HOMILETICS

Why Do Women Do It?

It’s been about a week since Mark Sanford gave a rambling explanation about his whereabouts in Argentina, and revealed that he had been utterly willing to throw away a promising political career, a marriage, a meaningful relationship with his four boys—for the love of a woman a continent away.

He’s not the first of people of his rank and prominence in public life, of course, to do so. One count has almost 30 people in the last 20 years or so who have similarly taken this risk. The list includes a sitting president, speaker of the house, presidential candidates, evangelical pastors, and so on.

One question that has been posed to me when I’ve been in conversation with people about Sanford’s affair, is: “Why do men do it?” Why are men willing to throw it all away when they’ve got to be aware of the huge potential for loss and suffering? They’ve got to be out of their minds.

Many answers: First, they are out of their minds. These decisions are not rational decisions. Sanford, for one, clearly was gripped by a passion that was not simply erotic, but one that touched the deepest part of his soul and heart. He was experiencing a passion, an emotion that perhaps he had never felt before. It was utterly transforming and exhilarating. He could not let that go.

Another is that these men, often charismatic leaders, are vulnerable to temptation and the opportunity to yield to temptation beyond our understanding.

Another explanation is that these men, most in professions of service, find their emotional reserves tapped beyond belief. The stress is incredible. And too often they find comfort and release not with the person who has been with them throughout their life’s journey, but with a third person profoundly removed and disconnected from any of it.

But my question is not why do men do it—we can come up with answers to that question. But why do women do it? Why does a woman with two teenage sons of her own agree to take up with the Governor of South Carolina? Why does a woman agree to consort with a presidential candidate (Edwards, Hart)? Why does a married staffer agree to have a liaison with a senator from Nevada? And so on.

Is it the need for validation? The need for a thrill and more excitement in their lives? Is it the need for understanding? The need for an escape from the mundane? The need to be noticed?

I don’t know.

I do know that these highly public embarrassments involve both genders.

This is not a male problem. Or a female one. It’s a human problem.

One suspects that most of us are practicing functional atheists. Sanford alluded to God and to his faith, as have others caught in this situation. We really do not believe in a God who holds us accountable, a God to whom we must answer some day. We don’t. We believe in a “buddy” God, who is loving and forgiving, and who’ll simply say, “Aw shucks, you’re only human,” and let it go at that.
We’re a people, ironically, who will work in a live of public service to improve and better the lot of others, but who are also willing to hurt and maim the people we love the most.

Go figure.

A Week of Deaths

First Ed McMahaon, then Farah Fawcett, and now Michael Jackson.

All dead at ages 86, 62, and 50 respectively. Icons of the 70s and 80s. McMahon was know and beloved as Johnny Carson’s sidekick for over 30 years on The Tonight Show. He developed the role of “the second banana” into an art form—and no one did it better, nor has his success been duplicated. Most late night performers these days prefer to go it alone.

Fawcett, known for her iconic poster that in the 70sn could be found in just about every bedroom of teenage boys and for her role as one of “Charlies’ Angels, died of cancer.

And Michael, died just yesterday of cardiac arrest in Los Angeles.

And then my grandpa (seen here).

He died 52 years ago at the age of 79—of cardiac arrest. I mention him because I just self-published this week a biography of his life, which I added to an edition of his 1952 Daily Diary. He wrote diaries for the last ten years of his life, and I am working now on the other years, and am close to publishing, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, and 1957.

He lived far away from the spotlight of Hollywood in a little village in northeastern Iowa. A railroad man, he was a widower the last 15 years of his life, didn’t own a car, and spent his last years walking about town visiting the shut-ins, participating in various committees and boards in his community church, and riding along with his pastor on hospital calls and the like.

In my book, he was a great man. But the world never knew him. But God did.

The psalmist says that there is value in “numbering our days.” It’s good for us when the news confronts us with notable deaths to stop and ask ourselves just what exactly is the content and context of our own lives. All flesh withers as the grass in the field, or disappears like a wisp of smoke in the wind. Our time is limited.

Most of us will pass from this world to the next without newspaper headlines to announce the event. But our lives matter. They matter to those among whom we live. How then should we live?

God spoke to the prophet Micah revealing the answer: “Do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.”

A life like that—a life my grandpa lived—is not a life lived in vain.

Protected by the Covenant

Visiting my son in Parker, Colorado, I was driving around the other day, and noticed signs posted at various locations throughout the community which read: “A Covenant-Protected Community.”

I am always looking for sermons.

Now, I knew I had found one: The Church as a Covenant-Protected Community.

I would start with what people might not like about communities like this. True, they prevent the neighbors from repairing their cars on the sidewalks, or painting their house neon green, or hanging the wash from the upstairs windows.

But covenants can also be restrictive. They value uniformity or standards. You must ask permission from the ruling body of the homeowner’s association to do anything that either breaks covenant or goes beyond the provisions of the covenant.

But the covenant in these communities is designed to “protect,” not harass. It’s purpose is to preserve value—indeed increase it. It’s goal is to protect the neighborhood from our neighbors whose behavior and values fly in the face of good fiscal and aesthetic sense.

So in what sense is the church a “covenant-protected” community?

Jumpin’ George

Presidents are in the news again these days.

Of course, the sitting president is always in the news. It comes with the job. Obama was indeed a sitting president when he nailed a pesky housefly with one swift swat during an interview. The execution got more coverage—surprise—than the content of the interview itself. (PETA registered its complaint.) During the interview Obama good-naturedly mentioned that there’s one television network for whom he just can’t do anything right. Most observers think he was referring to FOX News.

Back in Texas, George Dubya is beginning to comment for the first time on some of the current administration’s policies. But he must have smiled to hear Obama complain about FOX News. Welcome to the White House! Bush spent eight years with not just one network for whom he could do nothing right, but at least four: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, not to speak of other media outlets. So if Obama has only one cantankerous network to deal with for the next four years, he might count his blessings.

Finally, just a note to give it up for George H.W. Bush. About two weeks ago, Bush turned 85 and celebrated his birthday by sky-diving in tandem with a military jumper whose job it was not make sure the former one-term president didn’t break a leg on landing.

He says he plans on doing it again on his 90th birthday.

I wouldn’t bet against him.

He’s a man who isn’t afraid to take a leap.

God's Day

Today is Father’s Day, and all across America, dads are getting a pair of black socks, or a set of screwdrivers, or a flat-screen television. On dad’s day, we stop to intentionally say to dad, “Hey dad, we love you—in case we haven’t said that before.”

As Father’s Day, this Sunday is not on the liturgical calendar, but it could be, because the most common metaphor for God in Scripture is that of a father.

It used to be popular to dismiss this metaphor as dated and not particularly helpful—many complaining that so many fathers had failed so miserably as dads that the metaphor was more hurtful than helpful.

This complaint of course missed the point—as so many politically correct complaints frequently do. If “father” is a metaphor that’s used in Scripture, our task as students of Scripture is to understand what “father” meant when the Scriptures were written so that we can understand in what way ancient worshippers of God understood God. If they thought it was helpful to explain God as being a “father,” just what did that mean to them?

I am not going to answer that question, but since we often refer to God as our “heavenly father,” we might call this day, not only Father’s Day, but God’s Day.

One would hope that God would have more than one day of the year in which we acknowledge God’s love, care, protection and faithfulness. But it never hurts to explain to your dad why you think he’s so cool, and why you appreciate him.

So let’s have a moment with Abba—and tell God why we love him.

It’s the least we can give God.

After all, he doesn’t really need another cordless drill.

Father, let our faithful mind
Rest, on thee alone inclined;
Every anxious thought repress,
Keep our souls in perfect peace.
--Charles Wesley

The Unforgiving God and the Unforgiving Person

USA Today allots almost a half page every Monday to a discuss of religion and religious issues. This is great. USA Today understands the important role religion plays not only in our culture, but in the global community. Religion is a strong color in the fabric of geo-political life and USA Today rightly provides some specific space in which these issues can be discussed. Good for them.

Last Monday, Andrew Newberg writes a piece called “This is your brain on religion.” He reviews the general premise of other research which suggests that “religion and spiritual practices generally have a positive effect on one’s physical, emotional and neurological health.” I am not sure what he means by “neurological” health, but I can give him that. He goes on to say that his work at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Spirituality and Mind has also revealed that spiritual practices such as meditation and prayer, “also reveal significant improvements in memory, cognition and compassion while simultaneously reducing anxiety, depression, irritability and stress.”

So being religious is a good thing, right?

Not so fast, says Newberg.

Newberg is associate professor of radiology and psychiatry—an interesting marriage of disciplines—at Penn (I’m not sure how this credentializes him as an observer and scholar of religious phenomena), and he argues that “religion’s influence on people depends very much on how they view their God.” He says that when people “view God as loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely results in a very positive view of themselves and the world around them” (my emphasis). But, on the other hand, when God “is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one’s physical and mental health” (emphasis mine).

Then he explains: “The research is clear: if you ruminate on negative emotions, they activate the areas of the brain that are involved in anger, fear and stress … [these] negative emotions can spill over into outward behaviors that generate fear, distrust, hatred, animosity and violence toward people who hold different or opposing beliefs.” With this I cannot argue. Even Jesus said that the actions we do with our hands is derived from the state of affairs in our hearts. So, no offense, but Penn’s research on this is old news.

I don’t have a degree in radiology, but here’s my take on this. Newberg offers a provocative proposition, but it’s flawed in at least one respect. It is not necessary—nor does it happen—that people view and worship God as either a) loving and forgiving, OR b) unloving and unforgiving. It is common to state this dichotomy in terms of the Old Testament God versus the New Testament God. It is quite possible to believe that God is both loving—that is, God shows mercy, and that God can also be unbending—i.e., God exacts justice. These apparently opposing views of God can in fact be held in compatible tension with each other. I wouldn’t want it any other way. The God of Scripture is not my buddy, as Kenneth Woodward, former Religion editor at Newsweek once told me.

I am sure that if I obsess about negative emotions that I might do some bad things. But my defense is not “God made me do it.” Or, “My view of God made me do it.”

Newberg’s Lion King view of positive religious influence is nothing more than hakuna matata: “Don’t worry; be happy.”

Newberg talks about the “negative side of religiosity and spirituality” and wonders how we can “guard against” these things. But what is negative for Newberg—God as a God who is holy, who expects obedience, who has promised that judgment will visit the unrighteous—is not negative for me. The God who is all of those things, is also the God who has offered liberation, forgiveness, mercy and love.

This is a good discussion. In this case, however, I think it’s too easy to say that bad behavior can be traced to a particular view of God.

Bad people do bad things. And someday, God’s going to get them.

And that’s good.

Youth At Large

I'm in Parker, Colorado, visiting family. Stepson, Taylor Williams, Director of Student Ministries at Parker Evangelical Presbyterian Church is headed out with a group of teens on Tuesday for the Boston area where they'll spend the better part of two weeks working in impoverished neighborhoods to offer a helping hand to those in need--painting, construction, clean-up and much more.

Taylor's team is only one of thousands of church groups this summer that will be leaving hometowns to travel out of their home states to get down and dirty helping others.

You say, "Why go far away to do what probably could be done next door?"

Because the travel experience itself is a part of the ministry with these kids--and this is an experience that will stay with them for the rest of their lives, and someday their children will likewise pay it forward a generation down the line.

So let's pray for all of these young people. They are the Church at work. They are our Faith At Work.
Godspeed!

Not a Citizen of the World

Did you catch Newt Gindrich’s emphatic declaration at the …. He made a big point of saying: “I am NOT a citizen of the world.”

By which he meant in the strongest possible terms that he was, in fact, a citizen of the United States of America.

He went on to say: “I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!"

What a great opportunity for Christians everywhere to agree with the former speaker of the House of Representatives, TIME’s “Man of the Year” (1995) and architect of the erstwhile “Contract With America”!

I am NOT a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of another world. Check it out. Hebrews 11.

Here we could talk about what that means exactly.

Then we could discuss the obvious reality that our feet are planted on terra firma somewhere. So, while not a citizen of the world, I am certainly a resident of the world.

So there you go. A full blown sermon, thanks to Newt.

Thanks, Newt!

Pledging Loyalty

This Sunday also happens to be Flag Day and my sister’s birthday.

Thousands of churches have flags in their sanctuary, and I can’t for the life of me understand why.

The U.S. flag ought to be in government buildings, banks and schools, but not in churches.

What about the Christian flag?

What about it? What possible service does this flag render? It came into being over 100 years ago and today, it, too, can be found in tens of thousands of churches. Again. Why?

Here is a brief liturgy for the Christian flag—from one of many Web sites about the Christian flag:

THE AFFIRMATION OF LOYALTY TO THE CHRISTIAN FLAG
The Affirmation of Loyalty to the Christian Flag is a sacred commitment. Let the congregation celebrate its loyalty to the Christian flag and the Cross which it bears by extending to it appropriate recognition and honor.

The minister or lay person will proceed as follows, saying:
1. Let us stand facing the Christian flag.
2. Let us repeat the Affirmation of Loyalty in unison.
“I affirm my loyalty to the Christian Flag and to our savior whose cross it bears, one spiritual fellowship under that cross, uniting us in service and love.”
3. Let each person conclude the Affirmation with a slight but positive nod to the Flag. The congregation may now sing one or more verses from a hymn of its choice, such as “Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus,” or other appropriate selection.
4. Let us now participate in our Christian Fellowship by holding hands in an inclusive chain from person to person and pew to pew during the concluding prayer. The minister or lay person presiding will offer here a brief appropriate prayer, marking the conclusion of this celebration of the Affirmation of Loyalty to the Christian Flag.

Say what? Pledging loyalty to the Christian flag is a sacred commitment. I never knew that. A “slight nod” to the Flag? That’s just crazy.

Get these flags out of our worship space.

And preach something about who and what is worthy of our loyalty.

God Nation

I’ve been traveling through the Republic of Texas the past couple of days, lingering in Katy, Texas, to attend a high school graduation.

Katy is a small town west of Houston, but it is also a football giant. Since 1997, Katy High School has brought home five state championships including back-to-back championships in 2007 and 2008.

We came in two vehicles, both large pickups and parked in a vast lot that surrounds the Leonard Merrell Center. It soon filled up with trucks. Give a third world country the armored vehicles, guns and live ammo in this parking lot alone on this hot Saturday afternoon, and it could sustain a small war for at least eight months.

I walked into the large arena where the graduation ceremony was held. The place soon became a sea of red. The ceremonies began, and soon I began to hear a reference that became a common refrain. This was not just Katy I was passing through: this was Katy Nation!

The crowd pledged allegiance to the flag, but it also pledged allegiance to the TEXAS flag, and the words “Under God” were mentioned in both cases. This is Texas, and this is not by any stretch of the imagination Obama country. While attending a “tea party” last April 15, Govenor Rick Perry uttered the sentiments of many Texans when he suggested that Texas just might want to secede from the Union. They came into the union in 1845, but left it in 1861. They might want to do it again, he said, although that probably would not be a wise thing, he added.

This is Katy Nation! Speakers made frequent reference to Katy being a “nation,” and it struck me as a curious use of the word, because I have heard or read the word "nation" used in this manner before. Fox News sometimes refers to itself as Fox Nation, and professional sports teams are often mentioned in “national” terms, as is Cardinal Nation, Redleg Nation, Clips Nation and so on. But there’s also Golf Nation, and Gadget Nation, and Panhandle Nation (Texas again). Katy Nation actually has a Web site, and it’s also the title of a book, Katy Nation: Where Football Gets Real.

I thought it was interesting that at the beginning of the ceremony the class president led us all in a moment of silence to remember the past, present and future of the current graduating class of Katy Nation, 2009. Clearly, in days of yore, this is the moment that Reverend so and so of First Baptist Church would have delivered an inspiring and long-winded invocation. The inclusion of this “Moment of Silence” and the exclusion of an Invocation was a reminder that Katy Nation had no doubt in the past lost a battle or two with the ACLU or some other legal entity so beloved in these parts.

I could probably turn this “nation” business into a sermon about the people of God, especially if my text was 1 Peter 2:9-10 (which doesn’t bob up in the RCL until Easter 2011): But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Once you were not a people,
   but now you are God’s people;
once you had not received mercy,
   but now you have received mercy.

The denotative meaning of “nation” is “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own,” and other meanings refer to the “the territory or country itself” and “an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.”

The word comes to us through Middle English and Anglo-French, originally from the Lation nation meaning birth or race.

We of the God Nation, then, are a “large body of people,” indeed the citizens of God Nation are scattered throughout the globe. People of God Nation are “conscious of their own unity,” and they also “see to possess a government peculiarly its own.” Unfortunately too many people of God Nation think the government they should possess is the United States government and Congress, which misses the point entirely. God Nation is an “aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family,” and they speak the same language or cognate languages.” Again, this is a metaphor—the ethnicity referred to here has nothing to do with biological and genetic material, but rather the divine nation which empowers and enables us to speak our language, the language of good news, of redemption, forgiveness, salvation and love.

I’m still in Katy Nation as I write this, headed for church soon, but down here, when you attend a graduation ceremony, or a football game, it’s very spiritual. And as you know, football in these parts is a religion, and not just religion. It’s organized religion.