Temptation -- a Lectionary Meditation

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7



Romans 5:12-19


Matthew 4:1-11

Temptation

“There are several good protections against temptation, but the surest is cowardice.” (Mark Twain)

Two stories of temptation lead off the Lenten journey, reminding us that temptation is an ever present challenge. Though, as Mark Twain notes, there are ways of dealing with temptation, the most effective being – run for the hills! Or better yet, never take risks, and you’ll not have to deal with problems such as this. But if we want to live fully and put ourselves in a position to grow and mature in our faith, then we must face the prospect of falling prey to temptation. It is, in fact, the central theme of the biblical story. Richard Rohr writes:

It is not that suffering or failure might happen, or that it will only happen to you if you are bad (which is what religious people often think), or that it will happen to the unfortunate, or to a few in other places, or that you can somehow by cleverness or righteousness avoid it. No, it will happen, and to you! Losing, failing, falling, sin, and the suffering that comes those experiences – all of this is a necessary and even good part of the human journey. [Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, (Jossey Bass, proof copy), p. xxii]

It is important that as we take in these stories that we not forget that falling down is part of the journey, but growth comes as we get up and move forward in the presence of God. In this week’s lectionary readings there are two stories of temptation – one referring to Adam and Eve and the other to Jesus. In the middle we come across Paul’s meditation on sin and redemption – through one man sin comes into the world, through the second man its effects are overcome. In Genesis God puts a tree into the middle of the garden and says – don’t eat or you’ll die. In Matthew, Jesus is baptized by John and then is immediately driven into the Wilderness by the Spirit so that he might be tested. Are we ready to be tested? That is the question.

In the first story God puts a man in the garden and tells him to till it and tend to it. He can eat of all the trees in the garden, except one, and if he eats of this Tree of Knowledge he’ll most assuredly die – though Genesis doesn’t tell us how this will occur (Gen. 2:15-17). But, as you read this warning, you have to know that something untoward is going to happen. You can’t put a tree in the middle of the garden that has really good looking fruit on it and then say – don’t eat. You know he’ll eventually bite into the fruit. With this warning in place, the lectionary guides have us skip over the section where God creates the woman as the man’s companion, and takes us to the encounter between the woman and the Serpent, who according to the writer of this text is the craftiest of God’s creations. Note here that the reference isn’t to the devil, though later interpretive tradition will make this connection. The Serpent says to the woman: “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?” Of course, God didn’t say anything of the sort. God said you have all that you need, so stay away from that tree in the middle of the garden. If you eat it, you will die. The woman knows the truth and responds accordingly. But the key to the discussion is the suggestion by the Serpent that the reason God doesn’t want them to eat of the fruit is that upon eating it they will be like God, knowing both good and evil. The Serpent promised wisdom, but God asked for trust, trust that was quickly broken. And upon eating the fruit, the eyes of both are opened and they discover that they are naked, and so they cover themselves with fig leaves. Yes, shame enters the picture and the two whom God created to be companions are now alienated from each other. And as the story goes on, they hide even from God, suggesting that alienation from God had also crept into the picture. While we talk about sin here, the real issue is one of broken trust. But, as Rohr points out – that is part of life. The question is – how will we respond to the realities. Will we get back up and seek reconciliation? Will we allow that original trust to be restored?

Before we turn to Matthew’s temptation story, we turn to Romans 5, where Paul talks about the consequences of the man’s transgressions. Although the woman is often blamed for the Fall, Paul is of the mind (maybe it’s his chauvinism) that the man is responsible. Of course, Paul is also concerned about creating a parallel situation. Adam is seen as the one who breaks trust with God, and therefore allows for sin and death to enter the picture. The passage opens with one of the most pregnant verses in the New Testament. Taken literally it seems to give support to the doctrine of original sin. Paul writes that it was through a man (Adam) that death came into the world because of sin, and death spread to all humanity because all sinned. Paul is reaching back to Genesis 2-3, and offers his explanation as to why sin is so prevalent and why death is experienced by all. Because of Adam we all die, and the culprit has traditionally been seen as original sin. We sin because of Adam and we die because of him. It seems so genetic, but not so fast. Note that Paul says that death spread to all because all sinned, not because the man sinned. Sin was present since the beginning of human history – that is the implication of the text, and it has had devastating effects. It is also clear that sin is not simply disobedience of the Law, because sin and death existed prior to Moses.

The key point in all of this is the role that Adam (the man) plays in the story. Paul says that Adam is the type of the one to come. And while sin and death was introduced into the world through the actions of the first man, through the work of the second Adam (Christ) comes grace. Thus, if many die because of the first man’s sin (setting the world in motion toward disobedience), so in the second Adam’s obedience this is turned around. In a statement that almost sounds universalist in intent, Paul says that “because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through one man, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:17). We must face the reality of sin – however it may have come into the world – but the good news is that in Christ its effects have been overturned. Forgiveness is ours.

When we read Matthew’s Temptation story, it’s easy for us to discount the threat to Jesus’ identity. We just assume, or at least many assume, that Jesus is divine and therefore there’s really nothing to be concerned about. It’s all just a test, to which all the answers have already been given. There’s really no chance that Jesus would actually have failed or fallen. But if we take such a view. If there’s nothing really at risk in the incarnation, then what’s the point? Is it a mere exercise for our enjoyment? Is the devil too stupid to know that Jesus couldn’t fall, so God was having a good laugh? If these tests are real and God’s purpose could have been thwarted, then Jesus is – in Paul’s terms – the Second Adam. In his obedience he shows us the way to rebuild trust; how to walk in righteousness. But as the story goes, the devil gave it his best shot, but it wasn’t good enough. The temptations were truly seductive. Bread to end hunger; a spectacle to draw followers; rule over the world in exchange for a small bow. And yet in each case, Jesus stood strong in the Spirit. Jesus chooses to live by the words that come from the mouth of God; chooses not to put God to the test; and Jesus chose to worship God and not the devil. In the end the devil goes away, and the famished savior is tended to by the angels. It is in the obedience of the Second Adam that the disobedience of the First Adam is reversed. But obedience is more than playing it safe. Obedience involves taking necessary risks so that one might grow in faith and practice.

Temptation is part of life. We will fall, lest we believe that perfection is something to be guarded to such an extent that we’re not willing to live life in the presence of God. That is not, I believe, what God calls for us to do. It is in reality the way of death and not life. Let us then pursue God’s purpose for our lives, by living boldly in the world.

What's With Evolution Sunday? A Sermon

I have been trying to observe Evolution Sunday/Weekend for several years, probably from the very beginning.  This year I'm not going to focus on the faith and science issue in my sermon, but because I believe this is such an important issue I'd like to share one from an earlier year, one that lifts up the issue.  Perhaps it will prove helpful as you wrestle with these two very important issues.

***************************

What’s With Evolution Sunday?

Genesis 1:1-5

Everybody loves dinosaurs, especially young kids. From Barney the purple T-Rex to Little Foot and his friends, dinosaurs tickle their fancy. Discovery Channel, PBS, the History Channel, all air programs that tell dinosaur stories. Then there is the Jurassic Park franchise, which was a mega-hit.

I remember my visit to Dinosaur National Monument when I was about seven. I can still remember the great wall of fossils being excavated. Brett loved the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. It didn’t have a T-Rex, but it did have a big reptilian-like fish that swam the sea covering Kansas millions of years ago. With so much interest in prehistoric life, it seems odd that nearly half of Americans reject the science that explains the very things that fascinate us. For many people, science is either the enemy of faith or it is redefined in a way that fits a so-called biblical time-line.

Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, appeared a century-and-a-half ago, offering natural selection as the theory to explain how things came to be. Theories of evolution have been around for centuries, but Darwin’s theory revolutionized the study of human origins and development. He helped explain why there is so much diversity in earth’s flora and fauna, and we’re still discovering new species deep within jungles, caves and oceans.

Now, not everyone liked Darwin’s solution, mainly because it seemed to conflict with the Bible. The choice was simple, Darwin or God. Of course, this wasn’t the first time that science and the Bible had come into conflict. St. Augustine turned to allegory to explain Genesis because it seemed to conflict with the science of his day. Galileo’s telescope proved controversial, because his discoveries seemed to contradict the Bible. Despite the objections of some Christians, many other Christians have found ways of “adapting” to Darwin.

So, What’s Evolution Sunday?

You won’t find Evolution Sunday in the church’s annual planning guide, but with the ongoing debate about intelligent design, creationism, and evolution, it seemed like an appropriate topic to consider. While it’s not an official religious event, more than 400 congregations from around the country are observing it, and we’re one of them. Evolution Sunday is an expression of the Clergy Letter Project started by a biology professor from Wisconsin. After becoming involved in this debate, he decided to work on building a bridge between science and Christians. More than 10,000 clergy from across the country have signed his “Open Letter on Religion and Science,” and I’m one of them. You will find a copy of this letter in your bulletin today and there is more information on the web.

We’re observing this event today because I’m concerned about the growing debate over science and religion. The divide between the two communities is widening every day, and we live at a time when we need science to help solve a whole host of questions and problems. We also need the moral and ethical input of faith to help guide our use of new technology. As this debate grows louder, fewer young people are entering the sciences. I think there is a correlation between the growing rejection of evolution and these trends. There is another problem. By rejecting mainstream science, many Christians have made Christianity seem unreasonable and anti-intellectual. That’s too bad, because it puts an unnecessary barrier to the hearing of the gospel.

What Does Science Say?

I’m not a scientist, but I do read, and I’m the curious sort, so I’ve looked into the issue. I may not understand all the details, but I get the gist of it. Science says that the universe is very old. Some say it started with a bang and others say it’s always been there, only it’s changed a bit over time. When it comes to humans, science says that we developed over millions of years from a very primitive ancestor. Some people don’t like this. I guess they don’t like having an ape in the family tree, plus it seems to conflict with Genesis.

The problem is, there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution’s claims. There have been many challenges to aspects of the theory, but none have replaced it. The piece of evidence that I find most convincing is one that affects our daily lives. Evolution lets medical researchers use animals, like mice and chimps to test medicines that save human lives. These tests wouldn’t work if we didn’t all share some common DNA. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but it supports his theory. So, if you like modern medicine, you’ve got to like evolution.

What Does the Bible Say?

How do we reconcile the facts of science with our faith and our reading of Scripture? Do we have to choose between God and science? Genesis says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and it uses a six-day pattern to describe the creative acts. Finally, on the seventh day God rested. There is a constant refrain in Genesis 1 that seems important. That refrain is: “It is good.” This passage suggests that human beings are created in the image of God, but what does this mean? Does it mean that we look like God? Does it mean that we share God’s intellect? Or does it mean that we serve as God’s icons or representatives in creation? These are good questions.

Then there is the question of how we read we read Genesis 1-2. Must we read Genesis as a scientifically and historically accurate narrative to be true to its intent? Or, should we read these creation stories as a theological statement? When I read the opening chapters of Genesis, I don’t find answers to scientific questions. That’s because the writers and the recipients weren’t asking scientific questions. What Genesis does is challenge another creation story, the Babylonian one. In that story God isn’t the creator, the creation is God. In fact, in this story, the sun, the moon, the earth, and the sea are different gods, and these gods aren’t necessarily good. While the Babylonian story instills fear, Genesis calls for praise and adoration.

So, here we are on Evolution Sunday. We have a choice, we can build a wall between faith and science, or we can build a bridge. I think building a bridge would be more productive, because it will lead us to giving praise to God. In the mean time, let us rejoice because the “heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).

 

Preached at First Christian Church of Lompoc

Genesis for Everyone Parts One and Two -- Review

GENESIS FOR EVERYONE: Part One, Chapters 1-16. By John Goldingay. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. 197 pp. GENESIS FOR EVERYONE: Part Two, Chapters 17-50. By John Goldingay. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 186 pp.

Genesis is the beginning of the story, starting creation and moving toward the creation of a people called Israel. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah and Rachel, and Joseph and brothers, these are the foundational stories, but the distance between that book and our day is quite wide and thus we need good and helpful guides. John Goldingay, David Hubbard Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, seeks to offer us that guide.

The title of the book defines the audience quite well. This a set of commentaries – two in all – that focus on Genesis, written with a broad set of readers in mind. It doesn’t presuppose any expertise in the Bible, even providing at the end of each volume a glossary of words that might need some defining. A similar set of commentaries on the New Testament is being written by N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham.

In style and scope these commentaries remind this reader of William Barclay’s Daily Bible Study series that Westminster Press published a generation earlier. The difference in these two approaches is that while Barclay tended toward historical and cultural analogies, Goldingay largely integrates his commentary with stories from his life – family, friends, students. Each set of passages is usually introduced with a story from life, drawing the reader into the ancient story through the modern one. Whether that is helpful, only the reader can decide.

In terms of approach to the text, Goldingay is a scholarly British evangelical. He views the text as divinely inspired and guided, but that doesn’t mean that he takes the text with wooden literalness. He recognizes that the text Genesis came into existence over time, at the hand of multiple authors, though he doesn’t go into any detail as to the nature of that process. Indeed, he doesn’t deal with traditional authorship questions – JEDP. One would assume that the author doesn’t believe that such a discussion would further the conversation about interpreting the text at hand. Suffice it to say that God was involved and that the number of authors was several.

Goldingay sees history in the Genesis account, but he also sees parables. He likes the word parable rather than myth, due to the way many use the word myth (in a negative fashion). As he reads the text, he’ll suggest where the story is moving into the realm of history or the realm of parables, recognizing that often there is a gray area. Genesis 1 and 2 and the story of Noah, they are much more likely to be parabolic, stories that teach us about God and our relationship to God. As we get toward Abraham and the stories that follow, they are more in the realm of history, though even here there is some room to maneuver.

With regard to Genesis 1, which is often at the center of debate, he writes:

God did not design Genesis 1 to tell us what a camera would have caught if it had been present to film creation. Faulting it for failing to do so misses the point, and defending it to show that it does do so also misses the point. We have no need to try to show that science is wrong and that actually the world was created in six days, just a few thousand years ago. Equally we have no need to try to conform the "facts" of Genesis with science, for instance, by suggesting that a "day" in Genesis need not mean twenty-four hours but could cover a longer period (1:27-28).

To try to make the biblical text conform to science, or the reverse, simply misses the point that the text (and God) intend to make. The point he wants to get across is that this text has meaning for us, in our day.

If we needn’t be concerned about history and science in Genesis 1 and 2, which he sees as being a historical parable. To say this doesn’t mean that it’s not true, only that the truth is carried in a picture. But as we move along there is a movement, around Genesis 11 and 12, where parable begins to merge and then give way to history. But again, the point is not the historicity, but the story of God’s desire to reconcile and bless the world that God created (and recreated after the days of Noah). Of Abraham, he writes that here the story becomes more about real people and real places. He notes that the scholarly consensus has moved back and forth as to whether Abraham existed, so it’s wise he says, not to “hitch one’s wagon too firmly to whatever is the current scholarly consensus. Ultimately, he suggested that there will never be the kind of historical evidence that can make for “definitive judgments” (1:141). But, Goldingay sees in the way the story progresses signs that it is more than a parable.

Goldingay is open and yet cautious. Yes, I would use the word cautious rather than conservative. He seeks to anchor his commentary in the scholarly mainstream, but doesn’t push the envelope too far. There are not many surprises to be found here, but then this is written not for scholars but for lay people seeking to understand an ancient text so that they might find instruction for the faith.

On a personal level, I was interested in seeing how he handled the Sodom and Gomorrah story. He starts out his comments with an acknowledgment that this text stands at the center of contemporary debates. He writes about friendships with homosexuals, and recognizes their humanity and decency. As to where he stands on the issue, he writes:

I don’t take the view that same-sex relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships, but neither do I think they are inherently more terrible than various other ways of falling short of God’s vision for sexual relationships (2:27).

With that introduction to his own sensibilities, he goes on to say that this passage doesn’t speak to the nature of same-sex relationships that are under discussion today. The outcry that reaches God’s ears, that leads to judgment isn’t the sexual behavior of the people of Sodom, but rather “the violent way weak people are being treated by powerful people. The implication is that the issue in Sodom is the affliction of the powerless by the powerful” (2:28). The attempted rape of Lot’s visitors is just one more example of the violence and faithlessness of this city.

The book of Genesis is central to the Jewish and the Christian faith traditions. In it we find the roots of our faith. We hear of creation and covenant. We receive our commissionings from God and yet we see the ways in which we can be faithless. Goldingay, is in the end, a trustworthy guide. One need not agree at all points, to find in these two volumes a lively and instructive commentary on this most important text of scripture.

Genesis as Historical Parable

We've had a number of conversations here about the interpretation of Genesis.  Do we take it as history?  As science?  Should we read it literally or metaphorically?  The conversation becomes complex and conflicted, because how we answer the question has implications for other questions.  If we take Genesis as an explicitly historical text, especially chapters 1-11, which seem to have a mythical sense to them, then what do we make of the scientific evidence that challenges these assertions?

One way of handling the creation stories is to see them as a "historical parable."  This is the suggestion of Dr. John Goldingay, Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary.   Fuller is evangelical, but it is not fundamentalist.  Having earned two degrees from Fuller, I can vouch for the fact that its biblical faculty would not take Genesis 1-3 as straightforward history.  So, what does he mean by this?   He writes in his new commentary on Genesis -- written for a lay audience -- Genesis for Everyone, vol. 1 (WJK, 2010):

To describe Genesis 1 as a creation "myth" is misleading.  One reason is that the word myth is used in many different ways; it's a confusing word.  But another reason is that calling something a myth is usually an insult, because it implies it is untrue.  I would rather call Genesis 1 a parable.  Describing it as the cosmos's "line of descent" hints at something like that; the expression usually refers to a list of a person's descendants.  It is a term that points to an account of the world's creation.  It is a metaphor.

So, if it's metaphor, what does that mean for us?  He continues:

God did not design Genesis 1 to tell us what a camera would have caught if it had been present to film creation.  Faulting it for failing to do so misses the point, and defending it to show that it does do so also misses the point.  We have no need to try to show that science is wrong and that actually the world was created in six days, just a few thousand years ago.  Equally we have no need to try to conform the "facts" of Genesis with science, for instance, by suggesting that a "day" in Genesis need not mean twenty-four hours but could cover a longer period.  When we do that, we obscure the story's own point in picturing God doing a week's work and then having a day off.  We have no need to try to prove that evolution is untrue or alternatively to try to show that Genesis can be reconciled with it.  All this means focusing on concerns other than the concerns God had in inspiring the story.  (pp. 27-28). 

I appreciate this idea of parable.  It does have a stronger sense to it than does myth, which as Goldingay points out, has negative connotations.  It also allows us to stay away from harmonizing tactics that lack credibility.  Finally, it seeks to take the creation story on its own terms as a remembrance of God's act of creation.  

Will April's Showers Bring May Flowers?

April was a pretty rough month in any way that you want to size it up. Record spending, debt, unemployment. A major shift towards socialism by our government. Increased attacks on the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals and liberal thinkers. And then finally ending with an attack by a Swine Flu pandemic. It's all a bit much for a normally happy soul such as mine to take in for one big reason. There is no end in sight. President Obama was only recently elected, and just took office three months ago. He still has more than three years at a minimum in office, and if the magnitude, scope, and pace of his 'Change' continues as it has thus far it will be an agonizing three years. One thing that I have come to appreciate over the course of these past three months is the utter joy and euphoria that Obama elicits in his followers. It makes me jealous, because frankly I have never, ever had that feeling for a President of the United States. Forget Kennedy and Johnson, I was just a baby. As a young child, Nixon and Ford certainly were not high on my priority list. I liked Jimmy Carter at first. He spoke to my youthful desire for progressivism. He was a minister and brought a certain amount of credibility and morality to the office, which was important to the country after the dishonesty of Nixon's Watergate. And he was intelligent too, a genius, at least that's the rep that the media was passing around. It was Jimmy Carter that began to ruin things for my early liberalism. By the end of his term he was proving to be a major letdown, and I'm still trying to figure out that whole 'genius' thing. His and liberalism's weaknesses were on full display in the face of the emergence of radical Islam, Soviet aggression, and America's energy problems. But still, politics and these major issues at this point were still only news stories to me, fleeting images on the TV set, and I would quickly change the channel to a ballgame or a comedy and go back to my own inner liberal feelings. During the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was king, but I didn't support the kingdom. I didn't vote for 'The Gipper' either time. Here was the first time in my lifetime where it was obvious to me that a large portion of America was feeling something for a President that I just wasn't getting. It was disconcerting to me, because I was beginning in my 20's to actually pay more attention to national and world affairs. I was a liberal Democrat and became a joiner, with paid memberships in 'Greenpeace' and 'Amnesty International', and with subscriptions to 'Rolling Stone' and 'U.S. News & World Report', and enjoying anti-establishment music videos on the new media outlet of MTV such as Genesis' "Land of Confusion". But something began to change. The optimism of the 'Morning in America' days that Reagan led, the return of outward signs of American patriotism, the general feelings of positivism were creeping into my psyche a little at a time. His demand that the Soviets "Tear down this wall!" followed by that event actually happening was a watershed moment, the moment when I began to think to myself "Why are there so many millions of people seeing what I am not?" and I began to realize that these folks couldn't possibly all be evil or idiots, and I actually began to open my mind to thoughts and ideas outside of my previously grounded liberal thinking. But it still wasn't a transition. I still voted for Dukakis in 1988, because I simply was not ready to vote for George H.W. Bush for President. He was as establishment as you could possibly get, and a former head of the C.I.A. to boot, and I simply did not trust a former head of a spy agency to be my leader. When he eventually led us into the Gulf War, all his faults were on display in my mind. I didn't understand the whole Iraq issue. My naive liberalism still had me being sold by those talking heads and celebrities who lamented our 'going to war over nothing but oil' and other such talk. In 1992, with my own life going through major changes on many fronts, I remained a liberal thinker for the final election. When Bill Clinton was elected, it was the first time in my life to that point that my candidate had won, and I was excited. His youthful exuberance was infectious, and I genuinely believed that he would make things better. But I also by this time was already in the habit of looking at issues deeper than the surface, reading and researching major issues beyond just what I was being sold on what I increasingly was noticing was an obviously biased mass media in newspapers and on television. I hated the idea that these folks seemed more like cheerleaders whenever a Democrat was involved, and like antagonists when a Republican was involved. It was all so obvious, and it was turning me off. When I realized that all of the positive economic turns of the early Clinton years were going to happen no matter who was President, that they had actually begun in the final months of the Bush administration, and yet the Dems were trying to take credit, I began to experience my first bit of cynicism towards my party and its politicians. By the end of Clinton's first four years the transition was complete. My own personal scales had tilted towards conservatism over liberalism, and as Newt Gingrich led the 'Republican Revolution' of 1994, I was amazingly in tune with their message and supportive of this man who just a couple years earlier I would have viewed as a negative influence. I was still a Democrat, but I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. The second Clinton term was what fully shoved me over to the conservative side, and my final flip to an actual change of party to the Republican side. Still, even with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, I was not excited. Seeing Al Gore for the quack that he has turned out to be, I was simply unbelievably relieved with the narrow outcome in Bush's favor. Bush was not the conservative that I was becoming, but he was much more tilted in that direction than Gore and his followers would have been. The attacks of 9/11 and President Bush's outstanding leadership in the following months and years cemented my support for him, and helped cement my conservative beliefs. But he never elicited that outright joy as a follower or supporter. And obviously Obama will never elicit those feelings for me. And yet I look around at his followers and I realize something. His supporters are every bit as enthused and enthralled as Reagan's were back in the 1980's, and I was on the outside back then as well. I don't get it, but I am trying to learn more about Obama's programs and ideas beyond what the media on both sides is trying to feed the public. So far, the more that I learn the worse it looks to me, but I am going to try to keep learning and stay open. The showers of April turn to flowers in nature in May. We can only hope that the showers brought on our nation by the early Obama actions in April will bloom into flowers in May, but I don't hold out hope. May has not started well, with an announced SCOTUS opening and the specter of the likely appointment to the Supreme Court later in the year of what will almost definitely be its most liberal member ever. The Swine Flu is still advancing, with a possible retreat for the summer but a return in the fall. Chrysler joins the growing list of formerly private businesses in the auto, banking, insurance and other industries now controlled by the government. It is still raining. But I won't let it get to me. One thing that age and experience teach you is that if you wait, the sun will indeed come out tomorrow. There are signs of hope. We have rid ourselves of Senator Arlen Specter, a RINO (Republican In Name Only) who saw the writing on the wall that we were going to dump him in the upcoming primary and who then ran for the Democratic cover like a coward. And I still hold out hope that one day I will have that President come along who inspires me and elicits that passionate adulation of feeling to go along with a support for their policies and direction that Obama's supporters feel today. Someone like Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, or Sarah Palin. You gotta keep that smile on your face and in your heart, and keep your own dreams alive.

He Who Sows Discord Among Brothers

For the past six weeks this regular 'Sunday Sermon' series has covered Proverbs 6:16-19 in which the Bible speaks of "6 Things the Lord Hates (7 an Abomination)", and today we wrap the discussion with that 7th and final item. This item speaks particularly to families, and serves as both a calling and a warning not only to brothers and sisters, but to anyone who would sow discord within a family situation. In past weeks we have spoken of people with 'Haughty Eyes', basically those who think they are better than others. We have spoken of 'A Lying Tongue', but the seventh item addresses not only liars but also those who use truthful situations to sow discord. We have spoken of 'Hands That Shed Innocent Blood', but the seventh need not lead necessarily to physical bloodshed in accomplishing what is still its own brand of violence. In 'A Heart That Plots Wicked Schemes' we spoke very much of the person in this seventh item and the intentional nature of their actions. In 'Feet That Run Swiftly to Evil' we spoke of how some just can't wait to pounce on an other's misfortune and also who seem almost joyful when approaching evil. Last week we spoke of 'The False Witness', the gossiper among man and he who not only will lie among friends, but who also is willing to take his lie all the way into an official proceeding or on to an official document. It is all of these six things which the Bible says that the Lord hates which together lead to perhaps the worst of them all, the seventh which is an abomination in his eyes. In the earliest book of the Bible, 'Genesis', God teaches us that the family is of utmost importance, and warns against turning against your family. He begins to teach the lesson in the story of the very first brothers, Cain and Abel. When Cain becomes jealous of Abel, God says to Cain "If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door; his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master." When God becomes aggrieved and tired of early man's wickedness He decides to wipe man from the earth in a great flood. He finds one man and his family worthy of saving, worthy of starting mankind anew. Not a group of friends. Not a town of neighbors. Not some tribal leaders and elders. One family is chosen, the family of a man named Noah to whom God said "With you I will establish my covenant; you and your sons, your wife and your sons' wives..." Later when the flood was over and the land had dried, and Noah and his family exited the ark, God blessed them and said to them "Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth." But he also admonished them saying "..from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life." God shows here that he not only wants the family of man to exist, but he demands from us that we care for one another. The further Genesis story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is all about family and its import. God sets this family as his chosen people, those whom he will particularly bless, as well as all those who align themselves with this family. Jacob has his name changed to 'Israel' and produces twelves sons, the 'Twelve Tribes of Israel', down through time the Jewish people. The story of the beginnings of God's chosen people in its very first family, particularly in the story of the relationship between Joseph and his eleven brothers, talks about how we should and should not treat our own families. It shows the dangers in that very act of sowing discord among brothers, as well as provides the redemptive faculties that come with love and forgiveness. Throughout the Bible we hear of the importance of family. In Proverbs 12:4 we learn that "A worthy wife is the crown of her husband." In Deuteronomy 12:12 we learn that we shall "make merry before the Lord, your God, with your sons and daughters." In the fourth of the Ten Commandments the Lord orders us to "Honor your father and mother." God through Shemaiah in the Bible's 2nd book of Chronicles 11:4 says "You must not march out to fight against your brothers" and in Nehemiah 4:8 commands "Fight for your brethren, your sons and daughters, your wives and your homes." In Psalm 127:3 we are told that "Children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb, a reward." In Proverbs 17:6 that "Grandchildren are the crown of old men." In Sirach 3:3 we are taught that "He who honors his father atones for sins" and in 3:9 that "A father's blessing gives a family firm roots." The Book of Sirach is particularly helpful in its warnings as well, telling us in 16:3 "Rather die childless than have Godless children" as well as in 25:15 that "With a dragon or a lion I would rather dwell than live with an evil woman." There is the lesson of Mary herself, the humble mother of Jesus, the earthly mother of God Himself who gave birth to, raised, taught, suffered with, and has been exalted with the Lord. And then there is the lesson of her husband, Joseph, the stepfather to Jesus Christ who stood by Mary and who helped raise the Son of God. During our lives God gives all of us two families; the one into which we are born, and the one which we create ourselves. The first points to our ancestry and our family roots; our fathers and mothers, our grandparents and older forefathers, and our brothers and sisters. The second is formed with our husbands and wives, leading to our children and grandchildren and our descendants. God gives this first group to us as gifts to cherish, but this gift is of human beings. They, like you, will have faults and sins and will be imperfect. They may not have the faculty to comprehend the loving nature that they have been called to in the family, or may have been so damaged by the traumas of their lives that they have lost this capacity. It is up to you the learned, you who understand what it is that God wants from your familial relationships, to be the glue that keeps your family together as best you can. It is also directly on you to see to it that your own descendants learn directly from you this importance of family that God himself has established. Do not give in to the gossip and the discord, to things as vile as abuse and hatred, that you may find lurking within your family. You can only control where your family goes from here, not where it has been in the past. Do not become one who sows discord among brothers and sisters, parents and children, one whom the Lord actually hates. Instead draw closer to God, and in doing so become the rock upon which a foundation of love and support can allow your family to flourish. NOTE: This is the continuation of the regular 'Sunday Sermon' series, all entries of which can be viewed by clicking that below label.

A Lying Tongue

If you ask almost anyone to list the things that they hate, 'liars' will inevitably be near the top. A funny thing, since every single one of us has lied, and continue to lie at times. Not always about big things, but often in small ways that involve both actual words that come from our mouths, or actions that we take or do not take. We do it in ways that we ourselves might not define as a 'lie' but that others most certainly would. You see, most of us equate a lie with intent. As long as we did not actually intend to mislead someone maliciously then it wasn't really lying. Maybe a 'mistake', or an 'exaggeration', or we were being 'nice' to someone by not hurting their feelings in telling them the cold, hard truth. Perhaps we were simply balancing two bad outcomes and deciding that by telling a 'little white lie' (in our minds) we would spare ourselves and possibly others a worse outcome than would occur by telling the truth. Lying does not in actuality go to 'intent', instead being defined as an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker. Call it whatever you want, defend it however you want - we are all liars. It is probably one of the reasons that we hate liars so much. When we tell a lie ourselves we understand what we are doing at our very core. That guilt feeling is hard-wired into us as a part of our humanity. Some sense those feelings of guilt more than others. There are some who take their lies very much to heart and truly hate them. These people are often making sincere apologies and trying to stay away from occassions where they are put in compromising positions that might have called for them to lie in the past. There are others who lie with impugnity, who seem to tell lies almost as well and as often as they breathe. These are the people to whom the old joke was directed: "How do you know that she is lying? Her lips are moving." Many of these people lie even to themselves, simply refusing to examine their lives and face the truth. We hate when we catch someone in a lie, and that is especially true the closer that person is to us in relationship. From the small to the large lies, no one likes to feel deceived by the very people on whom they are counting the most. Have you ever told your parents that you were going one place, one that they would likely approve of, when you knew that you were actually going to another place, one that they would likely disapprove? How about your spouse in the same question? Have you ever told your boss that you were working hard on some project that you had not even started, or had pushed to the side to pay closer attention to something that was of more interest to you? Have you ever taken or accepted credit for something that you did not do yourself, or that you had little hand in creating? Have you ever cheated on your spouse or significant other? Ever cheated on a test or on your taxes? All are lies in and of themselves which often require further and further lying in order to cover them up. Like everyone else, I have lied during the course of my life so many times that it would be impossible to count or list them all. But I do remember most of my worst lies. They often created situations, or were created by situations, that led me to some of the worst episodes in what has been an overall happy, fulfilled life. That is the 'lie' of the lie. We think that things will turn out better if we lie when in actuality the lie only makes the situation worse. If we all truly examine our lives with honesty we will find that despite the fact that we all hate liars, we are all liars ourselves, at least in the idea that we have told lies at times and will do so again under what we consider appropriate circumstances. As Proverbs 6:17 tells us, God hates liars as well. The first lie that we know of occurs in the garden of Eden, and is told by the greatest liar of all. Satan comes to Eve in the garden and asks if God has told she and Adam not to eat from any of the trees there. Eve replies that God has only told them to not eat from a certain tree, that they should not eat from or even touch this tree, lest they die. Satan then tells that first lie, assuring Eve that "Surely you will not die! For God knows that in the day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." As with many lies, the evil one couches his lie with a piece of truth. By eating from the tree, Eve and subsequently Adam do indeed have their eyes opened and learn good and evil. But they learn it by it's very manifestation in their disobedience to God, in their listening to the deception of the snake. God had created Adam in His own likeness, had given him Eve as his companion, and had placed them in a beautiful, peaceful garden where He fellowshiped with them personally. Their disobedience to the one simple rule that He had layed down for them created the very evil that persists to this day. It is the cause of all of the lies that every one of us has ever told. God hates liars because He knows that in lying we are choosing ourselves and our will over His will. We are placing what we want above what He wants, and it is that very ego-driven decision that is at the heart of all the ills of humanity. Lies separate us from fellowship with God, and there is simply nothing that He wants more than that fellowship, that intimate relationship with each of us. If you are currently actively participating in a lying situation, you must end it and do all that you can to make ammends and ensure that it does not recur. We all need to examine, rebuke, rehabilitate, and try in the future to keep tamed our lying tongues. There is nothing that God hates more.

California's Sane Marriage Proposal

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept, and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:21-24 **** Let's face it, no matter what the radicals, the profane, and the borderline insane will try to tell you, there are two sexes. They are male and female, just as Adam and Eve in the Genesis creation story. The main differences are their physical and sexual characteristics. Man was created with a penis and sperm. Woman was created with a vagina and eggs. For anyone who thinks normally and rationally, the ramifications are obvious. Genesis explains in clear terms how God created man, and then created woman for a purpose. That clear purpose is that the two different sexes will unite together as one. This is the origin of the concepts of marriage, the very concept of family itself. Throughout the history of mankind it has always been understood that the natural order called on men and women to join, have children, nurture those children in family, and propagate their genes to help foster the growth of mankind. There have always been those among us who were deviant, and rather than become attracted to those of the opposite sex, they were instead attracted to those of the same sex. But this was always, in every culture in man's history, considered a deviance, a negative to be avoided. It was considered an extremely unnatural act, the joining of two people of the same sex in a sexual union. For the vast majority of the history of the United States of America, almost 200 of our 232 years as a nation, this 'homosexuality' was seen as a form of mental illness. In the past three decades, this deviance has 'come out of the closet' and attempted to shove its way into mainstream society. Those who practice homosexuality have used a liberal tilt in American media and the court system to gain perceived 'Rights' that were never enumerated into the Constitution. In some states, they have even fought to gain a right to marry. In every corner of the world, marriage has always been recognized as the institution whereby a man and woman formally come together as one family. The homosexuals, or 'gays', and other liberal elements have attempted to make marriage, now legal only between men and women as it is naturally and morally correct, extend to these gay couples. This past week, tens of millions of Americans voted in three states on this issue, and once again sanity won the day. Florida, Arizona, and most interestingly and importantly California joined what is now a list of 30 states across the nation by installing specific constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This past week in California, 'Proposition 8' created that same ban in what is considered the most progressive state in the union. The majority in even this normally ultra-liberal state recognized and voted to constitutionalize this vital institution. Back in 2000, the people of California had already spoken, and had created a law to ban gay marriages. However, the most liberal and radical U.S. district court in the land ruled the law itself illegal, and opened the way for legalized gay marriages, hundreds of which took place in recent months. The people of California, outraged that a court over-ruled their will, went back to the drawing board and took the matter out of the courts hands. The new law is now a basic element in the state constitution, which the court cannot alter. The people of California have thus clearly spoken twice in the past decade on this issue, as has the American population in every instance in which it has come before them. You can argue the sanity of the minute percentage of the population who practice homosexuality. You can argue about the merits of accepting this deviance rather than shunning it. You can argue the validity of trying to find some 'cure' through the increased research possibilities with today's genetic advances. But one thing that you cannot argue is the natural order in the man-woman relationship, and its historical, cultural, and moral expression in the institution of marriage. Allow a misguided gay man to simply do what he wants and marry another man, just because he thinks that he should be allowed to, is ludicrous on its face. Tell me you have a 'right' to do this, and I will ask you why I cannot have the 'right' to marry a 14-year old girl, or my good dog 'Petey', or my refrigerator. Think that is ridiculous? That is just how ridiculous the large majority of Americans view the idea of gay marriage. In an election that saw progressives come to political power, Californians and others once again showed sanity this past week in supporting the tradition of marriage. This not about any 'hate' towards these people, as they would try to sell it. I speak for millions in saying that far from hating gays, we feel sorry for them, recognize that their 'problem' is biological and possibly genetic, and hope that one day they will overcome these deviant desires. What this is about is defending a Sacrament from becoming defiled by deviance. The Church teaches that Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, one of its Sacraments, the most important and fundamental building blocks of the faith and mankind's morality. Thankfully Americans still agree that a man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife, and not his husband or his child or his pet.