Sermon - July 3, 2011

4th of July - Preserving our Nation



Happy 4th of July Weekend. I know that there are at least a couple of folks who are able to be here today because of the 4th. It is great to have you with us. I hope that all of you have some sort of a celebration planned, or at least a relaxing outing.

I was in a conversation this week with Bill and Ada Lou Steirer. I told them I had vacation coming, but that first I had to prepare today’s sermon. Bill asked me if I was planning to preach on the text, or address the day. He asked me, “Have you ever preached a political sermon?” My initial reply was, “Aren’t they all?” And from there the conversation moved into what it means to be “political.”

In the first year of the ELCA, a statement was agreed upon and released, outlining what it means for our Church to be engaged in political or social issues. Another conversation this week (with Farrell Brown and John Broadwell) helped me to understand that some do not see the actions of our Church as consistent with that initial statement. Never-the-less, allow me to refer to it here, and then move on to what might be appropriate for us to consider, on this July 4th weekend.

The first of the ELCA Social Statements addressed the fine line that we hope to walk between ignoring issues and blatantly telling members of our congregations what they are to think and/or how they are to vote. It is the goal of our Church to assist its members in making sound decisions, drawing from Biblical and theological resources, yet avoiding the temptation to insist that there is but one correct position to be taken.

Walking that line is difficult; and there is always going to be a tendency to hear the comments of another as an endorsement or a condemnation of our own views.

I know – I have heard it said – that the press releases which come from the Office of the Bishop, seem to some to cross that line. I will not disagree that these statements raise a perspective which often differs from our own political or social views. My regret is that we live in a society, in a culture, in a nation which is becoming so polarized that everything said by another is summed up as either an endorsement of our side, or a statement from the other side.
I had started this sermon before my Thursday golf outing with John and Farrell. Twice during the day I tried to test the waters with them. Partially to see if a “political sermon” would fly; partially to find words which would unify rather than divide. We didn’t get past the opening sentences. Mixing politics and religion proves to be extremely difficult. So difficult, that we tend to give up and never try.

A possible role model on this matter is Senator Paul Simon. Do some of you remember him? He was a Senator from Illinois, a Missouri Synod Lutheran, with a fondness for bowties. He spoke at several Chicago area events during the years I was in seminary there. In that setting, when asked a question, he would begin his answer by bringing forth the Biblical stories and passages which he saw as connected to the issue at hand. After he had considered these, he would go on to articulate how he might vote, when particular issues came up in Congress.

Now, I want to be careful, and I want to remain honest to his presentation. There are very few (if any) instances where there is a Bible verse or even a collection of Bible verses which settle a modern-day decision. It is not the outcome of his deliberations which deserves our accolades, it is the method.

And that method is what we desperately need to recapture. That way of addressing political decisions is what the social statements of our Church are attempting to do.

We have become so divided between this political party and that political party that gridlock is upon us. It seems that too many of the votes have more to do with which party will win the next election than with the matter at hand. Everything is a battle between this side of the aisle and that side. And these deep divisions have made their way all the way out of Washington and into our small villages and even into our congregations.

We seem to have lost the ability to engage in civil discourse.

I hope, when this day is over, that you won’t go home and talk about Pastor Chris preaching a “political sermon.” I hope what you will hear me saying is that a confusion about what it means to separate Church and State has resulted in a separation of Christian and State. (Did you get that?) Confusion about it means to uphold separation of Church and State has all too often resulted in a separation between Christian and State. It is not, nor has it ever been the intention of our Church to tell you how you should vote or which candidate you ought to support. However, it is the stated intention of our Church, that as Christians voice their position, they need the benefit of Biblical and theological reflection. Every vote cast, every voice raised by a Christian, reflects what it is that that follower of Jesus believes. It is not the role of the Church to tell us what to do, but one of the purposes of the Church is to establish an opportunity for us to reflect, discuss, and decide how we will vote.

Every word, spoken by Christ, is political. Everything he said affects and directs how it is that his followers are to live in the world. Unless Christ rules every aspect of our lives, our faith remains a sideline or a hobby.

We all have our own short statement of what it is that has made this country great. I would suggest that it is our democracy. What makes us great is our ability to take a wide range of political opinion, create a place where those opinions can be expressed, and then somehow manage to reach the compromises which allow us to set a course for the common good. Losing the ability to engage in civil discourse places this greatest in peril.

As Christians, we know it takes to return to civil discourse. It begins with an openness to the other, to their person and to their perspective. We call it hospitality. More than tolerance, it is truly an acceptance of the other.

From there, we humbly acknowledge our own limitations. Look at the 19th verse from today’s reading from Romans 7. Paul writes: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” We have a name for this in our Christian tradition – this is what we call “Original Sin.” It is the inability of any human being to know all things. It is the limitations associated with this body of clay. When opinions or view are expressed with a remembrance of these words of scripture, our arrogance is muted by our honesty.

Finally, as Christians, we have a wonderful model for what it means to embrace those whose views differ from our own. Haven’t we learned to co-exist with a myriad of denominations? Are we not able to honor our own tradition without insisting that all the Methodist become Lutheran or all the Catholics become Episcopalian? We live with differences, refusing to insist that only one view is correct.

I hope I have not offended you this morning. And I pray that I have not misused the pulpit by implying that one way of doing Church is right and all the others are wrong. I do not embrace the notion of a Christian Nation, we are a secular nation, one in which there is (and hopefully always will be) a separation between Church and State. It is a wonderful structure and one which has allowed us and our forebears to achieve great good. We owe it to those who have gone before to engage in political discourse with passion and integrity. For us to be the nation we hope to be, we must relearn what it means to enter a room with differing opinions and leave with a deeper appreciation for those who gathered there with us. Only then might we achieve the common good we desire.

I hope some of this might prove helpful…..