First Presbyterian Church of Hallock, Minn.

Aug. 29, 2010

Approaching Politics

Hebrews 13:1-8, 15-16

Yesterday was the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. You may have noticed this anniversary more this year than some, because yesterday the conservative “entertainer educator” Glenn Beck held a rally at the Lincoln Memorial. The liberal Rev. Al Sharpton held a protest rally nearby. Sarah Palin spoke at Beck’s rally. Jim Wallis spoke at Sharpton’s. You can watch the news for the details, but let’s just say the dueling rallies led more to creative finger pointing than friendly hand holding.

To mark the “I Have a Dream” anniversary, National Public Radio’s “Talk of the Nation” hosted a show on King this week. As usual, the show included several guests, scholars and admirers of King’s work. But the experts disagreed. Now this is NPR so they did so respectfully without any yelling, but their disagreements were pretty significant.

An African-American pastor and writer for a conservative/libertarian magazine argued that if Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today he would surely be a social conservative and bemoan the decline of family values.

A few minutes later, another expert said he wasn’t so sure about that, and spoke of King as a traditionalist rather than a conservative — he was always going back to the Bible and the constitution, but he did so with the question, “What are the implications of this today?” King went to the tradition, but he always assumed that the best hopes of Thomas Jefferson or the Biblical prophets had not yet be realized.

As if that weren’t enough, another expert said that King was far from a cultural conservative, noting that by 1967-68 King held extreme views against the war in Vietnam and emphasized the injustice of poverty in America. In fact, King even critiqued capitalism as leaving too far a gulf between the wealth of some and the abject poverty of others.

So there were three experts with three different political agendas and three different readings of Martin Luther King Jr.

The “I Have a Dream” anniversary is not the only recent political controversy, of course. Last week several national polls showed that less than half of Americans can correctly identify President Obama as a Christian, and nearly a quarter of Americans think Obama is Muslim. Of course, the subsequent news stories on the poll results (and the strange commentators many news shows booked to speak on the topic) muddied the issue further. So much confusion about Obama’s faith existed, in fact, that a wide array of conservative, moderate, and liberal church leaders — including those of the PC(USA) — signed a public letter last week to affirm President Obama’s Christian faith.

The letter reads, in part,

“President Obama has been unwavering in confessing Christ as Lord and has spoken often about the importance of his Christian faith. Many of the signees on this letter have prayed and worshipped with this President. We believe that questioning, and especially misrepresenting, the faith of a confessing believer goes too far.”

There’s been one more big religion-related political ruckus in recent weeks, the — depending what you call it — Cordoba House or the mosque a few blocks from ground zero in New York. Originally, the project which is more like a YMCA community center with an Islamic prayer room than a dedicated mosque, had broad support. But, once we got closer to election season, the project became a classic wedge issue.

Ok, that’s enough of politics for a few minutes. You can stop squirming for now. Even mentioning political issues in mixed company can be uncomfortable for some. So why bring up these political and controversial issues in church…and in worship no less? Certainly many Christians strongly believe politics should not be mentioned from the pulpit in any way shape or form. If that’s you, don’t worry, I don’t plan on crossing any lines today.

I don’t think preachers should ever preach about which candidate to vote for, or endorse one party or another. Good Christians will disagree, and the pulpit is not the place for political pandering. But here’s the thing, I just couldn’t see any way to closely read Hebrews 13 this week, and avoid the context of last week’s political issues.

Now the writer of Hebrews doesn’t say whom to vote for in the Minnesota governor race — thank goodness for that — but this passage from Hebrews is all about politics, that is, the way people live together, how they treat one another, and how they deal with authority. The writer of Hebrews gives his church advice for living together, instructions that extend to every aspect of life, from home life to church life to community and political life.

First of all, the writer of Hebrews says, “Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some have entertained angels without knowing it.” The word we translate to “mutual love” in Greek is philadelphia, the root word of the City of Brotherly Love. The writer of Hebrews couldn’t anticipate our political climate today, but I don’t see him backing down from his instructions in the midst of a political season.

In fact, the next sentence emphasizes how extreme his instructions are: “show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some of us have entertained angels without even knowing.” Those angels you don’t know about might even be the hardest ones to love — God is sneaky like that — those co-workers that grate you the wrong way, that neighbor with whom you deeply disagree, that family member you try to avoid. The force of the passage is, “treat others as if you were in their shoes.”

And, as many times as we read this passage, we don’t find an escape clause for political interactions. Seems like God wants us to approach politics the same way we approach the rest of life. That means loving those with whom we disagree. That means trying to see Jesus in one another. And that means speaking the truth.

Near the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain took a question from an elderly woman at a town hall meeting who spoke against then Sen. Obama. The woman said, “I’ve read about him, and he’s not — he’s an Arab” and before she could say anything more offensive, McCain grabbed the microphone back and responded with what you might call “mutual love.” “No ma’am, [Obama’s] a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with…” That’s a kind of hospitality or mutual love (whether in politics or not).

Ok, let’s move on see if we can get less political. I don’t want things to get too out of hand. Hebrews says next, “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge the fornicators and adulterers.” Wow, ok, well maybe Hebrews just has it in for us — even and especially marriage is a political issue these days.

When you think about it, it makes sense the writer would stay political. The writer first says how we love our neighbors, and then goes on to say that how we love our sexual partners also reflects God love for us.

Now let’s be open and honest here: good Christians interpret this marriage verse very differently. Some say it clearly means we should not allow gay marriage, certainly not in the church. But others say the writers of Hebrews just didn’t know about homosexuality as we understand it today, and if he did, he’d realize the only way for gay Christians to honor their sacred love for one another is for the church to bless their partnership. I don’t think we’ll ever figure out Hebrews’ official position re Proposition 18 in California, but a more general approach seems clear: Hebrews calls us to come at the discussion of marriage and love from a faith perspective, holding mutual love for one another and God as the goal.

Ok, the writer of the Hebrews addresses politics, and sex, the only thing left for the extra-uncomfortable trifecta is….money. And, I’m not making this up, that’s next.

“Keep your lives free from the love of money, and be content with what you have; for [God] has said, ‘I will never leave you or forsake you.’”

Don’t love money. Simple enough. Did you catch the progression? The writer started this chapter with mutual love. Then the writer said, loving one another leads to respecting all people in the community, and that includes loving respectfully in sexual relationships. And next, if we’re loving right, no love of money gets in the way of loving others and loving God.

With all the messages we get from society on money and wealth, it’s hard not to succumb to its power. (In fact Session addressed money at our meeting last week, since as sometimes happens in the summer, our church checkbook balance is getting a little low.) But, for us as a church, and for families and individuals, the point is clear: misplaced love of money and wealth isn’t faithful, it’s an idol we must avoid.

So what’s the point of the Hebrews’ writer’s political meddling? Why ruffle feathers and make folks uncomfortable? It turns out, that it all has to do with Jesus Christ. That’s how the reading finishes.

Because of Jesus Christ, he says, “let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God.” Because of Jesus Christ, he says, let us not neglect to do good and to share what we have. Because of of Jesus Christ, he says, those of us who confess his name approach the world prioritizing not political parties or money, not sexual thrills or keeping comfortable. Those of us who confess Jesus Christ approach the world prioritizing love, for Christ loves us and we love others in return.

That’s the approach of the writer of Hebrews — to politics, to community, to life. Love will get political. Love will make us uncomfortable. Love, though — Jesus’ love, is one platform we all should support.