THE LAST RIVER MILE

Thoughts near the take-out.

recent posts

GEOFF POSEGATE

Retired United Methodist pastor and leadership coach.

  • “BE STILL” DOESN’T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES

    I often spend a day at a lakeside cabin owned by some friends of ours. The view is spectacular, and the woods all around are glorious. It is especially warm and welcoming in colder weather when I can make a fire in a wood stove as part of my experience. This is one of my “holy places” or “thin places” where God and I can enjoy some time together undisturbed. It is a setting that evokes one of my life-verses from the Bible: “Be still, and know that I am God…” (Psalm 46:10.)

    In Hebrew, the imperative verb translated as “be still” is from a word meaning “to cease striving; to relax or to sink down.” In the context of all of Psalm 46, it really isn’t about an individual calming of the soul, as I tend to define it at the cabin at the lake. The psalmist speaks very specifically about situations that cause human beings to strive. Verses 1-3 begin with the overwhelming power of nature, over which the original hearers of Psalm 46 had little or no control. Mountains falling and waters roaring would have reminded folks of their utter, terrifying helplessness. The psalmist then switches to images of the ultimate expression of human striving – warfare. Where we cannot control creation, we battle to control one another. Here the writer of Psalm 46 denotes what God’s act of “stilling” looks like: ending wars all over the globe and destroying the weapons of war. Being “still”, then, is to end our striving to make sure that WE prevail over THEM. It is to abandon the idolatry of assuming that anything or anybody other than God is a “refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.” (Verse 1.)

    So being still and knowing God is not just generating good vibes within me by a fire inside a lake cabin. It’s more than, “don’t worry; be happy.” It’s not just an individualized thing, as we in comfortable Western cultures tend to make everything in faith. And it is certainly not just passive. It is very collective and active decision first to still my own heart by relinquishing my illusions (false gods!) of control. And it is joining with others who are doing the same. What this “breaking the bow and shattering the spear” looks like will vary widely, depending on where it is that striving is causing damage. It may be actively working against the dismissive cruelty of criminalizing those who are unhoused or mentally ill. It may be standing in peaceful solidarity with those who are victims of unjust or illegal detainment in an increasingly militarized country. It may be crying out in defiance of those who would turn a blind eye to human trafficking and the victimization of children and youth for predatory purposes. However it manifests itself, “being still” is joining with God in the dismantling of unhealthy, destructive striving.

    It’s not enough for me to feel a sense of personal “stillness” from a day at our friends’ lake cabin. It’s about what I will carry from there into the days that follow.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • THE THING WE REALLY HAVE IN COMMON

    I hear all the cliches and I use them often…We should focus on what we as human beings have in common; we have more that unites us than divides us; we are all one human family, etc. And yet here we are, acting as if every big and little thing that separates us from one another is a life-or-death dealbreaker. We can zero in on common basic human needs: food, water, shelter, safety, belonging, and all that. But most of our current cultural energy and certainly our cyberspace energy seems to feed off of differences right now.

    So what do we really have in common that would be genuinely uniting. What’s powerful enough to push back against the “us/them” tidal wave currently consuming us?

    For me, as an often struggling buy always pressing-on follower of Jesus, it’s really simple. Simple, but I suppose too “out there” or “unrealistic” for many to take it seriously. God is love. (I John 4:8.) This is not just any kind of love. It’s not erotic, personal pleasure type love, wonderful as that can be. It’s not just familial love, as powerful as that is. It’s not fraternal love, born among people with common interests, values, and aims. It is totally self-sacrificing love. It is love that does whatever it takes for the other to be embraced and to thrive. It is crucifying-cross-level love. We human beings are made in God’s image. (Genesis 1:26-27.) The implant of God is on us. Among other things, this means we are designed to give and receive this God-defined love that is in us. No matter how much life, history, sin (both individual and corporate) have done to try to erase this image or to separate us from it, God’s love image is still there.

    If this is really true (and I’m just off the wall enough to believe it is) it is monumental. This means that everything we have concocted all through human history to set ourselves apart from one another, to judge one another, to harm one another, to oppress one another is all a massive lie. All that we have assumed are immutable divisions among us are wrong. That which unites us is love. Not a sappy emotion, but a foundational God-designed identity.

    What would change if we really believed that the thing we’re supposed to be and the thing we’re supposed to do is that which we were all created to be and to do? The late Christian leader and writer Brennan Manning was once asked what he would do if he had his life to live over. He responded that he would abandon a lot of the complexities, pressures, and anxious busyness and “just do the next thing in love.” What if he’s right?

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • “THE SIN OF EXCLUSION”

    “Those at the edge of any system and those excluded from any system ironically and invariably hold the secret for the conversion and wholeness of that very group. They always hold the feared, rejected, and denied parts of the group’s soul. We see, therefore, why the church was meant to be that group that constantly went to the edges, to the least of the brothers and sisters, and even to the enemy. Jesus was not just a theological genius; he was also a psychological and sociological genius. Therefore, when any church defines itself by the exclusion of anybody, it is always wrong. It is avoiding its only vocation, which is to be the Christ. The only groups that Jesus seriously critiques are those who include themselves and exclude others from the always-given grace of God.

    “Only as the People of God receive the stranger, the sinner, and the immigrant, those who don’t play the game our way, do we discover not only the hidden, feared, and hated parts of our own souls, but also the fullness of Jesus himself. We need them for our own conversion.

    “The church is always converted when the outcasts are re-invited back into the temple. We see this in Jesus’ common action of sending marginalized people that he has healed back into the village, back to their family, or back to the Temple to show themselves to the priests. It is not just for their re-inclusion and acceptance, but actually for the group itself to be renewed.”

    Richard Rohr, in YES, AND…DAILY MEDITATIONS (2013), page 186.

  • USING HUNGER FOR POLITICAL LEVERAGE

    I don’t fit neatly into the classic political polarities on government food assistance programs.

    On the one hand, learned dependency is a real thing. Simply handing out assistance may feel good to the giver, but it doesn’t do anything to substantively change the circumstances that create food insecurity. While no ill will is intended, it says to the poor person, “Stay poor.” It sets up a superior/inferior relationship which assumes that a person caught in poverty has nothing to contribute to a partnership which would alleviate that person’s situation.

    On the other hand, the playing field is not level, and the starting line is not even. A child born in poverty starts school already behind advantaged children. It is a pleasant myth that everyone in this country has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Poverty isn’t about individual failure. It’s about practices and systems that either fail some groups of people or that depend on some staying below the poverty line. Yes, government dependence is loaded with pitfalls. But the absence of any government safety nets presumes that local communities will be responsible in picking up that obligation. Public education across the nation, for example, proves that this type of responsibility is not dealt with equally from community to community. Hence the need for government back-up.

    I find it wonderful that so many regions across the country are pulling together coalitions of businesses, churches, not-for-profits, and organizations to fill the gap which might be created by the limiting of SNAP federal benefits today, due to the continuing government shut-down. Would that it could have been a proactive thing all along, rather that just the reaction it is now. Still, it’s good.

    Having said that, the use of food insecurity for political leverage is unconscionable. Both parties on Capital Hill are accountable for this. And I can’t help but note that this political pissing contest is being done by people whose day-to-day lives are completely unaffected by all this. (The President is currently at his retreat, and the Senate is in recess, on the very day that millions could be affected by food loss.)

    Ultimately, poverty is not just about lack of resources. It is about broken relationship or lack of relationship that will help. The conservative default is to let the poor fend for themselves, resulting in no relationship with poor people. The liberal default is to “throw money at it” and reinforce a superior/inferior relationship, from a significant distance. Neither involve spending the time, effort, and resources necessary to be with the poor, to build meaningful relationships, and to partner toward a better tomorrow in which all thrive together.

    For followers of Jesus, there are over 2,000 Bible verses addressing mercy, justice, compassion, and care for the poor. (As opposed to the smattering of verses allegedly addressing non-essential issues which we church people treat as life-or-death.) However we address poverty, to use hunger as a political tool and as leverage for political gain is its own kind of evil.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • THE ONE THING FORCE CANNOT DO

    Human beings often use force as an answer to problems, both individually and collectively. Force can create protection, when no other options seem available. Beyond that, we sometimes assume that we must use force to accomplish whatever we happen to believe that we need or want. This includes force of all kinds: verbal force, relational force, physical force, mental and emotional force, military force, etc.

    And force can create much. Force can create compliance from other people. It can create “victory”, however that is defined by whomever. It can create allegiance, or at least the appearance of it. (Mostly for survival purposes…) Force can create some level of conformity, at least for a time. And most certainly it can create fear, which can be leveraged to make human beings do just about anything.

    However, there is at least one thing force cannot create. Force can’t create love.

    For those who have read George Orwell’s great 1949 dystopian novel NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, the ending is wrong. The book concludes by saying of the lead character, Winston Smith, “He loved Big Brother.” In fact, Smith did not love Big Brother; he was complying with the force of Big Brother. The authoritarian regime that had broken Smith may have convinced him this was “love.” But he was no more than any physically, emotionally, or mentally shattered creature just trying to survive. Force did not create love in Winston Smith. Love had nothing to do with it.

    Those of us who are Jesus-followers believe that God is love. (See I John 4:8 among other biblical references.) The very origin of existence is love. The singular movement of human history that refuses to be silent or to go away is love. That which is made fully known in the life, death, resurrection, and promised return of Jesus of Nazareth is love. That which insists on the sacred value of all children of God, even and especially the least, the last, and the lost is love. That which is the destination of the human journey is love…the one thing force cannot create.

    So if we want something that is genuine and that lasts…force or love? Do the math.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • I LIKE THIS, SO EVERYBODY SHOULD LIKE IT

    This may be one of the most oppressive things we can do to other human beings – assuming that because we like something, everyone should like it. It may be a major contributor to many of relational problems as human beings, if not the root of them.

    It’s like this: I love rivers. I don’t mean the big continent drainers. I mean the clear-running small streams originating in hill or mountain springs. Two days ago I spent some time in a canoe on one of my favorite Ozark streams in southern Missouri. As I was paddling it occurred to me that this is my sixtieth year of canoeing or kayaking rivers. I love streams like few other things in this world. Being on, in, or near a river gives me peace, energy, and excitement all at the same time. Because of my passionate love of river floating, I know I have tried to force that same love on others during those six decades. I assume that since I like it, everybody should like it.

    This is a kind of experiential imperialism. I end up assuming that I am the enjoyment measure for everyone else. That’s pretty haughty. That’s setting myself up as the standard for everyone else. It’s not that far from “I like this, so everyone should,” to “I don’t like this thing or person, so everyone should dislike them,” or “this is my opinion, so this should be everyone’s opinion.” Eventually actual conversation, meaningful interaction, and mutual forward motion end.

    I can want others to love floatable rivers just like I do. Or, I can long for others to love something in their lives as much as I love canoeing and kayaking. One choice is totally different from the other. I hope I always get better at the latter.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • APPARENTLY WE NEED AN ENEMY

    Much of humanity seems to be addicted to having an enemy. If life isn’t the way we want it to be, or if we somehow feel threatened, then that has to be the fault of someone or something. As a result we focus on the goal of defeating or eliminating that someone or something. This is not to say that human beings don’t face real threats, raising the need to defend themselves. But I believe we can come to the point of defining ALL of life as overcoming real, imagined, or manufactured enemies.

    The need for an enemy creates a kind of negative definition for human groups. Organizations, political parties, nations, churches, etc. identify themselves as “not them” or “against them.” They build their momentum around what Richard Rohr refers to as “oppositional energy.” People focus more on what they oppose than on what they favor. Rohr suggests that it’s easier to galvanize folks together around resistance to an enemy than to unite them around real forward progress. (Hence the state of the United States Congress today.)

    In my admittedly limited view, the present administration in our nation has built an entire political platform around fear of enemies. Say what you will, the presence of armed, masked troops on the streets of our cities is but one piece of evidence of this. Conversely, as generally peaceful as an estimated seven million protesters were last Saturday, their energy largely was oppositional as well. Personally even as I note my own opposition to those currently in power, I feel the presence and allure of “against” energy within me.

    If history tells us anything, it demonstrates that oppositional energy eventually turns on itself. German National Socialism built a brief empire on blaming anyone and anything non-Aryan for all of Germany’s problems. As we know, that went down in flames. In church world, so many so-called Christian denominations and associations are in fact oppositional to one another, that the non-Christian population knows us more by what we are “against” than by what we are “for.” And we wonder why the number of people associated with organized religion in the United States continues to plummet.

    Is it possible to have a human movement that is not oppositional? It seems the original movement of following the crucified and risen Jesus was that way. By the very definition of the One who launched it, it was not adversarial. Followers claimed Jesus embodied God’s unconditional, pursuant love for all people. Jesus-followers lived with the mandate to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecuted them. Fellowships included people who should have been natural enemies: non-Jews and Jews, slaves and slaveholders, Roman Empire citizens and the poorest of the poor. Followers of Jesus gained attention by what they were actively FOR and not by what/who they were against.

    Human efforts built around oppositional energy come and go. The pure movement of following Jesus (not dependent on structured religious organizations) will not die. Something to think about…

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • THE LABEL “CHRISTIAN” IS ALMOST MEANINGLESS

    Anybody can self-identify as “Christian.” This is because definitions of the label are all over the map. Some see “Christian” as nothing more than adhering to a certain moral code. Others will claim the title only because they said certain words and went through a certain ritual in public worship, regardless of how they actually live their lives. There are those who say they are Christian because they espouse “right” theology or have a specific level or biblical knowledge. Others will claim it for no more reason than the nation, family, or church into which they happened to be born. One noteworthy person assertively calls himself a Christian, while having no evident understanding of the biblical description of how heaven is attained. The use of the term Christian has no guardrails or restrictions. In practical terms, it is virtually meaningless.

    When Jesus of Nazareth (who is called “The Christ”, or “The chosen/anointed One”) called people to him, he did not invite them to adhere to a particular theology, political viewpoint, body of knowledge, or biblical interpretation. Jesus’ call was to follow him. (Matthew 9:9, for example.) He made clear to those who followed him that there would be one primary means by which people would be known as his followers; his disciples. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35.) And this is not just any individual, random definition of love, as the label “Christian” has been made individualized and random. It is the specific love offered by the God whose very definition is love. It is the God made fully known in the life, death, resurrection, and promised return of Jesus the Christ. It is God in Christ winning victory over all that is determined to define humans and life in any way other than by the love of God. That is how a “Christian” is defined.

    So, I don’t use the term “Christian” anymore. I prefer to say “Jesus-follower.” It holds me more accountable.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • GOD’S HEART BREAKS FOR EVERY CHILD, ON EVERY SIDE

    “God’s heart breaks for every child, on every side.” – from The Deaconess Community

    Two years ago yesterday Hamas militants launched a vicious attack into Israeli settlements. I listened yesterday to podcasts featuring two fathers. One was an Israeli taken hostage, who was released and returned home only to find that his children had been slaughtered in the assault. The other was a Palestinian man, whose only daughter has been killed in a recent Israeli rocket attack into Gaza.

    As in any conflict, there are voices claiming that God is fully on one side or the other in the midst of the killing. To me, one of the worst of human blasphemies is to make presumptions about which flag God has chosen to wave when the guns are firing. Even in wars in which it may seem obvious to us which outcome God would favor (World War II, for example), it remains dangerous to declare, “God is completely on OUR side!”

    This is not just because God is not reducible to any particular political position. More than that, God has declared which “side” he is on, regardless of what any of us decide about God. “God is close to the brokenhearted…” (Psalm 13:18.) God sides with both grieving fathers noted about, and with all who are the “acceptable collateral damage” of warfare. God is a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows. (Psalm 68:5.) God chooses to side with all who have loved ones ripped from them because of designs of any who claim they have chosen the righteous path. God is with those who are deemed the least valuable of humanity in the eyes of international politics (Matthew 28:40), even as they may be little more than a blip on a newsfeed for those of us who happen to be in safety and comfort.

    If I claim to follow Jesus, I forfeit the right to say that God is on my “side” to the exclusion of others. God is on the side of every human being drawing breath, especially those who are treated as expendable…especially innocent, suffering children.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.

  • JESUS FOR ME; JESUS FOR OTHERS

    It occurred to me the other day that my faith may have come full circle.

    When I was a child, about two years before the invention of dirt, my parents took me to Sunday School at a large church in the suburban St. Louis, Missouri area. One of my earliest memories there is hearing the phrase, “Love one another.” Vague as that may have been to me at the time, I remember making the connection between this Jesus guy and love. He was the link between how much God loved me and the way I was suppose to love other people. Even Jesus’ death and resurrection, frightening as all that was to four and five-year-old kids, somehow expressed this uncommon level of love. Without fully understanding all this, I remember liking it. Our longing from birth is to be loved, after all.

    As time went on, though, I began to hear more emphasis on specific benefits Jesus offered. This became a long list: getting to go to heaven, getting various specific blessings, getting problems solved, receiving healing, getting rescued from dire situations, and a host of other perks. I even started to hear Jesus invoked for getting your team to win on the playing field, getting an election to turn out the way you want it, and getting your country to win a war. It seemed to me that many people connected themselves to Jesus just for the personal fringe benefits of that connection.

    This no doubt contributed to the short time I spent away from organized religion. I just wasn’t very impressed by something that boiled down to little more than gaining reward and avoiding punishment. If that’s all it is, I thought, how is a follower of Jesus any different than Pavlov’s dog? Did Jesus go to the cross just so we would respond the right way and behave correctly?

    I am more impressed by those drawn to Jesus, those who exemplified Jesus, and those who promoted Jesus apart from any personal benefit to themselves. Google St. Francis of Assisi. That’s an example of someone immersed in God’s love and radiating God’s love apart from any personal gain. It’s not that certain benefits of a relationship with Jesus aren’t there. But they are not the primary motivation or the main aim.

    I’m impacted by a character in the Bible, Job, who lost any and all outward benefits and blessings. He said, “Though he (God) slay me, yet will I hope in him…” (Job 15:13.) What would it be like to have faith like that? I once heard someone ask this discussion question: “Do you love God and love others so much that you would give up your own salvation so someone else could have it?” (This is a hypothetical question: salvation doesn’t work this way!) What would it be like to not only not be motivated by the perks of a relationship with Jesus, but to be willing to give t up those benefits up or another?

    Since I’ve retired I’ve spent a lot of time with the writings and thoughts of those who are in the contemplative Christian trajectory: Richard Rohr, James Finley, Brian McLaren and others. For them, God as the embodiment and definition of foundational love undergirds and defines everything and everyone. They speak of being welcomed so deep into this love that one can’t help but long for everyone to experience it and know it. It is to hunger for and to be enveloped in a love that the circumstances of the world cannot give, nor can they take it away.

    So, it’s almost like I have circled back to the faith of my childhood, and yet entered into it as if for the first time. Pealing everything else back, it’s about loving God and loving others as God loves us, made known in Jesus. Everything else answers to this.

    I’ll see you around the next bend in the river.