Day 1077 - Whose Kingdom is Yours?

A sermon given at New Hope Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, TN on Nov. 22, 2015

OT reading: Psalm 93

Gospel Reading: John 18:33-37

This is “Christ the King Sunday.”   How often do we hear the words, “The Lord is King” or “Jesus is Lord?” What is our frequent reaction? Do we take the words somewhat complacently thinking this is a nice but outdated proclamation. Or do we take the words as a serious and timeless truth about our obligation and blessing to serve The Lord?

A friend who attends another church here in town made a comment in reaction to the terrorist attack in Paris, France, “If a Syrian refuge came knocking at his door, he was glad to help God out by defending himself.”…” he was glad to help God out by defending himself.” I suspect many people feel this way to a greater or lesser degree. Certainly when we are facing the potential for violence we have to let our sense of prudence guide our steps.

This sermon is not about the God-awful tragedy that happened in Paris last week. But on the other hand it is about the way so many people see these horrible events as a challenge to their comfortable, complacent living in the world of flesh. It is a wake-up call of a different sort. Let me explain how.

What makes being a Christian servant a hard choice is that from the beginning of his ministry, Jesus made it clear that he inaugurated a kingdom whose values are quite different from those of worldly powers. It is the Kingdom of God on earth. It is a kingdom where we are encouraged to share, give of one self, go the extra mile, care for the poor, the imprisoned, the outcasts that the world ignores or abuses.

Throughout the gospels especially in this reading in John about the last day of his human life, the earthly world constantly strives to persuade us that its material things are the important stuff. We find it hard to resist the subversive claim that the things of this world are what is important in Pilate’s remarks.

When Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is at hand,” he does not mean some future apocalyptic Armageddon that will befall the world. He said he is “God of the Living.” We should live the citizen life of the Kingdom of God looking forward to coming home proclaiming “Jesus is Lord.”

The fact is when we hear these words “The Lord is King” or “Jesus is Lord” the world of flesh is often whispering in our other ear, “Don’t listen to Jesus. Ego and power are what is important.” It is no wonder our reaction tends to split between complacency giving lip service to “The Lord is King”, and taking and living, the words as a serious truth.

Where do we stand in this? Is this an out-of-date passage of a simpler time that we take with a ”ho-hum” complacency? Or do you believe it is a serious message that forms the basis of our faith by contradicting every value that the world of flesh wants us to hold as dear?

To understand “The Lord is King” we really need to think a little bit about what is his kingdom is not. Paul frequently described the world of Christians as being caught in two worlds, the new Kingdom of God, and the entire world around us that forms the reality of physical existence. Paul describes it as a struggle by the world of flesh as it is being pushed aside by the Kingdom of God.

The word, flesh, does not have some prurient meaning.  The word encompasses the entire fabric of our existence. It is our possessions, our relationships, our pride, our politics, our family, loved ones, our enemies, our oppressors and our servants. It is every iota of experience that forms our physical reality and shapes our values.

That world is very powerful. It relentlessly desires to seduce us to its values and resists intensely the Kingdom of God that opposes to it.

The presence of Jesus in the world means the Kingdom of God has broken in to this world of flesh and is slowly pushing it aside. Paul described this struggle by the world of flesh against the Kingdom of God as the groaning of a woman in childbirth. He said that we live in the in-between time with a foot in each world. The events of the last several months here in Chattanooga and in the world emphasize that point.

Even the disciples, to the very end truly believed this Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed was the kingdom of material things. Jesus would be the new David. Disciples would sit at his left and right hands on a throne in the Temple and Rome would be overthrown. The disciples marched in Jerusalem in the last week of the life of Jesus debating these very points. The people in the street who shouted hosanna thought that liberation from the oppressive power of Rome was at hand.

My friend essentially said, “I’ll keep my handgun ready to defend my possessions, my wealth, my home, my life, because I’m not sure about God’s defense of my fleshly things.” The world of flesh has a strong appeal even God’s chosen. Who will have the last say, the World or will the Word?

Pilate examining Jesus says Power will have the last say. Jesus says no, revelation will have the last say. Everything about the message of Jesus challenges rational thinking. His message of revelation subverts our rational thinking. Why is it subversive?

For Paul, Ancient Rome perfectly represented the kingdom of flesh. If we want to understand the underlying message of the world that Jesus gives us we have to understand Rome in Paul’s time as its antithesis.

Power was the most highly regarded Roman virtue. Power is the ideal ethical imperative, the perfect virtue. “I have no fear, can crush you with my fist, or my armies.” Pilate was the representative of that Roman world in Jesus’s time.

Jesus on the other hand said that the most highly regarded perfect virtue is humility. “I have no fear, I came to serve.” His humility directly challenged the virtues of Rome because in Rome, humility was the virtue of a slave.

In the last day of the life of Jesus, Pilate questions Jesus after the Sanhedrin examined him. Pilate assumes confidently that power will have the last word in this pesky affair.

The exchange went this way, Pilate summoned Jesus and asked, ³³ “Are you the King of the Jews?’”³⁴Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’ ³⁵Pilate replied, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?’

Pilate does not seem to take this matter seriously. It is another bothersome interruption in his day of ruling Jerusalem for Rome that he must resolve. His questions clearly acknowledge that this is the case.

Jesus responded, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”  Jesus in his own special way is saying that crying, death, and oppression as embodied by Rome will not have the last word.

Does this mean if Pilate or the Sanhedrin invaded the Kingdom of God, the followers of Jesus should fight? Not really.

Recall the reply to Pilate. “You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” That truth is humility towards everyone. Love God the way God loves you. Love your neighbor the way God loves you.

Who is my neighbor? Everyone is my neighbor, even Pilate standing before Jesus with the Power of Rome at his back.

Fight to defend the Kingdom of God? No, the Kingdom of God is not founded on physical power and strength to overwhelm people. It is founded on faith in his message of salvation through humility of a servant that will overwhelm the world of flesh.

This is why whenever we hear the words,” the Lord is King,” or “Jesus is Lord,” we should ask of our self, “Do I accept it with complacency or as serious truth?” This kingdom of God is the place where the important things that sustain life are found. My life, my soul, my strength, my salvation are gifts by grace of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus and Pilate confronted the question of which Kingdom do we want? Do we want the kingdom where Grace is found in humility before God and fellow, or do we want the kingdom where Grace is found principally and fundamentally in earthly power and preoccupation with power?

The message of the Kingdom to my good friend who said he would help God out by defending himself, is that if we rely on our own strength we are lost before we begin to defend our self.

Jesus made it clear. Power does not reside in one’s ability to overwhelm, or defeat another person. Power resides in our ability to proclaim and live a life that proclaims God’s grace. God’s grace trumps power. Grace trumps the world of flesh. God’s grace trumps human judgment.

It’s normal human emotion to fear and avoid people who present threats to our lives, and prudence is a good attitude when fear and violence threaten.  But the essence of Christianity is rooted in two great commandments.

As told in the gospels the first is, ”The Lord is one. You should love the Lord with all your mind’s soul Power and strength. The second is that you should love your neighbor the way the Lord loves you.”

Yes violence and strife in other lands create fear in our own hearts that it will visit us. We impulsively seek power motivated by the world of flesh to defeat the threats to our complacent existence and all that world says are important to us.

But I ask you what if Jesus had succumbed to those worries of the world of flesh?  Would we celebrate our salvation with the proclamation, ”Jesus is Lord and I shall Live and love my Brother as I love God?” Would we be able to voice the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., with their true meaning, “Free at last! Thank God Almighty we are free at last!” 

The Lord is King, and Jesus is Lord of all.

AMEN

Day 1073 - Do Not Be Alarmed

This is a revised sermon given at Mowbray Presbyterian Church, Soddy Daisy, TN; Nov. 15, 2015

Old Testament Reading: Psalm 16

New Testament Reading: Mark 13:1-8

People have used this passage, and others like it for centuries to point to the impending end times whose moment someone claims to know, sometimes they use Matthew 25:31-46, the Revelation of John, or even one of today’s lectionary passages, Daniel 12: 1-3. (Daniel 12:1 speaks of the end saying, “there will be a time of anguish at the end such as never occurred since nations first came into existence.”)

Usually people who do this are focused on apocalyptic ideas by fear inspired by some current events that in their mind point to a soon-to-occur glorification. Daniel probably wrote about the oppressive rulers who followed Alexander, or the suppression of Jewish revolts in the later BCE era.

Today, for example, they carry on in hysteria over Daesh and the terrorist attack in Paris. More so, even Daesh  itself is fully preoccupied with an apocalyptic vision of the future it hopes to herald into existence. But for us Christians, all these gospel passages deal with the destruction of the Temple and the existing Jewish religious leadership. We do everyone a disservice to claim other purposes.

The destruction of the Temple was the powerful message. Jesus indicted a religious order steeped in complacency and preoccupation with tradition and rules over meaning and compassion. That message forced the religious authorities to implement the plan to kill Jesus.

Yet these pundits ignore that point and even point to the PC(USA) as a one of the signs of doom. I find it almost humorous that they overlook the words, “do not be alarmed, the time is not yet come.” Only God knows the day of the end of days. (I doubt they even know what Presbyterians believe, but I’ll return to that in a minute.)

The modern-day prophets of doom overlook two other matters. They forget that Jesus even cautions against them saying such people will lead you astray about those days. The doomsayers forget the positive message to people of faith. God loves us. Don’t fear the end or use it to scare people into believing; focus instead on living the life Jesus calls us to live.

I wonder if they overlook all the other teachings of Jesus about the future. In an earlier passage of Mark (10:35-40) James and John asked Jesus to decide who was going to sit at his right and left hand at the end. Jesus replied they did not know the cup from which they ask to drink. They insisted they did know but Jesus knew in his mind they were going to drink from his cup even though they did not realize what that meant. Jesus knew it wasn’t going to be a rose garden.

Jesus told his disciples they will face oppression and prejudice of trial and accusation because of faith --- but he offers comforting words of grace for those who have faith. He says don’t fret over the worries of tomorrow. There are plenty for today, “If I take care the birds in the field will I not take care of you?”

Furthermore, throughout the gospel Jesus frequently cautions us that Christians are always going to be ”the outsiders”. Paul made it very clear that the world (He called it the world of flesh) opposes the emergence of the Kingdom of God. From his perspective, people of faith are in a world that is being displaced by our new home, the Kingdom of God.

Jesus set a high bar for living a Christian life that the world of flesh opposes. We can’t forget that being a Christian is not walking in a rose garden.

Jesus summed up that high bar when religious lawyers tried to trap him. They ask Jesus what is the greatest commandment. The answer as you may remember, is “The Lord is one. Love the Lord with all your heart, and all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

Why do we to follow this command? It is because we are returning love to God in a human attempt to match the love that He has for his good creation.

The lawyer voiced the second greatest commandment completing the pair that Jesus is the entire essence of the law. We should love our neighbor as we love our self. I restate that as, “Love your neighbor and God the way God loves you.”

That is the high bar. It’s not easy to love someone who snubs you, holds a different political position, or practices Christianity differently than you do, or holds a religious belief at odds with yours. It is easy to love like-minded friends, but even then we sometimes find that difficult.

It’s very difficult to escape the fundamental fact that those two commandments reflect the character of Christian faith. We enjoy the grace of Christ by spreading that grace by our words and action empowered by God.

Did Jesus give us a warrant to judge people by those two commandments? Jesus, and the many instances In the Old Testament where God speaks to his people make it very clear that judgment is reserved to God alone.

So when we decide to judge people for what they believe, how they act, how they dress, how much money they make or do not make, by their spouse or children, we actually usurp God’s prerogative.

What happens when the tables are turned on us and we find ourselves accused by some people who claim to be good Christians but don’t like our way of denominational government of being signs of the end? They judge us “evil” because of our forbearance of others expressed in our Book of Order. They judge us poor Christians or un-Christian and may even shun us.  How should we approach such a situation? Step back and think about what we say we believe.

A primary principle of Reformed Protestantism is that God calls us to him. The various Reformed denominations may argue what “calls us” means, but the bottom line is we agree that there is no way for us to enter the kingdom of God except by being called by the grace of God in Christ.

Presbyterians have worked out a rather nice implementation of the grace called for in the two greatest commandments that guide our faithful actions. We acknowledge Scripture is the principal guide for our behavior towards our fellows.

We also know that that applying scripture literally leads us into a very uncomfortable field of circumstance such as slavery and stoning people for sin. As a consequence, we use the scriptures as a guide when we struggle with each other. We argue and seek discernment through prayer to reach a consensus on how we should interpret scripture to avoid unrighteous action.

Our confessions and Book of Order reflect this consensus. Consensus means we may not always agree with the majority, but we acknowledge it as the fruit of a process that protects us against reflexive and obvious theological error. It is a process very much like our own American government where we are ruled by consent of the majority within the bounds of the Constitution. Unlike the US government, our consensus is not enforced by the state because our authority is spiritual not governmental or legal. Unlike some of our critics, we know can’t force people to come to God.

We also acknowledge that the Lord is the ruler of conscience and that the Holy Spirit guides our discernment. We respect those who feel unable to follow some of our interpretations for good reason since we know even the majority can err. We can exercise a “scruple” when our conscience binds us about virtually everything we believe that does not represent a challenge to the essential parts of Christian belief, for example, on who we marry in our congregation.  We should exercise a scruple very, very carefully.

How does all this help us with the folks who judge us? We could take that first step to invite them into fellowship. Perhaps they can come and talk or we answer their questions about how we reach decisions and what we believe as Christians. We could point to Jesus who said never try to stop someone doing good work in his name, they can hardly criticize us if they are busy doing so. (We could even do this with some of our Presbyterian brethren.)

Maybe we should recite some of our tenets about God’s grace that forms our vision of the church in the world. Have you read the first few pages of the Book of Order? This is what we believe:

- We, the universal Church are the body of Christ on Earth whose objective is to demonstrate the gift of grace to the community of the world and are committed to a community of faith that trusts in God alone even at the risk of losing one’s life.

- We, the universal Church, are a community of hope being part of the New Creation. We strive to be a community of love that breaks down  the walls of hostility, where sins are forgiven and reconciliation is found, not judgment.

- We, the universal Church, are the witness to the world of God’s grace. We proclaim to all the good news of God’s love and call all people to discipleship in Christ in the shared font and table. Our highest goal is to glorify and enjoy God’s grace now and forever participating in God’s mission on earth.

- We, the universal Church, seek to include all people and are never content to enjoy the benefits of Christian community for itself alone.

- Denominations obscure but do not destroy unity in Christ. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is committed to reducing that obscurity, and is willing to seek and to deepen communion with all other churches within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

- We claim holiness only as being part of the universal Church of Christ as we lead lives worthy of the Gospel we proclaim. In gratitude and humility for Christ’s redemption, we rely upon the work of God’s Spirit through Scripture and the means of grace to call every believer and every Christian community.

- We confess the persistence of sin in our corporate and individual lives separates people of good faith.

- We are obligated to embrace our brothers and sisters in Christ with great forbearance of their criticism of us for our openness to scripture. What gets us into heaven is this proclamation alone, “Jesus is Lord. We have faith to act in His service.”

How we celebrate communion, how many times we baptize people, what person we marry, how we conduct our worship service are simply the way our denomination works. Our sins (we are all sinners) are not keys to salvation or damnation, only denying Grace keeps us from God.

However, fomenting strife and exclusion among fellow Christians makes one a stumbling block to the children seeking to come to Jesus. If we stand on our faith and invite our fellow Christians who shun us into our fellowship, we do what Paul says in Romans 12:1-20, “…if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” These principles are why I like Presbyterians, even as we argue.

I offer you the words that Jesus used. The love of God for you and your salvation is permanent.

I think Presbyterians have a pretty good way of practicing our faith founded in scripture. We are flawed like every other denomination, but we do proclaim grace and love, not judgment. We stand as a connected body, a denomination that respects consensus and every person. We honor God as the ultimate ruler of conscience and our salvation.

We can affirm that Jesus alone is Lord and we have the joy and privilege to spread the love of Christ for humankind knowing that life and in death we are His. I encourage you to leave the sin of judgment to others and invite your detractors into our fellowship, holding to our hope that our forgiveness and love brings the faithful to us, resting easy in our permanence.

Ignore the fear mongers who try to scare you about worldly challenges such as Daesh. They will find their way into oblivion, and as a footnote on apocalyptic naysayers seeking their own destruction in history books. Don’t ignore them only because they are not even being a very good example of Christian faith, don’t ignore them because they would rather see a Muslim child drown in the sea than offer sanctuary than offer a hand, ignore them and shun their ideas because they distort scripture and are stumbling blocks to those seeking grace.

Day 1066 - Denialism and Theology

This essay provides the perspective for discussion by the discussion group on Science and Theology at the Hope House, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga for Nov. 11, 2015

The first part of this essay is a heavily edited excerpt of an article of the same title by Lee McIntyre published in the New York Times, Nov. 7, 2015.  I have shortened it and removed a few pejorative comments that reflect, in my mind, the sort of thinking the author critiques. The purpose of this essay is to explore how theology copes with skepticism and denialism (an awkwardly constructed word!). One could easily conclude this is a "God of the Gaps" essay, but that is an easy, facile conclusion to a complex matter. 

 Opinions and Facts

The ideas of opinion and fact sit at the core of this essay. One can maintain any opinion one chooses. Opinion is a volitional, subjective act that may or may not be based upon reason. For example, to answer “yes” to the question, “Is 5 larger than 15?” is an act of opinion, not fact. In a theological context, we must admit from a secular perspective faith is akin to opinion. 

On the other hand, you may not alter facts to buttress your opinion. By “facts” I mean information about the world that rational evaluation holds by consensus to be “true.” For example, when you touch a red-hot stove you get burned.

Scepticism and Denialism

We can distinguish skepticism from denialism as the instance when we believe or disbelieve something based on high standards of evidence. Denialism is the instance when we simply engage in motivated, biased reasoning that permits our opinions take over.

When we suspend belief because the evidence does not live up to the epistemological standards of science, we are skeptical. When we refuse to believe something, even in the face of interpretive consensus of compelling evidence, we are in denial. Denial often comes about because at some level it upsets us to think that the compelling consensus is true.

Do these comments reflect skepticism or denial? :

          - "The rest of the world “just doesn’t get it.”

         - "We are the ones being rigorous."

        - "How can others be so gullible in believing that something is “true” before all of the facts are in?"

One warning denialism is overtaking skepticism is realizing we have a self-righteous feeling about a belief because it is more valuable to us emotionally than the preservation of good standards of evidence that suggest our feeling is in error. Whether one is willing to admit it or not, publically or internally, denialists often know in advance what they would like to be true.

But where does that leave the rest of us who think that our own beliefs are simply the result of sound reasoning?

Daniel Kahnemann ( “Thinking Fast and Slow”) points out the human mind has wired-in cognitive shortcuts that can feel an awful lot like thinking. The phenomenon, confirmation bias, is the basis of an entire field of academic inquiry (behavioral economics) that proposes to explain much human behavior on mental foibles.

 How do we tell fact from opinion?

If we wait for a scientific theory to evaluate the evidence, it is probably too late (theory almost always follows empirical evidence, often by years). Alternatively, if we take the easy path in our thinking, easy thinking eventually becomes a habit. For example, if we lie to others, sooner or later we believe the lie ourselves.

The real battle is learning to embrace a sound attitude about belief formation.

We hear a lot of people identifying themselves as climate change “skeptics." They begin, “Well, I’m no scientist, but …” and then proceed to rattle off a series of evidential demands so strict that they would make Newton blush. A telltale mark of denialism is the use of different standards of evidence for those theories that they want to believe (even cherry picking a few pieces of data against climate change ignoring the body of evidence they oppose) opposed to those that wish to deny.

Other marks may be comments such as “the facts are not yet settled,” “there is so much more that we do not know,” “the science isn’t certain.”

The problem with this attitude is that it is is based on a grave misunderstanding of science (which in a sense is never settled), and what it means to be a skeptic.

Doubting the consensus of scientists on an empirical question such as likely causes of global warming by relying on ideologically motivated “evidence” is not skepticism. Some suggest it is the height of gullibility because it claims that it is much more likely that there is a vast conspiracy among thousands of climate scientists rather than that they have all merely arrived at the same conclusion because that is where the evidence leads.

Scientists nonetheless can be wrong. The history of science has shown us that any scientific theory (even Newton’s theory of gravity) can be wrong. In fact, most theories are expected to be disproved or modified eventually. It is helpful to remember that not every field that claims scientific status — like certain branches of the social sciences — necessarily deserve it. But this does not mean that one is a good skeptic merely for disbelieving the well-corroborated conclusions of science because we hope some long-shot hypothesis comes along in 50 years to show us why we were wrong.

 Warrant

Scientific reasoning relies upon the idea of warrant or justified belief. We believe, or interpret what the evidence tells us even while using the good scientific protocol also to try find a flaw in the given theory.

Science sometimes errs, yet its epistemological decision-making structure yields a time-proven, successful track record for discovering the facts about the empirical world. Scientific error in the face of new facts from research and research techniques not previously available provides no basis to prefer opinion over facts. Opinion may lead to a successful theory, but only in the face of supporting fact.

True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a careful mental attitude to be convinced only by evidence. If we insist on withholding belief long after evidence supports a scientific “truth,” we have wandered out of the realm of reasoned skepticism into the realm of ideology.

Theology

Theology is a philosophical ideology. It based on faith not evidentiary reason. One of the great spokespersons for Christianity (Paul) actually maintains that a rational evaluation labels Christian theology as foolish. How do we defend such a theology against this dilemma of skepticism and denialism?

In the two hundred years after the Reformation (circa 1520) Christianity followed two fundamental paths. One path can be argued to be the path of the denialist. Nothing trumps the inerrancy of the Biblical record.

The other path can be argued to follow the path of skepticism. The inerrancy of the biblical record lies in its acknowledgement of the fallibility of humanity and reliance on the record as an “algorithm” for proper decision making based deliberative consideration of the evidence before it. This is the heart of Reformed theology. 

The greatest strength of Reformed theology is its greatest weakness. It is subject to the error of human reason. In this way it stands as an equal to a Science that acknowledges the possibility of error even when sufficient present “facts” provide a warrant for belief and practice. The best practitioners of Science and Theology embrace humility along with belief, not egotism.