Thursday, January 9, 2025

Where Luke's Story Has Taken Us

Luke, cc. 1-3 

From people of old there came two old people,  

their gametes had failed, they were growing quite feeble. 

An angel appeared to bring them some elation, 

a child was now coming, a next generation. 

 

Elsewhere was a woman, young and betrothed, 

the angel now entered into her abode, 

to say she was favored and having a child, 

the news was a miracle, the whole idea wild.  

 

The young mother paid the old one a visit, 

their joy was profound, their encounter exquisite. 

Their wombs were in sync, one danced as a portend; 

they prophesied hope and reversals of fortune. 

 

c. 2

Christ’s birth in the night brought celestial sensations, 

the angel, with others, paid a night visitation, 

to shepherds (of all folk) ennobling their worth, 

and sang of God’s glory and peace on the earth.

 

And after the child’s snipping and presentation,

they went to the temple for purification.

Two elders were there who spoke bright affirmations, 

they saw in this child God’s work of salvation. 

 

With annual treks for the feasts of Passover, 

when Jesus was twelve he chose to stay over. 

Confounding the wise with question he raised, 

his mother was worried but also amazed.  

 

c. 3

While some folks were rulers and other were priestly, 

the Word of the Lord came to someone quite beastly. 

He stood by the Jordan and called for deep change, 

then John warned the people their hearts were estranged. 

 

With mountains brought low and rough places made smooth, 

John’s message was not intended to sooth. 

It called for repentance, for things made anew; 

so sinners came asking what are we to do? 

 

The answers were simple, their effects were far-reaching,

“Share clothing, share food,” was the change John was preaching.

And to those who used power, who oppressed and extorted, 

“Be happy when you have enough,” he retorted.

 

“Could you be the Christ?” they asked the baptizer. 

“No, one is coming, one who is mightier. 

He’ll bring Spirit and fire, for a time of great cleansing,

he’ll show who is in and who’s just pretending.” 

 

One day Jesus came and he, too, stepped in, 

he too was baptized, who knew no sin! 

The sky was torn open, the Spirit alighted, 

a voice said, “My loved one in whom I’m delighted!”  

 

From people of old to the child of delight, 

with stories encompassing bright days and dark nights, 

the waters continue to offer a place, 

where we’re called “beloved” by dint of God’s grace. 

 

Friday, January 3, 2025

The Story of the Magi and Its Discontents

Matthew’s second chapter gives us a story about Magi coming to worship the newborn King of the Jews. “Magi” is a transliteration of the Greek term μάγοι, the plural form of μάγος, and it is related to our English term “magic.” So, why do we call them “Wise men” or “Kings”? I can only offer some preliminary responses to those questions, but largely I suspect Matthew’s story is just too raw and uncomfortable for many folks to take at face value. 

The people of Israel had a difficult history with astrology. Much of the Old Testament seems to have been written during or immediately after the exile, when Israelites spent several generations in Babylon, surrounded by its devotion to astral cults. I heard an Old Testament professor say that the casual way that Genesis describes God creating “the heavens and the earth” was, to protest against astral cults and relocate “the heavens” as a part of God’s creation, not as divine in itself. So, a story about Magi, who saw a star at its rising and discerned that a new King of Israel had been born, might at least deserve a footnote about how Matthew is not intending to give astrology any credit. Matthew offers no such footnote, but translators and interpreters of Matthew’s story have tried to “fix” Matthew’s story over the years.

I’m not entirely sure how the phrase “Wise Men” came to be a way of translating μάγοι. The annotations in different translations of the Bible that are comical in how they try to maintain translation integrity, without ruining a story that we have come to love. When the word “magi” first appears in v. 1, the New International Version reads “Magi” but annotates, “traditionally called wise men,” whereas the English Standard Version goes the other way by reading, “wise men” and annotating “Greek: magi.” The New Revised Standard Version reads, “wise men” and annotates “or astrologers; Greek: magi.” It’s a lovely hodgepodge of nobody simply translating μάγοι as “magi” and certainly not as “magicians” or “astrologers.” The only other times variations of the word μάγος are used in the New Testament are in the book of Acts (cc. 8 and 13). In each case, the person described is translated as a “sorcerer” or “magician,” and what they practice is “sorcery” or “magic,” with no annotations suggesting that they might be “wise.” 

The tradition of calling the Magi “Kings” is easier to trace. Isaiah 60 has long been embraced as a prophecy about Matthew’s story, since it mentions visitors who come bringing “gold and incense.”  In part, it reads, “Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.” At least one early hymnodist, John Henry Hopkins, took his cue from Isaiah and wrote the song “We Three Kings,” which has solidified the idea that the Magi were royals ever since. Mr. Hopkins took another liberty in writing this song, although he was not the first by any means. Matthew mentions three types of gifts – gold, frankincense, and myrrh – but never number of Magi themselves. Through the years, church tradition has decided there were three of them, that they were Wise Men and/or Kings, granted them names (Gaspar, Balthasar, and Melchior), and even identified which countries they came from. 

In the end, Matthew’s sparseness makes this story so fascinating to me. He offers no explanation or apology for a story where certain Magi read the stars, saw the truth in them, and came to worship the newborn. In that same story, Bible scholars read the Scriptures and concluded that the promised one would be born in Bethlehem, but none of them traveled to Bethlehem to worship, leaving us with an uncomfortable story where stargazers were more in touch with what God was doing in the world than the Bible readers. I suspect that contrast is part of the reason the church has worked so hard to make the Magi exotic and downplay their magical interest and astrological reading.   

There’s a lot more to Matthew’s story that is worth exploring - not the least of which are the political implications. It is a fabulous, fascinating, and tragic story that doesn’t need us to sanitize of fix it, but to be humbled and learn from it. 

Mark of St. Mark


Thursday, December 26, 2024

The 2024 Davisfolk Christmas Letter

(cue up “My Favorite Things”)


‘Manda’s and Mickey’s artistic vocations,

Classes and live shows and PBS stations.

Loving Tallulah as she learns to sing,

These are our favorite Iowa things.


Portraits of stipple, an art pointillistic,

Serving nutritious food that tastes terrific.

Luke’s art and cooking and music on strings,

These are our fave California things.


Teddy’s the lone dog surrounded by kittens,

Nic and Ms. Lindy dress warmly with mittens.

Gardening, growing, and canning in spring,

These are our favorite Iowa things.


Sharing her faith and still teaching hip-hopping,

Abigail’s schedule is often eye-popping.

All the while wearing a champion’s ring,

These are our fave California things.


Hopes we’re tending; 

By rememb’ring;

That’s what we can do.

By joyfully sharing our favorite things

We’re sending our love to you. 


It’s hard to capture a single full life in one letter, much less nine of them. Mostly we want to let you know that we have a lot of things to be thankful for and your friendship is among them. We are well and continue to enjoy our lives here in southern California. And while we enter 2025 with deep concerns, we continue to imagine the world the Christmas story implants in us – where tears are dried, wolf and lamb lie side-by-side in peace, nations no longer engage in war, and families no longer huddle in refugee camps. Please join us in trusting that Christ brings good news of great joy and invites us to share in it. May the hope of Christmas infuse your life with joy, 


Mark and Chris Davis 

Monday, December 23, 2024

A Whole Lotta Good Worship Opportunities

 Friends, 

Below is a list of the worship opportunities at St. Mark over the fourth weekend of Advent and on Christmas Eve. All of the services, except for the children's program, will be available for livestream on our YouTube Channel and for delayed worship afterwards. You can access our worship services here

Saturday at 5:00pm, we will have our Blue Christmas Service. We know that a season filled with joy is also a time of pain for those who cannot be with the ones they love. Rather than denying that pain, we offer this service to embrace the difficult part of this season, whether it is through death, distance, or some manner of estrangement. We will have opportunities to write a letter to the ones whom we miss, gather our letters to remember that we are not alone in our pain, and to have a time of anointing and prayer. It is somber – a feeling that we don’t always associate with the Christmas season – but it is filled with honesty and healing. 

Sunday at 9:30am, we will celebrate the 4th week of Advent. During this Advent season we have been asking, “What Your Sign?” as we look at the symbols of our faith. One of our shared symbols is the Advent Wreath, whose candles we have been lighting after another. This week we light the Candle of Love, as we marvel at how God’s love for us is made known by – the birth of a child. As the angel told the shepherds, “This will be a sign to you, you will find a baby.” What better way is there for us to set our sights on what God is doing in the world than to join the shepherds in going to see this sign of hope? 

Christmas Eve at 4:30pm, we will have our Family Christmas Eve Service. One of our values at St. Mark is inclusivity, and this service is a way of inviting as many children as possible to participate in the storytelling of Christmas. Since the children in attendance on Christmas Eve may be visiting from out of town, we have a pageant made up of some rehearsed parts and lots of impromptu participation, so that all the children in attendance can present, “A Savior’s Birth.” If you have family visiting with you that include little ones, this is the perfect opportunity to bring them and invite them to join in the pageant. 

Christmas Eve at 7:00pm, the St. Mark Chancel Choir will lead us in a Service of Lessons and Carols. The “lessons” will walk us through the Gospel of Luke’s Christmas story, starting with the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary and concluding with the shepherd’s visit to Jesus. This service will also feature a string quartet, led by our friend Julie Metz, and will conclude with “Passing the Light of Christ” as we sing Silent Night. 

Christmas Eve at 9:00pm, we will circle back to the Symbolic Meaning of the Advent Candles that we have been lighting throughout the season and revisit our themes of “Living in Hope,” “Longing for Peace,” “Singing our Joy,” and “Birthing Love” as they lead us to lighting the Christ Candle. Throughout we will offer reflections by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was always amazed by the world-changing moment when God became human, a child, naked and dependent in this world. This service will conclude with “Passing the Light of Christ” as we sing Silent Night. 

Mark of St. Mark


Sunday, December 15, 2024

Two Tragedies

Last week we read about the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare in the early hours outside of his hotel. What followed that murder, and the subsequent arrest of the murderer, was curious. For some, pent-up anger and resentment toward the insurance industry created what looks like a wave of sympathy for the action. (I want to be careful here. Nobody I've spoken to has said anything that sounds like they condoned the murder. Some folks have expressed extreme views online, apparently, but that is how we've come to use social media these days. What some are calling a "wave of sympathy" may be more of a ripple, but even that is notable, because we are talking about murder.) I’m trying to understand where that wave or ripple of sympathy comes from, so please bear with me. 

 

All of us know the frustration of spending time on a phone tree listening to a menu of options (because some of them have recently been changed) and yelling "Operator!" into our phone to little or no avail. We joke about it after the fact, but if the call is about a serious illness, it can be maddening. Some folks have had to put a procedure or prescription on hold because it was pending approval by their insurance company – a decision that is rendered when it is rendered. Too many folks have felt perpetually helpless with a process that seems to put our or our loved ones' health decisions into the hands of a nameless, faceless, voiceless decision-maker, whose cost/benefit analysis remains a mystery.[1]


 

If someone feels that their chronic pain, or the death of their loved one, was the result of bureaucratic red tape, it is emotionally hard to accept. And that pain can be compounded into resentment if we imagine that our best options are denied because of cost-cutting measure that benefit shareholders. I suspect this feeling of helplessness is what the “wave of sympathy” is really all about. 

 

Meanwhile, we abhor murder. Rightly. Murder calls for our clear and full-throated condemnation. And vigilantism, while often feeling justified by anger at its inception, almost always goes off the rails once someone decides that laws no longer apply. The murder of Brian Thompson was an act of gun violence, leaving a family in mourning and forever be scarred by it. Their pain is real, anger about such violence is likewise real. Gun violence fuels its own kind of resentment. 

 

Our challenge is to express our steadfast opposition to murder and to be sympathetic with those who have understandable resentment toward the health insurance industry. Or, to put it another way, our challenge is to condemn this murder without sounding as if we are unsympathetic toward those who feel that they live with chronic pain or that their loved one died because of callous bureaucratic red tape.  

 

This morning, the C.E.O. of UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealth Care, wrote an Op Ed in response to vitriol and threats that some folks have issued toward his employees. In it, he makes a distinction between the healthcare system, which he admits is flawed, and the persons working within that system, saying, “While the health system is not perfect, every corner of it is filled with people who try to do their best for those they serve.”[2]Judging from the folks I know who work in the insurance industry, I find this to be true. But I am not sure if vilifying or valorizing individuals within the system is the point. Resentment is built on the perception that some people carry out the system and benefit from it, while others are victims of it. 

 

I don’t have answers here and I’m sure that persons who work in the insurance industry as well as persons who have been frustrated by it can argue that I have not adequately captured their reality. I apologize for that. The reason I need to explore this event with you is because I think it is symptomatic of much of the anger that permeates our country right now, whether it is directed toward industries like healthcare, banking, housing, etc., or entities like city councils, universities, or houses of worship. I suspect a lot of the recent attention to loneliness is rooted in a perceived lack of empathy that people feel. 

 

This is the world to which we proclaim the salvation that comes through the birth of Christ. By attending to the complexity of our present moment, that message can bring a sharper, more poignant hope than bland annual slogans. Together, let’s lean into how the good news of great joy can find its way to those who suffer and grieve.

 

Mark of St. Mark



[1] In full disclosure, my own experience with these matters have been mostly inconvenient rigmarole, and my spouse takes it upon herself to handle most of these calls. Others are not so fortunate. 

[2] Andrew Witty, “The Health Care System Is Flawed. Let’s Fix It,” New York Times online edition, 12/13/24.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/opinion/united-health-care-brian-thompson-luigi-mangione.html

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Final look at Project 2025

This will be my last post regarding Project 2025. I wish I could continue to blog through it, but I am ready to focus my attention for this blog elsewhere. With P2025, I am finding that chapter after chapter, essay after essay, I am seeing the same pattern. The document has the potential to offer tremendous insights into important and ongoing conversations about how to shape our government in an ever-changing world. To that extent, there is a lot to learn from P2025. On the other hand, the shape of the document is not at all conducive to being part of an ongoing conversation. It is too devoted to a single vision, as if any benefit here can only be helpful to conservatism. To wit, consider opening words of the essay on the “Intelligence Community” by Dustin J. Carmack. It begins with this “mission statement”: 

“To arm a future incoming conservative President with the knowledge and tools necessary to fortify the United States Intelligence Community; to defend against all foreign enemies and ensure the security and prosperity of our sovereign nation, devoid of all political motivations; and to maintain constitutional civil liberties” (p. 201.)

I suppose that this “mission statement” is meant to describe the mission of this chapter, and not the Intelligence Community [IC] itself, since it is directed specifically to an incoming conservative President. After reading further, my thought was that some of the arguments here would benefit a future President who is not conservative. So why – this is a serious question – why is the “mission” of this chapter to arm a conservative President?  What is the disposition of this chapter if the next President is not conservative? What of future Presidents that may not be conservative? Do any of the arguments here apply outside of a specific political perspective? And how does that narrow focus at the beginning of the mission statement cohere with the phrase that follows, “devoid of all political motivations”? If the mission of a plan to create an apolitical apparatus is itself professedly political, is it not manifestly hypocritical?

If the context of the other essays in P2025 shows us anything, it is that the phrase, “devoid of all political motivations” is meant to suggest that the current iteration of the Intelligence Community is too politically motivated, or is too motivated by the wrong politics. And, true to form, here it is on p.204, “Finally, the future IC leadership must address the widely promoted ‘woke’ culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and ‘social justice’ advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism, colorblindness, and even workplace competence.” But wait, there’s more. On p. 212 Carmack has a section entitled “Preventing the Abuse of Intelligence for Partisan Purposes.” And here is a glimpse at how the IC can practice its political neutrality: “rectify the damage done by the actions of former IC leaders and personnel regarding the claims of Trump-Russia collusion following the 2016 elections and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop investigation and media revelations of its existence during the 2020 election.” This rank politically partisan operating instruction flies in the face of Carmack’s earlier pseudo-neutrality when he envisioned an IC “devoid of all political motivations.” 

On p. 213, Carmack begins a bullet-pointed list of norms and virtues that would help restore the integrity of the IC. It begins with clearing house and removing some personnel, goes on to look into past politicizations and abuses, and suggest ways to prevent current and past personnel from speaking to the press without authorization. Carmack also has a number of arguments for stricter controls over how IC information is gathered, shared, and processed for critical use. Again, much of this information seems insightful and very consequential for the work of the IC. But, also again, it is highly politicized in it entire orientation. If the issues described here are integral to the IC itself, why must it be cast specifically for a conservative administration? When it is pointed in that direction, it seems that the warnings and processes for silencing whistle-blowers are all about protecting certain points of view while highlighting others. Isn’t that exactly the kind of partisanship that Carmack’s phrase “devoid of all political motivations” intends to avoid? 

In the end, reading this chapter makes me envision a future conservative administration that re-centers Hunter Biden's laptop, dismisses Russian election interference concerns, and goes on a witch hunt against personnel deemed too “woke” and attentive to “social justice” (remember when Glenn Beck tried to make “social justice” a bad thing?). In doing so, I wonder how the IC would benefit from such a blatant radical reorientation smothered with the pretense of being patriotic and non-political. It would be a perfect tool for a president who wants to spend more energy seeking revenge over past grievances than facing a world of current challenges.

Final note: There is an author’s note concluding this chapter that says it is a collective work and therefore no statement, recommendation or view expressed should be attributed to a particular contributor. With respect to that, please read my previous remarks about “Carmack” to mean “Carmack and his collaborators.” 

Friday, October 18, 2024

The State Department - For the People or the Person?

As we continue reading through the Heritage Foundation’s P2025, we arrive at chapter 6, “The Department of State,” by Kiron K. Skinner. Skinner was part of the Trump administration at the State Department, teaches at Pepperdine University, and is associated with the Hoover Institution and Heritage Foundation. The State Department is a critical part of the US Government, as close to a “Peace Department” as we have to correspond with the “War Department” that we looked at over my last two entries. 

Skinner begins by saying, “The U.S. Department of State’s mission is to bilaterally, multilaterally, and regionally implement the President’s foreign policy priorities; to serve U.S. citizens abroad; and to advance the economic, foreign policy, and national security interests of the United States.” Let’s compare that to the mission statement of the Department of State (https://www.state.gov/about/): “To protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive.” To be sure, the State Department’s website does say that the Secretary of State “carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development.” So, there is no question that the President is elected and given the power to set policies that the State Department carries out. But there is a world of difference in making the historic mission of the State department the starting point, rather than starting with presidential power. And that is the framework with which I want to discuss Skinner’s essay. 

Skinner notes on p.203 that there is always a tug-of-war between Presidents and bureaucracies within the State Department. She argues that it is more pronounced whenever the President is conservative, because “large swaths of the State Department’s workforce are left-wing and predisposed to disagree with a conservative President’s policy agenda and vision.” That song is becoming almost laughably predictable in this document. Whether Skinner is correct or not, the tension between career diplomats and elected officials should not come as a surprise. Let me illustrate. Say a diplomat has been working for many years with her counterpart from a country with which the U.S. has strained relations. Through connections and experience, she may know that sometimes the leadership of that country will make claims that sound volatile but serve mostly to placate the extreme elements within the country with little real effect. An incoming President would not be expected to know such things and might be inclined to respond in a way that causes more damage than it solves. The career diplomat, then would face a matter of conscience. Using the language of the State Department’s mission, how does one promote the “security, prosperity, and democratic values” of the U.S. when a President’s ill-advised action would harm them? Or, to use Skinner’s own language, how does one “advance the national security interests” of the U.S. when a President’s direction might set them back? And while it is easy for me to imagine someone as impetuous as former President Trump ignoring the wisdom of a career diplomat, it is equally possible for any number of potential presidents. Being a state Governor, a Senator, or a Representative – as most candidates for presidency left and right tend to be – may not equip someone for choosing the path of wisdom. 

That is why the thrust of P2025 is so disconcerting. By repeatedly accusing career civil servants of being “woke,” or “left-wing,” and representing unconstitutional challenges to a President’s will, this document actually predisposes a conservative President to ignore much of the hard-earned wisdom of career diplomats, rather than inviting their voice into the decision-making process. That disposition is clear when Skinner says, “No one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day” (p.205). No one. Not a single person. There are no criteria for evaluating who must go, just everyone who wakes up that morning employed in a leadership position should lie down that night unemployed. Because they committed the atrocious act of working for a previous administration. 

If that is the attitude of a future incoming administration – or if that was the “drain the swamp” attitude of the Trump administration back when Skinner worked for him before – it is no wonder that career servants seem resistant to it. 

Mark of St. Mark