Sermons and Opinions

Custom Page My Photos Article Name

by William Sternman

What Would Jesus Do?

Once, when George Bernard Shaw, was asked what he thought of Christianity, he replied after a very long pause, "I don't know; it might work if anyone ever tried it."

Mahatma Gandhi:

"Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Friedrich Nietzsche

"The last Christian died on the cross"

This is not meant to be a screed against Christianity. As a matter of fact, I've come to think of myself lately as a "non-Christian Christian." I honor Jesus for his humanity, humility and compassion; I just can't accept his divinity.

Rather than a diatribe, this sermon is meant to be an examination of what I call "lip-service Christians"-those people who profess to be followers of Christ without practicing what he preached.

For example:

Time and time again, Jesus tells would-be followers that first they must give all they own to the poor.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

If all that weren't clear enough, he says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Yet how many self-professed Christians would give away all they own in order to follow in Jesus's footsteps? More likely, they would be like the rich young prince in Matthew who sorrowfully will not be a disciple because he loves his possessions more than he loves his Messiah.

What would Jesus do about the greed and materialism of our Christian country?

Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.".

And yet our Christian society is built on lust. Everywhere you look, woman's bodies are being exhibited and exploited to stimulate male lust. Even what used to be derided as "plumber's butt" has been turned into an object of desire, giving "how low can you get" a new meaning.

What would Jesus do about our obsession with body parts?

Jesus also held marriage to be sacred. "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the 2005 divorce rate in the U.S. was 36%. (The rate may be lower than you'd expect because cohabiting couples that break up are not included in the figure.)

What would Jesus do about the one-third of our Christian country that divorces, sometimes more than once?

When Jesus was questioning the rich young prince to see if he was worthy to be one of his disciples, Jesus asked him if he had followed the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments is, of course, "Thou shalt not kill."

Yet our Christian nation, led by a born-again Christian, launched a war against a country that was no threat to us, with the result that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as our own soldiers have been killed.

Would Jesus have invaded Iraq? Would Jesus now invade Iran?

In the Sermon on the Mount, the first Christian tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." Where are those sons of God now that we need them so much?

Jesus preached mercy and compassion, and nowhere as eloquently as in the parable of the good Samaritan. He ends the story with this command, "Go, and do thou likewise."

And where would that be? In Abu Ghraib? Guantánamo Bay? Our secret CIA detention centers? Our prisons?

What would Jesus do about torture?

In July 1972, a Time magazine subscriber wrote, "And although people have professed Christ for centuries, they have truly worshiped the devil, as they pray on their knees on Sunday and...on their neighbors the rest of the week."

Has anything changed in the last 35 years?

Gandhi, another non-Christian Christian, also said, "If only people would study the historical Jesus and his message of compassion."

Maybe the question this sermon should be asking is not "What would Jesus do," but what should true Christians do in his name?

 

Benediction

From St. Jerome:

Do not let your deeds belie your words, lest when you speak in church someone may say to himself, `Why do you not practice what you preach?'

 

Don’t Rock the Boat

In the April 2004 issue of The Atlantic, Christopher Hitchens tells us, “Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites.” For example, in the Sixties, the iconoclastic hippies urged us all to do your own thing. The unacknowledged proviso, however, was “as long as it’s our thing.” Thus, a high-minded rebellion against establishment conformity imposed its own conformity on its followers.

One of the greatest revolutions against religious conformity has been Unitarian Universalism. As Francis David points out, “We need not think alike to love alike.”

Yet the best we can come up with to describe our church on our T-shirts is “UU’s Rock!” Nowadays, everything the public likes “rocks” (just as everything it dislikes “sucks”). With so many specific, inspirational and unique things we can say, why do we fall back on this tired, thoughtless, crowd-pandering cliché?

I’ve always liked the idea of John Winthrop that the Massachusetts Bay Colony should be like “a city on a hill.” What better way to describe our church than as a beacon for all men to look up to (whether they rock or not).

Loving, thinking for ourselves, standing out from the crowd are more important than rocking (or even rolling, holy or otherwise).

Let’s not sell our church short by appealing to the lowest common denominator as though it were a laxative or mindless feel-good movie. Instead, let’s let it shine like a lighthouse to guide a storm-rocked world to a safe harbor.

 

 

 

A Bug on its Back

This is my favorite line in the Old Testament:

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.

How human. How very, very human.

Human? But this is God. Or is it?

Despite the assertion in Genesis that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," it is just as likely that man created God in his own image.

Like the gods on Olympus, the God of the Old Testament is a very flawed, very human being, just like us but writ large.

Consider this:

You walk into your kitchen and find a bug on its back, frantically waving its legs in the air.

Supposing the bug is sentient, he may be praying to the bug god to flip him over.

You flip him over.

From his point of view, it is a prayer answered, a miracle. From yours, it is almost meaningless. And yet your random act of kindness has made you a god.

The bug cannot see you as you are (any more than a cell in your body can), so he sees you as an all-powerful bug.

Likewise, you can't visualize God as he/she/it really is, so you visualize an all-powerful human.

Does that mean that God doesn't exist?

The short answer is yes and no.

The long answer comes from Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

 

How Art Makes Us More Human

In the 1988 movie The Accused, Jodie Foster plays a scantily dressed young woman who saunters into the backroom of a bar and is serially raped on a pool table. (This, incidentally, is the original meaning of the term "gang bang.") While each man rapes her, the others cheer him on.

I have never raped anyone. I will never rape anyone. Yet in the anonymous safety of a darkened movie theater, I found myself silently cheering on the rapists on.

The movie revealed to me something about myself that I was totally unaware of till that moment.

How did this revelation make me more human?

We are all flawed human beings. We cannot be ourselves unless we know ourselves-the shameful as well as the praiseworthy-and accept ourselves. Otherwise, we are just playing parts; we are personas, instead of being people.

Only when we acknowledge our darker impulses can we direct that energy into more productive channels, instead of mindlessly acting them out.

Art also makes us more human by letting us live someone else's life vicariously.

In the 1995 movie Devil in a Blue Dress, Denzel Washington plays an African American private detective who is totally at home in the black neighborhood in L.A. where he lives. But when he ventures out into the white upper-class world, he is the potential victim of bigoted white cops. My stomach twisted with anxiety whenever he left the safety of his ghetto.

Being human means being able to empathize with another human being, no matter how different from you he or she is.

Seven Years in Tibet (1997) tells the true story of Heinrich Harrer, an Austrian mountain climber who became friends with the very young Dalai Lama at the time of China's takeover of Tibet. There is a scene in which the distraught little boy is slumped on the edge of his bed with his back to Harrer (played by Brad Pitt), who is standing at the opposite end of the room. I kept silently urging Harrer to go over to the boy and hug him, which he finally did. I have never known a Tibetan, let alone a Dalai Lama, but because we are both human, I knew what he must be feeling and how to console him.

Being an artist also helps us get in touch with our inner humanity-and that, of course, makes us more human. I have written and had published 22 short stories. In each one of them, I am all the characters-the good, the bad and the ugly-because they are all projections of my own personality. The protagonist of my story "Small Wonder" is considered by every woman who has ever read it to be a male chauvinist pig. He is. But because I see him from the inside-and because he is also me-I cannot judge him. I can only understand and sympathize with him.

It is always more comfortable for us to think of people as though they were statues. Mother Teresa is a saint; Adolf Hitler is a monster. But both are imperfect human beings just like you and me.

I don't condone anything that Hitler did, but when I read about his childhood in Alice Miller's For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, I began to understand why.

Miller has written elsewhere:

Like every other child, Hitler was born innocent, only to be raised, as were many children at the time, in a destructive fashion by his parents and later to make himself into a monster. He was the survivor of a machinery of annihilation that in turn-of-the-century Germany was called "child-rearing" and that I call "the concealed concentration camp of childhood," which is never allowed to be recognized for what it is.

In order not to die, all mistreated children must totally repress the mistreatment, deprivation, and bewilderment they have undergone because otherwise the child's organism wouldn't be able to cope with the magnitude of the pain suffered. Only as adults do they have other possibilities for dealing with their feelings. If they don't make use of these possibilities, then what was once the life-saving function of repression can be transformed into a dangerous destructive, and self-destructive force. In the careers of despots such as Hitler and Stalin, their suppressed fantasies of revenge can lead to indescribable atrocities.

The Führer once told his secretary that during one of the regular beatings given him by his father he was able to stop crying, to feel nothing, and even to count the thirty-two blows he received.

In this way, by totally denying his pain, his feelings of powerlessness, and his despair-in other words, by denying the truth-Hitler made himself into a master of violence and of contempt for human beings. The result was a very primitive person, incapable of any empathy for other people. He was mercilessly and constantly driven to new destructive acts by his latent feelings of hatred and revenge. After millions had been forced to die for this reason, those feelings still haunted him in his sleep. Hermann Rauschning reports nocturnal paroxysms of screaming on the Führer's part, along with "inexplicable counting", which I trace back to the counting he did during the beatings of his childhood.

By letting us walk in another's shoes, art lets us get in touch with our own humanity by letting us get in touch with someone else's. And instills in us a sense of humility. We are not better-or worse-than anyone else; we are all equal.

There but for the grace of God-or whatever-go each and every one of us.

 

At a Loss for Words

"Oriental" is now considered politically incorrect. My two Korean students describe themselves as Asians. Of course, they are, just as I am North American. But "Oriental" brings a sharp picture to mind of shared physical characteristics and cultural background. "Asian" could just as easily refer to Pakistanis.

I believe the word is taboo because there is a lot of prejudice against Orientals, particularly Koreans. But if we use the euphemism, we are legitimatising the bigotry. I think we all ought to defiantly use "Oriental" until it loses its pejorative connotation.

Just as the black comedian Dick Gregory defiantly used another inflammatory word for the title of his autobiography. As he explained to his mother: "Whenever you hear the word...you'll know they're advertising my book." It became the #1 bestseller in 1963.

Many a school library has banned Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because Huck uses the same word to describe the runaway slave Jim. But to Huck, the word was explanatory rather than derogatory.

Can the constant use of a word take away its sting? When I was in high school, none of us said a certain word, even though all of us knew it and what it meant.

Times have changed. Now that forbidden word is used so often that the only people its coarseness bothers are old fuddy-duddies like me. Sometimes I can't help feeling that if it were to disappear from the English language, some folks would be left literally speechless.

One lives in hope.

 

alec879@hotmail.com