The the Spirit of Giving

A month ago I preached this sermon. Christmas often seems to get lost in the spirit of 'getting' rather than the spirit of giving. I would like, in the spirit of giving, to share my stewardship focused sermon of a month ago to promote the spirit if giving during this holiday season:

Grace Upon Grace
Texts: Deuteronomy 24:19-22; John 1:14-16
Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo
November 8, 2009


“From the fullness of Christ, we have received grace upon grace.”

This little sentence is a paraphrase from the Gospel of John and our stewardship theme this year. Our bulletin covers have had it; signs have been posted, letters have been received, and our newsletter covered has displayed those very words: “From the fullness of Christ, we have received grace upon grace.”

They come from the Gospel of John, from the prologue in John’s Gospel, which speaks to us of the Word of God, the very essence of God, being made Flesh and living in our midst. We call this moment the Incarnation, the Word becoming Flesh, the presence of Jesus Christ in our lives. And from the fullness of Christ, we receive grace.

And, as recipients of God’s grace, we are invited to give something back to the world and to God. This giving something back is often a difficult thing on which to get a grasp. Giving something back seems to be almost counter-intuitive. It is certainly and rapidly becoming counter-cultural.

In recent years the philosophy of Ayn Rand has become increasingly popular. Ayn Rand, in her writings, believe that the only true ‘good’ in life, and the center-piece of her morality, was the pursuit of a rational self-interest. People were told, in her writings, and her heroes were all portrayed as people who put their own needs first and let others fend for themselves. To her, the great evils of life took place when people practice altruism and generosity.

In her book, The Fountainhead, the hero of the story, Howard Roark, summarizes it well when he says:

“I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need … I recognize no obligations toward men.”

Let me say that a little differently : “I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life, nor any part of my energy. I recognize no obligations towards other people.”

Rand did not believe that people ought to give something back. In fact, she felt it is downright immoral not only to expect this, but even to do it.

The Bible tells us otherwise.

In the book of Deuteronomy Moses gives what seems to be a strange command.

If you pick grain and leave some in the field; leave it there for strangers, the widows and the orphans.

When you harvest your grapes, don’t pick all of them. Leave some for others.

When you pick your olives, don’t pick all of them because you need to leave them for the strangers, the widows, and the orphans.

Think of the response.

These are my grapes!!!!

This is my grain!!!

These are my olives!!!

This is my money!!!

And Moses says, leave some of it behind for the strangers, the widows, and the orphans.

People would clamor and rebel, but Moses’ explanation is a one word explanation. “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt.”

Remember that while we might prosper now, we were once slaves in Egypt and the hand of God made us free.

This ‘remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt’ is something, interestingly enough, that is part of all our lives no matter where we are in life.

Two women worked in a factory many years ago. The factory made sweaters and these two women had the job of making button holes in the sweaters. It was hard and boring work. The two women had different circumstances in life. One had been widowed at a young age and had worked for years, even as her children were now adults but living at home. The other had five children and a husband who came home every morning from his night watchman job and would fall down drunk. Most of her children were grown, but life was still difficult. They were both quite poor with few luxuries.

The woman with the five children lamented that they had finally been able to purchase a television a year ago and it was now broken and she was trying to work extra hours to pay for a repairman to come and fix the broken television.

The other woman said, “Don’t be silly,” and volunteered her son, a TV repairman, to come and fix the TV, for free.

Her son was less than happy with his mother because this was his living and his mother was always volunteering him to fix things for her friends and he was very annoyed. But he went. As crazy as his mother often drove him, she had struggled to provide a living for them when his Dad had died and he knew his Mom would do anything in the world for him, so he went to repair the TV.

Turned out, one of the daughters of the other woman, a usually painfully shy, reclusive type of person, sat down and talked to the TV repairman the entire time and they ended up dating, getting married, and all the rest. Ten months, after they married, they had a baby boy, and people counted their fingers to see how many months it was and he grew up and realizes that this was his, “You were once a slave in the land of Egypt” story. My very being hinged on two impoverished women making button holes in a sweater factory and a broken television.

Dumb luck or grace upon grace?

My story is not very unique. We all go back, somewhere, to poor immigrants, or poor parents, or poor grandparents, or poor great-parents who remind us. “You were once a slave in the land of Egypt.”

Dumb luck or grace upon grace?

This church was founded in 1837 by poor German immigrants who migrated here from Germany and built a town and built a church and cast their lots together. This church has a history and we are reminded of the humble roots of this church. “You were once a slave in the land of Egypt.”

Dumb luck or grace upon grace?

This week is Veteran’s Day and we honored veterans during Worship. Two of our members spent time in Prisoner of War camps in Germany during World War II. So many of the people we honor today put their lives at risk to defend our country. For many, it was a reminder. “You were once a slave in the land of Egypt.”

So, their willingness to serve----dumb luck for us, or grace upon grace?

In the 1940's two men, Bill Hewlett and David Packard started a business in a garage tinkering with gadgets and selling what most people considered to be peculiar gadgets, mostly electrical or electronic gadgets to companies. Right now, Hewlett-Packard is the largest technology company in the world. Hewlett and Packard were well known and noted for their charity to their employees and the communities around them because they always remembered their humble roots never forgot that they were once slaves in the land of Egypt.

Dumb luck or grace upon grace?

We live with a cultural contrast concerning generosity and giving back.

Imagine Ayn Rand’s response to Moses. This is my grain and no one is going to
touch it!

These are my grapes and no one is going to touch them!!!!

These are my olives and no one is going to touch them!!!!

But, Mose’s words are simple. “You were once slaves in the land of Egypt.”

Somewhere in all our lives these words ring out as a reminder to us that no matter who we are or how much we have accomplished, somewhere in our lives or in the lives of our ancestors, we were once slaves in the land of Egypt.

I often think back on two women meeting making button holes in sweaters. If these two women had not worked in the same factory, doing the same job at the same time and sitting next to each other, I would not be here, Janet would have married someone else, my two daughters would not exist, and someone else would be preaching this morning. Dumb luck or grace upon grace?

Which brings us to today, here and now at St. Marks United Church of Christ in the year 2009. Next week we are all invited to make a faith promise for our giving for next year. We’ve heard testimony about who we are, what we do, and, frankly, what kind of people we are. We do a lot for others and we welcome everyone in our doors. We Worship God, we pray, we play, we study, and we do.

We live, as a congregation, as the antithesis of Ayn Rand’s words:

“I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life, nor any part of my energy. I recognize no obligations towards other people.”

We do see a ton of our energy for others, and we do, collectively and individually see moral and spiritual obligations toward other people. We see this whenever we serve people in our Soup Kitchen, whenever we give people clothing, or blankets, or coats. We see this whenever we hand someone a Bag of Grace, or a Thanksgiving basket, or toys for their children at Christmas.

Is it a societal norm to ask us to share our grain? No, not really.

Is it societal norm to ask us to share our grapes? No, not really.

Is it societal norm to ask us to share our olives? No, not really.

Is it societal norm to ask us to share our money, our time, and our talents. No, not really.

It is actually NOT a societal norm to ask us to share. It is contrary to common sense and it is contrary to the society in which we live where seeing obligations toward others is seen less and less.

But, we also recognize one little thing. We were once slaves in Egypt and now we are free.

If it was dumb luck then don’t share.

But if we were once slaves in Egypt and are now free because of grace upon grace, I invite everyone into living a counter culturally wonderful life of sharing.

The choice is simple. We can seek for ourselves and have all we want, but end up spiritually bankrupt.

Or we can share with others and find ourselves spiritually enriched.

I invite each person here to live a life of abnormality, of generosity, and celebrating grace upon grace and being truly a people spiritually blessed.

Some Silliness as Winter Approaches!

As Winter Approaches ...


What happens at these Fahrenheit temperatures:

+65 - Hawaiians declare a two-blanket night.

+60 - Californians put on sweaters (if they can find one).

+50 - Miami residents turn on the heat.

+45 - Vermont residents go to outdoor concerts.

+40 - You can see your breath. Californians shiver uncontrollably. Minnesotans go swimming.

+35 - Italian cars don't start.

+32 - Water freezes.

+30 - You plan your vacation to Australia.

+25 - Ohio water freezes. Californians weep. Minnesotans eat ice cream. Canadians go swimming.

+20 - Politicians begin to talk about the homeless. New York City water freezes. Miami residents plan vacation farther South.

+15 - French cars don't start. Cat insists on sleeping in your bed with you.

+10 - You need jumper cables to get the car going.

+ 5 - American cars don't start.

0 - Alaskans put on T-shirts.

-10 - German cars don't start. Eyes freeze shut when you blink.

-15 - You can cut your breath and use it to build an igloo. Arkansans stick tongue on metal objects. Miami residents cease to exist.

-20 - Cat insists on sleeping in pajamas with you. Politicians actually do something about the homeless. Minnesotans shovel snow off roof. Japanese cars don't start.

-25 - Too cold to think. You need jumper cables to get the driver going.

-30 - You plan a two-week hot bath. Swedish cars don't start.

-40 - Californians disappear. Minnesotans button top button. Canadians put on sweaters. Your car helps you plan your trip south.

-50 - Congressional hot air freezes. Alaskans close the bathroom window.

-80 - Hell freezes over. Polar bears move south. Green Bay Packer fans order hot cocoa at the game.

-90 - Lawyers put their hands in their own pockets.
(from The Daily Dilly)

Not So Subtle Sexism and Hypocrisy

The November 23rd cover of Newsweek had Sarah Palin posing in shorts, running shorts, sneakers, and what appears to be a work out shirt. Her legs are glistening in the photograph and she is holding two Blackberries. It was a photograph taken for a Runner’s World magazine.

Whatever one thinks of Sarah Palin, she is an attractive woman, the picture is a good one, and she looks very attractive and, frankly, sexy in the photo. Newsweek felt that they were able to use the photograph because she did pose for it and had no objections with Runner’s World using it.

There has been right-wing backlash. Sarah Palin herself said on Facebook:

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate, When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness -- a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention -- even if out of context."

Jon Meacham, of Newsweek, in response to this, wrote:

“We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do.”

Sam Stein, defending the cover on The Huffington Post wrote:

The cover was meant to convey a larger point -- expanded upon within the magazine -- that the problems the former vice-presidential candidate poses for the GOP are, at once, institutional (see the special election in New York's 23rd District), substantive (see the death panels smear) and image-based (the tea party protests that Palin flames).

As Meacham writes in his editor's note: "[Palin's] political celebrity is so powerful that it has reduced a large part of the Republican Party to irrationality and civic incoherence."

The Newsweek articles essentially state that Palin is a political liability for the Republican Party for a variety of reasons such as her lack of knowledge on key issues, her seeming penchant for dishonesty, and many of her comments. Their conclusion was that she is highly popular for a segment of the population, but could never expand that popularity fair enough to be an effective candidate for the Presidency. The inside of the magazine handles this topic from a particular perspective and provides the foundation for debate on whether one agrees with their assessment or not.

But there is the cover...

The cover has been called out as sexist by many right-winged groups. Many of their comments are not being taken all that seriously because many of the calling out people have either used numerous sexist comments or not demonstrated much interest in defending the rights of women on any level. One website that called this cover sexist had, several months earlier, referred to MSNBC reporter, Contessa Brewer as an ‘air-headed slut.’ It is hard to credibly refer to someone else as sexist when you write such things.

But the cover is being defended by many left winged groups who generally do call out the issue of sexism. When the subject is Sarah Palin, there is silence. Except, interestingly enough, from Contessa Brewer who was one of the few voices calling this cover sexist.

I am struck that there is a not so subtle sexism and hypocrisy in all of this.

First there is the issue of sexism.

Women in leadership roles, whether they are politicians, in business, or on television, ought to be treated as the professionals they are. Period. The kind of make-up they wear, their hair styles, and their clothing choices ought not be part of the public discussion.

The picture of Sarah Palin on Newsweek, within the context of Newsweek, seemed to sexualize her to diminish her. If one totally disagrees with Sarah Palin and finds her to be a detrimental voice in the public arena, fine. She has placed herself in the public arena and her views are fair game. She provides plenty of fodder for discussion, both pro and con. But the picture on the cover minimalized her as a person and as a professional person. It was almost as if Newsweek’s cover screamed, “This cute and sexy thing can’t be taken seriously!”

Let her words, her views, and her record determine if she should be taken seriously. I like Newsweek a lot and I have a great deal of respect for Jon Meacham. He is, however, wrong on this one. The cover of Newsweek was not only disrespectful of Sarah Palin, but it served notice on all women who wish to be taken seriously: we will put a picture of you on our cover to diminish you.

Then there is, of course, hypocrisy on both the right and the left.

The right does not have a clear and consistent record in objecting to sexism. To suddenly clamor now has little credibility. The left, however, does, and to not speak out also gives them little credibility. People cannot cherry-pick sexism based on ‘who’ they want to defend.

Thomas and Patrick's Not So Excellent Adventure

Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island is having a very public feud with the Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, Bishop Thomas Tobin. In 2007 Tobin asked Kennedy to refrain from taking Holy Communion because of Kennedy’s stance on abortion which is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In October, Kennedy was critical of Roman Catholic Bishops because he believed their concerns about abortion was potentially going to derail health care reform.

Most recently, Kennedy has stated that Tobin told priests in the Providence Diocese (which covers the totality of Rhode Island) to not serve Kennedy Holy Communion. Tobin has claimed that he has made no such order.

Bishop Tobin said, in part, “"The point is, because of his obstinate ... public support of abortion, which is clearly contrary to an essential teaching of the church of a matter of critical morality ... he is then not properly prepared to receive Holy Communion, No one has a right to receive Holy Communion."

We seem to be witnessing Thomas and Patrick's not so excellent adventure.

There is lots of stuff in this and this is a difficult scenario in which to deal.

First, Bishop Tobin has every right to make this determination. A Roman Catholic Bishop has the right and responsibility to set the rules and guidelines within his Diocese. He is ultimately the person in charge. The priests in his Diocese have all taken vows of obedience to his office (Office of Bishop) and are obligated, by their vows, to obey him. Whether one wants to quibble with how they feel about this is not particular relevant. This is how the Roman Catholic Church is organized and functions.

Additional, Rep. Kennedy has the responsibility to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. He took an oath to do this and is legally obligated to do so. Abortion is legal and he feels that he has an obligation to uphold the law. Again, we might quibble with this, but he has an obligation to uphold the law. If abortion was not legal, the argument changes.

If I were going to question both of them my first line of questioning with Bishop Tobin would be to ask him why he is only holding people’s feet to the fire on the abortion issue? Pope John Paul II was very clear that he found capital punishment to be immoral. I have not seen any Bishop ban any politician from taking Holy Communion because they were pro-capital punishment. In terms of war, the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to wars that are not ‘just wars.’ Great questions surround both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Roman Catholic Bishops, for the most part, have not make a major issue of this with either President Bush or President Obama. There are, obviously, many other ethical issues, but why is Tobin only tackling abortion?

As for Kennedy, I’m almost wondering why now? Tobin first said this in 2007 and has not really added anything to this. There is no suggestion that Kennedy has been denied Holy Communion in Roman Catholic congregations. He might not be taking Holy Communion, or he might not be. I am not sure what he is doing. I strongly suspect that if he attends a Roman Catholic Church in Rhode Island, and goes up to take Holy Communion, he receives it. From what I gather, Tobin didn’t so much ban Kennedy as tell him that he ‘ought not’ take Holy Communion because of his convictions.

I have several thoughts.

My first thought is this. Tobin is a politically inclined Bishop and Kennedy is a politician. Tobin’s actions are not remotely indicative of most Roman Catholic Bishops who are serving their Dioceses and not getting their names in the paper a great deal. Most are too pastorally inclined to make the kinds of statements Tobin has been making. Kennedy, on the other hand, is a politician. He is in a political party that strongly upholds abortion rights and he is going to be loyal to his party first. If he sees a political opportunity to make a name for himself by embarrassing his Bishop, he might just do so. My point is, obviously that both of these guys are very politically motivated and will do what they need to do to get attention.

My greater thought, however, is this. This is the Table of the Lord we are talking about. I live by the adage that it is the Table of the LORD. The LORD’S table. I disagree with Bishop Tobin is that I do believe that everyone has a right to come to the Lord’s Table because it is the Lord’s Table and no one has a right to bar anyone from it, for any reason, at any time. I recognize I state this as a United Church of Christ minister, following the beliefs of our denomination. But my point is very clear. I have a hard time banning anyone from the table. Ever.

Regardless of one’s politics or theological background or beliefs, however, I truly hate to see that the news story of the day is about a battle for God’s Table. I fear we are all a bit tarnished by this.

Christus Rex

Today is the last Sunday of the church year. Lots of churches no longer follow the church year calendar and, sadly, miss the seasons that somehow make our lives as Christians a bit richer.

The church year begins on the First Sunday of Advent and makes four Sundays awaiting the birth of Jesus Christ. The last Sunday of the church year is generally referred to as Christ the King Sunday. If often gets lost in the midst of Thanksgiving, however, because the Sunday before Thanksgiving often corresponds with Christ the King Sunday.

Christ the King, in Latin is Christus Rex, and I love the Latin for this. I really don’t know why, I just do. It might simply be a case of ‘Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur’ which simply means, anything said in Latin sounds profound.

The image of Christ as King is a striking image. We, as Americans, have no earthly king. Recently, when President Obama bowed to the Japanese Emperor there was a great deal of consternation. Americans do not bow to kings. No American, in theory, bows to a king. Many have over the years and some say it’s just a matter of respect. My opinion is that I have no opinion on this. I don’t know if Obama was right or wrong and, frankly, I don’t care.

But I digress. Back to Christ as King.

When we call Jesus our King, we are stating that Jesus has sovereignty over us. It means that when it comes to our will versus Jesus’ will, the will of Christ prevails. When it comes to finding a time when we disagree with something Jesus says in the Gospels, it is making a statement that we are wrong and Jesus is right.

This is big stuff. We all like to have our own independence, we all cherish our own free will, but we also acknowledge, even keeping our free will, that sometimes that will leads us in the wrong direction. We all have the ability to be incredibly wrong.

Pilate asks Jesus the question. “What is truth?” It is a conversation that holds the fate of Jesus in the balance. Jesus is before Pilate because Jesus has been declared King of the Jews. Pilate asks that amazing fateful question: “What is truth?”

In the teachings of Jesus, Jesus stated in John’s Gospel, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The usage of the phrase “I Am,” in John’s Gospel is Jesus speaking very much as the Cosmic Christ; as the Christ of the resurrection; as the Christ of all eternity. It is a statement: “I am the Truth.” Ponder that for a moment. The Truth is not a statement of fact, or well argued opinion, or even a theological declaration. Truth is actually incarnate in the person of Christ.

In the midst of debates as to who is right and wrong and what have you, there is a reminder. The Truth is never something argued. The Truth is the person of Christ, the Persona Christi (more Latin for you!)

Abusing God's Word

Abusing God’s Word.

There is a new bumper sticker and T-shirt that is the current rage:

“Prayer for Obama.”
Psalm 109:8

This verse reads, “May his days be few; may another seize his position.”

It is obvious that the people who wear this shirt do not like President Obama. This, at face value, is not a great deal unlike people who drove around with bumper stickers that read, “01.20.09,” for the day George W. Bush left office. It seems that way, but there’s more to the story.

“May his days be few; may another seize his position.” If a person does not like Barack Obama as their President, and if this is a prayer that he lose the next election, there really is no problem. The problem, however, is that they are abusing God’s Word. Psalm 109, in its entirety is pretty ugly. What follows verse 8 reveals that this is not an innocent “01.20.09,” or a prayer that Obama will lose the next election:

8May his days be few;
may another seize his position.
9May his children be orphans,
and his wife a widow.
10May his children wander about and beg;
may they be driven out of the ruins they inhabit.
11May the creditor seize all that he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil.
12May there be no one to do him a kindness,
nor anyone to pity his orphaned children.
13May his posterity be cut off;
may his name be blotted out in the second generation.
14May the iniquity of his father be remembered before the Lord,
and do not let the sin of his mother be blotted out.

This is not innocent. In fact, this “Prayer for Obama” is blasphemy.

First off, regardless of how one feels about Barack Obama, whether one loves him or
loathes him as the President of the United States, he is the President of the United States and was elected to be so by a significant majority of people. In he process of how we do elections, he was elected. If people do not like him, it is their right to vote against him and vote against people who support him. It is also their right, and privilege, to speak out against him and his policies.

But this, all in all, is not about Barack Obama. It is about people who are calling themselves Christians, abusing God’s Word, and praying for Obama’s death. It goes even further than that. They want his legacy destroyed and his family to live in poverty and misery.

People look at Psalm 109 and wonder how this kind of stuff ends up in the Bible.

The Psalms are not ‘teaching’ books like much of the Bible. They are songs, and they are prayers that touch the visceral feelings the people had. Some are light-hearted and joyful, some are elegant and beautiful, and some speak of the anger that people had for being conquered and held captive. Psalms of Lament are not that uncommon. We do not learn what God wants of us from the Psalms, but we learn what people felt and often feel about their situation in life. The Psalms often provide brutal acts against one’s foes.

Psalm 109 is much like this. It is a Psalm of Lament, of being captive in a strange land, and longing for the death and destruction of enemies. No matter how one feels about the President of the United States, or Senators, or House Members, or anyone else, this is never a Psalm that can, in good conscience, ever be used by anyone to describe what they long to see.

What makes this particular adage blasphemous is it’s abusing God’s Word. It is taking one verse, removing the context, and making it seem like an innocent prayer hoping that Barack Obama loses the next election. It is not that. It never has been. This adage is a blight to all Americans and a disgrace to all whose who profess themselves to be Christians.

Christians have a responsibility to witness for things that are good, holy, and loving. T his kind of witness is something far other than any Christian, in good conscience, could ever utter.

Surely Goodness and Mercy....

I really don't know what I want to write. I am, however, trying to be a bit more active with my blog.

The most famous Psalm of all is the 23rd Psalm and I'm always struck by the words, 'surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life."

I speak these words in public more than the average person. Being a minister I officiate at Funeral Services and most all of them include the 23rd Psalm----magnificent words at a funeral. So, I say those words, 'Surely goodness and mercy,' a great deal. Aloud.

Yesterday there was a major shooting event at Fort Hood. An Army psychiatrist, a man educated by the Army, a man dedicated to healing, murdered others. A man dedicated to healing----bringing goodness and mercy. Brought evil and death. He proclaimed, while doing it, "God is great." A God of goodness and mercy is cursed by such an act.

Today another murder...

I am often struck by cruelty. Sometimes the cruelty is intentional. Sometimes it is the by-product of power. Sometimes it is the bi-product of making a profit. Some times it is the bi-product of trying to make a point or holding onto a conviction. People bring cruelty to others. But the words 'Surely goodness and mercy,' just hang on there waiting for someone to see them, hear them, and embrace them.

So please God help us find this goodness and mercy so often elusive to us.