Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Becoming Part of a Network of Hope by Kevin Miller

Just Imagine…

You are sleeping in bed when suddenly an ear-splitting blast rocks your home. You look out your window and see airplanes bombing your neighbourhood. Bombs are pounding everywhere, and every time you hear another airplane coming, your stomach turns, and you fear the sound of the next bomb may be the last thing you and your family ever hear on this earth.

      After somehow making it through to the next day, you take your three children—the oldest of whom is seven and the youngest two—and head for the safety of the border. None of your children have shoes to protect their feet from the rocky desert roads. Mile after mile, you carry the youngest one in your arms, close to your heart. But the feet of the other two are cracked and bleeding, and their faces are caked with dust and tears.

      When you arrive at the Pakistani border, your heart sinks: It’s closed. You look around and see dozens of other families languishing on the side of the road without food or water. You have come so far, only to share their fate.

After a few days, a refugee camp forms, and all you can do is wait.

      Eventually, winter comes and freezing temperatures move like a ghost from tent to tent, snatching 20 children every night. As you sleep, you hold your two-year-old son close, praying that he will not die from exposure like so many others. The cold bites like daggers into your feet, but your only concern is for your children.

      Three months pass, and finally someone says it’s safe to return to your village. Everyone starts the hard journey home with the hope of peace in his or her heart. Along the way, these hopes are challenged by the sight of burned-out cars and buildings everywhere, which bear testimony to the danger that has only recently passed.

      Finally, you arrive at your village. You turn a corner and suddenly all hope turns to despair as you see the burned-out walls that are all that remains of your home. All of your clothes, your dishes, your tools and your memories are gone. How are you going to survive? Where will you find clean water? Where will you get your next meal?

      This is the reality faced by 2-3 million Afghan families who left everything they had, fleeing war and drought when the US launched its attack last year against Al-Qaeda fighters based in Afghanistan. But they are not the only people group to suffer such a fate. Far from it. 

A Grim Picture

      Every day, millions of refugees and displaced persons around the world seek shelter, food and refuge. Poverty in developing nations continues at unimaginable levels. Epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, cholera and influenza challenge the already overburdened global health care system. Child mortality rates are increasing in many regions of the world. The United Nations estimates that ten million children will die from starvation in the next ten years. AIDS alone will create 40 million orphans by the year 2020!

      While these statistics paint a grim picture of the future, the opportunity for action has never been greater. Prosperity in the West has brought abundant resources. Unity among various elements of the society has created working relationships unthinkable a couple years ago. Modern technology, transportation systems, communication networks and available resources enable us to reach new levels of effectiveness in bringing hope to the world's needy.

A Ray of Hope

      Global Hope Network (GHN), a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ, International, is one relief agency that is taking advantage of these new efficiencies to improve the way aid is delivered to needy people around the world. GHN is a compassionate humanitarian organization that provides resources, personnel and services to relief efforts, development projects, agencies and communities worldwide. By partnering with other organizations and plugging into an already established network of over 600,000 volunteers around the world, they efficiently provide resources and manpower to help alleviate the world's needs. Their main areas of focus at the moment include Africa and the Middle East.

“We’re dealing with desperate people,” says International Director Hal Jones. “They’re literally worried about where they’re going to get their next meal, not where they’re going to go to school next year.”

            GHN’s efforts are divided among the following areas:

• Emergency Rapid Response Relief
• Natural Disaster Relief
• Disease and Poverty mediation, without      creating ongoing dependency
• Recruiting short-term volunteer teams for      existing agencies
• Networking community leaders and      organizations for effective application of resources to existing problems

You Can Get Involved

Each one of these areas requires the efforts of dozens short and long-term volunteers to make them happen. Jones says people with medical, agricultural and ESL skills are in particular demand right now. But GHN is able to use anyone who is willing to help.

“People who are retired or who have taken early retirement from their work are ideal candidates to help out with GHN,” says Jones. “They have the skills, and they also have the time to put them to work in a third-world setting.”

But you don’t have to go overseas to get involved. GHN needs plenty of people at home raising funds, supporting volunteers and getting their churches involved in relief efforts. One way to do this is through GHN’s Friendship Box program, which offers “hope from home to home” by having people in North America provide people in Afghanistan with a box of essential items, such as clothing and school supplies. These can be packed and sent overseas by individuals or churches. Jones says GHN is also looking for churches that can help raise money to ship millions of dollars of food, medicine and other gifts in kind overseas.

Anyone interested in finding out more about how they can get involved with GHN should visit their web site at www.globalhopenetwork.org or e-mail Hal Jones at rephjones@aol.com

Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left by Dustin Hicks

Our Non-External Participation, Don't Take it Personally

You may have noticed, at the church you attend, there are a group of young folks who probably sit at the back of your assembly, or sanctuary, or whatever the case may be, and they don't look impressed by what is transpiring. The size of this group may vary from church to church, but most sunday groupings have such a clan.

At my church we sit in the back left hand corner and we cross our arms, and wear dark clothing, and we might not stand up during the worship music. You may have asked yourselves why we even show up, if we are just going to insist on being so very disenfranchised. In fact, if we were bold enough to have a chant, it might be: "We're here, we're extremely cynical, get used to it!" Forgive my presumption as I attempt you give some answers for this.

For a vast myriad of reasons we've become jaded. Some have been wounded by the church, others have rebelled against what they've perceived to be a hypocritical institution, still others have listened to too much angst-ridden music. Despite all of this and more, small handfuls of us still show up at your congregations and try to be as invisible as possible.

We want something, and in some cases our notion of what that something is may be quite vague.

We may appear childish in our list of unspoken demands; to feel welcomed without necessarily having to engage in conversation (Don't take it personally), to feel like a part of the church family without getting bogged down by traps, like committing to help out in some fashion (Don't take it personally), and to be able to sit quietly at the back, as far away from the Holy rations as possible. We think we want to consume what's being offered, but we're paranoid that it could be poisonous (Don't take it personally).

However, we've made the huge effort to show up (and I'm not kidding, it is a huge effort), and despite all of our fears we desire the intangible, we want to taste of the Lord and see that He is good. A glimmer of hope remains in our greenish jaded pupils, that God is who you've been telling us He is, that the church is a loving community, that we will be healed of our sicknesses, most often of the soul. That the sun will come up again tomorrow and change this dark world into a bright and beautiful place.

We have one more demand: be patient with us. We may never end up looking the way you look, or worshipping God the way you worship Him, but maybe we will still manage to please Him.

So if you've read this article and you see me walk into your church, please don't nod at me knowingly, just smile, and maybe I'll eventually come over and shake your hand.

Are We Really Stingy? Are You? by Kevin Miller

As if the horrifying images from the tsunami that hit Southeast Asia, India, and Africa on Boxing Day weren’t enough, viewers in so-called “wealthy” nations also had to contend with a little-known UN official accusing them of being “stingy” in the face of such disasters. It was enough to make you choke on that leftover turkey and cranberry sauce...

Predictably, US Secretary of State Colin Powell and other spokespeople for the American government bristled at the accusation, made by the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland. Standing on their record, Powell, and more recently, President Bush, argued that the United States has given more foreign aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world. As for this current crisis, Powell stated that America’s contribution to disaster relief and rebuilding would likely run into the billions of dollars.

So what was Egeland talking about then? Clearly, the US is the star player when it comes to foreign aid. According to 2003 figures released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States government budgeted nearly $16 billion to foreign aid. That is nearly double what the next largest contributor—Japan—earmarked for such causes ($8.9 billion), and four times what Canada budgeted ($2.2 billion). So, taken on a raw dollar level, Powell and Bush’s claims cannot be disputed. When it comes to disaster relief and economic development, the United States is the undeniable leader. And remember, these figures do not even include the billions of dollars given by individual citizens through private charities and foundations.

But the dollar figures begin to lose some of their dazzle when you examine foreign aid spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This brings us closer to what Egeland was trying to get at. When rated according to this criterion, the United States plunges to number 22 on the list, contributing just 0.14 percent of its GDP to foreign aid. Japan doesn’t do much better at 0.2 percent (placing it at number 19), and even Canada’s 0.26 percent contribution fails to place it in the top ten (they’re ranked at number 13). Leading the pack is Norway (Egeland’s home country), which contributes 0.92 percent of its GDP to foreign aid. Still shy of a single percentage point, but, proportionally speaking, well over six times what the United States gives. If the American government decided to match the Norwegians next year, their foreign aid giving would leap to over $100 billion—about half of what it is costing them to fight the war in Iraq. And if all of the 22 richest nations in the world gave just one percent—never mind the 10 percent Egeland suggested they give when he appeared recently on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360°—the globe would literally be awash in foreign aid dollars. In fact, there may even be a surplus!

While Egeland’s comments have probably inspired more feelings of bitterness than generosity among Americans (further souring the already tepid relationship between the US and the UN), no one can dispute the validity of his criticism. When the world’s governments met at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they agreed to a program, known as Agenda 21, which called on the world’s 22 richest nations to meet a foreign aid target of 0.7 percent of their GDP. As of 2003, only six nations had met or exceeded this target, including Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. With countries like the United States and Canada giving only one-fifth of this amount twelve years after the agreement was signed, it only makes sense that someone would point out our failure to meet such an important obligation. Such comments may make us angry, and they could have been delivered in a more diplomatic fashion, but that does not mean they are without truth. I do not believe that Americans, Canadians, Japanese, Norwegians or citizens of the other 22 richest countries in the world are stingy people. A little self-involved maybe, but not the type to turn a blind eye to a brother or sister in need. That said, I think we could all get by on a little less and give away a little more. That includes both governments and individual citizens.

So, rather than become angry and defensive when confronted with this fact, why not take up Egeland’s challenge and prove him wrong? I am sure nothing would make him happier. After all, we are facing one of the largest humanitarian disasters in modern history. The priority right now should be on helping those in need, not pointing fingers or defending ourselves. As nations and as individuals, we would all do well to search our hearts and ask if we are truly doing all that we could be doing in the face of such pressing needs.

I do not believe there is not some magic number or percentage of our personal income or GDP that, if reached, will alleviate us of all further responsibility. How much or how little you give is a matter between you and God. So while you are busy searching your own heart, take some time to search God’s heart as well. Don’t worry: I highly doubt that He will accuse you of being stingy, as Egeland did. God is much more likely to inspire you with a vision of what the world can become if we contribute even a little bit more than we do currently. I would like to inspire you with that same vision as well.

You may already contribute regularly to one or more global relief organizations. If so, we encourage you to channel your extra relief funds through them. If not, you may want to consider contributing to the Global Aid Network (GAiN), a relief organization that demonstrates the love of God to hurting and needy people around the world through relief and development projects.

In addition to increasing your own personal giving, I also encourage you to contact your local, state, provincial, and national government officials, urging them to increase the amount of money your nation contributes to foreign aid and development. If we all work together like this, even the little bit that we do will add up to a whole lot.

Divorce and Remarriage... Could Freedom be Possible by Tim Hildebrand

Hey Fran

So, you caught me off guard the other day when you mentioned the divorce-remarriage verses. I guess I forgot that anybody else ever worried about that stuff...which is funny, since it was the dominant question in my life for so many years. It never occurred to me that you'd worry about that stuff, but then I guess with your mom's situation, it makes sense. It always seemed like if I went to anybody for advice, I always heard the same thing: "it's all grace, man! It's the New Testament man, blah blah blah grace blah blah you're being legalistic blah blah stop punishing yourself Christ already died for you blah blah blah blah blah" Not to deride grace, but I was sincerely trying to understand some very strict-sounding scriptures, and the answers I was hearing didn't address those scriptures, or my worries about them. I mean they're IN the New Testament. So I want to share with you what I figured out about them, and how I applied that to me. Maybe it'll help you.

They're very strict.  That's the first thing.  :)

The biggies are Matt. 5:31-32, Matt. 19:7-9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. These are the most strict. They all say basically the same thing; if you divorce your wife and marry another, you commit adultery. Though the passages are usually written towards one gender, I think it's fair to assume that these passages apply equally to men and to women. In fact we know this to be true, because the Mark passage states the rules twice, once each way: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

As I'm sure you know, some of these four passages are not as strict as the others. Matt. 5 mentions an exception, which is reinforced in Matt. 19: "whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery." All the translations of the Bible, from the King James to the Message, contain this exception in Matt. 19. And so we see that immorality, according to THESE passages, is the lone grounds upon which one can divorce and remarry without fault.

If it follows that these passages apply equally to women as to men, my wife committed adultery by leaving me and marrying another, when I had never been unfaithful. If you re-read the Matt 19 passage, her unfaithfulness in that sense is what allows me to move on with a clear conscience.

So by the most legalistic standards, I consider myself free.  And the woman who marries me.

I think there's another way to look at this though. I think any divorced person can identify with King David, when he wrote these words after his sin with Bathsheba:

"Have pity upon me and take away the awful stain of my transgressions. Oh, wash me, cleanse me from this guilt. Let me be pure again. For I admit my shameful deed-it haunts me day and night...
"Sprinkle me with cleansing blood and I shall be clean again. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow. And after you have punished me, give me back my joy again...
"You don't want penance; if you did, how gladly I would do it! You aren't interested in offerings burned before you on the altar. It is a broken spirit you want..." (Ps. 51:1-3, 7-8, 16-17)

And God answered this prayer.  After David and Bathsheba's first born son died as punishment,
God gave them his blessing: "Then David comforted Bath-sheba; and when he slept with her, she conceived and gave birth to a son and named him Solomon. And the Lord loved the baby, and sent congratulations and blessings through Nathan the prophet. David nicknamed the baby Jedidiah (meaning, "Beloved of Jehovah") because of the Lord's interest." (2 Sam. 12:24-25)

This marriage, which started out with not just adultery but murder, was subsequently blessed by God. It seems extraordinary to me that God, who we are told doesn't want penance, and who demonstrates that he is perfectly able to forgive and move on in the Old Testament, would demand a lifetime of strict celibacy and misery in the New Testament...which is supposed to be all about forgiveness and freedom. Something isn't adding up.

When I was in the midst of all this, very troubled and trapped, the whole thing seemed quite bizarre. I wanted to err on the side of caution, and so was holding to the strictest interpretations of the divorce-remarriage scriptures in the gospels. "So, It's basically a waiting game?" I asked God and myself. "The first person to crack and remarry...sets the other person free? That seems so sick." And yet, my wife had made it clear that reconciliation was an impossibility, and no other option seemed available. All of the legalistic reasoning like what I wrote to begin this email seemed so much more like Judaism or Islam than it did Christianity. Having determined that I'm free anyway, I was able to go back and look at those scriptures again, without worrying that I was rationalizing for my own sake. Here's some of the questions that come to mind...that likely came to your mind...as I read them again:

-if the other scriptures are complete, why are the Matthew ones different? And when Paul adds his bit about Christians not being bound when an unbelieving spouse leaves, does that make all four of these first ones untrue, or just incomplete? If the Bible illustrates two exceptions elsewhere to what is here articulated as an unbreakable rule...what gives? Are we not understanding the rule correctly? Here's some interesting things I found...

In Matthew 5:22 we are told that you will burn in hell for saying to someone "you fool". In Matthew 5:29 and 30 we are told to gouge out our eyes and cut off our hands if they cause us to sin. Matthew 5:30 and 31 tells us that God's rules for divorce are "not at all, ever" except for in cases of adultery. Matthew 5:34 says make no oaths at all. And Matthew 5:42 says to give to him that asks of you.

Well, clearly something is wrong here, if we're to take all these things literally. A lot of us have used the word "fool". Jesus did, in Luke 12:20. I don't think anybody believes God wants billions of men walking around with pitted eye holes and stumps...but that's exactly where we'd be. The apostle Paul shaved his head on account of a vow (Acts 18:18). And your Winnipeg police friend told you that there are places that will care properly for vagrants, and that giving them money when they ask often hurts more than it helps. So are these verses giving us rules for living, that we are to take and enforce in all cases at face value? Or is there something else going on?

I think the answer is in Matthew 5:20: "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." I think the examples he gives after that (listed above) are his way of saying "you can't be good enough. It's impossible." Compared to these examples, the law of the Old Testament seems like a fantastically generous compromise between the holiness of God, and the weakness of man. My contention here is that this section of the sermon on the mount should not be taken as a "new ten commandments" which are much more strict than the originals. It's an honest revelation of the holiness of God...how out of reach it is. It's a set-up for the plan of freedom that comes later. If we ARE supposed to take the divorce passage literally, why not the others? I think most people assume the divorce one is literal and the others aren't, because it's the only one they're not guilty of.

But what about the other three super-strict passages? As you read the accounts, it appears they're three different accounts of one story. Pharisees try to trick Jesus with a question about divorce, and he turns the tables on them by telling them they're not strict enough. The Matthew 19 passage is a direct answer to the Pharisees' question in 19:3. In Mark, the divorce passage begins with the Pharisees' question in 10:2, then continues with the disciples' questions. And the Luke 16 passage begins with the Pharisees' scoffing in 16:14. I think the point here is similar to that in the sermon on the mount. If righteousness is what you want, here it is, and you can't live up to it.

I'm not throwing away what Jesus says in these passages...He is stating God's true opinion on divorce. And even in this horribly imperfect world, God's desire is still clearly "No Divorce". Divorce is awful....it digs so to the deep of our emotions and the core of who we are, that it can lead to suicide and murder. It's ripping apart a permanent spiritual bond. It destroys children. Destroys some of them for life. That's why God said "I hate divorce" in Malachi. But I don't think these passages should lead us to think divorce is unforgiveable in a way other sins aren't. I think our own legalism and desire for an easy answer (which is what legalism usually is) has led us to somehow dig our feet in too deeply on some issues, and ignore others. While I did apply the most legalistic standards to myself, and passed, I don't think, in the end, I would counsel someone else to. I think after all is said and done, my answer would be more along hte lines of "blah blah grace blah blah forgiveness blah blah blah." :)

You know what the funny thing is, Francesca? None of this stuff I've written had much to do with my final decision to start dating again. I was doing devotions one day several years ago, and I heard God's voice say to me "Tim, it's time to move on." I began to protest that how could I do that, when God's Word seemed to say..." Then I stopped. I realized with embarrassment who I was speaking too. So I gave in to the fact that I'd just received the answer I'd prayed for for years, circled that day on my calendar, and thanked God profusely. That was my own Nathan-the-prophet experience that allowed me to move on. I'm free. And I believe the woman who marries me is free. The stuff I've written above about grace and so forth has mostly come out of my trying to understand God's voice to me...why He freed me, and how it was possible.

"Is there no one who condemns you?  Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and from now on sin no more."

...this to a woman who was caught in the very act of adultery.  And, I believe, to me.

I hope this helps somewhat. If it doesn't help you, at least maybe it'll help you understand me and the journey I've been on. I'll talk to you later.

-Tim

The Free Burma Rangers

Message from a relief team leader (FBR), Toungoo District, Northern Karen
State, Burma. 1 February, 2005.

Courtesy of Steve Gumaer at Partners - www.partnersworld.org

We just completed a relief mission to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
in Toungoo District, Karen State. In addition to the reports and photographs
we have been sending, I wanted to add this message.

Long-Term Compassion for the Unborn by Derek Weiss

The Governor of South Dakota recently signed a bill which criminalizes the practice of abortions within state borders, except in cases where the mother's very life (and not just her health - a vague distinction) is at risk. Abortions would not be a legal option for victims of rape or incest.

This brings to mind some interesting stories from early church history. Historians have explained the incredible growth experienced by Christianity in the first two centuries in a number of ways. One of the more notable ones is that Christians often adopted babies who were either left by society to die after their parents were killed by plagues, or babies who were left to die of exposure because they were unwanted - an abhorrent though relatively common occurrence in the Roman world. Beyond simply acting as witnesses of God's compassion, these Christians would create huge families as they adopted all these new children. These rescued kids were raised by Christian parents, generally with the help of the whole local Christian community, and became fundamental members of the Christian community that expanded rapidly across the Roman Empire.

Stories like these are used by Christians today to inspire them in their fight against abortion. Rightly so: Christians should take pride in the compassionate work of their spiritual ancestors, people who took on the hard work of child-rearing in their devotion to a God who loved "the least of these." But these stories serve as so much more than just smug reminders that we are on the "right" side of this issue: Besides demanding our service to unborn victims of abortion, they also demand are continued service to "unwanted" children who are born.

South Dakota has one of the most dismal social service records in the United States and, in fact, the Western world. Will the Christians of this State, and of the United States as a whole, step up to adopt and care for the children who are born there because of this law? Their responsibility is not just for the lives of these children while they remain unborn, but for their lives after birth as well. And if Pro-Life groups fight to ban abortions using state intervention, should they also fight to provide government assistance for the (often poor and single) mothers and children who are now forced to have these babies? Of course they should. Our Christian heritage, and our Lord Jesus Himself, call us to no less.

Derek Weiss is on staff at TWU in Langley, BC.

Cleanse the Lens by Ken Deeks

I once had a difficult meeting with a student whose life had gone sour. Although I was powerless to change even a single detail about his circumstances, I could help him to see a little differently. I could help by asking where God was in their pain, and by guiding them to answer that question in a way that made them more aware of the One who promised to never go away.

Helping people see differently is what gives them wings. Height brings perspective. What they see is the same, but how they see changes amazingly.

The Psalmist asked, “What can man do to me?”, so I asked the student,
What is the worst thing that could happen if your situation does not change?
They listed a few things.
I ask for more. I ask them to parade the horribles.
They tell me more.
If all of that happens, what will happen to you?
They give me a few ideas.
If that happens to you, will you survive?
Yes, but I won’t feel good.
How long will you feel ‘not good’?
I don’t know.
Will you feel ‘not good’ forever?
No.
Have you ever felt ‘not good’ before?
Yes.
Did you survive?
Yes.
If you end up not feeling not good for a very long time – but not forever – will you be OK?
Yes.

The conversation went on. We dug a little deeper into what it means to feel not good, what it means to own those feelings honestly, and to gain a measure of authority over them by naming them, like Adam named the animals. In time, we talked about God. We talked about God’s promises, God’s goodness, and God’s unflinching faithfulness. After a couple of hours, nothing had changed, but everything has changed.

Henri Nouwen wrote about how the way we see can change when he described in his journal one of the most difficult periods of his life, a time when he lost self-esteem, the energy to live and work, his sense of being loved, even his hope in God. The deep, black night was triggered by a sudden separation from what had been to him a deeply satisfying friendship.

He wrote: “When you love someone or miss someone, you experience an inner pain. It is also possible . . . . that the pain of absence will show you that you are out of touch with your own deeper self. You [think] you need the other [person] to experience inner wholeness, to have a sense of well-being. You have become emotionally dependent on the other [person] and sink into depression because of his or her absence. It feels as if the other [person] has taken away a part of you that you cannot live without. Then the pain of absence reveals a certain lack of trust in God’s love. But God is enough for you. . . . . Death or absence does not end or even diminish the love of God that brought you to the other person. It calls you to take a new step into the mystery of God’s inexhaustible love. This process is painful, very painful, . . . . but the more you are stripped of the God-given support of people, the more you are called to love God for God’s sake.”

Giving wings to the sour (I forget the origin of that expression) has to do with helping people see how God is using their present situation to transfigure them. Our human nature wants to renovate the circumstances. God wants to renovate us.

I’m re-reading the Narnia tales. C.S. Lewis captured the importance of giving wings to the sour by changing the way people “see” in The Horse and His Boy. Shasta is the boy on a difficult journey to warn King Lune of the impending attack of the armies of Tash. In one scary scene, Shasta is the lone rider on a mountain pass in the darkness; he rides an untidy horse that will not obey his commands. Shasta is then made suddenly aware of a large presence in the dark. He speaks out in fear, “Who are you? The great lion, still a mysterious presence, says to the boy, “Tell me your sorrows”. Shasta complains to the large voice of his dangerous journey, his frightening experiences, his unsatisfying childhood, and now the fact that he is hungry, thirsty, and cold. Aslan’s answer is a big surprise to Shasta: “I do not call you unfortunate . . .” In other words, Shasta is blessed. In spite of all his complaints, he is blessed. Why? Because he is on the right road. Then, in successive waves of surprise, Shasta learns many things about his own life and journey, and the path where even now he has a task to do. The danger is still real, Shasta is still tired and hungry, but he has been blessed, and he now knows that where he is, dangerous as it really is, is still where he should be, and even where he wants to be, because Aslan is on the road with him.

People whose lives have gone sour need to know that Jesus is walking alongside of them, and is saying, “Tell me your sorrows”. They need guidance in talking to the mysterious Lion. After they have done that nothing will have changed but the way they see, which in time will make everything change.

I used to try to give wings to the sour by always assuming the problem was broken wings, and it was my job to fix them. That might be the calling of some people, but I was terrible at it. Counseling sessions were anxiety episodes. I now try very hard to not try to fix people. Instead, among a few other things, I now try to help them see differently.

Rick Watts, who teaches at Regent College in Vancouver, helped me with this issue through his teaching on the Gospel of Mark. Watts proposed that Mark might have structured his gospel around a section in Isaiah where the prophet used exodus imagery to describe Israel’s return from Babylonian exile. Isaiah’s new exodus included three parts: (1) DELIVERANCE from enemies (Is 49:24), followed by (2) a JOURNEY in which Yahweh would lead the blind “by ways they have not known” (Is 42:16), toward (3) a restored and purified JERUSALEM (Is 60). Since Mark opened his gospel by quoting Is 40:3, a text that smacks of exodus language, Watts showed how Mark’s gospel could be organized around the three parts of Isaiah’s new exodus. First, Mark looked at Jesus’ mighty acts of DELIVERANCE (1:1 – 8:21), where ten of the twelve miracles of the gospel are recounted. The deliverance section is followed by a JOURNEY (8:22 – 10:52) in which Jesus leads the blind disciples along a path they do not understand. Finally, Jesus and the disciples arrive in JERUSALEM (11 – 16).

It is the second part of the new exodus that grabbed me. In the first part of the gospel (the deliverance section) Jesus taught the crowds and performed miracles. Now he will focus on teaching the disciples in a way that changes them forever. But the teaching and the changing doesn’t happen instantly, it happens slowly. This part of Mark is all about a journey. However, the journey is bracketed before and after by two miracle stories, both of which are sight miracles. In 8:22-26 Mark told the story of the blind man who was healed in two stages. His imperfect sight after the initial healing corresponded to the spiritual sight of the disciples, who unlike the religious leaders were not totally blind, could still see, although imperfectly. Just as the blind man required two touches from Jesus, the disciples would require a second contact with Jesus, after the resurrection, to have their eyes fully opened. The second sight miracle concerned Bartimaeus (10:46-52). In between these two sight miracles is the account of the blind disciples travelling along the “way” to Jerusalem. They are reminiscent of Isaiah’s prophecy: Yahweh will lead the blind “by ways they have not known” (Is 42:16).

As I listened in the car, it began to dawn on me that a caring follower of Jesus was supposed to do what Jesus was doing. A follower of Jesus is at their best when they patiently walk the journey with the blind, helping them to see where God is and how God is present and working, and forming their core; helping them discern clues as to God’s intent, and assisting them to re-align their perspective and to cleanse their lens.

Ken Deeks is Dean of Christ for the Nations Bible School in Langley, BC

Advent in Iraq, Rush Limbaugh, and Reality By Ryan Beiler

In August this year I began considering participation in a Christian Peacemaker Teams delegation to Iraq in November. With much prayer by friends and family, I began my discernment process, weighing the obvious risks. In Colombia I had traveled through territory controlled by guerillas with a penchant for kidnapping. In Gaza I had fled from warning shots fired by Israeli soldiers. But I had never walked in solidarity with people whose land had been invaded and occupied by my own nation's military. I struggled with the notion expressed by kidnapped peacemaker Norman Kember, the heart of the CPT mission: am I willing to take the same risks for peace that those in the military take for war?

As weeks passed, circumstances and logistics dictated my choice not to go. The November delegation had filled up before I could join. And even before Kember, and fellow team members Harmeet Sooden, Jim Loney, and Tom Fox were taken hostage on Nov. 26, I had been told that my primary reason for going - photojournalism - would not be worthwhile because of the team's own security precautions.

Tomorrow is the day that the so-called Swords of Righteousness Brigade have set for the peacemakers' execution if U.S. forces do not release all detainees held in Iraq. So today, with a vague sense of survivor's guilt, I reflect on the impending miracle or tragedy of these men's lives.

Their survival would be a miracle. And yet, statements of support from the likes of Hamas and cleric Abu Qatada, a suspected al Qaeda terrorist imprisoned in the U.K., are already miraculous. Our enemies - by any conventional definition - have appealed for the release of our friends. The cynic will say that support from such quarters merely confirms that CPT must be as anti-American as the terrorists. But hints of parable permeate: The Samaritan, a despised foreigner and outcast to Jesus' audience, disregards religious and ethnic division to aid one in need, while countrymen preoccupied with their own purity pass by.

Indeed, Rush Limbaugh is glad these "leftist feel-good hand-wringers" are being "shown reality." To follow his version of the parable, they'd never have fallen among thieves if they hadn't been walking on the road to Jericho in the first place. His reference to reality is intriguing, coming in support of an administration now widely regarded as out of touch with the reality in Iraq. Promises that we would be greeted as liberators, that Iraq would pay for its own invasion with oil revenue, that we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were, that only a few troops would be needed - all evaporated in the face of a reality that the likes of Limbaugh can only imagine, while the men and women of the armed forces, CPT members, and the people of Iraq experience its horror on a daily basis.

Hawks are always eager to chide doves that though war is hell, it's the only realistic course to security. But frankly, their reality is terrible. While the body count in Iraq surpasses 10 times that of Sept. 11 (I will not here discriminate between theirs and ours), this week the 9/11 Commission has issued a report card filled with Ds and Fs - evidence that while our military misadventures overseas have exacted billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, measures at home that could truly make us safer have been neglected. Katrina is merely one case in point.

Jesus warned us, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Watching file footage of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and hearing their hollow promises followed by claims of "mission accomplished" - one is not sure whether to laugh at the absurdity or cry at the resulting tragedies such as Abu Ghraib. "A few bad apples," we were told. "You will know them by their fruits," Jesus said (v. 16).
But in stark contrast with neo-con messiah complex fantasies, Tom Fox had no illusions about the dangers he would face in Iraq. "I am to stand firm against the kidnapper as I am to stand firm against the soldier," he wrote more than a year ago. "Does that mean I walk into a raging battle to confront the soldiers? Does that mean I walk the streets of Baghdad with a sign saying ‘American for the Taking?' No to both counts. But if Jesus and Gandhi are right, then I am asked to risk my life, and if I lose it to be as forgiving as they were when murdered by the forces of Satan."
Far from "feel-good hand-wringers," these men knew the difference between good and evil, and that living out Christ's call is costly. They were so in touch with reality that officials preferred to ignore that they denounced abuses at Abu Ghraib long before the photographs came out - before anyone was listening.

I could denounce the Swords of Righteousness Brigade for threatening to kill the people who have defended the very detainees they demand be released, but that doesn't seem productive at this moment. Instead, I stand astonished as other Muslims - militants, politicians, and religious leaders - defend these captive Christians, and Jesus' upside-down kingdom glimmers. CPT's risky Christianity, broadcast by al Jazeera, has done more to promote mutual understanding and goodwill than any ham-handed tour by Karen Hughes, the U.S. State Department's head public relations envoy.
This week's advent theme is promise - the promise that a true and trustworthy savior is coming. We are called to cast aside false prophets and anticipate a messiah who was willing to become vulnerable, to enter dangerous territory, to put his life in the hands of those who couldn't tell enemies from neighbors, and taught us to love them all. 1 John 2:17 tells us, "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." If this seems unrealistic, we now have four more witnesses to the contrary. While in a spirit of Advent anticipation we wait and pray that tomorrow will bring a new promise of life, I am confident that as they walk in his steps, the Christ who defeated death will work more miracles regardless of grim realities.

Ryan Beiler is web editor for Sojourners.