Sunday, May 22, 2016

It's Complicated (A Sermon for Trinity Sunday)



Scriptures:       Proverbs 8:1-4, 22-31, Psalm 8      Romans 5:1-5, John 16:12-15

It’s Complicated!

An interesting exercise – think of the number of relationships that a single person, any one of us, can have.  For example, you know me as Pastor Dave, but my mom knows me, not as Pastor Dave, but as Dave her son.  My sister doesn’t call me pastor or son, but brother.  I have no children, but if I did, they’d call me dad.  My friends would consider me, not a pastor or a son or a brother or a father, but a friend.  The employees at my day job consider me a boss, or an employee, or a co-worker, depending on how they are situated.  Other pastors consider me a colleague.  And when my car breaks down and I pull into the shop for repairs, I’m a customer.  And, of course, in each of these relationships, I relate differently – the way I relate to my mother is surely different from the way I relate to, say, the guy at the garage or to my coworkers – or to you, for that matter.  And yet, while the relationships differ, I’m still one person.
Today is Trinity Sunday, when we speak of the ways in which God relates to Godself and to God’s people, and to creation.  In the grand words of our opening hymn, on Trinity Sunday we speak of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – or, in inclusive language, as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, as God above us, God beside us, and God within us, as “God in three persons, blessed Trinity.”  And this is not an easy doctrine to understand – to borrow the words of a relationship status sometimes seen on Facebook – “It’s complicated!”
It’s notable that the word “Trinity” itself appears nowhere in the Bible. The closest we get to the Trinity is at the end of Matthew’s gospel, when Jesus tells his followers to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”[1]  We also get some sense of the Trinity in John’s gospel, when Jesus, on one hand, makes such statements as “The Father and I are one”[2]  and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”[3], and on the other hand makes statements such as “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of everything I have said to you”[4] and “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.”[5]  So while it is firmly grounded in Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is of human origin, a human attempt to express something inexpressible about the nature and character of God.  The conception of God as Trinity is the main doctrine that divides Christians from Jews and Muslims – and for that matter from Unitarians, because while both Jews and Muslims agree with Christians that God is one, they do not believe that the one God exists in three persons.  While Jews and Muslims will make beautiful affirmations of Jesus as a rabbi, a great teacher, a mighty prophet, a healer – and he indeed was all these things – their beliefs do not put Jesus on the same level as God the Father.  
I began this sermon with a discussion of the many types of relations, or roles, any individual person may have, and many discussions of the Trinity begin in this way as well.  God relates to us in at least three ways, as Father or Creator, as Son or Redeemer, as Spirit or Sustainer. More recently, some traditions have named the Trinity as Earth-Maker, Pain-Bearer, and Life-Giver – the Father, who created the earth, the Son, who carried the pain of the world to the cross, and the Spirit, the Life-giver, who sustains us day by day.
So the doctrine of the Trinity gives us three ways in which the one God relates to us.  But I believe the doctrine invites us to go even deeper – because we describe God not as one God with three functions, but one God in three persons.  According to the traditional language, the relationship of the three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is described as perichoresis – a Greek word meaning “dancing around” – so we can think of a divine dance of self-giving from one person of the trinity to the others,  into which Jesus, the Son, invites all of us to participate.  Or, to use a slightly different metaphor, from Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century, it is the Father who kisses the Son, the Son who is kissed by the Father – and the kiss itself is the Spirit.
All of this sounds pretty heady, sounds like a theological head-trip.  But beyond the specifics of how various Christians in centuries past described the Trinity – bottom line, what I think the doctrine is saying is that relationship, and relatedness – specifically, a relationship of self-giving love -  is at the heart of the character of God. 
Relatedness, relationship, relating to others, connecting to others, self-giving love for others -  is at the heart of the character of God.  And if we are made in the image of God – this means that relatedness, relationship, relating to others, connecting to others emotionally and spiritually, living a life of self-giving love for others - is at the heart of what it means to be truly human.  Now granted, some of us are more outgoing than others -  some of us are introverts while others are extroverts – for me, as outgoing as I may seem occasionally, small talk and keeping up casual conversations is a major effort, draining far more energy from me than it should, which is why I often spend my Sunday afternoons in bed – it’s the one time of the week when I don’t have to be at my day job, don’t have to be thinking about Sunday’s sermon – basically, the one time of the week when there are no expectations on me.  And that’s all a part of normal human variability – some folks are chatty and outgoing, drawing energy from interacting with others, while some, like me, just aren’t.
So some of us are more naturally outgoing than others – but so long as we’re managing to connect in a loving, self-giving way to others, we’re acting as persons made in God’s image.  When relationships become broken and twisted, or when we isolate ourselves, or when we feel so self-sufficient that we don’t need to concern ourselves with others – this is when we stray from God’s intent for us, when we stray from the self-giving to others that is at the heart of the character of God, and thus at the heart of what God intends for us.  
A while back, I went to tour Eastern State Penitentiary, the old decaying ruin of a prison up on Fairmount Avenue.  As the tour guide discussed the design of the prison, such as the wings of the prison that were all visible from a central location, it was also mentioned that, at least in the early years of the prison, inmates were kept in solitary confinement.  The thought was that if prisoners were isolated and given time to repent for their crimes, they could be reformed.  What happened, instead, is that the prisoners in solitary confinement often went insane. ...as often happens to modern-day inmates subjected to long periods of solitary confinement.  As human beings created in God’s image, we are wired for relationship, for connectedness – and if all connection from others is removed, our minds and spirits implode.  The creators of Eastern State Penitentiary, in their religious zeal to inspire repentance, forgot the words of Genesis 2:18 – “It is not good that man should be alone.”
As Jesus was speaking to his disciples at the Last Supper, he told them he was going away – but he said he was not leaving them orphaned, not abandoning them.   And so Jesus said, “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  When the Spirit of truth comes” – which we understand to be the Holy Spirit – “he will guide you into all the truth.”  Jesus was telling them that even though he was going away, he was not cutting off contact, not ending the relationship.  The relationship would be continued through the work of the Holy Spirit, who would remind the disciples of all that Jesus had said and done and taught. There were things that Jesus wanted to tell the disciples, but they weren’t able to bear them – but through the work of the Holy Spirit, the conversation would continue, and the relationship would continue.
Similarly, Paul in his letter to Romans writes, “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing in the glory of God.”  Peace, access, hope, sharing – these are words of relationship.  We are not saved through isolation, but through relationship with God, through which God leads us back into right relationship with our fellow human beings. 
The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of relationship – a doctrine that says that since God lives in a state of constant relationship, and we are created in God’s image, we too are made for relationship.  Our culture calls us to rugged individualism, but our God calls us to community.  May our lives at all times reflect the self-giving love of God.  May we live and die surrounded and filled with God’s self-giving love, and may we share that self-giving love with our neighbors who are starving for a word of good news.  Amen.


[1] Matthew 28:19-20
[2] John 10:30
[3] John 14:9
[4] John 14:26
[5] John 15:26
 

Who Is Welcome At The Table - Pastor's Message for May-June 2016 Newsletter



Dear Emanuel Members and Friends –

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.  So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation.” (I Corinthians 11:23-34)
“Who is welcome at the Lord’s table?”  Throughout Christian history, this simple question has been a source of great controversy and division.  It is a sad and bitter irony that a sacramental meal intended by Jesus to bring believers together in His name has throughout this history of the church been twisted by human sin into yet one more excuse to drive believers apart.

Christian denominations vary greatly in their discernment of who is welcome at the table.  Some practice what is called “closed communion”; that is, only members of that denomination are welcome at the Table. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, along with some of the more conservative Lutheran denominations (such as the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod) practice closed communion.  For example, only Roman Catholics are permitted to take the Eucharist in Roman Catholic churches, and, conversely, Roman Catholics are not permitted to receive communion in non-Catholic churches.  Some groups, such as the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, restrict communion even further, to members in good standing of the specific congregation.  In the past (perhaps in the present as well), Scottish Calvinist congregations required those seeking a place at the table to show a “communion token” (received upon passing a religious test) to prove themselves worthy. 

By contrast, the United Church of Christ, along with the majority of Protestant Churches, practice “open communion”.  Churches practicing “open communion” express the invitation to the table in various ways, such as by saying “All Christians who wish to know Christ’s presence and share in the community of God’s people are welcome” or “All seeking a closer relationship with Jesus Christ are welcome at the table.”  It should be said that even “open communion” does not mean “anything goes”: as the Heidelberg Catechism (the basis of religious instruction for our longtime members) stated, “Question 81: Who should come to the table of the Lord?:  Those who are dissatisfied with themselves for their sins, and yet trust that these sins have been forgiven them and that their remaining weakness is covered by the passion and death of Christ, and who desire more and more to strengthen their faith and amend their lives.  But the impenitent and the hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.” (Please note that while the United Church of Christ no longer uses the Heidelberg Catechism as an instructional guide, the Heidelberg Catechism is part of the history of our UCC tradition, and guided the Evangelical & Reformed tradition in which Emanuel Church is deeply rooted.)

The varying practices among Christians as to who is invited to the table are grounded in differing interpretations of the passage above from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth.   Based on this passage, in some denominations (particularly those who practice closed communion)  those of other denominations, those who have committed what is deemed “mortal sin” and, in some traditions, children who have not yet been confirmed, are barred from the table based on the words in the passage about “eating and drinking in an unworthy manner”.  (For example, my late father’s second wife, a devout Roman Catholic, considered herself barred from communion in her church because of her marriage to my father, at least for the length of their marriage.)  As the passage above states, “All who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves” – a sobering thought which may bring us up short. 

But against whom was Paul writing when he wrote of those who “eat and drink without discerning the body” and thus “eat and drink judgment against themselves”?   Whom did Paul have in mind when he wrote these disturbing words?  Let’s listen in on Paul’s description of communion, Corinthian-style:

“Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you! (I Corinthians 11:17-22)

Unlike the modern practice of communion in most churches, in the days of the early church, communion was taken in the context of a full community meal – perhaps similar to a potluck.  Table fellowship – that is to say, eating shared meals together - was an important and distinguishing practice of the Christian church from its earliest origins. The intent was a full sharing of available food and drink among all members of the community, so that all would be satisfied and none would go away hungry.  However, in the Corinthian church, the sense of community and caring among the members of the church had broken down to such an extent that at celebrations of communion, the wealthy stuffed themselves and got drunk, while the poor went away as hungry and thirsty as they had arrived.  In this manner, the wealthy, self-centered members of the Corinthian church, in effect, turned the table of the Lord into a toga party.  Paul heard of his, and understandably was sore displeased. Paul evidently wanted either that everybody should share in the community meal, or, if everybody could not eat, then there should be no community meal at all – and by and large, the church seems to have taken the second option.  To “eat and drink unworthily, not discerning the body” meant not only a failure to see the body and blood of Christ in the shared bread and wine, but also a failure to recognize others at the table (particularly the poor who could not afford to bring food) as equal members of the body of Christ.  To approach the communion table seeing others at the table as less worthy than us, as less than us as members of the body of Christ, is to risk “eating and drinking, failing to discern the body” – because the others at the table are members of the body of Christ on the same basis as we are – on the basis of divine grace through the saving work of Jesus Christ.    

How about children?  At what age should children approach the table?  Practices vary widely (and wildly) across the different Christian denominations.   The Last Supper, at which Jesus asked his followers to eat broken bread and drink wine in remembrance of him, was a Passover meal, at which children were welcome. In the early church, children and adults were likewise welcome at the communion table.[1]  The Eastern Orthodox Churches still allow baptized children and even infants within their churches to take communion. Oddly enough, some ultra-conservative Reformed traditions, such as the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, some of whose congregations use the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Christian Reformed Church[2] practice (or have returned to practicing) infant communion for infant members of their congregations. The Roman Catholic Church requires children to be confirmed prior to receiving communion – but Roman Catholic children are confirmed at age 8, much earlier than most Protestant Churches, a recognition that children of that age are entirely capable both of faith and of adequate understanding of the sacrament.  In years past, in most mainline protestant churches (including the Evangelical & Reformed Church, the tradition from which our church came), children did not take communion prior to confirmation, which took place at roughly age 12-13.  In recent decades, though, in mainline Protestant churches (including the vast majority of UCC churches), there’s a strong trend toward opening the table to children –at the very least, to older children, perhaps age 7 or 8 upward - often relying on the judgment of their parents as to whether their children have the capacity to understand on some level what is going on at the table.  Martin Luther, in his rejection of infant communion, stated not that it was evil, but that it was unnecessary, because he felt that children were automatically under God’s grace until they reached the age of reason, and therefore did not need communion.  At the same time, he acknowledged that infant communion was a tradition of long standing, dating back to the earliest days of the church.[3]

There’s nothing explicit in Scripture, the Apostles or Nicene Creed or (to my knowledge) in the Heidelberg Catechism barring children from the table prior to confirmation. The exclusion of children from the communion table prior to confirmation at age 12 or 13 is a tradition within some Reformed traditions dating perhaps from the 19th century – but the much older tradition of the wider church, dating back nearly 2,000  years to the time of the apostles, is to include children in communion.   My personal perspective as pastor:  I believe it is important that all who approach the table, of whatever age and mental capacity, recognize on some level the symbolism of the bread and wine/grape juice representing the body and blood of Christ.   The bread and wine are a sacrament of the church instituted by Jesus himself - not a snack pack.  Infants and very young children not yet capable of understanding are still invited to approach the table and can (on their request or request of parents) receive laying on of hands and a prayer of blessing.  I believe parents have an important role, regardless of whether or not they bring their children to the table, to instruct their children on the meaning of communion.  On the other hand, I believe these words from Mark’s gospel (echoed as well in Matthew’s gospel) give us important guidance as to “what would Jesus do” regarding the participation of children in church life, including communion:

Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray.  The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them, but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for to such as these the kingdom of heaven belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.’” (Mark 10:13-15, similarly stated in Matthew 19:13-15)

See you in church – Pastor Dave     


[1] For example, see, “The History of Paedo-Communion from the Early Church until 1500”  www.reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.html
[2] https://www.crcna.org/FaithFormation/toolkits/welcoming-children-lords-supper/wondering-about-sacraments-children
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_communion

Spirits (A Sermon for Pentecost)



Scriptures:     Acts 2:1-21,  Psalm 104:24-34,     Romans 8:14-17    John 14:8-17
 

Today is Pentecost, when according to Luke’s account in the book of Acts, 50 days after the resurrection, the Holy Spirit came like the rush of a mighty wind, and like divided flames of fire on the head of each of the apostles.  Jewish believers and converts from all over the known world were present, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the apostles spoke in the languages of all those present, so that each one present heard the good news of Jesus in his or her own language.  Pentecost is also known as the birthday of the church, because it was on this day, with the coming of the spirit, that what had been a disorganized band of dispirited disciples became a mighty witness to the goodness of God.
Usually on Pentecost – originally a Jewish festival commemorating the giving of the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and now celebrated by Christians as commemorating the giving of the Holy Spirit – the law of love written on the hearts of believers -  to the early followers of Jesus – we focus on the account in Acts, on the gathered crowd of Jewish believers and converts from all over the known world, on the spirit coming like the rush of a mighty wind, on the appearance of divided tongues of fire on the heads of the apostles, on the apostles proclaiming the good news of Jesus in the many languages of those gathered there that day.  It’s an amazing account – in effect, like the Tower of Babel story in reverse – at the Tower of Babel, God confused the languages of those who were trying to rebel against God, while on Pentecost, people of many languages heard the good news in all their many and varied languages. The Tower of Babel was an occasion of division and scattering; the day of Pentecost was a day of gathering and mutual understanding.
I think it’s natural to focus on the sound and light show, on the special effects described by Luke to identify this moment as something beyond everyday human experience.  But for this moment I’d like to focus, not on the special effects of that particular day, but the ongoing effects of that day in the life of the believers.  And so I’d like to read again these words from Paul’s letter to the Romans:
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him”.
Paul describes the Holy Spirit as “a spirit of adoption”, which he contrasts with a spirit of slavery and fear.  For Paul, a spirit of slavery and fear is our “default setting”, our normal existence, unless the Holy Spirit steps in to free us and give us the spirit of adoption instead.
Frank Herbert’s 1984 movie “Dune” contains the following lines: “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.”  There is truth in these words.  Fear can be a useful emotion, a rational response to potential danger. If I see a dog lurching toward me, mouth frothing from rabies, guess what, I’m not gonna run up and pet it.   Sometimes fear and avoidance are rational responses.  But fear is a powerful emotion that we can misuse, or that others can misuse to control us. And so words such as “do not fear” and “do not be afraid” appear over and over throughout the Bible, Old and New Testament, Genesis to Revelation.   (There’s an internet meme that says that the words “fear not” appear 365 times in the Bible, one for each day of the year…I’ve done a few quick online searches and don’t come up with that number, and so once again you can’t take everything you read on the internet as gospel truth, but even though the math may not add up, there’s still a valid point:  the words “fear not” or similar words pop up in the Bible plenty often.)  When there are encounters between humans and angels or between humans and God, often the first words spoken by the angel or by God are “Do not be afraid”.  In Genesis, when God appeared to Abram, God said, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield.”[1]  At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.”[2]  In the book of Revelation, when John had his vision of the Son of Man exalted in glory and nearly passed out from terror, we’re told that “He laid his right hand upon me” – that is, upon John – “saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the living one.  I was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”[3] If I heard those words, I’d probably be more terrified than ever…unless I come to trust the One who holds the keys.  If I trust the one who holds the keys, I have nothing to fear.
“Fear is the mind-killer.”  Indeed, fear has the power to destroy our powers of rational thought, if we let it.  Fear has the power to make us give over control of our lives to others, if we let it.   A fearful person is a puppet lying around waiting for others to pull its strings.  Truly, the person with the power to make us afraid is the person who has the power to manipulate us and control us.  Let me repeat that, because it’s important:  The person we allow to make us afraid is the person we allow to control us. Throughout religious history, religious leaders – or rather religious misleaders – have used fear – fear of eternal torment, fear of separation from God – to manipulate their followers into giving over their money, their time, even their lives, to the control of the leader.  Religious cults win over their followers by isolating them from their families and friends, and then making their followers fear the consequences of leaving the cult – “If you leave us, the leader won’t love you anymore. If you leave us, God won’t love you anymore.”  Or sometimes the threat is more down to earth – “If you leave us, we’ll send people to hunt you down and hurt you, make you lose your job, attack your family, maybe even kill you.”
It isn’t just toxic religious groups that use fear to manipulate their followers.  Politicians use fear all the time to gain votes.  All the time!  Those of you alive in the 1950’s remember the McCarthy era, the Red Scare, when people were looking for so-called “godless communists” under their beds. Now, when I look under my bed, I find dust bunnies, but apparently looking under your bed for communists was quite the hobby in the 1950’s.  Careers and lives were ruined as a result.  With the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s and communists no longer available as a bogeyman, politicians have whipped up fears of different targets:  fears of blacks, fears of gays, fears of immigrants, fears of Muslims, fears of transgendered persons, on and on and on some more, to the point of nausea….   Meanwhile, off camera, these fearmongering politicians laugh at us, as they laugh all the way to the bank with campaign contributions stoked by fear.  It’s a great racket – scare voters silly and watch the dollars roll in.  And in most elections, the majority of political ads are what are called “negative ads” – that is to say, ads based on fear.  More money is spent trying to make voters fear the opposing candidate than to say positive things about their own candidate.  The effect of such political advertising is to make people stay home, so that turnout in our elections becomes increasingly pathetic with every year, and our political leadership is being selected by an increasingly small sliver of the populace.  Especially in off-year elections, the candidate of choice for most people is “none of the above”.
We can do better than this.  God does not intend for God’s people to live in fear.  I John 4:18 states, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears is not perfect in love.”  And I think this sheds some light on what Paul meant by “the spirit of adoption”.  Through the work of Jesus, God adopted us because God loves us.  Because God loves us, we don’t have to cower in terror before the powers that be.  Because God loves us, we can have confidence that, in our trials, God will be with us.
There will be trials.  Let’s hear these words from Paul again:  When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him”.  We’re quick to claim the good stuff – “children of God, and if children then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” – and we like the phrase “so that we may also be glorified with him” but want to wish away the phrase: “if, in fact, we suffer with him.”  Jesus did not promise that his followers – that we - would not suffer, but rather than the Holy Spirit would be with us in our sufferings.  What the Holy Spirit does is cast out the spirit of slavery to fear, help us get past our fear of suffering so that we can follow where Jesus leads.  Often the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself.  If we follow Jesus, truly take his teachings seriously, we will be out of step with those around us.  And as a result of being out of step, there will be a price to pay – at the very least, loss of popularity, loss of respectability – “respectability” itself can be an idol, a false god, if the fear of losing it keeps us from following where Jesus leads, and following Christ may force us to lose respectability in the eyes of the world, as we become “fools for Christ”.[4]  And at the most, in some countries, following in the way of Jesus can lead to imprisonment and death.   And make no mistake: Christians can be arrested even in this country, if their beliefs – if our beliefs - lead them and us to oppose the powers that be.  But we can have confidence that Jesus will be with us; as Paul wrote, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ”[5]
I want to say one more word about the spirit of slavery to fear from which the Holy Spirit would lead us.  The Holy Spirit, the spirit of adoption, seeks to cast out our fear of others.  That same spirit also seeks to cast out from us the kind of dominating, bullying spirit that would seek to cause fear in others.  Whether it’s bullying on the playground or bullying from the pulpit, it doesn’t come from God.   It is people who are insecure, people who feel something lacking within themselves, who feel they have to prove their power by dominating others.  People with the Holy Spirit, the spirit of adoption within them – people who are confident in God’s love – people who are confident, period, don’t need to try to impress the people around them by bullying or beating up on those they consider “less than”.  Indeed, Jesus said that our lives will be judged by what we did to help the least of our sisters and brothers, not by what we do to terrorize them – because whatsoever we do to the poorest and weakest of our sisters and brothers – for good or for bad – we do to Jesus.
Tony Campolo is emeritus professor of sociology at Eastern University – located right here in Philly - and an  American Baptist pastor.   Tony Campolo is invited to speak at religious gatherings across the country, and in his talks often recounts a tale from his high school days.  He tells of a classmate named Roger, who was gay. Campolo is now in his early 80’s, and so we can only imagine the abuse his classmate Roger would have faced as a gay teen in high school some 65 years ago, back in the early 1950’s, when gay and lesbian adults were being fired from jobs, evicted from apartments, and even arrested.  On one fateful day, Roger was cornered in a locker room by a number of bullying classmates, who urinated on him.  No doubt they went home from school congratulating themselves on having carried off a fun prank.   Roger also went home from school that day, and after he got home, he committed suicide by hanging himself.  Campolo writes of his reaction at the time: “I knew I wasn’t a Christian.  If I was a Christian, I would have defended Roger.”  Even in his teens, Campolo knew his Christian duty was to defend Roger, not to stand by and let abuse happen – and he knew he’d failed.  Almost 70 years later, Campolo is still carrying that awful memory of bullying – not even bullying that he himself did, but bullying by others that he had failed to prevent.  Almost 70 years later, Campolo is speaking out, telling of the bullying and suicide of his long-ago classmate Roger, and trying to prevent the bullying and suicide of present-day Rogers. 
“Fear is the mind-killer.”  Whether we are dominated by fear, or whether we use fear to try to dominate and bully others, our mind are not right and our hearts are not right with God.  May we live, not as slaves to fear, nor as bullies seeking to enslave others by fear, but as believers filled with the Holy Spirit, the spirit of adoption, confident in God’s love for us; indeed confident enough in God’s love that we are willing to risk inconvenience, unpopularity, loss of respectability, even suffering, to follow in the way of Jesus, and to love and serve those whom Jesus lead us.  Where Christ leads, may we follow, confident of God’s love for us, and confident of God’s call for us to invite others to experience God’s love.  Amen.


[1] Genesis 15:1                                                                                               
[2] John 14:27
[3] Revelation 1:17-18
[4] I Corinthians 4:10
[5] Philippians 3:8