Thank You, St. Mark

The results of our contribution toward the United to End Homelessness (U2EH) “30 by August 30”* campaign are being finalized today. St. Mark has contributed well over $100,000, making us the largest contributor to this campaign. We set a goal to assist four households and in the end we received enough to assist seven householdsinto homes. By the end of the day, I’m confident that the overall campaign will be a success as well, raising over $500,000 and meeting the needs of all 30 families. As a reminder, because we have met this goal, one of our partner organizations is able to apply for 300 more vouchers for the future. 

Thank you for being such a responsive and compassionate congregation. I applaud our Finance Commission, our Session, and especially those of you who have been able to be so generous for our county’s most vulnerable and needy persons. 

There is one thing about our fundraiser that I want to reflect on with you briefly. When I first made the announcement about the “30 by August 30” campaign, there were – both on Saturday evening and Sunday morning – some persons in the room who are currently homeless. Over the five and a half years that I’ve served here, we have had several of our members who have been homeless, often living in their cars. Sometimes you would know it at one glance; sometimes you would never guess, because homelessness has many looks. 

So, a question arises whenever we are engaged in advocating for solutions to homelessness, or contributing of our resources to help people we may not know: 

Why don’t we just help the people who are right here, within our own church community by providing them a place to stay? 

It is a good question, but there is also a good response to it. If you are not already familiar with it, I encourage you to get to know the meaning behind the phrase, “Toxic Charity.” If you want to read about it, Robert Lupton was a featured speaker at a NEXT Church annual gathering a few years ago, and he has a lot of wisdom in his book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help, And How to Reverse It. 

“Toxic charity” describes attempts to help, which come from a good place and never intend to be harmful. But, the reason it is toxic is because the lasting effects can often be more harmful than helpful. Someone who has a mental illness, for example, may never be able to live on their own, without a very deliberate and capable network of support services. To simply give someone with a severe mental illness an apartment, or to take them into your home, might feel like “the Christian thing to do,” but it is almost never helpful in the long run. For someone who is mentally ill, homelessness can be a symptom of the illness as well as an exacerbating factor of the illness. But, providing that person with a home is only “helping” if there is also a set of services in place that can address the mental illness itself. What is often missing from “toxic charity” are support and accountability. 

That is why I am totally on board with two things to which U2EH is committed: 

First – and this is true of most of Orange County leadership – U2EH is committed to a “housing first” approach to chronic homelessness. While housing aloneis never an adequate approach, housing is a very important first stepthat provides a stable environment for wraparound support services to be effective. 

Second, the best solution to chronic homelessness is Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). PSH can be found in intentionally-built communities that have on-site clinics, offices, and other places for support right there on the premises; or it can be scattered site housing where the support services go out to the homes wherever they are. The point is, there are supportive services and accountability built into the housing. I have seen U2EH put a project on hold until they could ensure that the support services would be up to high standards, because the last thing we want to do is to put someone in a position where their care might be compromised. 

It would be an example of toxic charity for us to house someone who is chronically homeless without the supportive services they need to thrive. A more effective and compassionate response is to support approaches that assist when assistance is needed, empower when empowerment is needed, and have an accountability system in place to recognize the difference. 

That’s the kind of effective compassion to which St. Mark has contributed so generously in the “30 by August 30” campaign. Bless you for your continued generosity and commitment to this work of justice and hope. 

Mark of St. Mark

* It took a while for us to land on the best name for our campaign. “30 by August 30” was one way to state our goals and not to confuse what we’re doing with other projects that bear similar names.

Permanent Supportive Housing

Thank you for the very generous outpouring of support and donations following my announcements last week about the United to End Homelessness (U2EH) “30 in 30” campaign. I will share a final tally next week. Below are some stories that the Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA) sent for me to share with you, about households that have moved from a transitional shelter (The Link) to Permanent Supportive Housing. The persons in these households have given their consent for making these stories public. 

Laura, Dathon, and their son Patrick arrived on the night of January 3^rd2019.  Upon arriving to The Link the family had reservations regarding the type of housing options they could qualify for seeing how Laura’s son was a teenager.  Nonetheless, the family kept a positive attitude and made it a priority to meet with their Navigator weekly.  Several weeks into their stay at The Link, the family was deemed eligible for the Mainstream Voucher Program through Santa Ana Housing Authority in partnership with   Illumination Foundation.  The family would need to collect required documentation before their first meeting with SAHA. Through a collaborative effort, Mercy House was able to assist the family to obtain California identification, birth certificates, and link them to a medical provider that assisted them with the disability documentation getting them document ready for their interview with SAHA. In addition, Mercy House was able to link Dalton to employment resources and Dalton was able to secure a part-time job while his stay at The Link.  The family received their voucher on March 1^stand on May 16, 2019 the family successfully moved into their two-bedroom apartment in Irvine.  The family is eternally grateful all these wonderful agencies were able to help them find their new home.    

Alicia and her son Alexander were referred to The Link on January 30^th2019 by County of Orange Health Care Agency Outreach workers. Alicia had been homeless since 2015 and was familiar to Mercy House through the Armory Program. Alicia was matched to housing through the MVP program on February 8^thand with the help of her housing navigator, she was able to gather all the necessary documents to receive her voucher from Santa Ana Housing Authority. Alicia was diligent at working her housing plan and soon found a unit that would accept her voucher. With the help of the City of Santa Ana’s Homeless and Housing Division, Illumination Foundation, and Mercy House, Alicia was able to furnish her apartment and moved out of The Link into housing on May 31^st.

Anna entered the Link last December when she was found homeless on the streets by Santa Ana Police Department HEART Officer. She was accompanied by her 7-year-old child and husband who is on Dialysis and suffering from several medical ailments. A Mercy House Case Manager immediately met with Anna upon arrival at the shelter and began linking her to supportive services such as employment programs and housing search. At the Link, Anna began attending Employment Skills classes by Second Chance OC, a recipient of Santa Ana CDBG grant. Second Change OC provided Anna with one on one mentoring, resume building, interview skills and job placement through community connections. Below is a picture of Anna with her Case Manager at North Italia where she just landed a job in the restaurant business! Anna and her family were able to move into an apartment with through the MVP vouchers from Santa Ana Housing Authority. Anna has been a model citizen at the Link!

I marvel at the tenacity of these persons, the capabilities of their supporting organizations, and the generosity of people like you, who make these lovely moments possible. 

Mark of St. Mark

Faith and Doubt

There has been quite some buzz lately about some prominent Evangelical leaders who have renounced their former teachings. A leader in the “Christian purity movement,” who had argued for years that abstaining from intimacy before marriage was the key to a successful marriage, announced his own impending divorce. Among other things, he had been a fierce critic of the LGBTQIA community, for which he has now apologized. Other leaders who had fought the good fight and had made resounding declarations about what one had to believe in order to be Christian over the years have recently announced that – according to the standards they had helped establish – they no longer could call themselves “Christian.”  

The responses to these renunciations have been fairly predictable. Some more progressive persons have gloated a bit. (When I see that, I am reminded of Proverbs 24:17, “Do not gloat when your enemy falls.”) Some evangelicals are wondering if this is actually a God thing – a test of sorts. (These arguments are reminiscent of the kinds of arguments I heard in my church growing up, when for a few years it seemed like one well-known televangelist after another was embroiled in a scandal.) And, of course, there are the Fighting Fundieswho have declared the persons who have renounced their former teachings to be “apostates,” using the same venom and self-certainty that those who now renounce their faith once employed themselves. 

Many – and I would guess most– people from all across the Christian spectrum who have heard about these renunciations have been much more sympathetic. Who among us is not guilty of having been over-zealous at times? Who among us has not confused ‘believing strongly in one thing’ with ‘utterly rejecting all other possibilities’ at times? Who among us has not encountered doubts – not just at a level where doubt can actually spark the imagination and lead to greater faith, but at a deep level where it seems that the entire house of cards will fall if this one supporting card should go? There is plenty of room for sympathy here, even while one wishes that these “Christian influencers” had showed much greater humility and moderation when they were busy casting aspersions on everyone else. 

I cannot speak to the personal dimensions in each of these cases. What I can say from my own experience is that many expressions of evangelical Christianity lend themselves to precisely this kind of dilemma. When “faith” is treated as “certainty,” there is little room for doubt, questions, or even wonder. One is either in or out, a “believer” or not. And “to believe” seems to mean to subscribe to a set of doctrines, which eliminates some of the more invigorating dynamics of faith, such as wondering “why” doctrines say what they say and whether there is something deeper to them than taking them literally.

Let me illustrate. A friend of mine – a writer who is incredibly active on Twitter – recently stated that it is possible to believe in the resurrection of Christ without necessarily believing in his literal bodily resurrection. She was arguing that it is wrong to declare that anyone who does not ascribe to the physical bodily resurrection is not Christian. I took her point to be that believers today can believe in the real living presence of Christ today, which is actually the point of those historic creeds about the resurrection. Wouldn’t believing in the real presence of Christ among us be a much more vivid way of speaking of resurrection, than to declare that one’s faith hinges on whether Jesus’ body was revivified for a short time in between the resurrection and the ascension? But, no. According to the comments that she has received, she is the devil in blue jeans for suggesting such a thing. And that’s the theological conundrum of some (not all) of evangelical Christianity. I think the danger that the Apostle Paul was describing when he talks about “the dead letter of the law” was precisely the danger of faith becoming a matter of subscribing to propositions, rather than trusting in a living reality that enlivens the life of faith.  

Here’s my take: It takes a lot of faith to doubt. Even in those times when we begin to question long-held beliefs and to ask forbidden questions; Even in those times when we wonder if we are simply participating in a historic, much-ballyhooed delusion; Even when we allow ourselves to ask whether anything like “God” really exists in our world; Even when someone who once proclaimed certainty is now renouncing that certainty – there is something at our core that enables us, maybe even compels us, to dare those questions, doubts, and wonderings. What if that willingness to dare such a thing is, itself, the seed of faith? 

Oh, great, now I’ve gone and given myself a lot more to think about today. Oh well.

Mark of St. Mark 

Heroes and Villains: Names Matter

Last week our “Heroes and Villains” story was from the Book of Daniel. Daniel is like the “Curiosity Shop” of the Old Testament and I am deeply suspicious of anyone – scholar, preacher, or writer – who pretends to have it all figured out. There are historical references in it – the stories cross the times of four different kings representing three different kingdoms. There is tragedy in it – the primary characters begin the story as captive exiles after the fall of Judah and its capital city of Jerusalem. There are political references in it – it speaks of the rise and fall of kings and others in power. And there is protest in it – we might call it “protest history” because it refuses to buy into the self-promotion that usually accompanies history written by the victors. This book speaks of history, but from the perspective of the defeated, the exiles, the ones whose God is thought to be suspect but who ends up being exalted and praised. 

Unfortunately, the reason many preachers and popular writers style themselves as experts on the book of Daniel is because of the “prophecy” in the book, particularly the last half of it. Even that, though, is a curiosity. Daniel is usually placed among the twelve “minor prophets” in Christian Bibles (with “minor” just indicating the size of the book, not its significance). In the Jewish Bible, Daniel is notlisted among the books of prophecy, but among the Ketuvim, which would be a collection of books like the Psalms, Esther, and Job, that aredifferentfrom the Torah and the Prophets. And Daniel was originally written in two different languages, which seems to indicate that it is not as old or as far-seeing into the future as those who regard it as prophecy think it is.[1]The book of Daniel is a curious book in so, so many ways. 

However, there’s another thing about the book of Daniel – both within the book itself and in how we remember the book – that I’ve always found curious. There are four Hebrew young men whose stories are gathered in the first six chapters. The curious thing is how we remember their names. When they were in Judah their names were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. When King Nebuchadnezzar’s palace master went to Judah and sought out their best and brightest to become trained in the ways of the Babylonians, he gave them Babylonian names: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. My guess is that most of us in this room are familiar with the Hebrew name Daniel, but not his Babylonian name Belteshazzar; and those of us who are familiar with the Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, may never have heard of their Hebrew names Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. We wonder: Why don’t we just know them all by their Hebrew names, since that would be a great way of sticking one’s thumb into the Empire’s eye and resisting their power to rename? Or, if the Babylonian names are good enough for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, why didn’t we just learn Daniel’s Babylonian name of Belteshazzar as well? I don’t have the slightest answers to those questions, but I can say that the confusion of assigning the names actually belongs to the book itself. As you read the first six chapters, there is very little consistency, which suggests – among other things – that there were many hands involved in writing these stories. 

So, last week I could have told the story of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah and the Fiery Furnace, using their Hebrew names to show that old palace master who’s in charge. Or, we could tell the story of Belteshazzar and the Lion’s Den, using his Babylonian name to roll with the unfortunate consequences of war. And while the book of Daniel itself initially bounces back and forth between the names, it does eventually seem to land on what we’ve come to learn – the trio’s slave names and Daniel’s given name. 

In the end, despite all of the curiosities that are found there, the book of Daniel is replete with acts of heroism, as Belteshazzar/Daniel, Shadrach/Hananiah, Mishach/Mishael, and Abednego/Azariah find ways both to advance through the chambers of power in the empire and to maintain their faithfulness to God. Perhaps the best approach to this curious book would be to see it as a leadership manual. 

Mark (please don’t call me Donald) of St. Mark 

---

[1]I believe that the second half of Daniel was written during what we often call the “intertestmental” period, so that some of the events that seem “prophesied” years before were actually accounts of what was taking place near the time of its writing. For example, when Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig to Zeus on the holy altar, this “abomination of desolation” that Daniel refers to was more of an account of what was happening in 168 BC than a prophecy about it from centuries before.  

Biblical Fools

In my childhood home we were not allowed to call someone a “fool” because the Bible says not to do such a thing. Curiously, the biblical writers themselves seem not to share that compunction, because they say that naughty word a lot. This past weekend, as part of our “Heroes and Villains” series, we heard the story of wise Abigail and surly Nabal, whose name actually means “fool.” By the time of Shakespeare, “the fool” had been elevated to a job in the King’s court. 

The journey from Nabal to Shakespeare’s fool is such that perhaps an overview of fools and foolishness may be in order. Here’s a brief one: 

The Psalms have the phrase that may be the most recognizable and difficult appraisal of a “fool”: “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1 and 53:1) As I mentioned last weekend, I do not read that to signify theoretical atheism or agnosticism. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the existence of God – starting with the fact that so many pathetic descriptions of God bandied about in churches these days. No, I think this description is much more about practical atheism – someone who lives as if there is no meaning to existence, no justice beyond what the pretenses of those in power, and no ultimate purpose to human life. To declare the world “godless” in that sense almost always ends up leading to a “might makes right” philosophy of life. Notably, the book of Proverbs begins by recognizing that reverence for God is the beginning of knowledge (1:7). 

The story of Nabal widens the definition of “fool” from someone who thinks the world is independent of transcendent meaning to someone who thinks he is independent from everyone else. Nabal imagines himself a “self-made man” indebted to no one, while wise Abigail realizes their interdependence with the likes of David and his band of warriors (I Samuel 25). Putting the psalmists’ definition and the Nabal story together, the “fool” sounds tragically contemporary: One who exchanges transcendence and interdependence for the pipedream of a self-willed, self-made, thoroughly self-centric life. (I’ll circle back to this below.)

The mother lode of biblical references to foolishness is found in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, along with the Apocryphal books The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus. That should not be surprising, given that these books are part of what is called collectively “Wisdom Literature.” The writers of those books seem most focused on the habits and consequences of foolishness, among which is the shame a fool brings to parents.

In the New Testament, the idea of a “fool” continues to morph. The reason my parents forbade us using the term “fool” about someone else is because in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus prohibits it (Matthew 5:22). As a child, it worked well enough to imagine that the word “fool” was simply a naughty word. The prohibition, however, seems less about bad words and more about taking away one’s ability to fully participate in community. I wonder if declaring someone a fool were a 1^stcentury way of declaring them insane, therefore incapable of rational participation in matters of faith, business, governance, and so forth. Perhaps declaring someone a fool in public at least put them on the defensive and under suspicion. I think we have to go beyond thinking of “fool” simply as a bad word, because Jesus himself used it later to critique the “blind guides” who assigned more value to gold of the sanctuary than to the sanctuary itself (Matthew 23:16-23). 

The most curious twist of the word “fool,” however, comes in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul uses the word in two ways, one in his letter to the church in Rome, and another in this first letter to the church in Corinth. In Romans, Paul uses the word “fool” similarly to how I interpret the psalmists’ use – those who exchange the glory of God for images resembling humans and animals. That sounds like a description of idolatry, but it helps to remember that idolatry is not simply someone who thinks magic thoughts about idols, objects made of wood, stone, or metal. Idols tend to reflect the image of the ones who make them, so idolatry is typically a form of self-worship, akin to the self-centric life I mention above. In I Corinthians, Paul embraces the term “fool,” particularly as it contrasts with what he calls “the wisdom of the world.” I think the lynchpin here is the message of the cross, which is “foolishness” to a world devoted to retributive justice. To imagine that, in Christ, God conquers sin by subjecting to death rather than through violence was a ridiculous notion in the 1^stcentury. So, Paul embraces the ridiculous with a promise that the “foolishness of the cross” would ultimately overcome the “wisdom” of the world. 

It brings to mind the lyrics of a song I remember from the 1980’s: “If I’m a fool for Jesus, whose fool are you?” 

Mark of St. Mark a.k.a. Foolius Maximus

Biblical Weirdness

Throughout July and August we are listening to stories of “Heroes and Villains.” Last week’s villain was King Saul. As a follow up to that story, I invite you to hear a very weird story about King Saul in I Samuel 19:18-24. I’ll summarize the story, but please read it for yourself so you’ll know that I’m not making this up. 

When Saul had decides to kill David, David escapes with the help of Saul’s son Jonathan (last week’s hero!) and Saul’s daughter Michal, who is also David’s wife. David flees to a town where the great Samuel leads a school of prophets. Those prophets seem to be in a perpetual state of prophetic frenzy. Saul sends messengers to capture David, but when they approach the prophets, the messengers fall into a prophetic frenzy! Upon hearing the news, Saul sends more messengers – one would imagine that these are hardened warriors – and they fall into a prophetic frenzy. But, wait, it gets better. Saul is sick of this nonsense and pursued David himself. And when he arrives Saul falls into a prophetic frenzy! (There’s a Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On!) I would draw you a picture, but according to the chronicler, Saul ripped off his clothes and lay naked all day and night at Samuel’s feet, so I’ll leave it there. 

Yes, it is an odd story. But, it concludes with the purposeof the story, which is to explain the origin of the well-known proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” If you’ve never heard that proverb it’s probably because you live in the 21^stcentury, but in the Ancient Near East it was widely known. (So much so that there’s a competing story about the proverb’s origin in I Samuel 10:9-12. I’ll leave that story for you to read, as well as the choice of which story best explains the origins of the proverb.) 

So, it turns out that the weird story is a means of explaining an odd proverb. But, the proverb’s oddness does not lie in its unfamiliarity to us. It’s odd because of the differing roles of the prophet and the king. 

Prophets were notoriously dedicated to telling the truth. That is why they were also notoriously killed quite often. And while most of us like to say that we want to live by the truth, what we really want is a comforting truthiness that supports and legitimates our way of living. The prophets did not have the luxury of tickling the ears in order to win friends and influence people. Their blessed curse was to tell the truth, come what may. That is why it was common for the priests to accuse them of heresy and the politicians to accuse them of being disloyal. While everyone wants the prophet in their corner, true prophets are beholden to no one and wholly given to the truth.

The king, however, is the embodiment of being beholden. While there is a ton of privilege in the king’s welfare being synonymous with the welfare of the nation, it is also a tether, forever tying the king to the good of the land. That is why the legacy of Israel’s kings is so riddled with problems. They would choose what they felt to be advantageous for their reign and, in doing so, often violated God’s clear direction. This sin was the prophetic contribution of the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Germany when too many Christians were subjecting God’s word to Nazi ideology. The king is beholden, but the free and prophetic voice for God cannot be. Therein lies the crisis of allegiance and the cost of discipleship. 

So, if King Saul is among the prophets, that would be a very odd juncture of the roles of king and prophet. No wonder the proverb is posed as a question. It may offer disbelief when a political leader presumes to be speaking on God’s behalf. It may simply be a way of expressing surprise when an invested political leader seems to do the right thing! Or, it may be a reminder that the relationship between the crown and the prophetic word of God may correspond on occasion, but typically are at odds with one another. 

Sometimes even weird stories about weird proverbs in the Bible offer a wisdom far beyond what most of us can imagine. 

Mark of St. Mark

“Heroes and Villains” as stories of Heroism and Villainy

The title of this essay may look redundant, but it’s not. It reflects a distinction that one of our children reminded us about during a Young Church moment recently. When asked if Superman would still be “hero” if he did bad things, the response was quite different than expected: “He would still be one of God’s beloved children.” It was a perfect Presbyterian response. 

As our children point out, Presbyterian theology has two core commitments that make it difficult for us to speak of “Heroes and Villains.” First, we believe that any good that we might attain is not of our own accord, but something that is empowered by God. Musty old doctrines with titles like “Sola Gratia” (grace alone), Predestination, Sovereignty, and the like were all grounded in the conviction that allgoodness is grounded in God and any participation we have in it is an act of God’s grace. Even Jesus responded to someone who called him “Good Teacher,” with the words, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” So, it is difficult to speak of “heroes” when we live in a tradition that resists attributing goodness even to the Christ. 

The second commitment that makes it difficult for us to speak of “Heroes and Villains” is the obverse of the first: We believe that all of us are sinners. Paul put it rather starkly with the phrase, “There is none who is righteous,” followed immediately by what I think is an attempt to cut off the person who wants to take exception, “No not one.” The logic of this second commitment flows directly from the first. If God alone is the source of goodness, if grace alone is the only way that we can achieve anything good, then it follows that we ourselves cannot answer to the appellation of “good” any more than Jesus did. 

So, there we have it. As Presbyterians we don’t believe in Heroes or Villains, but in God’s grace and our sinfulness. Right? … (crickets) … I said, “Am I right?” 

Well … sort of. One of the unintended consequences of Presbyterian theology – if we took it at face value – would be that there is really no difference between doing good or doing evil, right and wrong, righteousness or sinfulness. One could – I suppose – take a very fatalistic view of it all: “If none of us is good, then why bother?” Or, if we are all equally sinners, then we might find ourselves relativizing evil with “Everyone does it” or “There are good people on all sides.” And that does notseem to be the point of either Jesus’ words, Paul’s words, or the theological ruminations of our theological ancestors. Clearly in the Scriptures if there is not a clean distinction between “Heroes and Villains” at least there is a distinction between what we might call “Heroism and Villainy.” I invite you to hear our theme of “Heroes and Villains” in that vein, rather than as absolute judgments of one person or another. 

So, for example, last week we saw the heroism of Queen Vashti’s refusal to pose as eye candy for King Ahaseraus and his drunken consorts. That does not preclude that Queen Vashti was part of the system of power and privilege that she ultimately challenged with her heroic resistance. All of the “heroes” that we will visit this summer are flawed persons, just like all of the villains could easily possess some redemptive qualities. What we are seeing are not absolute distinctions that fully capture someone’s whole story. We are seeing glimpses of stories where someone acts heroically or villainously. So, while Paul speaking truth when he says, “There is none righteous, no not one,” the story of Cain was speaking truth when God says, “Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is to have you, but you must master it.” 

What our Presbyterian heritage teaches us poignantly is never to write someone off because of their failure in life. None of us is totally defined by our actions, even our worst mistakes or most abject failures. Likewise, none of us is totally defined by our good accomplishments. Our tradition invites us to see each person as dependent on God’s grace in both our failures and our breakthroughs. Our dependence on God’s grace is a word of encouragement to the disheartened and a word of humility to the arrogant. At the same time, there is evil and there is good and our calling is to respond to God’s grace by doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly before our God. 

“Heroes and Villains,” or, rather, “Heroism and Villainy.” Come explore it with us. 

Mark of St. Mark