Historically, cultures have treated Ishmael and Isaac as quarreling brothers, separating them as though they were mutually exclusive from one another.  While religious cultures have bought into this misguided characterization of them, the biblical text offers an alternative view of the brothers separated in conflict but reunited in death.

Ishmael was born into a conflicted situation, with Sarah seeking to rip him from Hagar’s arms in order to make him her own.  Listen closely to Sarah’s words to Abraham, “You see that the Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave girl (Hagar); it may be that I shall obtain children by her” (Genesis 16:2).  Sarah is not just a woman seeking a son for her husband; she is a barren woman wanting a child for herself, willing to obtain (Hebrew – banah, meaning to construct or fortify) a child by taking him from the arms of the birth mother.  The text does not indict nor acquit her, it simply states the actions of a desperate woman.

Even before Isaac was born, Sarah and Hagar were at odds.  Once with child, a pregnant Hagar looked at Sarah with contempt (16:5).  This angered Sarah, sending her to Abraham to complain.  Withdrawing from his responsibility or not understanding the dire predicament he was facing, Abraham instructs Sarah to do as she pleases with her slave (16:6).  Sarah treats her harshly, sending Hagar fleeing towards her home in Egypt.  However, an angel of the Lord intercedes and informs Hagar her son would also prosper as Abraham’s son.  Hagar returns.

The great conflict that separated the brothers occurred when Sarah witnessed Ishmael “mocking” Isaac.  There is a lot of conjecture as to what the term “mocking” means, but what can be assured is that Sarah did not approve.  What tips us off that this was a conflict between Sarah and Hagar is the fact Ishmael’s name is not used by Sarah.  She calls him, “the son of Hagar the Egyptian.”  She pleads with Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, a certain death sentence for most single mothers wandering the wilderness.  In the end, after being reassured by Yahweh that his eldest son would be blessed, Abraham exiles them, sending them east into the wilderness.  Yahweh keeps his promise, saving Ishmael from a certain death and saving Hagar from having to watch her son perish in the desert heat.  

What are we to ascertain by a careful reading of this account?  The separation of two brothers is a direct result of the actions of others.  Biblical evidence does not support the commonly held belief that a great rift existed between Ishmael and Isaac.  They were separated because others chose to separate them.  And here is the greater moment that we all need to frame in our minds and remember in our hearts; when Abraham dies, the two estranged brothers reunite and bury their father (25:7-9).  This is a very powerful image.  Two brothers separated by sin, brought back together by the death of and love for their father.

It is this final image of two brothers I hold tightly as I reflect on the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11.  For multiple millenniums, different cultures have quarreled over whom God favors more.  Let us never forget that the brothers were separated not by their own sin, but by the sins of others projecting their prejudices and selfishness upon them.  Let us never forget that love for their father brought them back together.  Let us never forget that if we wish to seek an eternal peace for our post-9/11 world, we too should set down our sinful ways and permit the love of our Father to bring us together.

Note: This post was first published in NorthHaven’s August 2016 newsletter.

Google Maps indicates that it is exactly 1,705 miles from Norman, Oklahoma to Boston, Massachusetts.  Seriously, that kind of mileage sounds like a very long distance for two parents saying goodbye to their oldest son.  At the end of August, Missy and I will drop off our oldest at Emerson College in downtown Boston. For almost 19 years, Cole’s jovial presence in our home has brought an uncompromising peace and an infectious laughter to our lives.

As his father, it is still so very difficult for me to believe that the toddler who used to hide behind my leg when we entered church is running off to a major American city to study comedic arts.  This is the same little boy who asked me one Sunday, “Daddy, is there something wrong me?  Everyone keeps saying I’m ‘bashtabble.’”  Missy and I could not be more proud of the young man our son has become.  We know our boys are not perfect, but we love them tremendously and appreciate what it must have been like for them growing up as the sons of a preacher.

For my sons, I remember the voice of King David, as he hoped and prayed for his sons.  In his Pilgrim’s Psalm (#132), David wrote, “If your sons stay true to my Covenant and learn to live the way I teach them, Their sons will continue the line—always a son to sit on your throne.”  As my oldest son leaves to carve out his own way in the world, my hopes and prayers go with him.  His mother and I have instilled our thoughts and faith as best we can.  They are his to take and do with as he sees fit, but we will always pray for our boys no matter the distance and no matter the season.

1705 miles is a great distance between two parents and their child, but our love and prayers will shorten that distance over time.  And speaking of time, there is only 1353 days until Cole graduates, but who’s counting?  Please show Missy and I a little more grace this month as we may seem a little preoccupied or depressed.  In the end, we are overjoyed for our son and can’t wait to see what he achieves.  1705 miles is a long way from home, but worth every mile for the journey he about to take.

The Apostle Paul penned these words to the church in Corinth, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways” (1 Corinthians 13:11).  For some reason, this verse has come to mind as I reflect on the Fifteenth Anniversary of September 11, 2001.  On that fateful day, Americans were reborn to the harsh reality of evil among us and an opportunity to respond in righteousness.

The harsh reality galvanized when we discerned there were enemies in this world that hated us so much they were willing to fly airplanes into buildings.  The opportunity before us was the razor thin line between rising above the hate to become a beacon of hope or becoming what we despise in our enemies.  The socio-political struggle over the last fifteen years has been intense, from seeking justice for those who caused such harm to invading a country under false reasons.  

More personally, I have come a long way since watching terror unfold that day.  I like to believe that I have grown up just a tad.  Now, don’t misunderstand me, I am no way arguing that I have arrived.  I still have a lot of learning and maturing to do.  However, I feel like I understand the world a little better than I did fifteen years ago.  More than anything, I especially have taken it upon myself to work towards understanding Islam and its people.  Knowledge and community are always the punch and counter-punch to hatred and intolerance.  

Fifteen years ago, I had no idea what Muslims believed; I did not even know one personally.  Since then, I have traveled to foreign countries, some regions with populations that are 95% Muslim.  I have read and re-read books about the Muslim faith, engaged Muslims in dialogue, worked alongside them for the common good of society, and attempted to place myself in their shoes.  Now, one of my favorite colleagues – someone I consider a true friend – is Imam Imad Enchassi of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City.  As he likes to chide, “We are brothers from different mothers!”

One would think after fifteen years, our society would have grown up regarding the relationship between Christians and Muslims.  At times, though, the opposite seems true.   While some have educated themselves to discern the difference between true religion and power-politics, others buy into the false allegation that Christianity and Islam are responsible for this conflict.  Let me be crystal clear on this point: any violence conducted in the name of Christianity or Islam has nothing to do with religion, but is simply a political power play using religious language as a tool to manipulate the masses and provide an unjust reason for an unjust action.  The wars and rumors of wars we witness today are about exerting power over others, nothing more and nothing less.  They are not about true religion, no matter what their proponents attempt to declare.

While this stark reality seems to overshadow the world these days, I choose to believe there is hope.  During the last fifteen years, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have initiated dialogue in an attempt to better understand one another.  We have worked together in relief efforts after natural disasters.  We have come to each other’s side with support when attacked out of hatred.  We have established our solidarity as people of faith walking along the same peaceful journey which Abraham wished for his descendants.  

Fifteen years have passed since that day America changed, since the world changed.  We have walked a tightrope between maintaining our hope for a more perfect union and falling into the trap of isolationist bigotry.  When I was a child, I thought and acted like a child, but now as we move into our adolescence in a post-9/11 world, let us speak and act as emerging adults.  Let us set aside ignorance and biases.  Let us eliminate any hatred that fills our heart and fuels our attitudes.  Let’s put on the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:1-5), embracing the world with our arms open and our ears ready to listen.  

For many years, the Public Broadcasting Network introduced Americans to the genius of British comedies.  From Are You Being Served? to The Vicar of Dibley, these comedies enticed laughter while making us Yanks a bit uncomfortable.  One of the best comedies ever produced was Keeping Up Appearances, written by Roy Clarke and starring Patricia Routledge.  

The sitcom followed the life of Routledge’s character, Hyacinth Bucket (she pronounced it “Bouquet” though).  The show placed Hyacinth in numerous situations where her character would attempt to maintain her British dignity and charm, all the time failing quite miserably.  She so wanted everyone to think of her as something she wasn’t, high born and royally regal.  This, of course, produced an incredible amount of laughs through the show’s five year run.  

What has made Hyacinth so successful is that many within the culture, both in Britain and America, can directly relate to her.  For the most part, we are all trying to “keep up appearances” to our spouses, families, friends, co-workers, and the world at large.  We hide behind a façade that veils the disappointment and sorrow we carry around with us.  In public, we put a smile on our faces and spend money we don’t have in order to project something we are not.  This game of “keeping up appearances” has become a true religion.

In his new book, The Market as God, Harvard theologian Harvey Cox, argues that the techniques of a capitalistic marketplace have penetrated the church, but more so have been instilled within the everyday life of Christians.  Christians must now look the part of a wealthy, successful, and healthy community of faith.  If we project anything less than perfection, then we are construed as a flawed product that will be rejected in the marketplace.  

This new wave of Christianity seems to conflict with the words of Jesus, “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28-29).  Or, when addressing the blind pursuit of wealth (more than mere money by the way), Jesus proclaimed, “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matthew 6:24).

As Jesus followers, we must always be cautious about our pursuit of wealth and success.  Wealth and success are not evils into themselves, for money makes the world go around and there are numerous successful people that have done some incredible things with their resources.  However, when we begin to falsify ourselves before others in order to keep up appearances, then we are lying to ourselves and lying to God.  We need to be more honest and genuine.  We need to live within our means, but more importantly we need to live in a way that points people to God and away from worldly pursuits.  

Over the Labor Day weekend, I was reminded of the colossal struggle between humanity and God’s creation.  On Saturday morning, Missy and I woke to our house shaking violently.  Amazingly, as soon as it happened, I somehow knew exactly what was occurring.   Earthquake.  Since moving back to Oklahoma almost ten years ago, I find it very strange that I can immediately recognize an earthquake as soon as the earth begins to rock-and-roll.    My surprise gave way to worry, however, later on in the day when I read Oklahoma earthquakes have increased 5,000% as early as two years ago.  Why?

Shortly after the 5.6 earthquake startled people from Texas to Nebraska, Oklahoma state officials shut down 37 of the state’s 3,200 active disposal wells.  Disposal wells are a technique used by the oil and gas industry that pushes wastewater deep underground, even deeper than where oil and gas are found.  According to CNN Money, “The wastewater mostly consists of a substance called brine — a mix of water and chemicals that comes to the surface with oil and gas when they are pumped from the Earth.”  In addition, “A small portion is also the water that’s pumped underground in the modern hydraulic fracturing process, a drilling technique often referred to as fracking.”

If state officials (some even hostile to those suggesting a connection between quakes and wells) immediately shut down these wells after Saturday’s quake, then what do they know that they are not telling the public?  Now, I have many close friends and church members in the oil and gas industry.  These are good people, working in an industry that has served the world for a number of years.  Even they are now starting to question what is going on with these wells.  Therefore, I think the time has come to seriously consider shutting these wells down, seek better techniques for drilling, and continue supporting the energy industry’s transformation into cleaner fuels.

Later on that Saturday morning, after I assessed there was no damage to my house, I read a story about the conflict between the Dakota Access Pipeline Energy Transfer Partners and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.  The pipeline’s developer, Energy Transfer Partners, has invested $3.7 billion into the 1,172-mile pipeline that would carry 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day from North Dakota to Illinois.  According to tribal officials, Energy Transfer Pipeline used bulldozers over the weekend to destroy burial sites, prayer sites, and culturally significant artifacts.  In response, the conflict escalated, with violence breaking out between protestors and security guards.  

Reading this story has sent my head spinning.  First, where are local and state police during this encounter to stave off violent conflicts?  Second, why are these pipelines always constructed across Native American lands and not through white-suburban neighborhoods?  Third, how would anyone respond if a company came into the cemetery where your great-grandparents were buried and began to destroy it?  There has to be a better way for progress to move forward without destroying the sacred culture of the indigenous people and address their ecological concerns.  Unfortunately, it appears progress-for-profit is winning the day.

Both the earthquake and the pipeline stories have troubled my soul this weekend.  We live in a time of unprecedented global change.  Progress has come to us through lightening expansion, rapid production, and even faster consumption.  Humanity’s thirst for progress brought about the Reformation, Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, Technological Revolution, and Globalization.  None of these are bad per say, but our progress has developed some unintended consequences, consequences we must be honest about and willing to address.  Progress has brought about greater needs for a greater number of people.  Progress has, in the words of Thomas Friedman, made the world “Hot, Flat, and Crowded.”  

Therefore, we need to be reminded the world is God’s creation and He has given us the responsibility to take care of it.  The world does not spin around our egocentric existence, but rotates by the Spirit of God interacting with this created ecosystem that was masterfully designed and brilliantly woven.  German theologian Jürgen Moltmann helps describe the problem in his book, “Ethics of Hope,”

“Yet the biosphere of the blue planet earth is our limited space for living. A human civilization that spans the world and is based on growth and consumption has long since arrived at these limits and is beginning permanently to destroy the living conditions of this living space in the earth’s organism. Year after year, animal and plant species are becoming extinct; atmospheric pollution is destroying the ozone layer and raising the climatic temperature; the polar ice caps are melting; the water level of the oceans is rising; the deserts are spreading, and storms and hurricanes are on the increase. We know all this, or we can know it, but it is as if we were paralyzed, changing neither our economic growth ideology nor our private and public way of life. We are not acting on what we know” (Moltmann, 131-132).

Moltmann continues with a very dire warning for a humanity that has been charged as caretakers of God’s creation,

“If Darwin is right and human beings and apes have a common ancestry, this means the end of the human being’s godlike position. As the Bible says, he is formed of the earth and can fulfill his specific human tasks only within the community of creation. Since we have come to realize that it is the religious-scientific anthropocentricism of modern times which has brought us to the present ecological crisis of nature and human civilization, we no longer see Darwin’s evolutionary theory as an attack on Christian anthropology, but begin to understand that the human being belongs to the same family as other living things on this fruitful earth. That is ultimately also the substance of the covenant with Noah, with which creation begins afresh after the Flood. It is a covenant ‘with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature’ (Gen. 9.9–10). So all living creatures are God’s covenant partners and our covenant partners too” (Moltmann, 324).

One earthquake and one confrontation between an oil company and Native Americans might not seem like a lot, but over time these incidents have accumulated to reveal a severe problem that humanity must now address.  From a theocentric vantage point, it appears God’s creation is at war with itself.  While humanity has thought itself to be the “Big Dog on The Rock” for all this time, we might just discover that “The Rock” is stronger and more durable than we ever imagined.  If threatened, the earth might just fight back (i.e., stronger earthquakes, more powerful hurricanes, flooding rains, and bone dry droughts).  As a follower of Jesus, I can no longer stand silent.  The time for humanity to explore alternate clean energy resources is upon us.  We have the best and brightest in the energy world (this includes in the oil and gas industry as well), so for the sake of God, the Creator of us all, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work making His planet healthy again.  

Since the founding of America, religion has played a key role in America’s political procedures and campaigns.  Whether it was the inclusion of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that created the establishment and free exercise clauses for religion, or President John Adams leveling accusations of atheism against his political rival, Thomas Jefferson, in the presidential campaign of 1800, religion has been a constant presence within American politics.

Now, in 2016, religion has once again emerged as a major issue within the current presidential race. First, the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the country and the surveillance of U.S. Muslims by federal, state, and local authorities.  These dangerous suggestions violate the very conscience of the American experiment.  America was established on the foundation that “all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” America was not founded on the basis of suspicion and suppressing human rights.

The First Amendment establishes a precedent for the freedom of religion and prohibits unfair targeting of religion by the government.  We cannot sacrifice foundational principles at the alter of political grandstanding.  Security must be a priority for any political candidate in America, but to use religion as a gauge for patriotism is un-American.  Granted, America should be guarded against any person or country that seeks to harm us, but we cannot mistake the religio-political rhetoric and practices of extremists with the heartfelt conscience of most Muslims living out their faith and attempting to make their lives better.

Second, it was recently revealed that leaders within the Democratic National Convention were attempting to influence the primary by using Senator Bernie Sanders’ Jewish faith or atheism (never confirmed) against him.  As stated previously, political rivals have long used personal religious beliefs or lack of belief as political fodder since the foundation of the country.  From Jefferson to John Kennedy, presidential hopefuls have had to answer critical questions about their personal faiths.  Religious litmus tests were wrong then and they are wrong now.

In Article VI, paragraph three, of the United States Constitution, the framers concluded, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  When Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon, ran for the presidency in 2012, it was wrong for anyone to use his Mormonism as a disqualifying argument for public office.  In 2008, former Republican Secretary of State, Gen. Colin Powell, articulated this sentiment beautifully when false allegations were leveled against Democratic Senator Barrack Obama for being a Muslim.  Powell rightly concluded that even if Senator Obama was a Muslim, which he is not, it would not prevent him from being president because we have a “no religious test clause” in this country.  As American citizens, if we say we believe in the Constitution then we should also live by it.

There is no denying the reality that religion has always, and will always, play a part in the American political process, but we must denounce situations when religion and politics go wrong.  As a country, we must come to a more mature understanding of religion’s proper role.  Religion should never be used as a target for the purpose of oppression and marginalization.  Religious Liberty is a foundational American principle; an ideal we cannot jeopardize.  When we begin using religion as a tool to advance political agendas, we then devalue every religion and cease being American.

In 1790, Baptist minister and advocate for Religious Liberty, John Leland, penned, “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever…Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

This is the American spirit….

The Daily Oklahoman and Tulsa World reported the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 1062, by Rep. John Paul Jordan, R-Yukon, by a vote of 86-10 on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. The resolution proposes a ballot initiative that will allow Oklahomans to repeal Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution that declares, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”

This dangerous resolution was proposed in reaction to the recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that required removing a statue of the Ten Commandments from the capitol grounds.  The court ruled that the placement of the Ten Commandments monument violated the Oklahoma Constitution, citing Article 2, Section 5, as a basis for their ruling. Immediately after the high court’s decision, proponents of utilizing public money for the advancement of religion immediately began to work towards repealing Article 2, Section 5 from the state constitution. If they are successful, they will be one step closer to returning our state to the Colonial era when government was ruled by the established church of the day.

When Puritans fled religious persecution in England, they arrived on the shores of Massachusetts Bay and quickly established their version of Christianity as the only appropriate religion for the Colonies. There was no separation of church and state, thus the Puritan church was allowed to enact laws that were supportive of their religion and detrimental to all others. Taxes were collected by local magistrates, then used to establish and promote the Puritan religion. Those from other traditions were forced to pay taxes that funded a religion they did not support. In addition, at times, they were even persecuted by it.

Dissenters were not only discouraged from practicing their religion, but they were often fined, jailed, whipped, banished, and even killed in the most extreme cases. One such case involved Mary Dyer of Boston. Dyer was a Quaker, a religion strictly prohibited by the established Puritan church. Because her faith was unacceptable by the establishment, Dyer was banished numerous times by civil magistrates. Returning home to Boston, the Puritan government finally arrested and sentenced her to death. She was hung on June 1, 1660 near the Boston Commons.

During this terrifying time when church and state worked together for the establishment of the preferred religion, ex-Anglican, Roger Williams, held that personal conscience was a gift of God and should be protected as a right of every citizen in Colonial America. In his most famous work, The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience, he argued, “An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” Williams fought for the liberty of conscience for all people (Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Non-believers) because his religious conviction promoted that God gave humanity a freewill that should not be infringed upon by civil authorities.

To protect this sacred freedom, Williams argued that the “garden of church” should be separated from the “wilderness of the world.” He spoke of a “hedge” separating church and state so that both might be protected. Later on, after the Revolutionary War, President Thomas Jefferson picked up on this metaphor assuring persecuted Baptists from Connecticut that a “wall” of separation would forever remain between church and state.

While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that congress will make no laws establishing religion nor impeding the free exercise of religion, states have passed their own laws offering these same protections. The most famous of these state laws was penned by Thomas Jefferson: The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (Passed, January 16, 1786). Jefferson penned these now famous words beginning in the second paragraph of the statute…

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

When Oklahoma entered statehood on November 16, 1907, our state leaders comprehended the dangers of church-state entanglements. With testimonies from Native American children being whipped and forced to attend Christians worship services at agricultural schools funded by the government, the new state understood the evils of coerced religion. In the new state of Oklahoma, the notion of “killing the Indian to save the soul” would not be acceptable for a state seeking to enact freedom for all of her citizens. The establishment and promotion of religion by the state would not be tolerated. Thus, when the Oklahoma Constitution was adopted in 1907, Article 2, Section 5, was included to protect the rights of every Oklahoma citizen, especially those coming from Indian Territory.

Clearly, proponents of this resolution do not know or have failed to learn from history.  If successful, they will be taking a big step backwards in returning our state to a time when religious persecution was acceptable under Colonialism and Native Americans were forced to worship as those in authority dictated. Oklahoma law will no longer have a prohibition against the establishment of religion, thus legal precedent would fall to the U.S. Constitution that still upholds the first sixteen words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This attempt to dismantle the wall separating church and state is misguided, because fortunately the U.S. Constitution continues to be applied to the states. Repealing this portion of the state constitution will only bring lawsuits that will cost Oklahoma much needed resources; resources we cannot afford during this revenue shortfall and budget crisis. Like the current attempt to pass school vouchers, disguised as Education Savings Accounts, repealing Article 2, Section 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution is wrong for our state and wrong for the church.