Faith of Our Fathers

"...they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world..."

-- Rev. Roger Williams, 1644

Meditation: from a poem by Maya Angelou entitled “Caged Bird”

A free bird leaps

on the back of the wind

and floats downstream

till the current ends

and dips his wing

in the orange sun rays

and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks

down his narrow cage

can seldom see through

his bars of rage

his wings are clipped and

his feet are tied

so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings

with a fearful trill

of things unknown

but longed for still

and his tune is heard

on the distant hill

for the caged bird

sings of freedom….

Reading: from last Sunday’s News-Gazette (Feb. 19, 2012), a piece by Lynn Johnston, the comic strip “For Better or Worse.” Let me describe it:

In the first panel, the eight-year old Michael, and his four-year old sister are both sitting at the living room coffee table. He is drawing in a coloring book. She is driving a toy car over the pages of the same book. “Get over on your side,” he says.

“This isn’t your table, Michael,” she replies. He has an annoyed look on his face, as she leans over to him, appearing rather smug.

“Maaaaaaaaah! Lizzie keeps puttin’ her stuff on my side of the coffee table!!!” Michael shouts. Lizzie says, “Bffblbbb.”

The mother approaches, hoping to make peace, with a role of masking tape in hand. “The masking tape should solve the problem.” She puts a strip of masking tape right down the center of the table.

The next panel shows Michael on the sofa looking at a picture book. Lizzie is sitting next to him with a thumb in her mouth. “Mah! Liz is taking more room than me on the couch.” Michael shouts.

The next panel shows Michael turned around, resting his arms on the back of the sofa, and looking out the window. Liz shouts: “Ma! Him gots all the window!!”

The last panel shows the living room, with a strip of tape down the middle of the coffee table, the middle of the sofa, the middle of the window, the middle of a book, a cup, the middle of the family dog, and the front of the mother’s sweater. She looks annoyed. Her husband has a puzzled look on his face as he examines the living room. She says: “Don’t ask.”

Reading: by Christopher Eisgruber and Lawrence Sager from Religious Freedom and the Constitution (p. 1)

Members of the human species have a poor record of living together in peace and an even worse record of treating one another fairly. Religious differences have often been the cause or at least the excuse for our most egregious failures. Even today, religious disagreement underwrites violence, disfavor, and discord in many parts of the world.

America’s founders knew the perils of religious difference all too well. The Europe that the early settlers left behind was racked with religious conflict and persecution; indeed, many who came to America were victims of it. The colonists had a deep awareness of questions concerning religious liberty, and they self-consciously pursued the appropriate resolution to those questions…

Reading: by Laurie Goodstein from an article entitled “Obama Shift on Providing Contraception Splits Critics” (The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2012)

The near-unified front led by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to oppose a mandate for employers to cover birth control has now crumbled amid the compromise plan that the Obama administration offered last week to accommodate religious institutions….

…Even the nuns are not on the same page. The organization that represents a majority of women’s religious orders, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, said the Obama administration had listened to the concerns of Catholics and found a “fair and helpful way to move forward.”

But a traditionalist order in Ann Arbor, Mich., the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, which was formed 15 years ago and has about 100 members, said in a statement that the “so-called compromise” by the White House was “insulting.”…

The bishops called the rule an affront to religious liberty and a violation of Catholic conscience.

Faith of Our Fathers

A Sermon Delivered on February 26, 2012

By

The Reverend Axel H. Gehrmann

A few weeks ago, when Catholic leaders appealed to principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience as a justification for their position on health insurance coverage and contraception, the news caught my eye.

Liberal religion and freedom of conscience – those are key ideas we Unitarian Universalists affirm. Centuries ago our forebears promoted and defended these principles against religious powers of orthodoxy and conservatism – for instance the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church.

And now Catholics are calling on those same principles to protect their religious practices against interference by the state.

Now, I certainly share a concern for freedom of religion. But what happens when religious freedom is used as an excuse to withhold health care from fellow citizens? What happens when religious freedom conflicts with civil rights?

These questions are often framed in terms of the “separation between church and state.” They are part of an ongoing battle, it seems, that is fought on city councils and school boards across the country, and sometimes rise to the highest levels of government and the Supreme Court.

These battles may be about faith-based social services or public funding for religious schools; they may be about the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, or school-sponsored prayers at high school football games; they may be about how to teach about evolution or creationism; or they may be about family planning or abortion, gay rights or euthanasia.

These disputes are often cast as a conflict between religious and secular ideals. But this is not necessarily true. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious. The arguments arise over competing convictions about what it means to be religious, and how religious principles and practice should appropriately affect civil society.

* * *

“The wall of separation between church and state” is probably the most well-known idea most Americans associate with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Though, as historians know, the words “wall of separation…” appear in neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson referred to “a wall of separation between Church and State,” in a letter he wrote in 1802. But Jefferson didn’t invent the metaphor. Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist congregation in the British New World, coined the phrase over a hundred an fifty years earlier, in 1644.

And while Jefferson certainly had clear ideas on the matter, the “separation of church and state” was always an issue of fierce controversy – even among the founding fathers.

In a book entitled So Help Me God –The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State, the Unitarian Universalist minister Forrest Church writes, there were always two distinct perspectives represented as this country’s government was first formed. One perspective was informed by the British model and the Church of England. It held: “God was the head of authority and the rulers were to have their authority from Him.” The other perspective, which Jefferson represented, was based on the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality, that figured prominently in the French Revolution.

There were two camps. On the one hand, Church writes,

“the advocates of divine order believed that in order to uphold one nation under God, the secular and sacred realms must rest on a single foundation. Without a united sense of purpose and clear moral vision, the argued, liberty would lapse into license. Champions of sacred liberty [on the other hand] believed that to promote liberty and justice for all, the secular and religious realm must be kept autonomous. Government attempts to impose religious (or moral) values suppress religion instead, they claimed, by violating individual freedom of conscience.” (p. 2)

The initial discussions exploded into fierce arguments, which pitched absolutionists on both sides into a war of conflicting ideals that threatened to tear the country apart. Early on the “apostles of divine order” seemed to have the upper hand. In the end, the “champions of sacred liberty” carried the day.

But from the very beginning, this was a highly controversial and complex issue. So today, in a way, both those who say our founding fathers wanted to create a Christian nation, and those who say the founding fathers wanted to create a secular state - both are correct. The historical record is complex. Proof texts can be found for either position.

After the War of 1812, after three decades of religious strife, the proponents of a secular government won, and church leaders withdrew from national politics. But as Church writes,

“In a surprising turn of events, rather than diminish Christian influence in the nation’s moral life, the defeat of those who had championed Christian government freed the church from political manipulation instead and extended its moral authority. … Secular governance was confirmed, yet the religious nation prospered.” (p. 9)

It seems, a clear separation of church and state, and a national commitment to religious freedom, rather than stifling the country’s religious spirit, did just the opposite. Organized religion flourished.

* * *

Just like a strip of masking tape placed strategically on every table, couch and chair in the house, the metaphor of “the wall of separation” is compelling and clear.

I don’t know that, as a parent, I ever made such effective use of masking tape, when attempting to make peace between my son and my daughter. But the comic strip sure captures a parental longing for such simple and effective separation. And it reminds me of when I myself was a child, when one of my older brothers would get on my nerves – playing with my toys, in my part of the room, or by sitting too far on my side on the back seat of the car. I longed for a clear line to be drawn between us, that would protect me from the perpetual provocations of my brothers.

But the point the comic strip makes, is that it is actually and ultimately impossible to solve conflicts of interest by simply separating the parties involved. As the final frame shows, it is ridiculous to try: to put a line down the center of every window, every cup, every book and even the family dog.

The “wall of separation” is a metaphor. And, as any metaphor, it has its limitations. This is a point Eisgruber and Sager make. “…Literally separating the modern state and the modern church is implausible in the extreme.” How can you possibly separate religious institutions from government regulations? Think about it.

“Churches buy and sell property, build buildings, run schools, [pay] employees, need roads for access… Church members drive cars, pay taxes, interact in countless ways with their fellow citizens, and vote in public elections. The state, for its part, maintains the [laws] upon which contract and property rights depend, [enforces] building codes, regulates the use of land, protects citizens from unfair and discriminatory employment practices, builds roads… The enterprises of the state and the enterprises of the church are bound to intersect with and affect each other.” (p. 7)

Eisgruber and Sager offer the example of events a few years ago, when a few churches in Richmond, Virginia, banded together to operate a Sunday afternoon soup kitchen for the homeless. They wanted to provide meals at the Lutheran Church, which happened to be located in a residential neighborhood. Plans for the soup kitchen, they learned, conflicted with zoning restrictions. So the church members took the position that they had a “religiously mandated mission to feed the poor, and that restrictions on the place, manner or time of their efforts to discharge that mission were unconstitutional infringements on [their] religious freedom.” This turned into a big fight between church members, and the people who had homes in the church’s neighborhood.

In Richmond, Virginia, city officials tried to find a compromise, which would limit the frequency of the meals, or the number of persons served. But the compromise, it seemed, only served to fuel the fire of controversy. City council members were threatened with everything from hell-fire to lawsuits. In the end they relented, and the churches received permission to feed the hungry in unfettered freedom.

But is that the kind of freedom we are looking for? Is that the kind of separation we want, that allows religious groups be above the law?

The authors offer a hypothetical example. What if there were two women in this same neighborhood, who live across the street from each other, and each want to provide a soup kitchen for the poor. Both of them run into zoning restrictions. One of the women explains she is offering food as an expression of her religious convictions. The other says she is offering the food, because she abhors suffering. The first woman is granted the privilege to disobey zoning law. The second has no choice but to follow the law.

Eisgruber and Sager offer a different approach to questions of church and state. Rather than imagining a wall of separation, they envision two guiding principles. First, no one should be devalued because of their religious beliefs and commitments. Second, everyone ought to enjoy the rights of free speech, personal autonomy, private property and freedom of association. They call these two principles “Equal Liberty.”

The problem with the “wall of separation” metaphor is that it leads to some instances in which religious projects are treated much better than secular endeavors, and other instances when they are treated worse. If we simply focus on Equal Liberty for all, we have no reason to grant special constitutional privileges, nor impose special disabilities upon religion.

The brilliance and novelty of our founding fathers’ work was not that they created a wall of separation between church and state. Their brilliance was in casting a vision of justice, which – ideally – would be equally applicable to all people – whether men or women, whether white or black, whether gay or straight, whether religious or not.

* * *

When we disagree with our religious or secular neighbors, when we disagree passionately and fiercely, we may wish that we could build a wall between us, a wall that would protect us from the encroachment of our opponents, a wall that would protect our liberties.

We may wish we could simply put down a few strips of masking tape, and clearly separate conflicting parties and conflicting ideas.

But these walls we want to build don’t work. Our lives are simply too interconnected.

And when we try to build walls, the walls we envision will confine us rather than set us free. The walls intended to keep us safe, will become cages into which we are locked, or into which we lock ourselves. We will be trapped behind bars of rage, we ourselves made.

Instead of trying to separate a society along ideological lines, blocking out the possibility of understanding and exchange, instead we must cultivate respectful engagement.

In respectful and thoughtful conversation we may realize that something that seems trivial to us, may be of critical importance to others. And we may realize some cherished ideals that are crystal clear to us, may be completely unclear to our neighbors. And we may realize we share a lot in common.

Freedom is not about divisions between us, but distinctions among us. It is not about walls that separate us, but bridges with connect us.

We all want liberty and equality – whether in the halls of state our in the halls of church – we all long for justice and love.

Our founders and forbears longed for a freedom they themselves had not yet known.

May we do our part to create a world of harmony and understanding,

guided by a vision of ever greater justice, and freedom for all.

Amen.

Guest Sermon: If Jesus Were On the Ballot

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR

Thy Homeless Neighbor

Thy Jewish Neighbor

Thy Black Neighbor

Thy Gay Neighbor

Thy Undocumented Neighbor

Thy White Neighbor

Thy Transgender Neighbor

Thy Christian Neighbor

Thy HIV+ Neighbor

Thy Racist Neighbor

Thy Addicted Neighbor

Thy Atheist Neighbor

Thy Imprisoned Neighbor

Thy Disabled Neighbor

Thy Muslim Neighbor

-- T-shirt text, inspired by a photograph of a similar homemade

shirt, taken in New York City shortly after Sept 11, 2001.

First Reading

Tim Wise, in his latest book, Dear White America, recounts an email exchange he had with a woman who was part of the tea party movement, and was unhappy with a remark he had made, namely that the Tea party mantra of taking the country “back” contains an unhealthy degree of racial resentment as part of its background noise. He writes: “She continued to insist that race had nothing to do with the tea party movement. … So I asked her quite simply what tea party folks mean when they say they wish to take their country back and she said we mean we want to go back to a time of lower taxes and smaller government … when people were self-sufficient and didn’t rely on others to provide for them, … when people believed in taking personal responsibility for their lives. … I wanted to know exactly when in our nation’s history did she think we had gotten it more or less right when it came to the proper level of taxation. … The answer came back in a matter of minutes, 1957. It was a fascinating answer, because it just so happens that in 1957 the top marginal tax rate in America was 91 %... more than double the highest rate today, even if all the recent tax cuts were allowed to expire. There were actually 18 tax brackets in 1957 that were higher than anything we have today and corporate taxes were much higher then also, as a share of overall revenue and as a share of the larger economy. … It suggests that there must be something other than the tax burden of that time which makes individuals like those in the Tea Party so wistful.”

Second Reading

By Howard Thurman—from his book Jesus and the Disinherited, written in 1949,

“The religion of Jesus makes the love-ethic central. This is no ordinary achievement. It seems clear that Jesus started out with the simple teaching concerning love embodied in the timeless words of Israel: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy might,” and “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Once the neighbor is defined, then one’s moral obligation is clear. In a memorable story Jesus defined the neighbor by telling of the Good Samaritan. With sure artistry and great power he depicted what happens when a man responds directly to human need across the barriers of class, race, and condition. Every man is potentially every other man’s neighbor. Neighborliness is non-spatial; it is qualitative. A man must love his neighbor directly, clearly, permitting no barriers between.”

Third Reading

Glenn Loury, in his essay “Race, Incarceration and American Values” wrote—

“Suppose we had to stop thinking of us and them? What social rules would we pick if we actually thought that they could be us? I expect that we would still pick some set of punishment institutions to contain bad behavior and protect society. But wouldn’t we pick arrangements that respected the humanity of each individual and of those they are connected to through bonds of social and psychic affiliation? If any one of us had a real chance of being one of those faces looking up from the bottom the well, of being the least among us,… then how would we talk publicly about those who break our laws… what would we do with juveniles that go awry…

we need to also think about whether we have done our share in ensuring that each person faces a decent set of opportunities for a good life. We need to ask whether we as a society have fulfilled our collective responsibility to ensure fair conditions for each person—for each life that might turn out to be our life.”

Sermon: “If Jesus were on the ballot” delivered by the Rev. Elaine Gehrmann on February 19, 2012

This sermon was purchased by Claudia Gross at last year’s service auction.

Claudia wanted to me to preach about justice, a subject she cares a lot about. It’s a subject that she says is not simple. It is affected by history, by wealth, and by power.

Last month, with the topic of justice on my mind, I was driving across town and I heard a report on National Public Radio by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, about a meeting of over 150 evangelical leaders that was occurring at a ranch in Texas…The mission of this meeting was to “unite behind one true-blue religious conservative for the Republican nomination.” What struck me was the quote I heard by Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis at the American Family Association. He said, “There is no perfect candidate. Jesus Christ is not on the ballot.”

I had to then think, what if Jesus were on the ballot? Would he be the obvious choice for the true-blue religious conservatives?

A blogwriter, M. Wade Hamilton heard the same NPR report I did, and on his blog “Diary of a 3^rd person” riffed a little on the possibilities—

“What if Jesus wanted to run for President? Well, first off, he couldn't. Jesus was born outside of the United States. Alexander Hamilton had to settle for Secretary of the Treasury, so why should Jesus be any different? …

there are also a few other roadblocks that Jesus would encounter during his campaign, and most of it would come from his opponents. No matter how great a candidate really is, his opponents (and their Super PACs) will find some way to try and knock him off his pedestal. Here is a short list of targets his GOP rivals would have in their neatly parted crosshairs.

1. Jesus was a Jew: there has never been a Jewish President before, and only the Mormon would let that detail slide.

2. Jesus was kind of a hippie: Love thy neighbor? Even if that neighbor wants to just walk over your unprotected border, steal the job you’re not willing to do, and pay the taxes you’re not willing to pay. I don't think so, Jesus!

3. He's kind of preachy: Not Falwell preachy, but pretty gosh darn preachy.”

Wade Hamilton also noted, “There are also a slew of reasons why he would be a great President, but those would get washed away in the tidal wave of negative campaign ads. They are still worth noting.

1. Jesus was the son of a carpenter: …, a good old-fashioned blue tunic-ed carpenter. Kind of like Joe the plumber, but with a more powerful father.

2. Jesus was a man of the people: Although the people in his day would follow just about anyone who had a good enough story to back up their crazy talk, his rhetoric was Biblical! Kind of like Ron Paul's.

3. Who else could quote scripture in 1st person? Nobody, that's who. The evangelicals would eat that stuff (sic) up.”

Hamilton concludes: “Unfortunately, Jesus could never be President of the United States, or even Governor of any state. He is far too controversial, and a polarizing figure. Those people never get elected. No, it is always some white-washed candidate who is just palatable enough to the independents to get enough votes outside of their already fervent and devoted base that gets elected. Jesus would have about as much chance to change the world in his time as, well, Jesus V1.0. Do you remember the first time he tried to speak out and get people to follow him? Yeah, how did that work out? …”

* * *

One reason why I find it very interesting to speculate about Jesus being on the ballot, is because there are so many candidates explicitly claiming their Christian faith.

As Gary Kamiya put it in a recent salon.com article (“Jesus vs. the GOP,” 2/7/12)--

“There has never been a more loudly Christian group of presidential candidates than this primary season’s GOP contenders. From the start, the campaign has been an exercise in Christian one-upmanship. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann set the standard for religious fervor, boasting of setting her alarm clock at 5 a.m. so she could read the Bible … Herman Cain said that he was inspired to run for president by the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. Rick Perry released a video in which he intoned, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian … As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion and I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.”

“… Newt Gingrich, who has noisily proclaimed that his conversion to Catholicism saved his soul, repeated Perry’s charge, accusing President Obama of launching a “war on religion” by requiring that church-owned hospitals and universities provide insurance that covers birth control. “It’s a fundamental assault on the right of freedom of religion,” Gingrich said. “On the very first day I’m inaugurated I will sign an executive order repealing every Obama attack on religion.”…

“Rick Santorum went even further, essentially calling for America to become a theocracy. …

“…and Romney presents his free-market, anti-government ideology as more “American,” and by implication more “Christian,” than Obama’s.”

Kamiya says, “As someone who has spent many happy hours studying Christian theology, from Origen to Hans Kung, as well as modern scholarship about Jesus, I supposed I should be pleased by this eruption of holy fervor among the Republican candidates for the highest office in the land. But there’s just one little problem.

Jesus would have been appalled by the whole pack of them.”

* * *

I find it very interesting and somewhat puzzling, that it seems that whenever religious conservatives imagine the ideal Christian candidate, that this person should be primarily concerned with the issues of abortion and homosexuality. As far as we know, Jesus himself did not speak one word about either subject. I find it hard to imagine that either of those issues would be the centerpieces of his political platform today. But there are some issues that I do think would be crucial to his political agenda for America, and they are all rooted in Jesus’ commitment to justice, non-violence, and love.

So what might Jesus’ campaign platform look like?

One difficulty, right off the bat, as Andrew Fiala points out in his book What would Jesus Really do?, is that our sources of information about Jesus are limited, and the texts and traditions that tell us about Jesus were created in a time and place quite different from our own. The world of Jesus was patriarchal, hierarchal, and undemocratic. Also there are many complicated ethical issues that did not exist in Jesus’ time—stem cell research, genetic engineering, cloning, prenatal testing, and life-support technology to name just a few. Fiala’s argument is that for most ethical issues, Christians need to supplement the teachings of Jesus with the use of reason. But he does say that it is clear that Jesus offers three basic moral lessons. “First, he states the Golden Rule, we should love our neighbors as ourselves. Second he celebrates a set of virtues that include charity, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, pacifism and love. And third, he shows us in his life and works the importance of service and sacrifice.”

* * *

So what might be first on Jesus’ agenda?

I think it would have to be his concern for the poor. Jim Wallis, the liberal theologian and founder of Sojourners, points out in his book God’s Politics, that “one of every sixteen verses in the New Testament is about the poor or the subject of money. In the first three gospels it is one out of every ten verses, and in the gospel of Luke it is one in seven!”

In his book, the Politics of Jesus, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at the New York Theological seminary, Obery Hendricks Jr., tells us that Israel in the time of Jesus was a land of the very rich and the very poor. “The very rich in Israel were a tiny upper class, less than 5 percent of the population, (perhaps closer to 1%?), comprised of Roman bureaucrats, aristocratic priests, a handful of rich landowners, and successful tax collectors. The rest of the people of Israel were poor, many to the point of destitution. Most of the poor were working poor, subsistence farmers, which meant that after they paid roman taxes, there was barely enough for survival.”

Hendricks says, “So deep and debilitating was the effect of impoverishment on the psycho-emotional health of his people that Jesus found it necessary to explicitly affirm their worth with the validation “blessed are you who are poor” (Luke 6:20). And when his disciples asked him how and what to pray for, he told them to keep the poverty and hunger of the people of Israel in view by praying: ‘Give us this day our daily bread’ (Matthew 6:11) … And because so many peasants had to borrow funds from the wealthy in order to pay roman taxes… Jesus also taught them to pray ‘Forgive us our debts’…

Jesus was so deeply concerned about the spiral of financial indebtedness and dispossession that devastated so many in Israel, his concern to banish it from their lives is enshrined in the Lord’s prayer.”

Unlike some candidates, Jesus does care about the very poor.

Stephen Colbert “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

Gary Kamiya points out: “Jesus demanded that his followers help the neediest. In Matthew 19:21 he says: ‘If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.’ But Jesus went further, warning that the mere possession of wealth, and the overvaluation of worldly possessions, stands in the path of salvation. From Matthew 19:24: ‘And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”

Obery Hendricks tells us that “In what the gospel of Luke portrays as the inaugural sermon of Jesus’ ministry, Jesus announces that the reason for his anointing by God and the purpose of his mission in the world are one and the same—to proclaim radical economic, social, and political change: ‘The spirit of the Lord is upon me,/because he has anointed me/to bring good news to the poor./He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives/and recovery of sight to the bling,/to let the oppressed go free,/to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ (Luke 4:18-19)”

* * *

Bill Maher, on Sept. 30, 2011 on his show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” contemplated Jesus running for President:

“…For a Republican candidate to not disappoint you, he would have to be Jesus of Nazareth. And even Jesus would be toast after a few news cycles. Because "feed the hungry"? Sounds suspiciously like welfare. And "heal the sick"... for free??? That is definitely Obamacare! And "turn the other cheek"? Maybe you didn't hear, Jesus, but this is the party that cheers executions.

So here now is the short campaign timeline of Jesus Christ, Republican candidate.

Day 3-- Three days after Jesus announces he's in, a Gingrich spokesman reports that he read Jesus's book... and finds some aspects of it troubling. Mitt Romney says Jesus's previous statements make him appear anti-business. And Rick Perry asks if America is ready for a Jewish President. …

Day 7-- At the Republican debate, the other candidates pile on the new frontrunner. Michele Bachmann calls the meek inheriting the earth a colossal expansion of the estate tax. And Newt Gingrich scores the big zinger when he says, "Mr. Christ, America can't afford another cheek!"

Day 9-- Teabaggers start getting e-mails from their idiot brother-in-law about how Jesus is not even from this country. And was born alongside a bunch of animals in a manger. And not to harp on it, but where's the birth certificate? And if he's a carpenter, is he too pro-union?

Day 10-- Jesus is now polling fourth behind Perry, Romney, and the pizza guy. And in a desperate attempt to gain credibility, he goes to New York and has coffee with Trump... who pronounces him, "a decent guy, but a little effeminate."

* * *

John Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus seminar, points out that the perhaps the most radical element in Jesus’ life, was his feasting with the outcasts, with prostitutes and highwaymen, and says that his table manners pointed the way to his heavenly morals. “Crossan sees Jesus living within a Mediterranean Jewish peasant culture, a culture of clan and class, in which who eats with whom defines who stands where and why. So the way Jesus repeatedly violates the rules on eating, would have shocked his contemporaries. He dines with people of a different social rank, which would have shocked most Romans, and with people of different tribal allegiance, which would have shocked most Jews.”

Religious leaders often found Jesus' association with those generally mistreated or totally ignored by those of higher social rank galling, "And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them'" (Lk 15:2).

Who would Jesus be eating and drinking with today? And who is our neighbor? The dispossessed of our time, as the t-shirt text declares on the front of our order of service—

* * *

And what about the other issues?

So on foreign policy, where would Jesus stand?—let’s see, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive those who have wronged you 70 times 7, and, oh yeah, Blessed are the peacemakers.

On taxes—Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and, don’t forget, for unto whom much has been given, much will be required.

On racism—Unlike most of the renaissance paintings and modern depictions of a white Jesus with long straight hair, Jesus would most likely have had a much darker complexion and dark curly hair… with physical features much more like those in our society typically discriminated against… he also certainly could identify with a people with a history of being enslaved and being an ethnic minority up against a dominant majority.

On immigration-- :"You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien for you were aliens in

the land of Egypt.” And of course, love thy neighbor.

On the war on drugs—he did turn water into wine, but he might be a stronger advocate for a wilderness vision quest to alter one’s consciousness.

On prisons and punishment—Jesus preached that we should visit the imprisoned, and that he himself came to set the captives free… Jesus did not believe in an eye for an eye… he preached forgiveness and reconciliation… judge not lest ye be judged, he that is without sin cast the first stone, and of course, love thy neighbor.

And it’s hard for me to believe that given his own fate, that Jesus is a big fan of the death penalty.

Also hard to believe that he would think that corporations are people…

* * *

The sad truth is that if Jesus were on the ballot, I don’t think he’d win… not enough money, not enough political cronies, not enough corporate sponsorship, he certainly wouldn’t run negative attack ads…

But he might have my vote.

Obery Hendricks says that, “In a real sense, Jesus was the ultimate activist in that he dedicated his entire being to struggling to bring the world in line with the vision of love, liberation, and justice given to him by God. …for him true spirituality consisted of an active commitment to health, wholeness, an just for all God’s children as the highest expression of our love for God. … In practical terms this means that whenever we… become aware that any of God’s children are caught in webs of oppression of mind, body, or spirit, it is our divine duty to struggle for the liberation and deliverance of our suffering neighbors in the same way that we would struggle for our own.”

Virginia Smith, in an article on American catholic.org entitled, “Jesus on Justice: A hunger and thirst for righteousness,” says that “Perhaps nowhere does Jesus speak as forcefully on human relations as he does in his final sermon recorded in Matthew, in the familiar parable of the sheep and the goats. It is worth noting the traits that separate the two groups. The sheep at the Father's right hand will be invited to inherit his kingdom because they fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked and visited the imprisoned.”

“Conspicuously absent from the list are supposedly religious activities, such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. Jesus insists that those five deeds and others like them are religious activities. "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40b). Conversely, the goats on his left hear, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me" (Mt 25:45b).”

Hendricks tells us– “In the politics of Jesus, then, every policy and policy proposal must be judged by Jesus’ yardstick of love and justice. We must ask: do our social programs treat the people’s needs as holy? Do our tax laws? Do our healthcare policies treat as holy all in need of coverage? Do our foreign policies treat all people as children of the same creator?

… The goal of Jesus’ movement, ministry, and politics is a new creation: a political order that truly serves the good of all in equal measure. “

* * *

The Re. Scotty McLennan, UU minister and Dean for Religious Life at Stanford University, in his book Jesus was a Liberal, quotes an article by the editor of the Christian Century, who reminds us that “ people living in exile don’t get to define the terms of political discourse: Conservatives have won the rhetorical battle.” He also observes that ‘because tolerance is one of the central values of liberals, they ‘don’t like to fight, but instead are always trying to accommodate people, to be inclusive even of those who are trying to exclude them.’ The editor concludes that ‘the first thing on the minds of my conservative brothers and sisters when they get of bed in the morning is fighting liberals, whereas liberals get out of bed trying to figure out how to live with conservatives.’”

But McLennan goes on and says that “tolerance doesn’t mean capitulation. It doesn’t mean shying away from liberal religious values that defend the freedom of all, promote the use of reason, and affirm the human potential to better ourselves and help repair a broken world.”

Annie Dillard, in her book Holy the Firm reminds us— “Who shall ascend into the hill of the lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place? There is no one but us. There is no one to send, nor a clean hand, nor a pure heart on the face of the earth, nor in the earth but only us, a generation comforting ourselves with the notion that we have come at an awkward time, that our innocent fathers are all dead – as if innocence had ever been – and our children busy and troubled, and we ourselves unfit, not yet ready, having each of us chosen wrongly, made a false start, failed, yielded to impulse and the tangled comfort of pleasures, and grown exhausted, unable to seek the thread, weak, and involved. But there is no one but us. There never has been.”

There is no one but us,

To feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned…

To donate to the Frances Nelson health clinic, or the Wesley food pantry or the Salt and Light ministry, to participate in the church’s hunger initiative, to volunteer at a soup kitchen…to love our neighbors.

* * *

Obery Hendricks says that “In practical terms, Jesus’s conception of God’s kingdom, is a society based on love of others rather than self-centeredness and greed; an economy based on cooperation and consideration of others’ needs rather than thoughtless competition; a government based on caring rather than cronyism; politics based on service rather than selfishness.”

This does not sound like a winning platform this November, but it’s the only one I want to support…

Claudia thinks justice isn’t simple. I might have to disagree with her. In the words of another great religious prophet, “All you need is love. Love. Love is all you need.”

May we seek to create the world we dream of living in,

May we seek to fulfill the needs of our neighbors, and to seek justice for all.

Maybe we embrace our liberal faith and continue to resist greed with generosity, resist judgment with acceptance, and resist all forms of hatred and indifference with the indomitable power of love, love, love.

Amen.

Wise Investments

"Money, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it."

-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Reading: a poem by the former poet laureate Billy Collins entitled "The Lanyard"

The other day I was ricocheting slowly

off the blue walls of this room,

moving as if underwater from typewriter to piano,

from bookshelf to an envelope lying on the floor,

when I found myself in the L section of the dictionary

where my eyes fell upon the word lanyard.

No cookie nibbled by a French novelist

could send one into the past more suddenly-

a past where I sat at a workbench at a camp

by a deep Adirondack lake

learning how to braid long thin plastic strips

into a lanyard, a gift for my mother.

I had never seen anyone use a lanyard

or wear one, if that's what you did with them,

but that did not keep me from crossing

strand over strand again and again

until I had made a boxy

red and white lanyard for my mother.

She gave me life and milk from her breasts,

and I gave her a lanyard.

She nursed me in many a sick room,

lifted spoons of medicine to my lips,

laid cold face-cloths on my forehead,

and then led me out into the airy light

and taught me to walk and swim,

and I, in turn, presented her with a lanyard.

Here are thousands of meals, she said,

and here is clothing and a good education.

And here is your lanyard, I replied,

which I made with a little help from a counselor.

Here is a breathing body and a beating heart,

strong legs, bones and teeth,

and two clear eyes to read the world, she whispered,

and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp.

And here, I wish to say to her now,

is a smaller gift-not the worn truth

that you can never repay your mother,

but the rueful admission that when she took

the two-tone lanyard from my hand,

I was as sure as a boy could be

that this useless, worthless thing I wove

out of boredom would be enough to make us even.

Reading: by Lauren Tyler Wright from Giving – the Sacred Art (p. 6)

A few months ago, I encountered a man in the bread aisle of the grocery store who was in need of change to buy a loaf of bread. He was deaf and could only point and mouth the words of his request. At first I shook my head to the right and left because I had no change. But then I thought, “For goodness sake, Lauren, you have no coins but you do have bills.” I caught his attention, gave him a dollar bill and was taken aback when this stranger embraced me with a hug and a barely audible “thank you.”

Around the same time, I happened to be dealing with the sudden death of someone close. I was having a hard time comprehending the loss – it was a sad and confusing time. What I discovered in the store that day was that somehow, giving that man a buck for bread helped change things for me. Giving money to him got me out of my own skin – only for a minute, perhaps, but long enough to help me glimpse a larger perspective beyond the boundaries of my own sorrow. When that man took my dollar with a grateful smile and then hugged me, I realized I had been a catalyst for joyful gratitude in his life. This, in turn, helped me remember the things in my life that I believe are gifts from God, for which I am grateful. In this way, the simple act of giving a dollar bill to a stranger was a small, but powerful, act of worship in my life.

Reading: from the Christian, Jewish and Unitarian Universalist tradition

There's a priest, a rabbi and a UU minister. They're out playing golf and they're trying to decide how much to give to charity.

So the priest says, we'll draw a circle on the ground, we'll throw the money way up in the air and whatever lands inside the circle, we give to charity.

The [rabbi] says "no", we'll draw a circle on the ground, throw the money way up in the air and whatever lands outside the circle, that's what we give to charity.

The [UU minister] says "no, no, no", we'll throw the money way up in the air and whatever God wants, God keeps.

Wise Investments

A Sermon Delivered on February 12, 2012

By

The Reverend Axel H. Gehrmann

In the year 1920 a young man living in Boston was remarkably successful in the field of investment banking. Thanks to his superior understanding of financial investment, he was able, in short order, to build up a business that granted investors the ability to earn 50% interest within 45 days, and to double the value of their investments within 90 days. The business was called the “Securities Exchange Company.”

Word quickly spread, and more and more investors from all over New England rushed to invest in this promising financial enterprise. Within months the founder of the company had made millions. His name was Charles Ponzi.

Ponzi’s fortune did not last. By August of 1920, his plan was uncovered, and he was arrested on charges of fraud. It turned out Ponzi wasn’t actually investing the money he received, and paying his clients profits on their investment. Instead he was simply giving them part of their investment capital back, or dispersing some of the funds new investors were depositing.

When Ponzi’s practices were exposed, and his company collapsed, his investors lost about 20 million dollars, which was a lot of money in 1920, more than 200 million in today’s dollars. Ponzi was not the first swindler to take this approach. But, at the time, he was the most successful, and the most well-known. So that, to this day, his name is immortalized in the so-called Ponzi Scheme.

And the Ponzi Scheme still works. In 2008 Bernie Madoff was caught doing the same thing. Madoff’s scheme cost his investors not millions of dollars, but billions.

* * *

Some say that religious institutions are even worse than the shadiest financial brokerage, when it comes to separating us from our money, and promising a questionable future reward. Imagine a bank that happily takes your money, but rather than promising a profit in forty-five or ninety days, promises a heavenly reward you will only receive after you have died.

As Unitarian Universalists there is something deep within our religious DNA, that is wary of giving money to religious institutions. Our deeply held habit to question religious authority goes all the way back to the Protestant Reformation in 16^th century Europe.

The Reformation was started when a Catholic priest named Martin Luther posted a letter of public protest on the door of his church, challenging his religious superiors in Rome. Luther was especially critical of the common practice at the time of selling indulgences. For a nominal fee, priests would sell pieces of paper that guaranteed that after our death we would be spared a lengthy stay in fiery pit of purgatory, and – as reward for our worldly generosity – proceed to heaven posthaste.

The Roman church said it was using the funds collected to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Luther asked, why does the pope collect money from the poor, instead of using his own immense wealth? In Luther’s mind, the pope was exploiting the generosity of the faithful. Like Luther, our Unitarian Universalist forbears were among the reformers who questioned Rome.

* * *

To this day, the faithful are remarkably generous. Sociologists say religious people are the most generous people in the world. A study of charitable giving trends in the U.S. shows that religious people give more than three times as much to worthy causes than the non-religious, and they volunteer twice as often. Also, most of the philanthropic giving is directed to religious institutions. Religious people do most of the giving, and most of the gifts go to religious organizations.

(Though I have to tell you, sociologists also have shown that Unitarian Universalists are among the most highly educated and wealthiest religious people in this country. We’re right at the top of the list. But when it comes to our habits of giving, we are way at the bottom. There is room for improvement.)

Now, the cynical among us may say religious people give because they are gullible. The faithful are forever concerned with realities that are invisible to the eye. They are prone to believing the unbelievable – whether the existence of gods, or saviors, or heavenly places we go after we die.

But what the cynic doesn’t understand is that religious giving, at its best, really has nothing to do with any hope for reward. Religious giving, at its best, has nothing to do with the kind of reward Charles Ponzi was offering his investors.

* * *

All great religious traditions encourage their followers to practice generosity. Christians practice tithing, which they trace to a passage in the book of Deuteronomy, when the ancient Isrealites were told to give one tenth of their earnings to the temple. Muslims see charitable giving as one of the five pillars of their faith. And traditionally 2.5 percent of their earnings are given annually during Ramadan, and distributed to the poor. Jews practice tzedakah or righteous giving. For them giving to the synagogue or the needy is an expression of reverence for God.

The Hindu Bhagavad Gita says: “Giving simply because it is right to give, without thought of return, at a proper time, in proper circumstances, and to a worthy person, is enlightened giving. Giving with regrets or in the expectation of receiving some favor or of getting something in return, is selfish giving.” (17:20-21)

Generosity means giving freely with no thought of anything in return. In this way, religious giving is distinctly different from the usual give and take within the secular realm.

In the world of banking, grocery shopping and paying bills, financial transactions are just that: transactions. A give and take. An exchange of money for an object we want, or for services received. “Transactions form the fabric of our lives in our free-market capitalist system, and this influences the way we think about giving,” Lauren Tyler Wright says. But giving is really about much more than money.

There are all sorts of ways to give. You can give time when you volunteer at a nonprofit. You can give hospitality when you open your home to other people for a meal. You can give energy when you pray or meditate on the needs of others. You can give comfort or space when you offer your seat on the bus or train so someone else can sit down. You can give your body when you donate blood or make plans to donate your organs. You can give your possessions when you pass on your clothes to Goodwill or your furniture to Habitat for Humanity.

A generous act can simply be a matter of giving undivided attention to the person in front of you, giving a hand to someone carrying too many grocery bags, giving a smile to a stranger. Lauren Tyler Wright says, “in its healthiest form, the sacred art of giving is about relationship.”

* * *

Researchers at the University of Virginia recently studied the role of generosity in marriages. They understood generosity as “the virtue of giving good things to one’s [partner] freely and abundantly” – like simply making them a cup of coffee in the morning.

The researchers asked 2870 women and men how often they acted generously. How often did they express affection? How often were they willing to forgive?

The researchers found that those with the highest scores on their generosity scale were much happier in their marriage. This was especially true among couples with children. Parents whose generosity scores were above average, were more than three times as likely to report being very happy in their marriage, compared with those with lower generosity scores. (“The Generous Marriage” by Tara Parker-Pope, New York Times, Dec. 8, 2011)

* * *

Religious giving is all about relationships. Our relationships with the people to whom we are closest, and our relationships with people we may have never met. Religious giving has amazing power to break down the barriers that too often divide us, and create unexpected connections.

This is what Lauren Tyler Wright discovered in the bread aisle of a grocery store, when, on a whim, she decided to give a hungry man a dollar. That simple act of generosity, the act of giving with no expectation of return opened a door between two people, which otherwise would have remained firmly shut.

And the act of generosity also opened a door within the author’s soul (or psyche), as she struggled to come to terms with her own grief and sadness. Something changed within her, she says, she was able to get out of her own skin, maybe only for a minute, but long enough to get a glimpse of a larger perspective beyond the boundaries of her own sorrows and her own worries.

* * *

The sacred art of giving is not about a transaction between a giver and a receiver. No, transactions are purely secular – and they have their appropriate role in the market place, in the world of consumer goods, the world of banks and the bills we pay for services received.

The sacred art of giving is about transformation. It is about the change that takes place within us and between us, when we are able to embody a spirit of true generosity.

Generosity is a universal religious practice, because it has remarkable power to transform us. “When we are generous, life is tangibly and qualitatively different,” the Buddhist teacher Sharon Salzberg says.

“Generosity’s aim is twofold: we give to free others, and we give to free ourselves. Without both aspects, the experience is incomplete. If we give freely, without attachment to a certain result or expectation of what will come back to us, that exchange celebrates freedom both within ourselves as the giver and in the receiver. In that moment we are not relating to each other in terms of roles or differences; there is no hierarchy. In a moment of pure giving, we really become one.” (Lovingkindness, p. 159)

The Buddhist says, “Generosity begins with our recognition of our debt to others.” (Master Hsing Yun) Like the man who stumbles across the word “lanyard” and is reminded of the endless gifts he received throughout his life. We have all received countless gifts of love, from those who raised us. Those who fed us when we were hungry, who nursed us when we were sick, who talk us to walk and swim. Those who came before us, and gave us a breathing body and a beating heart, and clear eyes with which to see the world.

We may think of them as gifts from our elders, or gifts from our ancestors, or gifts from the universe, or gifts from God.

Once we recognize how profoundly we are indebted to others, we realize that the gifts we give are embarrassingly small. We realize there is so much more we could give. We realize that happiness is not found by holding on to our blessings, but by sharing them freely. The smile we give a stranger, the cup of coffee we make for our partner, the dollar we offer for a loaf of bread.

We have so much to give.

If we dare to open our hearts to others,

if we dare to give generously – and expect nothing in return –

we will be transformed.

Amen.