You, as Told by Your Parents, Neighbors, the Church and Total Strangers

Community Christian Church  
Roger Ray, pastor  
April 3, 2011   Lent 4

John 9:1-41                                              
As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 3Jesus answered, 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. 4We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.' 6When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man's eyes, 7saying to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam' (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see. 8The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, 'Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?' 9Some were saying, 'It is he.' Others were saying, 'No, but it is someone like him.' He kept saying, 'I am the man.' 10But they kept asking him, 'Then how were your eyes opened?' 11He answered, 'The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, "Go to Siloam and wash." Then I went and washed and received my sight.' 12They said to him, 'Where is he?' He said, 'I do not know.'

13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. 14Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15Then the Pharisees also began to ask him how he had received his sight. He said to them, 'He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see.' 16Some of the Pharisees said, 'This man is not from God, for he does not observe the Sabbath.' But others said, 'How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?' And they were divided. 17So they said again to the blind man, 'What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.' He said, 'He is a prophet.'
18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight 19and asked them, 'Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?' 20His parents answered, 'We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.' 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore his parents said, 'He is of age; ask him.'
24 So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, 'Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.' 25He answered, 'I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.' 26They said to him, 'What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?' 27He answered them, 'I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?' 28Then they reviled him, saying, 'You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.' 30The man answered, 'Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. 32Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.' 34They answered him, 'You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?' And they drove him out.

35 Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?' 36He answered, 'And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.' 37Jesus said to him, 'You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.' 38He said, 'Lord, I believe.' And he worshipped him. 39Jesus said, 'I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.' 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, 'Surely we are not blind, are we?' 41Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, "We see", your sin remains.

In the Historical Society of the Christian Church which is located in Nashville, TN, you can view the personal effects of Alexander Campbell, who was one of the 18th century founders of the Christian Church.  Along with the predictable books, Bible's, notes and writing desk is a little black bag which looks like the little black bag we used to associate with a doctor when making a house call..... for those of you who remember what those words mean.

The 18th century evangelist's bag was, in fact a doctor's bag because, at that time, medical training was a part of the education of a minister.

The clergy, often being the only educated professional in a frontier community, were often called upon, not only to pray for the sick but to be the person most likely to heal the sick.  Even now, ministers are expected to make visits to church members who are hospitalized because in the back of our minds the clergy are still associated with healing.

If you ask yourself, "How did Jesus become well known?  Why did people come out to see him as he traveled around the Galilee?"  And then you read the gospels to see what he did, healing is a big part of that.  Jesus was one of many traveling religious teachers who cast out demons, healed people and who sometimes were said to perform miracles but, as we know from historical documents, they were also expected to pull a bad tooth now and then.

In John, there are no demon exorcisms.  Also, in John, Jesus doesn't tell parables.  That there are so many demon exorcisms and parables in the other three gospels of the New Testament and none in John is an interesting subject in and of itself but since we are looking at a text from John today, let's allow him to speak for himself.  In John, Jesus was a healer and a miracle worker.

John calls the miracles "signs" and he lists them in a kind of ascending order from easier smaller signs to bigger and harder miraculous events.  He starts with turning water into wine and ends up raising Lazarus from the dead.... From favorite bartender to reverse mortician.  Today's account of healing a blind man is near the top of the list of miracles because that is a particularly hard thing to do.

Now, normally, I will get very nervous about anyone trying to find multiple layers of meaning in a gospel text. Normally, when we are looking at Matthew, Mark or Luke, I prefer the most simple and straightforward interpretation of the text because I do not think that the other gospel writers were generally trying to be very complex and sometimes when they do try they tend to lose their way a bit.

But in these early chapters of John, John is being very crafty.  He composes narratives in which the real meat is never just lying on the surface.  This is an account of a healing and a tough case to be sure, but healing accounts are kind of cheap in the world of religion.  Lots of religious healers healed a lot more people than Jesus did and we don't get dressed up and go sit in big buildings to talk about them...... Jesus is different.

This rather long narrative, if it were about the healing, could be shortened to a tight little paragraph.  What John is really wanting us to see in this narrative has relatively little to do with the man who was healed.  Sure, the guy was blind, and that is no small thing, but what John wants us to be aware of.... What he wants us to see is that the man was living in a world full of blind people.  Blindness, after all, isn't always about the eyes.

So, to start with, let me ask you to ignore the beginning portion of this text.... Let's pretend that the actual event being reported is not all that important and let's look at the rest of the text.

In the very beginning, Jesus is just walking along with his friends and his friends are people watching.... Which is pretty normal.

If you notice, when you are walking through the mall, most people aren't carrying any packages.  Ostensibly, you go to the mall when you need to buy something but the truth is, most of the people who are at the mall are not going to buy anything, they are just there..... looking at the people.  "Man, she's fat..... she really ought to do something about that."  "Can you believe she wore that in public?  Who dressed her today?"  "Did you see who he was with?  He must have money or something?"

We go to the mall as consumers but not always consumers of clothes, shoes and Aunt Annie's Pretzels.  We consume one another.  We eat the flesh of the people we feel superior to.

The disciples saw a man who had been blind from birth and they asked Jesus, "Who sinned that this man was born blind?  Was it something he did or was it his parents' fault?"

The disciples, other than Judas, all get to be saints later on.  They have churches named for them and they are all up in stained glass windows around the world but on this day, they saw a man who was blind and they didn't go over to him and comfort him, or help him, or give him anything.... They didn't try to heal him or suggest that Jesus give it a shot.  What did they do?  They discussed him.  You have to wonder how the blind man would feel about that.  It was a religious discussion.... And I guess that makes it some better, but behind the religion was still just gossip.... Who's fault was it?

"Did you hear that Tim was in a car accident?  Yeah, he was hit by a drunk driver and he was injured pretty badly..... but he wasn't wearing a seat belt."  "Who sinned, this guy or his parents?"

And then, if you skip on down a few verses to verse 8.....Something wonderful has happened...a miracle.... A real gift from God.  And verses 8 and 9 say:
8The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, 'Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?' 9Some were saying, 'It is he.' Others were saying, 'No, but it is someone like him.' He kept saying, 'I am the man.'

The neighbors, the other people walking around the mall, saw that the man was no longer blind and they began to talk, "See, I told you he was faking it... he was just trying to get people to feel sorry for him and give him some money.... What a lazy, dishonest fraud!"  "Well, you know, I believed it, in fact, I know he was blind.... This has to be his twin brother."

You know, sometimes when someone is blind people assume that they are deaf too so they were just discussing him and finally the man himself interrupts them at the end of the verse, "Guys, that was me.... I was blind but now I am not."  Amazing how you can clear things up if you'll just go to the source.

Mark Twain said that a lie told and stuck to is as good as the truth.  When it comes to gossip, a lie told, repeated, exaggerated, and asserted becomes the truth rather than the facts.
In this story, a man has had something wonderful, unheard of, fabulous happen to him and people are not rejoicing, they are trying to figure out how it is something bad.  And, of course, they get help.

They took the man to the religious professionals to find out what they should think about this thing.  In verse 13 we read:

They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind.

And then John throws in the killing detail:

14Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.

The only proverb which I have come up with on my own is this:  If you light a candle in a dark place you'll draw bugs.  I came up with that after several years in the ministry when I realized that no matter what good thing I ever did, some self-righteous.....person.... would try to find fault with it.  It is a form of spiritual gossip.... The basic goal is to assert that my spirituality is better and more important than your spirituality.  As you see in verse 16:

16Some of the Pharisees said, 'This man is not from God, for he does not observe the Sabbath.' But others said, 'How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?' And they were divided. 17So they said again to the blind man, 'What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.' He said, 'He is a prophet.'

I think it is interesting to see how the man who was healed is growing in his estimation of Jesus.  When he first told the neighbors about what happed he said, "The man called Jesus," but now he says that Jesus is a prophet and in the end of the text he acknowledges Jesus as the messiah.  Who is teaching this man?  Well, in the end, you have to admit that it wasn't Jesus because he admits that he doesn't even know where Jesus is.

Jesus did him a favor and then left the scene.... He didn't hang around for applause.... He didn't get any recognition.  He just did a kind deed and kept moving.  Who, then, is teaching this man?  His critics.... Just his critics.  I've learned some of the most important lessons I've learned in life from the people who have publicly criticized me.  Rarely has the lesson been what they wanted to teach me, but I am grateful for the learning opportunities none-the-less.

Well, the day which started out as easily being the best day of this guy's life takes yet another turn towards the neurotic.  The religious leaders, not being able to summarily condemn Jesus for doing this horrible thing, call in the man's parents.

In the past couple of centuries we've gotten kind of formal about the official attitude about parents.  We have a Mother's Day and a Father's Day and we are supposed to come to church on those days and, no matter how you spin it, we're being asked to worship our parents.

But I know that a lot of the people lingering in the greeting card isle are sorting through the "you were always there for me" and the "you are my inspiration" and the "I will always love you more than life itself" trying to find the card that says, "You are my dad."  Or, "Thanks for giving birth to me."  Because saying anything else would be a bit over the top.

In a perfect world, your parents would always be your biggest fans and your most reliable advocates.  And some people get to live in that world but not the guy at the center of John's story.
The parents are called in to be questioned because their son has gone and gotten himself in trouble by being healed.  You would think that the parents would be planning a big celebration.... They would be introducing their son to all of the relatives he had never been able to see, they would be leading the cheerleading section.  But their son is in a bit of a tight spot and, well, they don't really want to get involved:

The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight 19and asked them, 'Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?' 20His parents answered, 'We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.' 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews;

Then tension in the narrative continues to escalate until the man is excommunicated from the community..... what a twisted tale!  The way John tells this story about a blind man is that he was born blind but eventually is able to see Jesus the way that John sees Jesus but as the man is healed, the miracle reveals just how blind everyone else is, especially the self-righteous religious folks but his parents, neighbors and the other people milling around the mall don't come off very well either.

I could go on all day about this narrative and I'm sure some of you are afraid that I'm planning to do exactly that but to bring all of this to a relatively compassionate conclusion I want to go back to the original question that started this whole story about blindness and how we can learn to see.

The story begins with the disciples asking Jesus why this man is blind.  They assume that someone has screwed up and that is pretty well reflective of how we think about most things.  Whose fault is it?  Who lied?  Who cheated?  Who stole?  Who was drunk?  Who has the most salacious moral failing?

Jesus ignores this way of seeing and interpreting the meaning of peoples' lives and he says to them..... and please listen to this because this makes the difference between being blinded by gossip and prejudice and having your eyes opened to really see.  Jesus says in verse 3:

3.....'Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him.

The truth is that probably the man and his parents had sinned and so had everyone else at the mall and the church but that is not the point.  Jesus saw the man's crisis, not as something that someone had done wrong but rather he saw the crisis as an opportunity to do something good, something holy, something kind and compassionate.

Are the homeless people in Springfield homeless because they are alcoholics?  Because they are addicts?  Because they are criminals who no one will give a job?  Is it because of the Republicans who have ship wrecked the economy?  Are they homeless because they are lazy Democrats waiting for a hand out?  Are they homeless because they have mental health problems and they are too unstable to solve their own problems?  Take your pick.... Most of the guys I know fit into at least three of those categories.

But here is how John tells us that Jesus sees them:  They are homeless to give you an opportunity to show compassion.  Why did your son's marriage fall apart?  Was it his fault or her fault?  Or is it an opportunity for you to show that your spirituality is based on forgiveness, a suspension of judgment and a heart devoted to compassion?

Wouldn't you love for people to look at you and your failings this way?  Wouldn't you love for your parents, your neighbors, your pastor, to see your crises, your screw ups, your mistakes and accidents as just an opportunity to be love in action?  And it wouldn't it be nice if we could learn to see that way too?

Blindness is for people who don't want to see what Jesus sees.

Tales Told in the Light of Day

Community Christian Church  
Roger Ray, pastor  
March 27, 2011  Lent 3

John 4:5-24    
5So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.
7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, 'Give me a drink'. 8(His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) 9The Samaritan woman said to him, 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?' (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) 10Jesus answered her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink", you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.' 11The woman said to him, 'Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?' 13Jesus said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.' 15The woman said to him, 'Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.'
16 Jesus said to her, 'Go, call your husband, and come back.' 17The woman answered him, 'I have no husband.' Jesus said to her, 'You are right in saying, "I have no husband"; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!' 19The woman said to him, 'Sir, I see that you are a prophet. 20Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.' 21Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. 24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.'

It is never really advisable to preach a sermon in segments since the audience changes pretty dramatically from week to week.  Those of you who were not here last week must simply take my word for the fact that today's gospel lesson is the other half a single piece of fabric in which John lays two mirror image conversations side by side.

Last Sunday we read the Nicodemus narrative in which Jesus has a conversation with a leading Jewish man under the cover of night.  Today Dr. Trobisch has read the second portion, which is a conversation with a member of a rather hated racial minority and a woman at that, and they are talking in broad day light.

Nicodemus was a religious leader with whom Jesus might have talked in the open quite appropriately but he came sneaking around at night.  In first century Jewish tradition, a woman doesn't speak to a man outside of her own family and certainly doesn't speak to a man in public.

This text doesn't look particularly sexy to our eyes but to it's original audience, this text begins with a good deal of tension.  An unaccompanied woman is speaking to an unaccompanied man whom she does not know.  A first century audience might have expected this Samaritan to proposition Jesus but it was actually Jesus who spoke first to her.

He is exhausted.  He is leaning against a well.  She came to draw water.... At least that is her ostensible purpose, and so he asks her for a drink of water.  Like the "whites only" and "coloreds" drinking fountains of the Jim Crow south, she replies that since he is obviously a Jew, he probably wouldn't want to drink out of her jar.

There is taunting here.

The Jews and the Samaritans had a 500 year old racially fueled mutual hatred.  At one point, when the Jews wouldn't let the Samaritans participate in Temple worship, they built their own temple on another mountain and the Jews eventually destroyed it.

When Jesus was a kid, some Samaritans came into Jerusalem just before the Passover and spread human bones around the temple, defiling it so that Passover services had to be canceled.... Both economically and religiously, it was tantamount to having to cancel Christmas in our day.

No one had to explain the polarized nature of this exchange to John's audience.

The issues, races and religions of such prejudice change through the centuries but we all know the name of the tune and the steps to the dance.  In recent years we have seen the two party system in America become so rife with prejudice that it has resulted in shutting down progress on a host of important issues and literally causing the shut down of government in some cases.

What we can see very clearly is that as long as every issue is defined as being partisan, that no intelligent solution ever emerges and even the compromises which are finally unleashed out of this insane environment looks more like Frankenstein's monster than anything produced by intelligent and well intended statesmen.

But we're familiar with the polar battle lines.  One is pro choice, the other is pro life.  Both patting themselves on the backs for belonging to the moral camp while the lives of children and young women are reduced to being little more than political talking points.

The Samaritan woman at the well had come to the well alone, which could be interpreted to mean that she had already let go of the normal moral standards of that time and place in which women tended to perform such tasks in groups so that they could keep one another safe from inappropriate contact with men.  You can see that as either being intentionally immoral or as being rather more liberated and non-conformist.

Still, faced with a lone Jewish man who was asking for a favor, she went right back to the familiar battle lines.  "You are a Jew so you must think this.  I am a Samaritan so I must behave this way."

There is almost always a good deal of truth behind racial and political prejudices.  Not all Americans who travel abroad are ugly Americans but everyone who has traveled very much has met the ugly American.  French people are not always irrationally arrogant but you don't have to spend 7 consecutive days in Paris to find out where that stereotype comes from.

You may recall a few years ago when Jesse Jackson, when talking about the immorality and irrationality of profiling, said that even he had become one of those people who became frightened when a group of black teenagers was walking behind him on a city street.  The issue is that if we treat all black teens as if they have criminal intent.... If we treat all Republicans as if they are self serving aristocrats, and all Democrats as if they were lazy welfare junkies, and all Arabs as if they were terrorists, then we are likely to continue to find our prejudices confirmed over and over again.

When Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman, he ignores her race baiting and makes the conversation personal.  He didn't speak to her as someone who was a stereo-type of all Samaritan women, he spoke to her as an individual human being who had personal tragedies and vulnerabilities and who was in need of an opportunity to forgive herself and to have a fresh start.

Yes, it is true that a disproportionately large number of black male youths have criminal records.
But it is also true that when unemployment goes down the crime rate goes down even faster.  Being afraid of the adolescent malcontents walking behind you on a dark city street is understandable but if you stop thinking of them as a stereotyped class and start to realize how angry that poverty and hopelessness can make young people then you realize that the solution to your fear is not more police and more prisons but more jobs that pay a living wage.

If getting a part time job at McDonalds is all that you can hope for in your future then turning to crime is a matter of survival.  Prejudice is a kind of psychological short hand.... It allows you to form an opinion of blacks and whites, latinos and Asians, Republicans and Democrats, southerners and those other people..... "Yankee" doesn't seem to quite capture it does it?

My good friend, Ron Hertenstein, is a Republican, a retired Air Force Colonel, and you can well imagine that we sometimes have fairly spirited conversations about how to understand global events.  But when Ron says that there has never been a terrorist who had a full-time job then he is articulating a point which conservative and liberal, Arab and American, Republican and Democrat needs to sit up and deal with as a fact, not a prejudice or an opinion, but a fact which cuts through the fog of prejudice and gets down to the real point of why our difference so often become irrationally expressed in violence.
Meaningful employment with a realistic expectation of earning a living wage could be the answer to the problems that we are trying to solve with airport security, deployed armies and air assaults against foreign nations.  If every time you hear the word "Muslim" you immediately think "terrorist," you'll never remember the tried and true phrase, "it's the economy stupid."

Of course, it's not just the economy.  And the differences between Jews and Samaritans had many more complex nuances than simple religious prejudice.  There were some substantive issues, some annoying differences, and some competition for territory and resources.  But Jesus wasn't Judaism and this woman wasn't the Samaritan nation.

He disarmingly cut through the surface junk that stood between them and spoke to the woman as an individual.  In this particular case, she was a woman whose personal life had become a narrative unacceptable to either Jews or Samaritans... unacceptable to her family and her people..... the talk about living water may not have made immediate sense to her but what was unavoidable was that he knew her and yet he accepted her and spoke to her as a fully human person and that is what had been missing in her past five husbands and probably in her mother, father, siblings, neighbors, Samaritans, Jews, Republicans, Democrats and church folks.

I want to ask you to look at the front cover of your bulletin at those 8 points we re-print nearly every week.  Let's look at points 4 and 5 again this morning:

4. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to): believers and agnostics,
conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, women and men,
those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
those of all races and cultures, those of all classes and abilities,
those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope. 

And we could add here:  Samaritans or Jews, Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, Fox News viewers or MSNBC fans.  And this matters because of number 5:

5.  Believe that the way we treat one another and other people is the fullest expression of our beliefs

A religion that needs to be better than the neighbor's religion.... Nationality which needs to see itself as being some how exceptional.... Classism or race identity which needs to be superior all add up to a religion that isn't worth keeping.

When people visit here they often want to know what it is that we believe but no matter what we tell them, after they hang out here for a few months, nothing we print on the cover of the bulletin matters unless the way we treat one another is obviously worthy of all of the high sounding things we say and sing about and pray about.  May God bless our community to always be more than the surface issues, more than the printed page, more than the labels and prejudices of day.

As St John of the Cross warned his community five hundred years ago:  We either pass the love test or we will fail entirely.  Study hard my brothers and sisters because the love test comes at us every day.

Under the Cover of Darkness

Community Christian Church  
Roger L. Ray, pastor
March 20, 2011    Lent 2



John 3:1-17

The first great philosophical writings came to us from the hand of the Greek thinker, Plato, in the 4th century B.C.  And Plato did every undergraduate student for the past 24 centuries the incredible favor of writing in the form of dialogues, conversations which took place between both famous and fictional characters of ancient Greece.

Sometimes his dialogues described actual historical events and sometimes the entire setting and characters were made up in order to examine a particular idea.  But because he wrote in the form of a play he was able to convey subtle meanings in the choice of settings and characters.  For example, Plato personally despised the Greek playwright, Aristophanes, because Aristophanes had written plays in which he ridiculed Socrates which helped to turn public sentiment against Socrates leading to his execution.  So, whenever Plato uses Aristophanes as a character in a dialogue you can bet that any lines coming from Aristophanes are not to be taken seriously.

More subtly, however, things like a conversation which is taking place between two characters who are walking, if they walk through a respected area of Athens, which Plato considered to be the capital of all great thought, then you can give what the characters are saying added weight.  If they walk outside the city walls of Athens, among the common and uneducated people, you can take it for granted that this is pretty weak material.


Students of philosophy have always known to take the setting of a conversation very seriously in interpreting the dialogue.  It took Biblical scholars several more centuries to realize that we should look at Biblical narratives in a similar way.

The authors of our four gospels described the sermons, conversations and miracles of Jesus in a way to help us to understand the significance of both who Jesus was and what he said and did.  How they presented that material and in what order and in what circumstances affects the message itself.

The gospel text before us today comes from this very well known conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.  It is very important to notice that this dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in the third chapter of John is set in juxtaposition to the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well in the fourth chapter of John. The settings are like mirror images of one another, a set of opposites.  Nicodemus was a highly respected religious leader, the Samaritan woman was a non-Jew who had a horrible reputation.

Neither conversation may be an account of something that actually happened.  John uses Jesus, the Samaritan woman and Nicodemus the way that Plato uses the characters in his philosophical dialogues.

Reading John's accounts in this way, it is important to notice then, how John sets this up in the first verse and a half:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus by night
It was entirely appropriate for Jesus to speak publicly with Nicodemus and yet he came to Jesus in secret.  In the text we will read next week, from the 4th chapter of John, we see the contrast.  It was totally unacceptable for a Jewish man to talk to a woman who was unescorted and yet they did so privately in an open setting.

In both dialogues, Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman keep trying to talk about surface issues, religious ideas which are out there somewhere but not of great personal importance.

Jesus kept taking the conversations deeper, confronting them with the most important truths about their own lives.  We say that honest gospel preaching is "speaking the truth to power."  Saying the things that people don't want to have said, what they want to pretend isn't true, naming the elephant in the room that everyone tries to pretend doesn't exist.   Jesus confronts Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, in very different ways, with their need for total transformation.

Nicodemus slips around at night to question Jesus privately.  But the way John writes it, Nicodemus doesn't even get to get a question out of his lips.... Notice how, in verses 2 and three that Jesus cuts him off and answers a question which has not yet been asked.... As if Jesus already knew the real reason why Nicodemus was there:

and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.' 3Jesus answered him, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' 4Nicodemus said to him, 'How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?'

John has really written a brilliant dialogue here.  Nicodemus is something of a tortured soul.  He is a member of clergy.... A sort of church official, with power, standing, resources, respect.... But in his own heart he is pretty sure that he is a fraud which is OK as long as everyone around you is also a fraud.

But then Jesus comes to town and, darn it, it seems like Jesus isn't really a fraud.  He is not an official.  He does not have standing in the church.  He has no job, no money, no title and, by all reason, he shouldn't have any power and yet people flock to him and make him important even though institutional religion had shut him out.

John doesn't tell us much about Nicodemus but the text is heavy with implication.  John doesn't have to tell us because we all know him, or someone like him.  Did he come out at night to see if he could find an Achilles' heel?  Was he looking for a way to prove to himself that he didn't have to take Jesus seriously?

In the philosophical study of logic we call this the "ad homonym" fallacy.  If you can't refute what the teacher is saying, try to find some way to attack the personal life of the teacher.  This is what false piety almost always does.

I recently wrote to our state's senators to object to the proposed defunding of the Planned Parenthood programs in America.  Education and treatment regarding sexually transmitted diseases, appropriate education in contraception and women's health issues are under attack in this congress.  This is a matter of great importance to millions of young women.

One of our senators responded with a form letter which was written to appear very pious, posturing as being morally opposed to abortion while, in fact, gutting the programs which have the best track record of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

This is the religious game that Nicodemus was playing.... Sounding pious while playing dumb.  Jesus knows that Nicodemus feels like a fraud and he is trying to offer him a way out.... A way to start over, to begin again.

But then Nicodemus falls back on another favorite religious fallacy.... The fallacy of literalism.  Jesus is trying to say something profound, something life changing, something liberating, but Nicodemus, by imposing a literal interpretation on his words, tries to make him sound ridiculous...... "a grown man can't crawl back into his mother's womb can he?"

Literalists in religion use the Bible the way most of us use a toilet plunger.  You only get it out in the most unspeakable moments to deal with issues you don't want to see or think about.  A literalist will point at a biblical text condemning homosexuality which is buried in texts about not eating cheese with meat, or eating shrimp, or wearing blended fabrics..... but they will never allow you to be a literalist about anything which condemns them..... only about what condemns people that they would rather flush down the toilet anyway.

You don't use a literal interpretation of the Bible in order to understand the Bible, you use a literal interpretation to hide the meaning, to twist it, to change it.
The scriptures teach us to love, to forgive, to show compassion and tolerance but in the hands of a literalist the Bible justifies wars, racism, sexism, it gives you permission to turn your backs on the poor and to judge even your own children.

As often happens in a dream, or in Plato's dialogues, certain characters show up only to represent an idea, to utter a line, and then they disappear.  In the midst of the conversation, John just stops talking about Nicodemus and Nicodemus disappears from the reader's mind.

He has served his purpose.  He represents religion which is textual, based on rules and beliefs, but is devoid of spirit.  Surely it is not Jesus who concludes this passage, suddenly speaking of himself in the third person as if he were Bob Dole or something.  It is John interpreting what we have seen by putting Jesus beside someone who represents institutional religion.  And what does John say?  Look at verse 17:

17 'Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.' 

There is a tremendous amount of pressure on the church to fold itself up in the darkness of literalism or of ad homonym, to act pious but stay out of the way....To sound religious without ever shining the light on anything of importance.

You hear me say things like that and you may be inclined to think that I am overstating the case but let me ask you this.... Why isn't there a loud and obvious anti-war movement among religious people in America?

There were some rallies, some songs being sung, a few signs being carried back in 2002, maybe a little in 2003.  We are now engaged in a war that is on the verge of its tenth anniversary.  Are we tired?  Were we mad when it was George Bush's war but now we complacent because it is Barak Obama's war?  When a liberal is awarded a Nobel Prize for Peace and then uses the podium to mount a defense of pre-emptive war, does the church then forget about everything that Jesus said?

Where has the voice of the church been as services to the poor have been cut?  Unemployment assistance, affordable housing, Planned Parenthood, nutrition programs for poor mothers and children..... how is it that the rich can take a mortgage tax deduction for their second and third homes, their vacation homes but we can cut homelessness assistance programs because the federal budget is in trouble?

And who talks about this?  Is it the church?  Who are the famous preachers in America now talking about the war, talking about poverty, talking about racism and sexism?  I marched with hundreds of people on Martin Luther King's birthday through town to hear a speech about how we should all volunteer more for community service.

Does the NAACP think that Martin Luther King got shot for organizing boy scout troops to pick up trash beside the highways?

No, men and women, do you know is talking about war, and injustice, about tax inequality and housing and health care?  Comedians.  The best preachers in America today are Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Bill Maher.  And they don't have very nice things to say about the church and, frankly, why should they?

We have a Congress that can outlaw Yard Darts because they are dangerous but they can't outlaw semi-automatic weapons and if you can't laugh at a Congress like that then you.... Well, how did John say it..... "people loved darkness rather than light"...... yeah, that stings.

But I don't mean to sound too negative about all of this.... Not that there is not a lot of darkness enshrouding religion these days.... But there is a solution.... We can be born again..... we can decide to step out of the darkness and into the light.  We can learn to love the truth and hate the lies..... we can kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.

The Happy(?) Fall

Community Christian Church  
Dr. Roger Ray, Pastor
March 13, 2011   LENT 1

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7  
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.'

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God say, "You shall not eat from any tree in the garden"?' 2The woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3but God said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die." ' 4But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die; 5for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

I received word via e-mail while I was in Belize this week that Peter Gomes, the famous chaplain and Biblical professor at Harvard, had died.  He was an amazing man.... Both brilliant and entertaining.  I took a class on Biblical interpretation from him in 2004.  On the first day of class, he stood before the class and announced, "There will be no questions asked during our lecture sessions this fall because I have a great deal to say and you have a great deal to learn so it's best if we just accept that fact and get started."

It seems pretentious but I feel a great deal like that today because I have a great deal to say to you today and precious little time in which to say it and evidently what I have to say is not commonly known.
I need to also add the caveat that I am not all that comfortable talking about it because I want to talk about the relationship between women and theology which makes me fairly uneasy for several reasons: not the least of which is that I am not a woman and because the relationship has very often been an abusive relationship, and, honestly, because my own history with women should readily demonstrate that there are serious gaps in my knowledge.

Still, it has become painfully obvious to me that the conversation sorely needs to be had. I keep meeting women who are either out and out afraid to get involved with the church or who are so angry at the church that they would rather burn it down than set foot in it.

I had allowed myself the luxury of believing that the bad old days of religious oppression of women was a part of a distant 19th century past.  And if not that, at least the current generation of young educated women would have to learn about religious discrimination against them the way a young African American now reads about the institution of slavery..... as something they have heard of but never experienced.

The truth is that while many mainstream Christian denominations have been trying to eradicate the lines of gender prejudice for generations, most more conservative expressions of Christianity have been doing their best to erect higher and higher walls to divide the genders.

And, it should be obvious, where you can establish a foundation of discrimination in religion then you preserve a justification for discrimination in employment, economics, legal structures and domestic relationships.  It is hugely important and the ravages of gender discrimination is a dragon which should have long since been relegated to ancient mythology but it yet breaths fire into the hearts and minds of women in the present day.

Where better to start than at the beginning, literally, Genesis?  The casual reader may step gingerly along the first eleven chapters of Genesis and not be able to tell that it is not a literary whole.  By that, I mean that the stories collected there are not only not written by the same hand but they in fact were not written in the same century or the same nation.  There are different hands, different cultures and different subsets of languages involved in the composition of these stories.

There are two different creation narratives in the first and second chapters of Genesis. The stories of the creation, the garden of Eden, the murder of Abel, the flood, and the tower of Babel were never intended to be ancient accounts of either science or history.  They are religious stories, parables of sorts, intended to both teach a moral lesson and to account for the way the world is, what cultural anthropologists call an "etiology."

The story of the tower of Babel explains why there are so many languages among the nations and the story of the Garden of Eden explains why women are afraid of snakes..... most of we men are afraid of snakes too but we didn't want to see that in print in the Bible.

Biblical scholarship is not a matter of personal opinion any more than any other field of serious study.  We don't have time to explore all of the reasons why we know that the Garden of Eden text is intended to be understood metaphorically but let's just remember that the narrative revolves around a magical tree which is inhabited by a talking snake.  Anyone who wants to interpret this text literally should first be able to produce a snake which can not only talk but one who is able to win an argument with a woman.  Nuff said.

What these Genesis narratives actually are is both wonderful and complex.  They are stories which define the society in which they were created and every word is packed with meaning, more so than in most poetry.

In the narrative, the first man is created by God out of the dust of the earth.  Dust, in Hebrew, is "adamah."  The man is named "Adam."  Which is a play on words.  Then we see this almost comic play in which God wants to give the man a fitting partner.  God returns to the dust of the earth and makes one animal after another.

It is like a dating service gone crazy.  God is trying to make the perfect companion for Adam and in order to be that, the companion must be an equal to him.  And, in the humor of the story, it is as if God just can't get it right.  Every creature, when presented to Adam, is not adequate to be his partner and so he names it.  In that ancient society, to give something or someone a name was a sign of ownership and more than that, a sign of domination.  When Adam named the animals it was a form of condescension, a statement that he was superior to them.  You cannot have a full partnership with someone you are superior to.

And so, it is then as if in desperation that God gives up on trying to make Adam's partner from the same muddy stuff Adam was made from.  God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep.  And here the text is a bit rough.  There is no word in ancient Hebrew for rib.  The word used here is "side."  The presumption in later interpreters was that the text meant to say that God had surgically removed a rib from Adam and managed to make another person from that small part.

A better understanding of the text is to take it as it is written, God took one side of Adam, literally dividing the first human into two parts, one of which was a man, the other was a woman.  Even the word used in the Hebrew for the creation of the woman is subtly different.

In the creation of Adam the word used was the same as the word used for construction.  Adam was built of dirt and named for dirt.  The woman, we are told, was created, and the word used is the word normally referencing art.  The woman's creation was God's first work of art.

And you'll notice, especially since I am pointing it out to you, that the woman is not called Eve here.  She is not named until after the nasty incident with the snake.  Adam names Eve after the fall as a sign of their broken relationship.  In the perfect creation, the man and the woman were to have been equal, partners, two halves of the same whole.  In the fallen and sinful state of humanity, the two are no longer considered equals.

Now, if you'll recall, this whole matter of looking for a partner for Adam was because he was lonely and God saw that it was not good that he should be alone.  In the fall, when they are no longer equals, the woman must suffer from male domination but the man has not won anything here, in winning domination over the female, he has become isolated again.... he is also being punished, being made lonely forever.

There are wonderful things to take note of in the unfolding of the text.  The forbidden fruit in the garden is wisdom.  It was not the man who was tempted to become wise, it was the woman.  And the man does not engage in dialogue here.

It is the woman who is interpreting the word of God, literally playing the part of a rabbi in debate with the serpent.

The man doesn't say a word.  He just shows up with his knuckles dragging the ground, scratching himself and wondering what was for supper.  He eats of the fruit of wisdom only when the woman has first had her eyes opened.  There is so much exalting of women in this text that it is tempting to believe that its original author was female.

Either way, if you are willing to let the text be properly understood, it lifts up equality as the ideal, and inequality as the sign of sinful and fallen humanity.  Male domination was a fact of human existence for most of history but it was not the ideal.  It was the result of sin.

Standing up here in this big black dress demands honesty.  There is no way to publicly read the Bible every week and not admit that it contains hundreds of examples of religiously justified and legislated male dominance and totally unequal treatment of women.

In Genesis Abraham is stopped by God's own hand from sacrificing his son Isaac. And if the story ended there we could trumpet the ancient rejection of human sacrifice.

But the truth is that later, in the eleventh chapter of Judges, we encounter the story of Jephthah's pledge to God in which he ends up sacrificing his own daughter and the story is told in a way to lead you to believe that we are to admire his faithfulness and sacrifice.

The Levitical code includes condemnations against women for nothing more than their basic biological makeup.

Punishments are unequal and blessings are decidedly tilted towards men.  The Bible does not speak with one voice only.  There are messages of compassion, images of equality.  There are stories of victorious female leaders and commandments to disregard gender and race prejudice.  But the bad stuff is there too.

In the past decade we Westerners have allowed ourselves to take a pretty dim view of the Muslim religion and we have especially pointed out passages of the Koran which institutionalize the unequal treatment of women.  However, my friends, a literal reading of much of the Old Testament would be more harsh than a literal reading of the Koran.  Fundamentalist Christians are faced with either enforcing male dominance or trying to simply not read more misogynistic passages of scripture.


The way our church is structured I, of course, cannot speak for what everyone thinks, but I can tell you what I believe.  I can say, as a Biblical scholar who has lived every day with these texts, that there are things, especially in the Levitical code and the most ancient strata of the Old Testament, which simply do not apply to us.

All of scripture, all of religion, every sermon, every prayer is an attempt on the part of women and men to reach up to the mind of God.  Like learning to ride a bicycle, there are a lot more falls than progress in the early days and even a pro will occasionally fall.  Do a Google search on "Lance Armstrong falls" and you get quite a list.  The best cyclist in the world isn't above making mistakes.

What I believe with all my heart is that the direction of sincere spirituality is always in the direction of liberation, of discovery of greater and greater truths, and always in the alleviation of oppression, bondage and prejudice.  The church along with governments, banking systems, corporations and armies has been guilty of violence and oppression towards women.

What I can tell you that I believe without the slightest shade of doubt is that God has never been behind any of those abuses.  Any religion which seeks to discriminate against women for being women is blasphemous.

In the past generation we have tried to change the way we talk in order to help change the way we think.  We've tried to reinterpret male centered language to be more inclusive but the sins of the abuse of women go deeper than any symbolic change.

When I preach in Central and South America I never fail to remind my congregation that men must never hit or sexually attack their spouses or any other women.  I have failed to say that often enough in my own pulpit. We too passively walk through a society which turns women into objects of decoration and sexual desire and I find it too easy to simply accept that role without question or pain.... until it involves my daughter.... and that too is matter of male ego.

If women would just gain the self esteem to stop attending, contributing to and cooking and cleaning for churches which discriminate against them the face of Christianity would change tomorrow.  Even the current pope would be happy to start ordaining women as priests by the end of the month if they just stopped attending the Catholic church, running Catholic hospitals and teaching in Catholic schools.  Oppression continues as long as the oppressed will put up with it.  Haven't well all had about enough of it?

And from the perspective of the dirt party, every son of Adam will continue to be lonely until we fully accept the daughters of Eve as equals, partners, the other half of our very souls.  Believe what you will but I will tell you what I believe.  I believe that the religious liberation of women will be the spiritual healing of men.

Choosing to Suspend Judgment

Community Christian Church  
Roger Ray, pastor
February 27, 2011    Epiphany 8

1 Corinthians 4:1-5
1 Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries.
2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.

Back before Lindsey Lohan and Robert Downey Jr. made going into drug treatment programs so popular, the place where famous people disappeared to was the Menninger Clinic, which, until the last decade, was located in our neighboring state in Topeka, Kansas.

Though you generally only heard the Menninger Clinic mentioned when someone famous was going there for treatment, it was and still is a very serious psychiatric hospital which was founded in the early part of the 20th century by the Menninger family and their most famous teacher and family member, Karl Menninger.

After many years of teaching graduate school classes in psychology and training young medical doctors to be psychiatrists, Menninger noted the disappearance from the language of mental health any concept of "oughtness" or guilt.  In 1973 he published a book which had a very large influence on me during my seminary years entitled, Whatever Became of Sin?

Menninger noted that his graduate students either had no concept of sin at all or they held the view that it was associated only with neurotic religious guilt.
His book very helpfully made the distinction between what is, in fact, harmful, unnecessary, neurotic guilt and what is very mentally healthy and appropriate guilt which is based in honesty, reality and personal responsibility.

I love the proverb that says that previous generations went to their priest to confess their sins and the current generation goes to see their therapist to confess their parents' sins.  In some ways, one of the false aspects of modern psychology was the implication that human behavior is determined by genetics and environment and that no one is really responsible for their own actions.

And yes, it is true that both genetics and environment are hugely influential.  Almost all child molesters were molested when they were children.  Almost all abusive spouses grew up in a home watching domestic violence.  Having a parent who is an addict dramatically increases the chances of their children becoming addicts.  The child with two addicted parents seems almost certain to struggle with the same issue.

What Menninger wanted his readers to remember is that it doesn't always turn out that way.  While you can say of someone who is convicted of violent crimes and sent away to prison that it was because they grew up in a bad neighborhood, went to a bad school, had bad parents or unfortunate genetics but then you may investigate and find out that this prisoner has a brother who is a professor at MIT.

Charlie Sheen can say what he will about AA and the treatment programs which have saved his life, but one of the most important things I have learned from my work with addicts is that the road to recovery begins with a sense of personal sin, of acknowledging our failings and that honesty can lead to being healed.
Menninger wrote that the only sins that can hurt you are the ones you refuse to confess.  It is by having the courage and the honesty to admit your failings and to find the desire to correct those defects of character, to make amends where possible, that a person can become sufficiently healthy to be sober.

I did not grow up in a liturgical religious tradition.  I grew up in a relatively progressive Protestant church with an educated clergyman for a pastor so I escaped a lot of the crazy neurotic aspects of religion that so many people have to try to overcome.  But I did not grow up with worship services like ours.

It was my study of pastoral counseling and addiction treatment which made me more interested in looking at the theological content of worship, especially in the inclusion of a prayer of confession and an assurance of pardon.

I know of no other protestant free church tradition which now regularly features a prayer of confession and assurance of pardon. It is more common for Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans but even there I have noted that the "mia culpas" have becoming increasingly less specific and more attributions of praise to a saving God.

Over the years, I have gotten a lot of objections from church members who said that they were too negative. One man even came to my office to demand that I stop putting confessions in the service because, he said, "You make it sound like we have done something wrong and we need to change."  He could not even see the irony in saying that even in worship, we are suppose to pretend that we are all innocent and we have nothing for which to be forgiven..... not to mention the fact that he was on my short list of people who really needed to change a lot!
Many years after Menninger's book was published, the popular self-help guru, M. Scott Peck, wrote a book about human evil entitled, The People of the Lie.  The "lie" he references in his book is the claim that we are innocent.  The truth is that we are not innocent, and the greater truth is that if we can take responsibility for our failings then we have the opportunity to be healed through forgiveness.

Peck argued that the pretense of innocence, our insistence upon being seen as having no guilt, is the foundation for becoming genuinely evil.  I do not mean for this to sound partisan in any way because, trust me, there is not much innocence anywhere in politics but I want to mention one instance from recent history:

In the debate about prisoner interrogation techniques in Iraq and at the Guantanamo Detention center, the point was made that the Geneva Conventions defined some of the things American interrogators were doing were, in fact, torture.  While Secretary of State, General Collin Powell, warned President Bush that he was reversing over a century of American policy against the use of torture, the then White House Counsel, Roberto Gonzales, sent a memo to the president in which he referred to the Geneva Conventions as being "quaint."

This resulted in the rather circular logic in which President Bush attempted to explain to the public that what American interrogators did was not technically torture because Americans don't use torture so, if we were doing it, it couldn't have been torture.

If you start with the premise that you are innocent then there is no longer any sense of sin, of personal responsibility, of morality or of an ability to ever become better or more moral people.
Søren Kierkegaard said that Christians should be objective about themselves and subjective about others but that we tend to be subjective about ourselves and objective about others.  We always seem to have the ability to describe almost everything we have ever done as being either morally neutral or entirely understandable but we can dissect other people with the precision of a surgeon.

You may even be entirely correct in your assessments of other people's failings but, folks, come on, you cannot judge your way into a healthy world.  You cannot heal a broken family, a dying marriage or a dysfunctional office by passing judgment on people.  You can only do that through forgiveness.

When we were meeting to discuss starting this church, one of the things we struggled with the most was deciding what we would do when we got together.  Are progressive Christians interested only in philosophical inquiry and discourse?  Were we going to just talk or would we sing hymns and say prayers?

As I look back over these past three years, I realize that a lot of what we did initially was really just an echo of my own denominational past.  Old habits die hard.  But from week to week, we took some parts and changed or removed them.

I think some parts of what we do are still echoes of our past but I'm not at all convinced that is entirely a bad thing.  For example, we sing a gender inclusive doxology every week that is still fundamentally a Trinitarian statement in a church where I doubt that we have more than a dozen people who find a Trinitarian doctrine tenable.  However, I am prepared to see certain aspects of symbol and ritual as being an affirmation of our heritage and the birthplace of our faith.

Even though I suspect that anyone coming here from a Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu heritage would not be quite as charitable towards our politically correct doxology and our more ecumenical communion service.

I have held onto some fairly high church and uncommon things in our services.  We're the only progressive church I know of that begins its service with a Gregorian chant of a psalm text.

You don't even hear that in Catholic churches anymore but we have retained that tradition because, I believe, it sets the hour of worship apart from any other hour of the week.  Chant is not something you will hear on the radio and you probably don't have any cd's of it at your home, unless, of course, you happen to live at my house were there are dozens.....

Chant puts the Psalms into the room in a way which mere singing or reading does not.... It is so uncommon, so out of the ordinary, that it alerts us to the fact that something entirely different is now happening.... We have left the secular and the profane for a moment so that we can focus on God and our own spiritual lives.  Maybe we do that at other times of the week, or maybe we should, but this hour is certainly and intentionally different from every other hour of the week.

We sing together.... Again, not something that most of us do in the normal run of a day but the blending of our voices in theologically rich song is an act of community.  If you were to isolate individual voices in the room during a hymn, with a few exceptions, it would not be a necessarily pleasant experience but taken together, it is a meaningful exercise of community.

But the thing I have held onto the most doggedly against what I know to be the popular trend in Protestantism and especially among progressives, is our prayer of confession.  I have, for all the reasons I have articulated today, incorporated prayers of confession in worship for 25 years but for the past couple of years, as we have evolved, I have found fewer and fewer of the traditional prayers of the church to be acceptable for us to use.

Almost every week, I find that I have to write the prayer of confession myself in order to connect it to the scripture reading and the theme of the day.  The fact that I write it instead of some liturgical poet is why they are so often difficult to actually read in unison but I am more about content than I am art.

I write them on our behalf, as your pastor, though I know that not everyone is going to find meaning in all of them.  I'm not a mind reader but I am a theologically trained opinion writer so you can read those prayers as my attempt at helping you to put into words what I think you should be confessing if you are inclined to do so..... no thanks necessary, it's just one of the services I provide!

I rarely find anything in traditional sources which does not sound to my ears to be too fake, too religions, to unreal.  But I do believe that we have important things to confess, not in order to avoid God's wrath but to become more healthy ourselves.

The language of AA is that we seek a spiritual life, not to go to heaven when we die but so that we can be restored to sanity.  I think that is a very helpful way of thinking about the spiritual journey.


Prejudice is, isn't it, a form of insanity?  Turning our drinking water and our air into a dangerous poison is insane, isn't it?  Hating the couple next door because they love each other and they are of the same gender, that's really messed up, isn't it?  Isn't it crazy to give half of the society the best health care in the world while denying basic health care to the other half?  Doesn't it just seem crazy to you that we have houses the size of hotels for just one or two people while we still have hundreds of people huddled under bridges and in abandoned grain elevators?  Going to war without meaningful provocation or an attainable goal.... That's crazy isn't it?

Dennis Miller was talking about the use of the insanity plea to defend a mass murderer and the prosecution was asking for a psych evaluation to see if, in fact, the murder was insane.  And he asked, if the fact that the guy shot and killed a bunch of people in cold blood is not diagnostic criteria enough to prove that he is insane, what you are looking for, serving red wine with fish?

There are many ways in which the world we live in is obviously insane and our sincere, real and honest spirituality should be and must be a path towards the restoration of our sanity.

Anything that we do repeatedly, week after week, should be done with great intention and for a very good reason.  We say a prayer of confession because we are not yet the entirely whole people we could become.  We hear an assurance of pardon because on a lot of the other days of the week we hear assurances of condemnation.


We deliberately respond to confession and pardon by passing the peace because, in the world, people are judged harshly, refused forgiveness and they live in isolation.  What we do as a ritual in worship here is intended to teach the values of confession, pardon and peace in our daily lives outside of these walls.

Lindsey Lohan and George W. Bush, have this in common, they need to be able to accept their mistakes as mistakes and allow a Higher Power to restore them to sanity.  But we can add the names of Barack Obama, Billy Long, and Roger Ray to that list as well.  None of us are innocent, all of us can be forgiven.

I think that it is one of the sickest parts of TV news that the addictions and legal woes of stars are paraded before the public but I encourage you to see, not just the Lindsey Lohans and Charley Sheens who look foolish in the eye of the camera.... All of us would if our worst moments were broadcast for the world to see.  We should see ourselves in their places, whenever they are being dragged through the mud, every one of us could have been in that place if our lowest and worst moments were recorded and broadcast.

It is not because of our inherent superiority that we stand erect in this sanctuary but because we have been forgiven and through that forgiveness we have been restored, by God, to sanity.  Let us then give the gift of sincere forgiveness and sanity to a world which is apparent in dire need of a little healing.

Creating Community

Community Christian Church  
Roger Ray, pastor  
Feb. 20, 2011  Epiphany 7

Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18         The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
2 Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.
9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.
11 You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. 12And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord.
13 You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. 14You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling-block before the blind; you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
15 You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. 16You shall not go around as a slanderer* among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood* of your neighbor: I am the Lord.
17 You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. 18You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
                                          
Matthew 5:38-48

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,* what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I have had occasion, from time to time, to attend a soccer match in which the teams were comprised of three and four year old children.  If you have never witnessed a soccer game played by three and four year olds, let me tell you, any resemblance this may bear to the soccer matches you have watched on TV is purely coincidental.

The ball never leaves the ground so there are no great head shots or body blocks and players are as likely to score a goal for the opponent as for their own team. It is, in fact, so confused that no one actually keeps score and there are no fouls called and the total number of players on the field at any one time is never quite equal between the two teams.  Most of the time a few players are gathered around the ball in a huddle with no idea what to do while a few other players are walking around, holding hands with a friend, looking for bugs and four leafed clovers.

I'm no great sports fan but this spectacle is difficult for me to watch.  Soccer without rules is not soccer....it's rugby.  Life, without some rules, is similarly impossible to live.... Especially when there are now nearly 7 billion players on the field.

The book of Leviticus is not one of the favorite books of the Bible in the modern church.  In fact, some of the most embarrassing, sexists and otherwise discriminatory passages of the Bible are found in Leviticus so that we are much more likely to ignore it entirely than to try to understand its sometimes laborious social codes.

But to be fair to its historical context, the laws of Leviticus were not written so much to teach the people how they were to try and satisfy their God as they are rules for how the game of life is to be conducted.  In any society, you either accept the Darwinian rule of "survival of the fittest" or you have to agree upon some rather more sophisticated rules for living in close proximity to people who otherwise might like to have your food, your house, your spouse or your children.

Twice, in just these 11 verses, the text tells people not to steal from one another and then it says basically that in several other ways.... Not to defraud one another, not to lie to one another, not to murder anyone so that you can take their stuff.

We have police, locked doors and alarm systems to help remind people not to steal or murder but a lot of the rest of this text, which the author took just as seriously as murder and theft, we can only observe if we are all willing to agree to the rules of the game and try to follow them as best we can.

Some of the laws of Leviticus are articulated in order to lay out the necessary ground rules of surviving in close proximity to other people who are also seeking food, shelter and family.  But a lot of what remains is really about creating quality of life.... It is about moving beyond merely not killing one another and taking one another's food but it is about living in a way which fosters love, meaning and genuine community.

Look at verse 9 of this reading from Leviticus chapter 19.  The text is speaking to land owners and it tells them when they are harvesting to leave the wheat on the edges and in the corners of the field for the people who don't own any land.... For the alien who is walking by, or the poor who are without an inherited farm of their own.

It would be like saying to a merchant now, when you are making up your nightly deposit, don't take of the money you made during the day, leave some of it out on the counter in case someone else needs a little money.  You wonder how many people in Israel took Leviticus any more seriously than the church of today does but you have to admit that it is a challenging concept.
You have heard me frequently mention the fact that the word "personal" is not in the Bible.  The emphasis on the individual and individual freedoms and rights really is a rather modern concept.  More primitive societies were much more aware that no one gets to be a teacher unless some farmers agree to feed the teacher.  No one gets to wear shoes and clothes unless you are also good to the cobbler and the miller.

Of course, the text does not say how much of your crop to leave standing in the field, how many of the grapes you are to just leave hanging in the vines or how much of the day's business to leave lying on the counter.  But what the text asks land owners to do is to remember that they are not alone.... That though the crop may be the fruit of the farmer's labors, the land isn't..... the text is generously peppered with the reminder:  for I am the Lord your God!

Rugged individualism is the hallmark of the modern age but that is nothing more than a polished up version of Darwin's "survival of the fittest."  The people of ancient Israel knew how to be self centered.  They knew about tending to their own concerns and leaving everyone else to be responsible for themselves, but their holy scriptures asked them to remember the vulnerable that lived among them.

The text asks them simply to be considerate of people who have issues.....verse 14 says not to "revile the deaf or put a stumbling-block before the blind."  Don't verbally ridicule people who are too deaf to hear you and don't make faces at blind people who can't see you.

And the text demands that those who are in the position to hire the poor show respect to the people who are in their employ.

Just telling them not to withhold a worker's pay until the next day is really just saying not to taunt the poor about being poor.

When I was just a puppy preacher, I went up to St Louis to attend a church conference and at that time I had a very wealthy aunt who lived in a St Louis suburb and so I was staying as a guest in her home to save myself a hotel bill.  She lived on a large estate with several acres that required the care of a pretty much full time gardener.

One morning, as we were sitting down to breakfast, there was a knock at the back door and I could see the old black man whom she employed to keep her living in the trappings of urban luxury.  She spoke to him briefly and returned to the table where we ate and talked fairly leisurely.  When we finished eating and the dishes were in the sink, she went back to the back door, where her gardener was still standing, and she gave him the pay he had come to ask for.

I couldn't believe that I had accidently been a party to that humiliation of her employee.  It was her feeling that her employees had nothing better to do with their lives than to be made to stand at the door with their hand out to be paid what they had clearly earned.

My aunt considered herself to be, not only a good Christian woman but even a philanthropist who donated to various charities but, at the root of it, she indulged herself in the belief that having inherited money made her more important that the man who cut her grass and trimmed her hedges.   I couldn't afford it, but I gathered my things and moved into a hotel for the remainder of the meeting because I just couldn't spend another day in the pre-Civil War era my aunt occupied.

Paying a wage is not justice if you have to do it in a way that humiliates the wage earner.  The text from Leviticus demands, in verse 15, that their society neither show undue advantage to the poor nor discriminate in favor of the rich but that both should respect each other.

But regardless of class, regardless of the division of employer and employee, the one thing that can destroy a sense of community as fast as stealing your neighbors food, is stealing their reputation.  Verse 16 says that you are not to go around as a slanderer and that seems to spill out into several similar injunctions about not hating your kin or taking revenge or bearing a grudge.  But slander is the theft of another person's reputation which, for many of us, is more closely cherished than our food or our furniture.

Those of you who really want to be God's special friends who have troubled yourselves to read my book, Christian Wisdom for Today, know that I have a special love for the wisdom sayings of that ancient monastic community from Alexandria in northern Africa.

These monks lived in huts and deprived themselves of all worldly pleasures.  They never took their fill of bread so that they would never be hungry for meat.  They never drank enough water to stop being thirsty so that they would never crave wine.  But the Desert Fathers said that it is far better to eat meat and drink wine than to consume the flesh of your brothers and sisters in gossip.

Frankly, I see gossip as being one of the most corrosive dangers to either a family or a church and yet it is almost impossible to be entirely free of it.

People can be quite strange.  Our conduct is sometimes abrasive or irrational.  And so we seek confirmation from others that we are not the only ones who find a particular person to be difficult to get along with or that their demeanor is such that they are a constant irritant.

Thomas a' Kempis, the writer of the spiritual classic, The Imitation of Christ, said that if we will only take the time to fully understand any person we will find ourselves able to be completely forgiving of them.

I had a campus minister when I was in college who encouraged us to work out our petty differences.  He suggested that if someone was really getting on your nerves that you should just go tell them, "I don't like you very much, I need to get to know you better."  Which I thought was absolutely hilarious advice until someone actually said it to me and meant it!  I'm not sure you should announce your intentions in just that way, but it is very likely that if you will invest the time and energy to draw a little closer to the people you like the least, you may, in fact, discover that their most distasteful attributes are not only understandable but that they no longer matter.

All and all, the Levitical code lays out the soccer rules for a fairly decent game on the field of life.  Don't steal from each other, don't lie to each other, don't gossip about one another, be generous with the poor and sensitive to the needs of the handicapped, and show justice to everyone.  And it is summed up with what Jesus later calls the greatest of the commandments, even though it is not one of Moses' top ten:  "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Now this is the tradition that Jesus' inherited.  Clearly, this is a text he knew and freely quoted.  But if you take Matthew's gospel to heart, one of the things that Jesus does in Matthew's gospel most notably, is he takes this traditional Hebrew standard for creating community and he raises the standard so high that no one could possibly do it.

We're not doing everything it says in Leviticus that we should do but Jesus takes that chalk mark on the wall, climbs a ladder and makes a mark up by the ceiling and tells us that we should all be that tall.  Leviticus tells the children of Israel to love their kin.  Jesus tells his followers to go much farther and to love their enemies.  If someone strikes you on the face, stand there and let them do it again.  If someone takes you coat from you, give them your shirt as well.

For Jesus, loving the people who love you is too easy.  He wants us to love the people who hate us.

I love that scene in the Ben Kingsley movie about Gandhi where Gandhi has moved his family into an ashram and is trying to extinguish the traditional Indian cast system.  Everyone, he insists, must take their turn at every task in the community which meant that his upper cast wife would also have to take her turn cleaning the latrines which had always been the task of the lowest cast.

She told her revered husband, "Not everyone wants to be as good as you."

And I feel like saying that to Jesus sometimes.  The Jesus of Matthew's gospel often asks me to be a better person than I really aspire to be and yet, I can never quite say "no" to Jesus without feeling like I am cutting off some part of myself.

We're trying to do something here which is a lot more important than forming a successful soccer league.  We have a mission to be a prophetic witness to social justice out there, in the bad neighborhoods and at city hall.  But in here we have the potentially delightful task of creating community out of some otherwise fairly incompatible parts.

To do that, we can't steal from one another, attempt to diminish one another, lie to or gossip about one another.  But more importantly, Jesus tells us that we need to find a way to love the one who bugs us the most and it is just up to you to decide if you even want to be that good, but I know someone who seems to have hoped that you would try.

Declaring the Earth to be Good

Community Christian Church
Roger Ray, pastor  
February 13, 2011
                

Genesis 1:1-5  
1In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

I was giving some New Testament lectures in a little seminary in Otavalo, Ecuador several years ago.  This largely Quichua Indian area, high in the Andes Mountains, is surrounded by the taller peaks of volcanoes, Gaugau Pichincha and Pichincha Ruca, whose occasional eruptions sometimes make into our news.  I noticed as my taxi driver took me from my hotel to the school each day that there were small fires lit, above the tree line, on the sides of the volcanoes.

At first, when I inquired as to why anyone would be so high up there and why they were lighting fires, my driver would mumble something like, "crazy peasants."  It took some persistence to finally get the explanation that the local farmers maintained a belief that the black smoke from their little fires would help to encourage the rain clouds to form and bring rain on their crops.

And, I suppose, as you can say of a lot of prayers, if you keep it up long enough, it does eventually work..... the rain does finally come.  Four hundred years after the Jesuits brought the Christian faith to that part of the world, some of their agriculture based earth religion still survives.

Obviously, the most primitive forms of all religions were nature based religions, trying to survive in a sometimes hostile and always capricious universe.  And they did not originally see it as a religion.... It was their science.  Religion evolved to explain why things are the way that they are.  The weather sometimes seems angry.  The fields sometimes refuse to bear fruit as if they were insulted like a jilted lover.

Clearly, they were wrong about a lot of stuff.  Science and religion often seemed to go different ways with one attributing to demons what another would attribute to a virus.  In the modern era, the two have often seemed at war with one another in a faith verses reason battle.

When environmental scientists began to warn us that we were nearing a tipping point in global climate change, the Rev. Jerry Falwell went on TV and said, "The fact is that there is no global warming.... I urge everyone to go out and buy an SUV... today."

I think that a part of the problem in this disconnect the Christian religion seems to have from a sincere reverence for the earth, was the movement from a more actively evolving religion into a religion based on religious texts.  Sacred scriptures were written in interaction with the culture in which they were written.  The values reflected in the pages of the Bible are attempts by the spiritual communities which produced them to interpret the meaning of their lives and as such, the Bible and other sacred writings have served us very well.

The obvious limitation is, however, the silence of scripture on matters which are of great urgency in our age but where not even thought of two thousand years ago.

Ancient cultures were at the mercy of the weather and the seasons.  They had no concept of being able to pollute the air and the sea.  They had no concept of running out of land or resources.

The ancient Hebrew scriptures essentially taught the faith community to dominate nature, to subdue it and make it serve their purposes without any thought of how that might end up destroying the planet in our age.

In the modern era our faith must become more nimble, not a battle of faith or reason but a new cooperation of faith and reason.  In many ways, the Buddhist faith is more adept at this than we are.  When the Dali Llama was asked by a reporter how the Buddhist faith coped with the explosion of scientific knowledge in the modern era, he replied saying that when science discovers a truth which is contrary to Buddhist traditions, Buddhism changes.

An excellent example of that came up when he was asked about homosexuality.  When the question became clear to him that he was being asked if Buddhism approved of sexually active same sex couples he had a very negative reaction, declaring that such a life is incompatible with faith.  When he was asked why, he sat and thought and then asked a few questions about fidelity and commitment in same sex relationships, and, as if the idea was just dawning on him, he said that if two people love one another and live in a committed, respectful and mutually supportive relationship that it should not matter whether they are of the same sex or the opposite sex.

I was relieved to hear that interview but I found myself marveling at it because it all seemed to happen so quickly.
I personally wrestled with that theological question for nearly 15 years before I was able to let go of my ingrained religious prejudices and arrive at the same conclusion the Dali Llama reached in about three minutes.

We Christians have had an inclination to try to use religion to trump facts, keeping factual scientific education out of public schools by declaring the superiority of our ancient texts.  And Americans are similarly guilty of using patriotism to trump facts, demanding an interpretation of everything in the world based on our world domination.  Sometimes patriotism and religion seem to merge, as in the attitude we have seen during our Middle Eastern wars in which we seem to be making the theologically profound and patriotically noble inquiry, "Why did God put our oil under their desert?"

A few years ago, when I had taken a rather angry and intentional sabbatical from parish life, my one concession to staying in touch with a church community was in leading a book study which met once a week.... Several of you were there and will remember that read together Bob Edgar's book, Middle Church.

Edgar is the former General Secretary of the National Council of Churches and prior to that he served six terms in the United State Congress.  From his long career in both politics and the church, Edgar composed a message to a dying church, a kind of prescription to save a patient which was circling the drain.

He argues that for the church to regain relevance in the modern era that we must focus on three profound ethical issues which are:
Addressing poverty  -  Advocating for peace
And restoring and protecting the environment
Two of those priorities the church can put its arms around if only we would just begin to take the teachings of the Christian and Jewish scriptures seriously.  Compassion for the poor is the most consistent theme in the whole of the Bible.  Advocating for peace and the things that make for peace.... Reconciliation, mutual understanding, forgiveness, generosity kindness, love..... that should be the most obvious expression of Biblical values.  We are not doing very well in those two arenas but they are not hard to find in the pages of our scriptures.

But the environment is left to go begging in the Bible.  Our sacred texts were written in a time and by people who had every reason to fear nature, they had no concept of nature having reason to fear us.  In many ways, this means that we must show the kind of flexibility that the Dali Llama showed in being willing to change course on what he had to say about homosexuality.

We have to be able to look at the facts and apply our spiritually trained ethical minds to this new situation.  Edgar quotes environmental scientist, David Orr's book, Earth in Mind, describing how, on any typical day:
...we will lose 116 square miles of rainforest, or about an acre a second.  We will lose another 72 square miles to encroaching deserts, as a result of human mismanagement and overpopulation.  We will lose 40 to 100 species, and no one knows whether the number is 40 or 100.  Today the human population will increase by 250,000.  And today we will add 2,700 tons of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere and 15 million tons of carbon.  Tonight the earth will be a little hotter, its waters more acidic, and the fabric of life more threadbare.

Everyone has a right to their own opinions but no one has a right to their own facts.  Faith, faced with scientific facts, must stretch to accommodate new information.  The math of this situation is as direct as it is disturbing.

This is not about simply loving the wilderness.  This is bigger than enjoying canoe trips, fishing, hunting and wilderness hikes.  The facts point towards two issues that should bring the church to moral arrest.  The first is that we are poisoning the only environment in which we have to live so that we are cutting off the next generations from having the resources to survive.  We have no right to do that and we have a moral imperative to pass along to our children and grandchildren, a healthy planet.

The second is the fact that this is a huge issue of poverty.  Industrialized nations of the world create most of the greenhouse gasses that then create the climate change that destroys the livelihood of the poor.  The 2004 Asian tsunami was not caused by global warming, it was caused by and earthquake at sea but it gave us a chance to see how rising sea levels are going to primarily strike the poorest places in the world.

My friend, Dr. Jeanmarie Verchot, has a brother, Dr. Louie Verchot, who is currently living in Indonesia doing research on forest management.  You can see one of his videos on CNN.com's website by searching Indonesia and deforestation.  His work passionately underscores the way that demand for products in the developed world, results in the destruction of natural resources in the third world.  We clear off rainforests in South America for space to graze cattle to increase beef production.  The jungles of Indonesia are being cleared to produce palm oil, releasing centuries of stored carbons in the process.
We would not tolerate clearing our forests to plant cheap crops like sugar cane but we do it in Africa, in Asia and in Central America.  In most cases, environmental policies fall apart at the point of conflict between the right of the rich to exploit the poor.

I think that we are sometimes seduce into thinking that we can recycle our newspapers and drive a more fuel-efficient car and save the earth.  That isn't going to do it.  In fact, sadly, a lot of our recycling efforts use up more resources than they save.  Symbolic measures will not save us nor will individual efforts.

This is a point where the church must clear its throat and use its prophetic voice.  The necessary changes must take place on a national level as we invest in alternative fuels and energy production.  We must shift from private cars to public transportation.  We must build smaller and more efficient homes.  We are going to have to make some financial and life style sacrifices, literally living more simply so that the poor and the next generations can simply live.

If we live for ourselves alone then we shall collectively bring about the end of life on our planet.  If we will live for the welfare of others then, in truth, we become partners in creation with God.