so many questions concerning our faith?

There are a lot of answers to this question.  Some might be that God never existed, God is dead, God doesn't interfere in the world, God is standing back to give Satan the opportunity to rule until the Second Coming, or that God gives us choices and we must live with them.  We could talk about original sin, or lack of faith, or our just desserts.  Nothing, really, seems to satisfy.  We could even say that God was in that theater in Aurora, Colorado, boldly saving some people, but that isn't very comforting to the families of those who God didn't help and therefore died.  Some would say it was God's will, but I personally refuse to believe that God wants someone to wield weapons and use innocent human beings for target practice.  Let's admit it, when something like this happens, perhaps there is no wonderful, comforting answer.  So instead of wrestling with the disturbing questions, we chalk it up as one of God's mysteries, but that is also unsatisfying.

If God is good then why is there evil?  Perhaps we are wrong in our understanding of God.  The question of theodicy sometimes seems like a circle, where you make a statement but the answers you have lead you right back to the same questions, in a never-ending circle, ad infinitum.  Kind of like, what came first, the chicken or the egg?  Except the question of theodicy and the answers we have can affect the very basis of our faith. 

As Christians, we believe our God is all-knowing (omnipotent), present everywhere at all times (omni-present), possessing the ability to change anything according to his will (all-powerful).  So why doesn't he?  If God is benevolent and loves us, why would God want us to suffer, to die early, to die violently, or to die at all?   Why doesn't God at least save the little ones who have barely had a chance to live?  If we say we would gladly give our lives in exchange for a young child who died or is dying, why doesn't God feel the same way?  Why doesn't God simply cure those children instead of standing by and watching them die?  Perhaps our theodicy is wrong.  Maybe God is all-powerful but not omnipotent, and things happen that he doesn't know about.  Perhaps God is omnipotent but not all-powerful, and he can't change things.  Perhaps God is omnipotent, all-powerful, but not omni-present; maybe God can't be everywhere at all times.  Perhaps on a more simple level, there is evil in the world because God isn't all good like we say God is.  How you respond to the question of theodicy affects what you believe God's nature to be.    

As United Methodists, we believe that God is very good, but we desperately want to know why God does not intervene in the face of evil.  We profess that God made humankind in God's image.  One aspect of God's being that we embody is the ability to use our minds and respond to the world, in other words, to make choices.  And in this world where billions of people make trillions upon trillions of choices every day, we realize that we do not make those choices in a vacuum.  Everyone's choices effect everyone else in unplanned and unexpected ways.  Choices can be good or bad and can affect one person, a few people, or the whole planet.  Yet we believe that God's gift of this ability to gather information, use our brains, make decisions and follow through on those decisions is so precious to God that God does not interfere.  Why?  Because if God interferes and fixes things, or makes us do things or stops us from doing things, we become nothing more than puppets in the big cosmic play which, incidentally, would have no purpose at all except to entertain God who supposedly knows how it is all going to turn out anyway.  So, really, what would be the point?

Yes, we profess God is good.  Evil is in the world by our own doing as a result of our freedom to make choices, because we don't always make the right ones.  We love our freedom yet when things go wrong, we still want God to step in and fix things.  I'm not so sure that scripture says God will swoop down to save us every time we need saving.  Although Jesus and the disciples healed many people as a witness to God's power and presence, there are many that were never healed simply because we know that the poor and infirmed are everywhere, and Jesus and his band were not.  Jesus healed the blind man at the pool, but the Bible doesn't say anything about healing the rest of the people that were sitting around the pool, waiting for the waters to stir.  We are told in scripture that if we ask for anything in the name of Jesus, it will be granted.  We know that doesn't happen either.  We do know that scripture is rife with contradictions because the books of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament were written by different people at different times for different audiences with different understandings of nature and the world and of God.  Though inspired by God, they still constitute an author's best guess or best understanding of God, which the author may not have gotten totally correct.   

But there are some things in scripture that we can be sure of because if the books are taken as a whole, there are messages that are repeated over and over again.  One of those is that scripture provides us with everything we need to know to be saved.  Another is that God is love.  Thirdly, we know that God is with us, that God abides.  There are, of course, others.  But with these we know where God was during the shooting in Aurora, Colorado.  God was there.  God was with everyone in that place, guiding, talking, comforting, making his presence known, and for some, welcoming them to another place, because another thing we know from scripture is that Jesus has prepared a place for us when we die, a place that is better than this one.  Some could hear God above the din because they have a relationship that keeps them bound to God; some didn't know God but found him there; some didn't know God but because they had turned away from him, could never hear him.  God was with the shooter, but the shooter dismissed him and the shooter never heard.  God's voice is that still, small one that we have to want to hear.  Did God perform miracles?  Maybe, maybe not.  That is for everyone to decide on their own.  Some see them everywhere, others see them not at all.  Coincidence and luck may in fact be miracles.  I suppose it depends on how you define God's action in the world. 

Some may not find all of this very comforting, but I disagree.  I am extremely comforted by the fact that my God is with me.  No matter what I suffer, whether it be from by own decisions of the decisions of others, I know my God is with me.  God experiences my life, my ups and down, my happiness and my despair.  I know that even if I feel there is no one else in the world who knows what I am going through, my God does.  God's presence is with me whether I feel it or not, and that, for me, is enough.  Though I wish God would interfere at times, especially when loved ones are ill or dying, I submit to the mystery (even if that, too, is unsatisfying on some level) of a God who is so much above me that I cannot understand God's ways.  But I can understand his promise: I am with you, even to the end of the age.  

Did You Know? - Roman Funeral Masks

Heritage, or ancestry, was important in the ancient world to both Romans and Jews because there were simply some aspects of life where ancestry offered opportunity.  But there is one very interesting practice that the Romans had that some of us are unaware of -  the use of funeral masks.  The following is a section from the writings of Polybius:

"Whenever someone from the ranks of the illustrious dies, as a part of his funeral procession out of the city he is carried into the forum to the co-called rostra.  Usually his body is conspicuous in an upright pose; more rarely, he is lying down.  When all the people are standing round, a grown-up son, if the deceased has left one and if he happens to be present, or, if not, some other relative mounts the rostra and speaks about the virtues and lifetime achievements of the deceased...After they have buried him and performed the customary rites, a wax image of the deceased is placed in a very conspicuous spot in the house, in a wooden shrine.  This image is a mask made strikingly similar to the facial features and expression of the deceased.  The family puts these images on display on the occasion of public sacrifices, decorating them with great care.  When any illustrious family member dies, the family takes them to the funeral, putting them on men who seem to be most similar in height and size to the original...When the speaker who delivers the oration for the man to be buried has finished his speech about him, he then mentions the achievements and accomplishments of each of those other men whose masks are present, beginning with the most ancient."