Gay Marriage, the Law and the Church

When the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage several weeks ago, I wrung my hands for exactly zero seconds.  The outcome was expected, and it was the correct legal outcome.

I do not believe it was the correct moral outcome, but it was the correct legal outcome.

I am purposely making that distinction because it is an important one.  A very important one.

I am not like some within the Christian Church.

I do not believe the U.S. is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.

I do not believe the U.S. is a Christian nation.  It could be argued well that it never has been.

I do not believe we can transform the U.S. into the kingdom of God.

I do not believe it is the Church's job to impose morality through the use of the law.

I believe that well-meaning Christians have tried to impose morality and justice and other such things by the use of the law; however, while managing to get laws passed, it has simply driven certain behaviors into hiding where they lurk until striking out.  (See, Roof, Dyllan and racism)  The changing of laws do not change human hearts.

The Civil Rights Movement

 I do want to take a moment to talk about the importance of the Church working in society for its betterment.  I am the father of two bi-racial girls.  I hazard to think about what their lives would have been like 60 years ago or so.  I hazard to imagine them being required to drink out of separate water fountains and sit apart from the rest of our family because of asinine laws like Jim Crow.  I am most certainly glad those things are outlawed!!

And I am thankful that the thrust of power that came to overturn those unjust laws came through the Black Churches in our nation.  For certain, there were many involved in the process of other religious faiths and traditions, but those represented a minority.  The public figures of the Civil Rights Movement were pastors, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was, of course, the chief figurehead.

King's genius was not simply his passion for non-violence, but also his willingness to call a nation that considered itself Christian to account.  In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King basically said, "You know, you say that you are Christian.  You say that you follow the Bible.  Why are you not following its basic principles of justice, fairness, and equality?"  It was and is a fantastic letter.

An appeal to such a collective conscience is a master-stroke of genius, and it worked!   It worked brilliantly!!!  To change the laws.  And to change behaviors.

But it did not change the hearts and minds of many.  Perhaps this is where the Civil Right's Movement failed.  For the prejudice that was overtly embodied in Jim Crow Laws and segregation was now driven deep into people's hearts.  And it hasn't gone away at all.

So, should another similar movement be staged today?  Do more laws need to be changed to prevent covert racism?  Should the Church strive for such a thing in this current climate?

I am highly suspect of trying to accomplish such a thing, because the climate of the U.S. has changed and changed dramatically.

A View Backward to Go Forward

The Christian Church is one of the more unique institutions in the global scheme.  90% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa.  90% of Hindus live in India.  90% of Buddhists live in Asia.  Only Christianity is evenly distributed throughout the globe.  Christianity has been able to survive under all sorts of governments and rulers--even those that severely persecuted the Church.  In a rather head scratching note, the more the Church is persecuted, the more it seems to grow and thrive.

Part of the reason for this, I am convinced, is that Christianity grew up in a hostile culture.  It clashed with its parent religion of Judaism and also with the surrounding Roman Empire.  It proclaimed that Jesus was God--anathema to Jews and subversive to Romans.  In both cases, the death penalty could be sought for adherents (for blasphemy or for subverting the rule of Caesar).

Yet, despite the danger, one does not see anywhere in the early Church petitions to the governments to legalize Christianity.  One does not see the apostle Paul standing before governors and asking them to change the law.  No.  Paul seeks to convert.  Paul seeks to bring people to Jesus Christ and then allow the power of God to transform those hearts and minds.

It's a far cry from how the Church tends to operate in the U.S. today.  For a brief time, the U.S. adopted our ethical framework when making decisions.  For a brief time, we could count on people being in and understanding what it meant to have a Christian ethical framework.  At one time most of the U.S. had a Christian worldview, but there has been a divorce.

Ethics are no longer rooted in God.

The source and norm for ethics in the U.S. is the Constitution, and the ethical moorings of the Constitution are...

Who knows?

An Ethical Hodgepodge

Reason according to some.
"Do whatever makes you happy as long as you hurt no one," according to others.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," according to more.
"Truth is what we make it; truth is relative," according to others.

We have no agreed upon ethical basis for defining truth, justice, happiness, or the like.  We have no system of ethics underpinning our national discussion.  In fact, what very often happens is a clash between ethical systems without folks even aware that such systems are clashing.

The results can be quite confusing and disheartening.  People are quick to hurl insults toward each other.  Oppressed becomes oppressor.  The opposition gets vilified.  We cry out "do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"  But the practice ends up being "do unto others as I think should be done unto them."

Lord, save us.

Thank God, He has.

Which is why I haven't done any hand wringing.

A Christian Ethical Framework

You see, the Christian ethical framework seeks the will of God.  Believing that God has indeed revealed His will to us, we earnestly believe we should seek it out.  However, when we discover what that will is, we know it is impossible to uphold.  We know we can never live up to it.

Think about this in your own life at this point.  Most of us have a certain standard of how we expect others to live.  Do we live up to our own standard?  Recently, in a discussion, I pointed out that a gentleman called out Christians for being judgmental was himself making a judgement against Christians.  Fortunately, he was of the thinking sort and realized exactly what he was doing.  "It must be a condition of humanity," he said.  I heartily agree.  A condition we cannot save ourselves from.  We need a Savior.

That Savior, according to Christianity, is Jesus who lived the life we were supposed to live--loving God and loving neighbor as self completely; and He died the death we deserved upon the cross--paying the penalty for our disobedience and inability to fulfill God's will.  Jesus did this while we were still sinners--undeserving of such radical love.

To understand that we do not fulfill the will of God...
To understand that we do not deserve God's love and acceptance...
To understand that it was given to us at great cost to God...

Humbles a heart.  It takes away pride in any sort of moral accomplishment one may perceive.  It allows one to see one's own brokenness.  One still seeks God's will, but then understand that God's will includes loving others as we were loved--broken people loving other broken people.  This is done no matter what kind of government sits in power--or what kind of ethical framework is embraced by the surrounding culture.

Gay marriage is legal.
Two consenting adults having sexual relations is legal.
Selling a rock as a pet is legal.
Making millions of dollars without sharing is legal.
Consuming alcohol to excess is legal.
Yelling at your spouse is legal.
Calling someone an a$$hole is legal.
Looking at a woman with lust is legal.

Doesn't mean any of those things are moral, but instead of pointing fingers and decrying the immorality of others, I believe Christians are called to roll up their sleeves and do some very hard work--very hard work--seek conversion of others to the Christian worldview.  To seek the change of heart and not simply the change of law.

The Need for Government

There is no doubt that we need government and we need just laws.  Without government and laws, society falls into anarchy.  There is also no doubt that Christians need to be involved in politics.  We have a duty to work for the welfare of our neighbor (How that gets played out is oftentimes a point of contention, granted.).  I cannot imagine the Church standing idly by while injustice is perpetrated upon people.

And the Church is indeed guilty of both standing by and perpetrating injustice upon people.  We have only to look into our history at the times when the Church held power (middle ages) or--for the most part--walked hand in hand with those in power (Nazi Germany).  In both of these cases, great tragedy befell minorities as the vast majority of Christians supported or turned a blind eye to injustice.

I believe this happens when the Church aligns itself with the structures of power within a given nation.  Therefore, the Church must maintain a critical distance without becoming disengaged.  The Church must have a voice within the public square without aligning itself with any group seizing power.  The Church must be a powerful voice without seeking power itself.  And, oh and this is the tricky part--the Church must not be swayed to endorse any seeking power because of a promise of favorable legislation.

It is far too tempting to allow ourselves to endorse certain candidates who promise action on particular issues to win our votes.  An appeal to our own desire of power and getting what we want through legislation can be very, very tempting.  However, I think that this does great damage to our primary calling--to proclaim Jesus and not the Law.

"For the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed.  It is the smallest of seeds, but when planted it becomes a tree so large the birds of the air long to build their nests within."

The Kingdom of God begins with the seed of the Gospel in our hearts.  It grows as more and more hearts are tuned to God--not to the Laws of a nation.  And the Gospel roots out evil intentions, hatred and prejudice--the very root causes of hatred and division within our species.  But it all begins with the change of heart--the primary focus, I believe of spreading the Gospel--of changing another's worldview.

Not an easy task, but the one mission the Church was given straight from the one who died for the world.

Arguments and Exhortations

This Sunday is Pentecost Sunday--the day the Church remembers the bestowing of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples empowering them to go out and proclaim the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Pentecost is usually one of my favorite Sundays of the Church year.  There are no external trappings like Christmas Trees and presents or bunnies and eggs to deal with.  This Church festival has yet to be co-opted by society, and for this I am thankful.  I am also thankful for the opportunity to wear my red stole--it rarely gets used during the year.  I am thankful to preach about the power from on high that fell upon the disciples upon that day.

As part of my sermon preparation, I read the entirety of Acts chapter two.  There are 47 verses in the chapter, and we will only be publicly reading 21.  Chalk such matters up to time restraints and to those who pick out what texts constitute the Revised Common Lectionary.  I could add additional verses, but lengthy Bible passages plus lengthy sermons can equal mumblings and grumblings.  Better to keep things a bit shorter and sweeter.  :-)

Yet, there is so much in the second chapter of Acts which needs proclaiming.  There is so much which needs examining and revisiting as we see the empowerment of the Church and its initial proclamation as articulated by Peter.  Pentecost happened so that Jesus could be proclaimed!!!

It is worth taking some time to read through Peter's proclamation.  It cut many to their hearts, but I was also struck by another verse included by Luke in this text.  Verse 40:

⁴⁰And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’  (New Revised Standard Version translation)

"Intriguing," I thought to myself.  Arguments?  Exhortations?  Wasn't it enough just to proclaim the mighty acts of God in Jesus?  Apparently not. 

I decided to dig into the Greek to catch any nuances of the words:

The two words which most concerned me were διεμαρτύρατο (diemartyrato, translated as arguments) and παρεκάλει (parekalei, translated as exhorted). 

Diemartyrato has as its root word "witness."  The "die" adds emphasis, so there is often some wiggle room in translating this word.  Strong's Greek concordance translates it "solemnly testify." 

The King James Bible translates it testify and exhort.

The New International Version translates it warned and pleaded.

As I look at this particular statement, there is a sense of some strongly worded testimony by Peter.  There is a sense of urgency; a sense of working to convince the crowd; a sense of working hard to explain the new reality rooted and grounded in Jesus' death and resurrection.  There is not just a presentation of the events that occurred, but there is a need to explain the reasons for those events and their implications for life.

What is the take home point?

The Church cannot simply be nice to everyone and expect people to come to faith.

The Church cannot simply be engaged in doing justice and expect people to believe in Jesus.

The Church cannot simply say, "Jesus is risen," and expect people to come to faith.

The Church cannot simply say, "Follow these rules because God says so," and expect people to believe in Jesus.

There must be a willingness to engage, argue, exhort, explain, and so on and so forth.  There must be a willingness on behalf of the Church to present the Christian worldview from the beginning and show how that worldview addresses life's biggest questions.  There must be a willingness to show how various worldviews fall short in how they address those questions and exhort others to "save themselves from this corrupt generation."

There's nothing really nice about that last statement.  In fact, it can be seen as pretty arrogant.  It can be seen as pretty exclusive.  And if it is spoken without the proclamation of grace and mercy shown by Jesus on the cross; if it is spoken by someone who looks down one's nose at another while speaking it; if it is spoken in arrogance and self-righteousness, then the message will be lost as well.

The challenge, I think, is to engage the world with great love and compassion with absolutely no compromise in the belief that Jesus is the risen Lord who alone can offer salvation--not only for eternity, but for our world today.  Jesus is the risen Lord who can bring about abundant life--a life of joy, peace, and reconciliation now.  

If you think not, I'm ready to argue.  :-)

The Church Needs to Die

34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ³⁵For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.  --Mark 8:34-35

It is quite hard to believe that this July, I will be celebrating 15 years of ordained ministry.  Lots has changed in that 15 years. 

One thing that hasn't is a repeated mantra that I have heard over and over and over again at conferences, in sermons, and read in books:

The Church must change, or it will die!!!

Now, for the record, I once believed this.  I once believed it down to my very core.  I believed that the Church must always be reforming--and to an extent, it must always re-form.  But re-forming does not mean changing.  It does not mean examining our core beliefs and understanding and changing them to fit a culture or a context which has trouble understanding those beliefs and concepts.  There is a reason there is such a thing as apologetics!!!

Reforming, at least in the Church, is a process of going backward to go forward.  It is a process of returning to the basics of the Christian faith which propelled it forward in the ancient world.  It is a process of returning to the bedrock foundation of the Christian faith: we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus who lived the life we should live and died the death we deserved to reconcile us unto God.

When this core statement, the Gospel, grasps the heart and the heart grasps it changes you to your very core and being.  For many years, I had heard the Gospel, but I never understood it.  I figured Christianity was best served by focusing on the Law--the doing; particularly loving God and loving one's neighbor.  How simple was that?  It should be relatively easy for everyone to agree upon that?  Right?

But it isn't.  Not in the least.  For loving God and loving the neighbor, while we can agree on the basics, is not easily fleshed out.  It is not easily applied, and it fails to address what is really wrong with the human heart.  

For while I might desire to love God and love my neighbor, more oftentimes than not, my heart centers on myself.  I only love God and love my neighbor in so far as they help me accomplish my goals and my desires.  Unless my heart is deeply affected or moved by the plight of another, I remain content to keep my business as usual approach to life.  And, here is the kicker, oftentimes I engage in loving God and loving my neighbor because "it makes me feel good."  It becomes all about me.

Most of the time, when we examine ourselves, it indeed becomes all about us.  It becomes all about what we want and we desire.  It becomes about how something makes me feel or about how something works to my advantage.  

Institutions are no different.  They may begin with all sorts of lofty goals and ideals.  They may begin with an outward focus, but before long institutional preservation becomes the order of the day.  This is especially true of the Church.  We spend a lot of time, effort and energy trying to get people to fall in love with the Church--of whatever denomination we are a part; of whatever congregation we are a part.  And if things start going south, we proclaim: the Church must change or die!  What is at the heart of this statement?  Self-preservation.

"For those who want to save their life..."

Yes, Jesus' teaching applies to the Church as well.  If we are interested in saving ourselves; if we are interested in preserving our institutions; if we are changing so that we don't die, we will do exactly that.  We will die.  A slow and painful death.

But there is a remedy.  

"Those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it."

Die now.  Die to self.  Die to what we want and what we think will save us.  Quit trying to focus on making people fall in love with us, and work to get people to fall in love with Jesus and His saving action.  Reform.  Return to the Gospel and let it change the hearts and minds of those who hear it proclaimed. 

The Church doesn't need to change.

It needs to die.

Speaking Truth to Power

I remember vividly conversations held time and again while I was in college, seminary, and then amongst colleagues.  Well, perhaps I shouldn't sound like my memory is infallible for I do not remember vividly the details of said conversations, but I do remember a theme which has been prevalent--especially with those who believe Christians should work to influence the political process and seek laws which are in accord with biblical theology:

We must speak truth to power!

In my particular denomination, this phrase connotes a strong prophetic theme.  Just as the prophets confronted the rulers of Israel and Judah for their injustices, we too must be prophetic.  We too must convince our rulers to seek justice: to care for the widow, the orphan, and the needy.

My schooling was heavily influenced by liberation theologians of one flavor or another, and this theme ran prevalent in all of them as well.  Those in power must be confronted.  We must speak truth to power!

The Church indeed must wrestle with a very important question: how are we to live together?  Many argue that this is the nature of politics.  How do we live and move and work with one another.  This is a question that the Church must enter into regularly as we engage Christians, non-Christians, religious and secular.  We are not isolated from our surrounding communities, and ethics always plays a role in the midst of our daily lives.

Yet, how do we engage the powers of our day?  How do we engage the leaders in our respective cities, states, and nations?  (Obvious American bias right there.)

One of the most interesting things, at least to me, regarding Christianity is how it has managed to thrive under just about every type of government imposed by humanity.  It has survived monarchies, democracy, communism, socialism, and everything in between.  No government has been able to squash it fully--although some have managed to repress it severely.

Sometimes, Christians have the privilege of engaging governmental powers without fear of reprisal.  Sometimes engaging governmental powers is a life or death matter.  It depends upon which type of government you engage.

Which leads us to the point where we must ask: how should we engage our government?  How should we seek to influence the political process?  How should we "speak truth to power?"

For I think the phrase is well worth using, but perhaps in a not so conventional way.

Len Sweet at the Theological Conference I attended a few weeks ago nailed the group with a question.  It was a question yours truly has wrestled with previously and made an argument for.  "When you hear the word Truth, what picture do you get in your head?"  Sweet asked.

In my head, I saw Jesus.  "I am the way and the truth and the life," He said.

Sweet followed up, "For we believe truth is not a concept but a person."

A definite point of agreement here.

Truth indeed, for the Christian, is not a concept but a person.  I think we tend to forget this when we seek to influence the writing of legislation.  We tend to focus on getting certain laws passed thinking that in so doing we are proclaiming the truth.  We are not.  Laws do not proclaim Jesus.

Interestingly enough, Scripture provides a fascinating look into the early Church and its engagement with the powers that be.  I encourage readers to take a look at Acts 24 and following. 

Notice how Paul handles himself as he comes before the powers that be of his day.  See what he is trying to accomplish.  Pay particular attention to Agrippa's statement in Acts 26:

Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?’ 

Paul replied, ‘Whether quickly or not, I pray to God that not only you but also all who are listening to me today might become such as I am—except for these chains.’

Speaking the Truth to power.

Speaking Jesus to power.

That all may become as we are.

I have to wonder about my denomination's "advocacy" office in Washington, D.C.  Are they operating like St. Paul or like the prophets?  Are they speaking the truth to power or speaking The Truth to power? 

One of these things is not like the other.

Politics, Subpoenas, Preaching: Houston, We Have a Problem

Well, not really.

Some of you may have read about the city of Houston issuing subpoenas to a group of pastors seeking all sermons, text messages, conversations, and the like regarding the city's non-discrimiation ordinance and its mayor.  Cue a firestorm of commentary. 

Some have proposed "rendering to Caesar the things which are Caesar's."

Others staunchly say the city has gone too far, and we must stand for religious freedom.

I'm not exactly sure either "side" quite gets it.

The American citizen in me wants to take a "stand" for religious freedom and ask my congregation to join in on November 2nd, but I ask myself, "Is this the way of Jesus?  Is this how the Church initially dealt with such matters?"

The Christian in me ponders such questions deeply, and I am not exactly sure quoting Jesus' "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and the things to God the things are God's" is the appropriate response.  The reason I have for this would fill another full blog post, so I won't jump into that here.  Perhaps more appropriate would be Jesus' teaching to His disciples as He prepares them for what is in store for them as they proclaim the Gospel:

"9 ‘As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:9-11)

Implied in Jesus' words is persecution.  You will be arrested (for that's what happens before they bring you to trial).   You will be jailed (that's what happens before they bring you to trial).  The authorities will not agree with what you are proclaiming (that's why most were arrested).  Use such things as an opportunity (not to demand religious freedom) to proclaim the Gospel.  The Holy Spirit will give you the words to say!  Testify (bring your testimony) before them!

Paul honed this to perfection throughout the book of Acts.  He was arrested numerous times, and every time he proclaimed the Gospel.  To the jailers.  To fellow prisoners.  To the authorities.  To the governors.  Mind you, he had broken the laws of the Roman Empire.  He practiced a religion which was not on the authorized list.  Confessing Jesus as Lord was undermining Caesar's authority as lord.  Paul could (and was) charged for sedition.  Paul never (that I can remember) begged for Christianity to be accepted.  Instead, he longed to preach the news of Jesus so that hearts may be changed.

He was martyred.  

So were a whole lot of others.  Which begs the question: how did they handle it?

They did not renounce their faith.  They did not file lawsuits trying to change the law.  They stood firm in their faith.  They sang songs of praise and worship.  They prayed that their captors may be forgiven.  They faced death--oftentimes singing praises at those moments--because they had a sure and certain hope of what was to come.  "Go ahead," their actions proclaimed, "take my freedom; take my income; take my possessions; take my life, for I know Who really is in charge."

There was no rendering to Caesar.  There was complete rendering to God.  

I think this same pattern was picked up during the Civil Right's Movement in our nation not too many decades ago.  I mean, it was within black churches that plans were laid, boycotts were organized, sit ins were planned, marches were put together; petitions were brought forward.  The ruling authorities were not happy with such measures, and they tried to put a stop to all of the movement to overthrow Jim Crow.  Arrests were made.  People were imprisoned.  And they stood on their faith.  They did not kowtow.  They did not stop organizing or working for the betterment of society.  They faced the authorities and proclaimed, "Thus sayeth the Lord!"  They were willing to face persecution and use it as an opportunity to proclaim their faith--a faith which led them to take a particular political position.

Just as I vehemently oppose Jim Crow (after the fact), I vehemently disagree with the city's actions to subpoena sermons.  But I also disagree with the fallout and commentary put forth by each side.

Indeed, it would be easy to simply hand over the sermons.  It would be equally easy to make a case for religious freedom.  It would be much harder to do both.  

If the law of the land is unjust, break it.  Do not hand over your sermons.  Be prepared to face the consequences.  Don't file a lawsuit using power to fight power.  Become powerless.  Be prepared to be brought before governors and the ruling authorities so that you may have an opportunity to testify.

Then, show where your true allegiance lies.  Proclaim the Gospel.  Share what God has done.  Go through the sum and substance of why Jesus had to die for the world and how a Christian seeks to follow God's ways even though those ways clash with the prevailing culture.  Show how God's incredible action through Jesus is based in love, and that no condemnation is being shown, but that one is seeking the good of the city because following God's will would be good for all.

I just don't see such things happening in Houston.  And maybe, if I weren't so insulated sitting in rural Texas, things would be different.  Maybe I would be jumping on either one of those two prevalent bandwagons.  And if I were subpoenaed, maybe I'd be wanting people to stand for religious freedom as well.  

But maybe not.  Maybe I would be looking at this as an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel.  For that is what any Christian, I believe, should long for--to proclaim as clearly and as unashamedly as possible what God has done through Jesus.

Only Once a Month?

I wish I would have saved the reference so I could note it in this blog post, but perhaps the reference isn't as important as the reality to which it pointed:

MOST FOLKS IN THE U.S. DEFINE THEMSELVES AS REGULAR CHURCH ATTENDEES IF THEY ATTEND ONCE A MONTH.

Sorry for shouting, but it's an important item to wrestle with.  I cannot remember if the article I read referenced PEW or Gallup, but the point is the same no matter who conducted the survey.

The majority of folks interviewed considered themselves regular church attendees if they attended worship only once a month.

This is quite different from a decade or so ago when regular church attendance was considered three or four times a month.  Now, it's only one, and even though I don't like it, it did jar me with my experience as a pastor even in rural Texas.  Even in my congregation, I think I can safely say a good chunk of people in my congregation fit this trend.

There are many things to wrestle with in regards to this trend.  I have already breached the topic with my staff, and will be visiting with the congregation council about this matter at our next meeting, but I hope to spend only a few moments bemoaning and griping and wondering why.  We can speculate and gripe and wonder 'til Kingdom come, and that does no good.  The trend is not only in Cat Spring, TX--it is nation wide.  The trend is caused by multiple factors, not by a simple cause and effect.  Deciphering what is "wrong" and trying to give it a quick "fix" will not happen--even though we like to think we are capable of "fixing" such matters or people.  What I hope to accomplish is get people thinking about the reality of church 1) if this is the trend and 2) what really must happen if the trend is to be reversed.

THE GRIPING

• First, just a few moments of bemoaning, griping, and wondering why.  In my estimation, there is little wonder the definition of regular worship attendance has slipped and is slipping.  Society has shifted from setting aside Sunday as sacred--a day of rest to focus on God--to a day of work for retail and service industries and recreation/play time for others.  No longer do most businesses shut down on Sunday.  The need for more profit drives them, and workers' religious affiliation be damned.  Folks who work in this area of society generally are living paycheck to paycheck, and they cannot afford to tell their bosses and supervisors, "I want to go to church."  When the choice is bring home less income and decide whether or not to pay utilities, basic needs will win out just about every time.  And as the sacredness of the day gets diminished by the god of money, so then other gods find it easier to chip away.  
• The gladiators of the ancient Roman Coliseum could not imagine the overwhelming draw of sporting events in our day and time.  A pastor friend has remarked numerous times, "Society shows you what is most important by the biggest buildings it constructs."  In the middle ages, it was the churches.  Then the universities became prominent.  Then the skyscrapers of business.  Now, the stadiums.  Sports offers all sorts of promises to parents and children.  Some of them are true, but a great deal are false.  Sports supposedly builds character, but I know from my own personal experience, it doesn't change a heart.  
• Our technological society doesn't help either.  More and more we "connect" to each other via electronic means of communication.  Even this blog and the posting of my sermons is a testament to this.  If I miss church, I can read and hear pastor's sermon online.  There is no need to really and truly attend.  I can hear/read God's Word right from my bedroom in my pajamas, and I don't have to deal with the messiness of human relationships.  (Hey, I can even skip putting a few dollars in the offering plate.  It's a huge win!!!)  

THE IMPLICATIONS

Are there more factors: absolutely, but I told you, I don't want to focus too much on griping.  Onto the implications--or rather, what are some major questions of implication?

1.  How in the world does a congregation run a Sunday School or youth program in such a cultural climate?   If regular attendance is once a month at worst (even that is stretching it for some) and two times at best, how can students learn much about the faith?   How can congregations with less than a certain amount of members find enough teachers who attend on a hyper-regular basis (3-4 times a month) to staff their teaching positions?   How can teachers build from one lesson to another if children are constantly missing--akin to teaching mathematics when a kid is present for simple addition and then next shows up for division?  Is it possible to have well attended monthly activities any longer?  What does the role of a youth director look like in such a society?  More of a program director?  More of a mentor?  More of a person who seeks kids out at home in the evenings?   Tough questions.
2. How in the world do people connect to one another and have a sense of fellowship and familiarity?  How do people become more than a gathering of strangers on Sunday morning?  This is a fresh question since a family in my congregation decided to pull their membership in favor of another congregation down the road citing a lack of feeling "connected."  It's not surprising.  They fell squarely into that "once a month" demographic.  Given that there are an average of four Sundays in a given month, when your once a monthers are spread out over those four weeks...there is no way you can ever be connected unless you associate with fellow church members at other times on a weekly basis.  Plus, it takes time...sometimes lots of time to connect.  I am embarrassed to say that I have had quite a bit of difficulty remembering a particular congregation member's name.  I keep getting confused between "Bob" and "Bill."  I am sure it is more than frustrating for him--and it is for me too; and the sad part is, Bill is no once a monther.  We need personal contact between one another to connect and have relationship--it's part of human nature.  When we consider ourselves regular attendees while only coming once a month, we shouldn't expect to feel connected.  We simply can't with this irregularity.  Makes being in community truly difficult.
3. How in the world do you put together a choir?  A bell choir?  A children's choir?  Getting individuals to sing shouldn't be a problem, but a group?  For the same reasons youth and Sunday School become problematic, so does choir and musical ensembles.
4. How do you have a united sense of mission and ministry when so few are truly connected to a congregation?  
5. How do congregation members care for one another if they do not know one another?  How does a congregation prevent pastors from becoming burned out since he/she is the only one who has direct contact with people on a regular basis?  (The same can be said for other church staff in their appointed areas.)

I am sure these are only the beginning questions of implication.  They are tough.  Really tough. 

THE SOLUTION?

Solving the "problem" goes far beyond logistics.  This is not something that can be cured by making sure a congregation is warm and friendly; or has a website, Facebook page, Tweets, podcasts its worship services and has the latest technology; or has great programs; or has a dynamic preacher; or has a central authority; or who focuses on the right doctrine; or so on and so forth.  This is not a problem which can be solved by a quick fix of tweaking something here or changing something just to be changing it.  It's not about trying harder and working one's self or one's congregation at a fever pitch.  Those will not change society.  Those will not change people's hearts. 

I am convinced only the change of hearts in people can make a difference.  I am convinced that unless the Gospel fundamentally changes people and leads them to be in a church community more often, we will, as congregations struggle mightily with this issue.  And the problem with this approach: it takes a lot of time before the Gospel affects this kind of change--a lot of time.

I am 40.  I can say that it is only in the past year that I have finally come to begin to truly understand the Gospel--that it isn't about what I do but what God has already done.  For so long, I was trying to justify myself and worship false gods.  I thought I would get a sense of satisfaction and wholeness through such pursuits.  You would have never, ever convinced me of this at the time.  I thought I was doing God's work.  I thought I was doing the right things.  I thought my priorities were in line.  I was and am a pastor, for heaven's sake!!

But I was wrong.  Dead wrong.  And I had to be fundamentally confronted with my sinfulness--my wrongheadedness before the Gospel could begin its transformational work.  That's started.  I know the Gospel's power.  I know it can change things and mightily.  But it takes time.  A lot of time, and with a huge chunk of people coming to worship only once a month, it will take an abnormal amount of time before change is affected.  Do we have patience? 

I hope so.

I hope so.

GLAADly Shooting Ducks and Boycotting A&E

Just step back for a minute.  Just a minute.

Don't try to judge whether or not Phil Robertson's comments were good, bad, or indifferent.  Don't make this about free speech or freedom of religion.  Don't try to judge whether or not A&E's decision to suspend Phil Robertson was good, bad, or indifferent.  Don't make it about someone trying to push a particular agenda.

Step back to try and grasp a big picture scene.  Try to see the competition between several worldviews clearly clashing in this ordeal.  There are at least three that I can see, probably more.

First: GLAAD's worldview and how it plays out:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said in a statement. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Essentially: if you do not agree with us, then you are unclean "a stain" and those who associate with such a person should reevaluate their "friendship status."  GLAAD also quite happily approved of A&E's decision to suspend Robertson affecting his financial status.

Worldview: Our way is the right way, and if you don't agree with us, there should be punitive measures taken to deal with you.

Second: The response by those supporting Phil:

Boycott A&E until they bring Phil back!  We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion!  Phil is suffering persecution by the PC police!

Worldview: If you do something to someone we care about, we will take retributive steps against you.

Third: Phil Robertson's worldview:

Homosexuality is a sin, and as a culture we have begun having a much higher tolerance for things the Bible calls sin.  However:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” Robertson told GQ. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus – whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later.”

and


“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.  “However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

Essentially: I may disagree with you, but I can respect you without judgment.  We are all created in the image of God, and we would be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Tell me, which worldview do you want to live in?

Note: There are considerably more worldviews out there.  For a worldview which is atheistic and pro-gay yet still take GLAAD and A&E to task calling for respect read here.

And Onto Polygamy

Imagine seeing this article from CNN just a decade or two ago.  Bet you wouldn't have seen it.  Or thought of it.  This stuff used to be on the extreme fringes of society, but now, it's making opinion headlines.

And it is little wonder.

Ethics in our nation has made a monumental shift over the years.  I have argued (based on the work of Richard Neuhaus) that our nation's great experiment was to have our laws founded on Judeo-Christian principles without establishing Christianity as the formal, national religion.  There were numerous reasons for this, and I will not go into those again.

What has progressively happened is a tectonic shift away from those Judeo-Christian principles and an ethics based in science/reason. 

I personally am not worried about this shift in our nation.  The Church in all of its expressions has existed and even thrived in cultures which were hostile to it.  And our nation is far from hostile to religious expression.  It just no longer bases much of its moral law upon it. 

Once gay marriage would have been unheard of.  Now, several states allow it, and the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Polygamy is next on that slope.  Strictly adhering to the Constitution, I see nothing that can prevent polygamy laws from being struck down.  Consenting adults are basically allowed to do as they please.

Now, before anyone starts saying, "Polygamy isn't Christian."  Please, take a look at your Bible.  Polygamy is never outlawed in Scripture.  There is only one prohibition against it, and that is only for a bishop of the Church.  In fact, some of the greatest pillars of the faith in the Old Testament practiced polygamy in some form or another: Abraham, Jacob, and David to name a few.  In each case, polygamous relationships led to some pretty unhealthy results--which is one of the reasons I do not support such a thing--but it is important to note that God remained silent about such marriages.

Christian tradition in reading Scripture and seeing the negative results of polygamous marriage has discerned God's expectation for marriage to be between one man and one woman. 

In the culture which surrounds us now, I believe the Church must be a faithful witness to this in spite of the laws which change.  I believe we must be ready to argue, without anger, angst, and with respect to others who share a different view, for the sanctity of the one man/one woman relationship--allowing for the brokenness of relationships and the reality of divorce; never condoning it as God's will, but offering grace and mercy.  We must be ready to defend our position with much more than, "God said it should be that way, and the Bible says so too." 

Remember, the Bible never condemns polygamy.  If we meet someone who knows what the Bible says, we will lose the argument right then and there.  It is important to know the reasons behind our teaching, and I encourage everyone to study up on the matter.

We will need to know our stuff more and more as our culture and laws become more and more secular and reason based.

Cliques in Church

A respected member of my congregation approached me a week or so ago.  "Pastor," he said, "You need to say something or do a sermon about cliques."

I waited for further explanation.

"I've spoke to two people recently about coming to church.  Both of them said the same thing.  They both said they won't come to church because of the cliques in the church.  Something needs to be done about that."

Perhaps so, but I am now a veteran when it comes to handling church dynamics.  I've seen how more often than not, when you try to address something, the exact opposite happens.  Harp on people for not coming to church, and church attendance drops.  Harp on people for not giving enough or telling them to tithe 10% of their income, and offerings drop.  Tell them they need to come to Sunday School, and they don't.  Reverse psychology should be the order of the day, but if you go with the intent of trying to change things by doing the opposite, might you get figured out by doing that too?  Isn't that a bit manipulative?  Probably.

And that rightly leads to stagnation and a fear of even trying to address the issue.  That's not good either.

So, the question is: how does one address the issue of cliques without trying to offer a mandate or tell everyone how they should act knowing they are liable to do the exact opposite?

Perhaps what follows is a feeble attempt:

I believe cliques are a part of the way the world and nature works.  I think they are inescapable.  I mean it.  Kids form cliques in pre-school and school without any sort of guidance or compulsion.  They just do it.  In the animal kingdom, cliques are formed in most species.  Fish swim in schools.  Cattle gather in herds.  Lions in prides, etc. etc.  Each has its own hierarchy and social structure.  Most become closed and only open up on special occasions.

These groups form for various reasons: protection, cooperation, feeding, and even socialization.  In my estimation, this means cliques are neither good or bad, they just are.

Even in the church, we have our cliques.  I think we'd like to pretend they don't exist, but they are there regardless.  You have the women's group.  The quilters.  Men in mission.  Youth group.  Choir.  Adult Bible study, and so on.  These groups are organized based upon some commonality shared by all group members--gender, age, interest, ability.  It's how we organize ourselves.  Again, neither good or bad; cliques just are.

As I see it, the problem is not with cliques in and of themselves.  It is when cliques become self-important, refuse to cooperate with others, and become closed that they become a problem.

St. Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians 12 is instrumental in my opinion:
 
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. ¹³For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.  14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. ¹⁵If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. ¹⁶And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. ¹⁷If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? ¹⁸But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. ¹⁹If all were a single member, where would the body be? ²⁰As it is, there are many members, yet one body. ²¹The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ ²²On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; ²⁴whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, ²⁵that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. ²⁶If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.

Paul does not encourage everyone to be alike.  Far from it.  In fact, Paul encourages the Church to honor it's differences, but with a very important caveat:

We are all one body.

Let that sink in for a moment.  We are all one body.  If various body parts begin warring against one another, really bad things happen.  We actually know what that is called: cancer.  With cancer, a group of cells thinks they are more important than the rest.  They quit doing their job.  They go rogue.  They begin monopolizing resources.  They begin feeding off the rest of the body.  Eventually, if left unchecked, they kill the body.

In the Church, there is an antidote for such things--remembering who the head of the Church is and what He has called us to do.  Remember, Paul is explicit in who he says the head of the Church is:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; ¹⁶for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. --Colossians 1:15-18

To give this a very, local spin: St. John Lutheran Church of Cat Spring is actually ruled and governed by our head: Jesus Christ.  We believe He has given us a vision and a mission: To Live God's Word Daily specifically by Actively reaching out as a strong Christian influence in our community by showing God's love through kindness, caring, and involvement with others inside and outside our community of faith.

All of our various parts theoretically should revolve around the Head and His instructions to us.  Theoretically, everything we do should keep these things in mind.  All of our various ministries and parts revolved around this vision and mission.  If we should lose sight of this, then we face a war between the cliques.  We face cliques vying for power and influence.  Each clique's ministry becomes more important than the overall mission.

If you need evidence of this, look at our current political situation.  Most representatives of our nation are there not to work for the good of their country, but for the good of their constituents.  They are trying to get a piece of the pie for their district, their state, their area of representation instead of looking out for the good of the entire country.  This leads to division and strife, something we are all too familiar with by reading our news papers and news feeds.

Should the Church reflect society or Christ?  Should the Church represent what is going on in society, or should it represent what is going on in heaven where all are focused on God and His reign?  The answer to me seems pretty obvious.

I personally do not believe cliques are necessarily a problem in any congregation, church, or community.  It's how we organize, but it is my sincere hope that any clique that is within the congregation of St. John or any other congregation or denomination recognizes its vision and mission and works for the betterment of our congregation, denomination, and its fulfillment of the Christian mission in society.

Do You Have Itchy Ears? (Like Me?)

    There is a story I have told in a sermon before, but I believe it bears repeating in light of our lessons this morning:   

    A retired preacher went back to visit a town in which he once served.  Sitting down in the local café, he recognized on of his former parishioners.  The preacher called out, “Hi, Bob, how are things at the church?”

    Bob recognizing the preacher from years ago replied, “Hello Reverend.  Actually, I don’t know how things are at the church anymore.  I don’t go there.”

    This surprised the pastor.  Bob had been a pillar of the congregation when he left.  Bob had served as congregation president; he taught Bible study; he was a mentor to several youth; he attended almost every single Sunday; and he was a steady and generous contributor.  The fact that Bob no longer went to church there rocked the pastor to the core.  “May I ask what happened?” the pastor said.

    Bob didn’t hesitate, “Well, Reverend, I hate to say it, but Satan raised dissension in our midst.  Some folks just stopped believing the appropriate things, so half of us got up and started our own church.”

    The pastor replied, “I am truly sorry to hear that.  How are things going at that church?”

    Bob replied, “I don’t know.  You would think that we would be able to agree on everything, but it didn’t happen.  Satan’s reach is long, and before you know it, a group of us had to leave again.  About six couples started gathering in our homes to listen to God’s Word.”

    The pastor then said, “And did you find peace in that small group?”

    “No,” Bob said.  “Before long my wife and I had to leave that group as they were not true to the Word or to doctrine.  We began worshiping together on Sunday’s alone.”

    The pastor replied, “I take it then, that this has brought you spiritual peace?”

    And Bob said, “Nope, before long, things went south again.  I worship on the east side of the house, and my wife worships on the west side.”

    Yes, it is funny, and it probably is funny because it has a bit of truth within it.  For in many ways, this story illustrates the religious backdrop that is the United States of America–particularly the church.  We literally have thousands of denominations in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands of churches, and many of them have come about in exactly the fashion this story presents to us.  They have split over disagreements and doctrines, and more often than not, our second lesson which we heard this morning is used as justification for those splits.

    In case you missed it, I’d like to refresh it in our minds.  Please take a listen to what St. Paul tells Timothy: 16All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: 2proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching. 3For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.

    Usually, folks use this text as a weapon to basically say, “All scripture is inspired by God, and you are not taking scripture seriously. You have itchy ears and are leaving sound doctrine.  We have no choice but to break away and hold onto the right, pure doctrine.”  It’s always the other person who has the problem.  It’s always those people out there who are wrong.  It’s always the other guy who has itchy years, and it’s definitely not me.

    Of course, that’s the attitude; however I think it’s mistaken.  In fact, I’d submit to you this morning, my brothers and sisters, that each and every one of us have itchy ears.  I’d submit that each and every one of us have our own particular understandings and core convictions, and we like those things affirmed and stroked.  I’d submit that each and every one of us do not like having those convictions challenged, and we are often content to surround ourselves with people who believe exactly as we believe and do the things we like to do.

    That’s an extremely easy thing to do in our technological age.  I mean, how many of you have ever deleted someone off your Facebook list because they embrace a particular ideology and keep harping on it?  Guilty as charged here.  In this day folks are more than happy to announce their particular philosophy and theology, and many of them put this stuff on Youtube.  It’s easy to search around on there until you find folks who agree with your point of view and keep listening to them and have them reinforce your beliefs instead of being challenged by others.  It’s easy to frequent certain websites who give a particular slant to the news and avoid others which give you a different perspective on an event.

    Before you know it, you can end up completely isolated–never challenged.  And if you are challenged, say for instance, you don’t like what I say in the sermon this morning, you can head out of here turn on the television or get on the internet.  In a matter of moments you can find another preacher like Joel Osteen who will tell you the things you want to hear.  It’s that simple.

    And of course, such isolation leads to division.  We have only to look at what happened the past few weeks in Washington D.C. to see evidence of this.  Two sides which are completely entrenched decide to play games with the American people.  They are completely isolated and refuse to consider a different point of view.  Not only does it divide the capital-it divides the nation; and, instead of a place that seeks to be different from society, the Church oftentimes reflects society.  We become embroiled in division as well.

    And what do we fight about?  Interestingly enough, when you sit down and think about it, we don’t often fight about sound doctrine.  Instead, we fight about what we are supposed to DO; how we are supposed to live out the Christian faith.  How does this look?  Well, it can be a battle over what color to paint the building.  Some churches fight over whether or not it is okay to put artificial flowers on the altar or if real ones need to be used.  Churches fight about who can serve as a pastor–if a certain gender is allowed or not or if a person of a particular sexual orientation can serve.  Some fight about how a church cares for the poor–should they help without question or should someone work before they eat.  Others fight about how the church engages politics–should they lobby government and force government to promote Christian values, should the church remain separate and apart from government completely, or somewhere in between.

    All of these battles are focused on the law.  They are not focused on doctrine.  Now, the law is very important.  There is no doubt about that.  It helps us tremendously in teaching us how we ought to live.  It serves as a guide as to what is right and what is wrong.  It also teaches us and confronts us with our sinfulness.  Most of you know the Big Ten, and I’m not talking about the football conference.  You know the 10 Commandments: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me; you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, honor your father and mother, remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s property or his wife and so on.  You know Jesus’ commands, “If you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery.  If you have anger toward your brother, you are committing murder.  When you fed the least of these my brothers, you fed me.”  We need the law, but we cannot follow it completely.

    And that is important.  Very important.  None of us can completely measure up to what the law demands.  None of us can follow every detail.  It’s an impossibility.  If we were able to follow it, we wouldn’t need a Savior.  Jesus would not have had to die.  As that most famous quote from the Gospel of John says, “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world may be saved through Him.”

    We call this grace.  And in my estimation, this is the sound doctrine from which we turn away from.  When we focus on the law, we divide ourselves to exclusion; however, if we focus on grace, a very different dynamic occurs.  When I realize that I am totally dependent upon God for my salvation, I am humbled.  I no longer see myself as the be all and end all when it comes to knowing and practicing the faith of Jesus.  And when I look at another person, I come to understand that other person needs Jesus just as much as I do.  Therefore, I cannot see that other person as an enemy, as an opponent, or someone doomed to hell because he or she does not believe as I believe.  Instead, I see that person as a brother, a sister, a member of my family–whether I like that person or not.

    And when a group of people gather together inspired by grace, they can come together regardless of differences and work and worship together.  In this manner, they change society instead of mirror it.  And that, my brothers and sisters, is Living God’s Word Daily.  Amen.

So What if the Government Shut Down Permanently?

October 1, 2013.  All non-essential parts of the U.S. Government are currently shut down because of an inability on the part of Republicans and Democrats to put together a bill for funding.

Let's put the blame game aside for a little while.  I am sure more than a few people will have a lot of fun jumping into it and deciding the political fallout from it.  I am not much interested in such matters.  Seems to me no matter what party holds power, nothing much really, truly changes.  The rich keep getting richer.  The poor keep getting poorer.  The cyclical narrative which has occurred throughout history keeps repeating itself as it will probably keep repeating itself until Kingdom come.

But I ask the question today: what would happen if the government shut down permanently?  More specifically: what would the Church do if the U.S. Government shut down permanently? 

Now, I am going to look at my own particular denomination: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  How would such a thing affect the mission and ministry we strive to accomplish?

On one level, it wouldn't change much.  I mean, I know most congregations would still have worship services.  Most congregations would still seek to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, care for the poor, sick, widowed, and imprisoned.  The Gospel would still need to be preached.  Of this, there is no doubt.

On another level, however, I think there would be substantial changes.  There are more than a few within my denomination who believe the government should take on the responsibility for feeding the hungry and caring for the poor and needy.  They base such thought in the prophetic literature of the Old Testament and seek to be modern prophets who criticize our government for "buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals."  Of these modern prophets, many seek to influence the political system to bring about their own particular visions of justice--economic equality and redistribution of wealth.  This is not unlike the so-called "Religious Right" which seeks to use the political system to impose a particular set of sexual and familial morals on the U.S.

So, what happens if the government goes away?  What becomes of such efforts?  What happens if there is no political/legal system to appeal to?  What role does the church (ELCA) play?

I have argued in this blog on several occasions that the church's role in society is to stay away from the political process and act much like the first century Church acted.  In that time and place, the Church had no legal or favored status.  It did not seek to influence governmental policy or procedures.  Instead, it sought to proclaim the Good News of Jesus even in the face of governmental persecution.  It steadfastly held to its teaching, preaching, and practice of care and concern for the poor, widowed and orphan, regardless of what particular stance the government held.  It risked life and limb to follow Jesus Christ and His teachings.

It wasn't until the Church received a most favored status in the Roman Empire that the Church had the ability to influence policy and procedure.  And, I would argue, it went down hill from there.  As the Church gained power and influence, it also produced corruption.  In the name of Jesus, people were persecuted, crusades were conducted, Protestants and Catholics fought for 30 years.  Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The power Christians are called to wield is the power of the Gospel, and that power is wielded regardless of whether or not a government is or is not functioning.

Now, I know that there are those who argue that the need of those around is tremendous.  There are those who argue that the numbers of people who are in need and the cost of providing for those folks is too much for the Church to handle.  I say, "Where is your faith?"  Do we not believe in the One who turned five loaves of bread and two fish into enough food to feed 5000 men plus women and children?  Do we not believe the One who said, "Do not worry, if God provides enough for the sparrows, won't He provide enough for you."?

I believe one of the greatest reasons the Church in the United States has declined in the past 30 years or so has less to do with the rise of secularism and more to do with the Church's desire to exert power in the political process.  That's not our job.  Just let the government stay shut down for a lengthy amount of time.  Then, it will become much more evident.

A Vote to Cut SNAP

At the end of last week, a huge uproar occurred on the left hand side of the political/ideological spectrum when the House of Representatives, along party lines, voted to cut the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) by $40 billion over 10 years.

More than a few of my more liberally associated colleagues on Facebook erupted in moral outrage demeaning the Republicans' hard-heartedness, callous, and un-Christian attitudes and behaviors in their votes for this measure.  Their righteous indignation can perhaps be captured in the following article from Sojourner's 

Your Christian Hypocrisy Is Showing: On Pope Francis and the U.S. Congress

A relevant quote:

In July 2013, when lawmakers first passed a Farm Bill without funding for food stamps (officially called the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” or “SNAP”), one Republican lawmaker (Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn.) quoted 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” In yesterday’s debate, Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) invoked Genesis —“God created Adam, placed him in the Garden to work it.”

Exegesis aside, what both of these quotes ignore is that most of those on food stamps are working. They might be working part-time, or for minimum wage, or both, but they are working. What they also ignore is that those who would be most severely impacted by such drastic cuts in food stamp funding — children — cannot work for their food. They can instead only wake in the morning and hope they are fed.

My curiosity, of course was peaked when I started seeing all of the blog postings and indignation on behalf of those who would be affected by this particular bill if it had a snowball's chance of passing the Senate.  Therefore, I started doing a bit of research to see just what the bill included.

The Executive Summary was helpful since it takes a masters in law in order to decipher the wording of the bill itself.

And then it was on to reading some news articles instead of blog postings and Facebook rants:

House approves bill with deep food stamp spending cuts
 
A very, very relevant quote or two:

The Cantor-backed package would limit able-bodied adults without dependents to three months of food stamps in a three-year period unless they worked part-time or were in a workfare or job-training program. It would end a provision, created by the 1996 welfare reform law, that allows states to give food stamps to people whose assets are larger than usually allowed.

Those two steps would save $39 billion over 10 years and reduce enrollment by almost 4 million people in 2014, said the Congressional Budget Office. Another reform would reduce benefits by $90 a month for 850,000 households.

Marcia Fudge, Democrat of Ohio, and other Democrats said there were not enough jobs, workfare assignments or job-training programs to match the number of people who could lose food stamps after three months.

So, let's put the actual facts on the table.  The bill actually passed by the House of Representatives does not affect those people who actually work--per the Sojourner's article unless the folks are already making more than usually allotted.  Same goes for those who have dependents--as per the Sojourner's article.  And, the bill does not target at any women or children--as per the Sojourner's article, unless, again, these folks are already making more than is usually allowed.

The only argument that can be made against it is that of Fudge who said there aren't enough jobs or training programs out there for able bodied individuals to participate in.  That may or may not be true depending upon the situation in which one finds oneself.

However, yours truly has heard more than his fair share of stories about people living in the Great Depression who moved several states away from their families and friends to find work until jobs became more available.  What is preventing such things from happening today?  Why do we feel like people are anchored to a particular place or area and are unable to seek out other opportunities where there are jobs and training programs?  That is a relevant question to respond to Mrs. Fudge with.

But all of this is quite beside the point.  The point, at least from my perspective, is that I believe that in the Church, we are responsible for being speakers of truth.  We are responsible for relaying the facts of a particular matter and speaking to it truthfully.  I do not believe some within the Church have fulfilled their responsibility adequately in this particular matter.

It is not the first time.

It probably won't be the last.

This particular misstep comes from the left side of the aisle.

There are numerous from the right side as well.

A damnable question arises from the willingness to see what we want to see instead of putting the facts on the table and then working from those:

Why would anyone trust the Church if we do not speak the full truth?

Producing Good Fruit

    This past week, the Supreme Court of the U.S. made several decisions which upset half of our nation.  It’s not surprising considering the polarizing times we live in.  Of course, one of the ones that piqued the interest of many was the striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  This was either a cause for great celebration or of great mourning depending upon one’s particular perspective.  Depending upon where one stands, one either believes our country took a great step toward equality or has added further grease on the railway to hell.

    Most of you know where I stand on this particular issue.  If you have not read it in my blog, you have probably heard it.  And if you haven’t heard it and would like me to tell you, I will be happy to talk to you and explain where I stand and why; however, I do not believe this is the time or place to do such things.  What I wish to deal with this morning is something related but a bit different.  I would like to wrestle with the question of how the church is called to work in and with a society that does not share its particular worldview.  Now what do I mean by that?  Let me explain by taking one avenue in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding marriage.

    Historically, the Church has come to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  Now, this is not the only kind of marriage found in the Bible–we can do an at length Bible study on that sometime if you like–in fact, I actually just did one where we touched on such matters.  Most of the Christian church adheres to this definition, and those that do not are actually in the vast minority.  So, the question arises for such churches, “How does the church respond when society embraces a very different understanding of marriage?  What does the church do in such cases?”

●    Does it rush out to register tons of like minded voters to change government by ballot?

●    Does it send people out onto the street corners to warn about breaking God’s laws?

●    Does it seek to lobby government officials to pass laws which are in accord with its particular understanding of marriage?

●    Does it crawl into a hole and pretend the rest of society is wrong and that it alone holds the truth? 

●    Does it refuse to engage the surrounding culture and disassociate itself from it because it feels the surrounding culture is a horrid influence?

In some way, the church throughout history has embraced any one of these particular methods of response, but this morning I would like to argue for another way–a way which finds itself rooted and grounded in the earliest days of the Christian community before it ascended to power and prestige in the Roman empire.

    If one studies the history of the early church as it began to spread from Jerusalem and into the Roman
empire, one is struck by the fact that it began between a rock and a hard place.  The rock was Second Temple Judaism.  When the early Church proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, indeed, God incarnate who was raised from the dead, the leaders within Judaism saw this as blasphemy.  There was only one God–Yahweh–undivided who lived in the temple in the holy of holies.  Any claim outside of this–including that Jesus is Lord–was seen to be breaking the first and greatest commandment.  It was not too long before the Jewish authorities kicked the Christians out of the synagogue proclaiming that Christianity was incompatible with Judaism and was a heresy.

    This put the Christian church in a very precarious position.  For now it came up against the hard place: the Roman empire.  For, you see, the Roman empire actually tried to be a pretty tolerant place.  It accepted the practice of many and various religions within it–but those religions had to be authorized and accepted by the Roman government.  You had to be on the acceptable list.  Judaism was on that list.  Christianity was not.  This meant the Church could be justifiably persecuted within the Roman empire.  Simply by being a Christian, you could find yourself on the short end of persecution.  As I said, the early Church developed between a rock and a hard place.

    But that is not the half of it.  I don’t know how much you have studied about the Roman Empire, but it was not exactly a bastion of morality and justice–at least justice and morality as we understand it.  I am sure you have probably heard reference to the pax romana or the peace of Rome, but I wonder if you know how Rome enforced that peace?  Well, they weren’t exactly too particular about who they killed to enforce it.  And perhaps you have heard about Caligula and his reign of terror as Emperor and his wonton assassination of others before he himself was assassinated.  And in case you didn’t know where those infamous toga parties in college came from...well, let’s just say the Romans perfected such matters way before frats and sororities.

    It was into this social and political milieu the early Church was born.  And how did they handle such matters?  How did they handle such a society?  How did they strive to influence matters? 

●    Did they demand to be recognized as an acceptable religion?

●    Did they lobby the emperor or the Roman senate for acceptance?

●    Did they try to influence Roman law and change things from a legal standpoint?

I challenge you to read through the entire New Testament and find one place where they tried to do such things.  I challenge you to show one place where St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. Stephen, or St. John admonished the Roman empire to change their laws or practices or policies so that Christianity might be accepted, acceptable, or it’s morals and understandings be accepted by the entire empire.

    You won’t find it.  At best, you will find the apostles testifying before kings and governors.  You will see them trying to convince them to become Christian, but you will not see them trying to make others follow Christ by changing governmental law.  That is simply not there.  Why?

    The early Church believed they had a mission regardless of what laws the surrounding culture enacted.  The early Church believed it had a mission regardless of the morality of the surrounding society.  The early Church had been commissioned by Jesus himself to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teaching everyone everything that Christ had taught.  The apostles threw themselves into this mission with reckless abandon.  Through their preaching and teaching, which was empowered by the Holy Spirit, others were convicted and began following Christ. 

    When the Christians practiced their faith and lived lives according to God’s guidance and God’s commands, the surrounding culture took notice.  Here was a group of people who voluntarily chose to live differently; move differently; talk differently; act differently; worship differently–who received no special privileges from the government or society–who at times was actively persecuted by the government and by authority.  Yet, despite this, they carried on.  They worked to tell others about Jesus no matter the circumstance.

    This is one of the reasons Christianity did and continues to flourish no matter what kind of government is in power.  The Church’s mission is not contingent upon what the government decides to do or not do.  The Church’s mission is not contingent upon what certain parts of the society embrace in regards to morality.  The Church’s mission is contingent upon the commands of Jesus Christ, and we are called to engage in it practicing a culture within a larger culture–engaging that larger culture and inviting people to leave those things behind and follow Christ.

    But we must be willing to do so ourselves.  We must be willing to embrace following Christ and practicing such faith right here and right now.  And we have guidance as to how such a community looks.  We have guidance in to how such a community functions.  We are shown what it means to produce fruit.  St. Paul reveals that fruit in the 5th chapter of the book of Galatians.  “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control.”  These are the fruits inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Take a look around.  Are we as a church producing them?  Take a look in the mirror.  Do you see these fruits in your life?  Do you need the government or society making you produce them? 

    It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court decides.  It doesn’t matter what laws the government passes.  We have a job.  We have a calling.  We are called to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and produce good fruit.  Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or thinks–produce good fruit; spread the good news of Jesus.  The rest will take care of itself.  Amen.