THE FAITH OF A NATION, A Sermon delivered by the Reverend Dr. Geoffrey G. Drutchas, St. Paul United Church of Christ, Taylor, November 15, 2015

Transcription

1 THE FAITH OF A NATION, A Sermon delivered by the Reverend Dr. Geoffrey G. Drutchas, St. Paul United Church of Christ, Taylor, November 15, 2015 Congregation, have you been watching any of the recent presidential debates? As both a citizen and as a Christian I have and with great interest. The debates have been enlightening, even if it s not clear what comes next and what the ultimate outcome will be. During an interview leading up to one of those presidential debates a candidate was pointedly asked if he believed that a Muslim could serve as president of the United States. Pretty emphatically, he answered no, talking about the possibility of a Muslin president who might start forcing Islamic or Shari a law on us all. Given the scenario unfolding in the Middle East today, which has led to this weekend s terrorist attacks in Paris, and the prejudices that have accelerated across our own American nation since the tragedy of 9/11, I was not entirely surprised by the candidate s answer. Yet I was still disappointed by it and the fact it was totally lacking in thoughtful nuance and qualification. After all, we live in America, a land first settled by men and women fleeing religious prejudice and persecution. As a matter of democratic principle informed by our nation s heritage, should anyone s religion automatically disbar them from the highest office in the nation? This question first came up in the late 1920s when the Roman Catholic candidate, Governor Al Smith of New York, unsuccessfully ran for the White House against a mainstream Protestant, Herbert Hoover. The issue re-emerged in the 1960 when John F. Kennedy, another Catholic, ran against Richard Nixon. In a very important address to Southern Baptist ministers in Texas, Kennedy argued that he would not let his personal religious views get in the way of serving all of the American people. The will of the American people, rather than any commandment of the Roman Catholic pope in Rome, would guide him in his decision-making. I am not sure that Kennedy convinced his highly skeptical Texas Baptist audience that day. But he did persuade a majority of Americans that he could be a Catholic and a good president too. As it turned out, President Kennedy never gave further cause for fear on that score. I personally believe that the intelligent way that our nation ultimately handled the prospect of a Catholic president can and should guide us in vetting candidates of any faith today. Accordingly, let s not dismiss any candidate simply because of

2 his or her faith alone. At the same time, let s not be afraid to ask any given candidate how his or her personal faith beliefs are going to inform and impact their leadership. The last person I want to see inhabit the White House is a religious fanatic of any kind, whether he or she be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Mormon, or a secular atheist. What we believe does matter. The religious convictions of any presidential candidate deserve scrutiny. Indeed, I think very intense scrutiny is in order when and where there appears to be clash in values between what a candidate s professed religion expects and demands of him or her and the democratic principles embraced by our wider American culture which other faiths have already agreed to uphold. Of course, questions about personal faith are not only appropriate in a presidential race: they are also relevant in considering the credentials of every public office holder. Although I wouldn t argue for affirmative action on behalf of Protestants, I find it remarkable and a little concerning that not one United States Supreme Court justice today is a Protestant Christian. Instead, all of the current appointees to the nation s highest court are either Roman Catholic or Jewish. How can their religious identity not shape their judicial outlook to one extent or another? My hope is that each Supreme Court justice s commitment to the law will enable him or her to transcend any narrower religious bias in properly interpreting it for us all. All in all, I do think it is better that these justices and all other public office holders--are men and women of faith rather than people of no faith at all. Because as a Christian believer I generally find that I have more in common with a non-fanatical Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist than I do with someone who doesn t believe in God at all. Although we may look at faith somewhat differently, we still share a sense of ultimate accountability before a higher or greater power, which we as Christians experience as divine. This keeps us all modest and humble and more disposed to take a longer view of life and our purpose and place on earth, which I think is very important. We need to be careful that we do not lose sight of mutual affinities with people of other religions even in the face of real differences. Today, there are a lot of secularists who want to beat back religion all religion. They are calling for an even more radical separation between church and state, which they insist is mandated by our nation s founding documents, particularly

3 the U.S. Constitution. But in this call they are being dogmatic literalists who can t see the forest for the trees. They run rough-shod over the actual intentions of our nation s founders in establishing a separation of church and state. They also ignore the profound religiousness of the American people from the very get-go which helped shape the United States into the great nation it has become. Many of our nation s founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and even John Adams, were free thinkers not conventional Christians at all. Nevertheless, they still recognized and deeply appreciated the role which religious faith generally--and Protestant Christianity specifically--has in fostering private morality and encouraging public virtue. To be sure, our founders did not want to see one church, one sect, or one creed politically dominate America. That would have betrayed the struggle of the Pilgrims and many others on behalf of the cause of religious freedom. But the founders were not adverse to a devout religious citizenry able to exercise its faith thoughtfully and reasonably. Indeed, in their own speeches there was little, if any hesitation, about using God language or even invoking the authority of deity, represented by that famous phrase on our money, In God We Trust. In fact, just as our founders foresaw, religious conviction on the part of men and women of this nation has continued to make us a better people. For instance, the movement to abolish human slavery in early-to-mid-nineteenth century America was led by Protestant Christian ministers and laypeople. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who authored that great anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom s Cabin, was the sister of a leading Congregationalist minister, part of our own United Church of Christ heritage. Likewise, John Brown, the anti-slavery crusader, was also inspired by his Christian beliefs. More recently, in the twentieth century it was a Christian minister, Martin Luther King, who led the campaign for civil rights. For the famous March on Selma hundreds of Christian and Jewish clergy and lay leaders joined him too. America would not be worthy of its highest ideals today if religious people hadn t stood up to be counted on that occasion and at many other historic moments as well. Ultimately, then, every society needs a healthy interpenetration of the religious and the political in order to survive, thrive, and prosper. The conscience of a nation matters. Religion and religious faith help us individually and together cultivate a sense of conscience and a respect for conscience.

4 Perhaps one of the reasons why moral integrity is at such low ebb in America today is because religion and faith are being discounted and pushed out of the public square. Just a week and a half ago the Pew Research Center released their finding that there s been another big drop in the number of young people in America who even identify themselves as religious anymore. I ll wager this drop in religiosity brings with it a diminished sense of personal moral accountability. If we don t feel we have to answer to God anymore, what keeps folks feeling responsible for their own actions and deeds? The confusion and chaos of our national politics today can probably be attributed to the lack of common values that a shared religious perspective used to provide. Jesus once declared: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar s, and unto God what belongs to God. (Matthew 22:15-22) But his own life and ministry show that politics and religion can never be completed separated. Our religious beliefs have political implications. Our political stances have religious implications. Although we can say that Jesus was misunderstood because he actually taught that his kingdom was not of this world, he was, as most biblical scholars agree, crucified by Rome as a political revolutionary. (John 18:36) Both Roman and Jewish authorities believed that his moral and spiritual teachings were destabilizing the political status quo, threatening their own control and domination of Israel. Were they wrong? In our own time, faithful servants of Christ have also been accused politicizing religion. Just recently Pope Francis came in for this kind of criticism. In fact, one of the presidential candidates charged his Holiness with inserting himself into politics because of public statements on climate change, fed by his own concern about the impact of deep drought and violent storms upon the most vulnerable poor of the earth. Ironically, the same presidential candidate was not unhappy with Pope Francis when he spoke out against abortion! All too often, those who criticize religious leaders for veering into the political are woefully ignorant of the Bible. Did you know that imbedded in early Old Testament scripture is the vision and call for a Jubilee Year every fifty years when the land wealth of the nation will be equally redistributed to all? (Leviticus 25:8-54) Subsequently, a huge chunk of the Old Testament is devoted to the word of the prophets of Israel figures like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and

5 Micah. (Micah 6:6-8) Their role and responsibility was to speak God s truth to the power wielded by kings who often proved to be selfish and self-aggrandizing, exploiting the poor. Meanwhile, in the New Testament Jesus teaches us, beyond seeking our own heavenly salvation, to care and share with others on earth, upholding peace and justice. (Matthew 6:1-4, 19-21, 24-34) Some of the first Christians interpreted this to mean that they should share all possessions in common. (Acts 4:32-34) Still others believed that Jesus was calling upon them to renounce physical conflict and war for any reason. How more politically radical can you get? This complex prophetic tradition of the Old and New Testament rightly informs the preaching of the Christian churches. We may argue that the prophetic word of the Bible it doesn t suit our times and our needs today. We may say that the teachings of the prophets are impractical to follow. Even Jesus recognized that there are hard teachings in Old Testament scripture. (Matthew 19:23) Yet if we truly honor the Bible and our wider faith tradition we should at least respect those who are trying to live up to the sacred text, even if we as moderns honestly disagree with the particular interpretations and applications they espouse in light of conditions and circumstances today. As your pastor, I work hard to honor the line between what is truly religious and what is strictly political. When I speak from this pulpit I do my best to serve as your spiritual leader, helping to identify God s way for us all. At the same time, I am conscious that Jesus, who stands as model for my own ministry, always brought flesh-and-blood muscle to his own spiritual leadership. There was nothing wimpy about his commitment to what is loving and just and true to God-- as underscored in that moment when he overturned the tables of the money lenders and the pigeon-sellers in the outer precincts of the Great Jerusalem Temple. (Matthew 21:12-13) Our own church has always been a place where we are free to express sometimes different or divergent views about what it means to be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ and a servant of God s word. I regard my own ministry as part of two-directional conversation and dialogue between you and me.

6 Yet faith has to be more than just a conversation. It should give rise to action responsible, loving deeds. Because as James, Jesus own brother firmly put it, faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-16) Let us then do our best to always walk the talk of faith realizing that this sometimes means getting involved with what may look or sound political even though it is truly grounded and guided by our faith. In all that we say and do, may fidelity to Jesus Christ always come first. Amen.