The Baffled King Composing “Hallelujah” based on II Samuel 11:26-12:13 (quoting song lyrics from “Hallelujah” – words & music by Leonard Cohen, 1995, with additional verses by Rufus Wainwright)

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton, Long Beach, California   90815

July 24, 2011

Last Sunday, we talked about King David seducing Bathsheba. 
Clearly that occasion was in Rufus Wainright’s mind when he wrote the 4th verse of the song “Hallelujah” (which our choir sang this morning):  “Your faith was strong, but you needed proof.  You saw her bathing on the roof.  Her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you.”

Who else could he possibly mean but King David spying on Bath-sheba?  I think that Wainwright was right to focus on that one really bad decision on David’s part as the moment that “broke” David’s throne. 

(As an aside) Wainright mixed in a little of Samson & Delilah’s story in that verse about tying him to her kitchen chair (which Delilah did twice to Samson: once with fresh bowstrings and another time with new-ropes), but her strong-man lover broke them like threads.  Samson only came under her power when Delilah cut off his hair.  (You can read all about it in the Book of Judges, chapter 16:4-21).  But that was the stormy relationship between Samson & Delilah, not the affair between David & Bathsheba.

Last week, we followed David’s efforts to cover up the pregnancy by returning Uriah from the battlefield to his wife’s bed, but Uriah would not cooperate.  Even when (on the second day) David got the soldier drunk, Uriah still slept with the guards, not down in his own house… not enjoying his wife’s company! 

So David decided that Uriah had to die, otherwise he would soon discover his wife’s pregnancy and expose King David’s adultery.  Under the cover of a battle, David ordered Joab, the general, to pull back the troops and leave Uriah at the front, exposed to the enemy arrows.  He did, and the soldier died.  David publicly comforted Bathsheba, now widowed and pregnant.  Then David married her.  And that’s where today’s Scripture reading began.

So… is this story a hero’s epic, with David doing right to rescue the poor woman & her unborn child from the fate of widow- & orphan-hood? 
   
To the public eye, King David was Uriah’s friend -- hosting Uriah to a banquet in the palace shortly before his tragic death, leading the public mourning for the soldier’s gallant sacrifice in battle, and generously saving the man’s widow from poverty by marrying her. 

Seen that way, David’s marriage to Bathsheba is somewhat like (in the Christmas story) Daddy Joseph marrying the pregnant Virgin Mary -- and thereby giving to her his own status as being from the “line of David” -- so that Mary’s baby Jesus would have a proper lineage. In this way, too, David rescued Bathsheba’s baby from obscurity.  I mean: who would ever have heard of the son of a Hittite soldier?  Especially after Uriah was dead!  But.. to be the son of King David, now that’s something!

So… is David doing a generous thing by marrying Bathsheba -- an act of charity and kindness, maybe even love? Or is this story really all about hypocrisy and evil in high places, with the king “doing as he pleased” in private, hoping no one would ever be the wiser? 

To Nathan the prophet -- which is to say “to God’s all-seeing eye” -- these things that were done by David in secret are about to be announced from the rooftops!  David thought that he had gotten away with it until the prophet Nathan confronted him.  Citing a case of blatant injustice (the story of the poor man’s beloved ewe-lamb, which was taken and eaten by the rich man!), Nathan asked the King for a verdict.  In judging the man in the story “guilty” and deserving of “death”, David actually condemned himself.  You see, because he had (first) taken Bathsheba from Uriah, and because (2nd) he had killed her beloved husband, as easy as sending a sheep to slaughter!
The public image of King David as the Lord’s “Anointed” -- a man after God’s own heart, who does everything well just as God would do -- is about to come crashing down!  He’s shown to be a man with the same lusts & ego, anger & arrogance, as every other king in history!

In the song “Hallelujah”, Rufus Wainwright points to this reversal of King David’s fortune -- from the golden-fair-haired boy who could do no wrong, to the scoundrel that he had become -- with the following words: “I’ve seen your flag on the Marble Arch.  Love is not a victory march, it’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah.”

After catching David by surprise with the parable of the poor man’s ewe-lamb, Nathan explains that it is really all about exposing David to David!  Nathan begins by recapping all the good that God has done to establish David on the throne of Israel: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul.  I gave you your master’s house and his wives into your bosom.  I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more...Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in God’s sight?  You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife!... Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me... Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house.  I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor...  For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun [that is “in the light of day!”].” (II Sam. 12:7-12)
   
David has carefully tried to cover up his evil, but here comes a man who knows all about it!  Nathan says he knows about the affair because the Lord God Yahweh has revealed it, but I would suspect that he has been talking to… Bathsheba!  Nathan, after all, is the only one who stays loyal to Bathsheba (and her son Solomon) when David is old and his other sons rebel against him. (see: I Kings 1:11)  Nathan is a “prophet”, which means he is one who speaks on God’s authority, but he speaks also on behalf of the widow, Bathsheba.
    What does Nathan say God has already done? 

(1) God has Messiah’d David (anointed him). (2) God has rescued him from Saul, (3) gave him a house/lineage, and (4) gave him the wives of Saul ... (I think that last one deserves comment.)

It goes without saying that “marriages” are not always for romantic interest.  David’s first wife Michal was a daughter of King Saul. Michal loved David and King Saul promised that she and David could marry under one condition: David had to bring to him 100 “foreskins” of the Philistines.  (I Sam. 18:20-29)  We are told that, because Saul was both jealous of and afraid of  David, he invented the task in the hopes that David would be killed in battle before he could collect all the… (shall    we say?)… “scalps.”

However, David succeeded in the task, and Saul had to keep his word.  David married Michal.  But we are told: “Saul was David’s enemy from that time forward.” (I Sam. 18:29)

I hope you recall my sermon from two weeks ago, when we told of young David playing his harp and singing for King Saul whenever he was in a “fit” or “twit” or otherwise in a “bad mood.”  And while it’s true that “music soothes a savage beast” it’s also true that you’re at risk when you are around a savage beast to begin with!  And so, David learned to duck & dodge since King Saul twice tried to skewer David with his spear!

Maybe that was on Leonard Cohen’s mind when he wrote the original verse: “I’ve heard there was a secret chord that David played, and it pleased the Lord.  But you don’t really care for music, do you?”

Imagine having a megalomaniac, jealous, angry, frightened father-in-law like King Saul was to David!  After Saul banished David from the palace, he gave Michal to be the wife of Palti (or Palti-el), son of Laish.   (I Sam. 25:44) As a fugitive, David had no way to keep or to care for a wife… even if they had been in love.

However, once Saul was dead and David began to rule in Judah, he took Michal away from her new husband Paltiel (2 Sam. 3:16) because, as a daughter of King Saul, she served as proof of David’s right to rule the house of Israel.  Having married the king’s daughter, David became a contender for the throne.  And when Ishbaal, Saul’s son, was assassinated and David became the King of all Israel, he got Saul’s harem in the bargain, because wives & concubines belonged to the crown.  They were royal “property!” 

That’s what Nathan was talking about when he said: 
“I gave you your masters house and his wives into your bosom.”

For the record: David had eight wives: Michal, his first wife, King Saul’s daughter (I Sam. 18:27)  had no children by David.  Their relationship was stormy! On one occasion, she publicly scolded David when he danced in the street -- when the Ark of the Covenant was carried into Jerusalem for the first time (II Samuel 6:5-23) -- he danced wearing nothing but a loincloth!  Michal wanted David to be more proper!  She complained that he was “… uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ maids, as any vulgar fellow might shamelessly uncover himself!” (II Sam. 6:20)  Remember what I said last Sunday about one’s attitude toward the naked human body (either our appreciating it for its beauty, or our avoiding it lest we be tempted to lust)… are attitudes formed by one’s up-bringing in one’s family of origin, in addition to the “community standards” of what is appropriate.  In other words, our traditional moiré’s.

On that occasion, which was intended to be an opportunity for David to “bless his household” (II Sam. 6:20), turned instead into something mean!  David’s reply to his wife was testy and unkind: “It was before the Lord [that I was dancing half-naked].  The Lord who chose ME in place of your father (& all his household), to appoint ME as prince over Israel (the people of the Lord) that I hace danced before the Lord!” (II Samuel 6:21)

At one time, Michal loved David… then she lost him, then she was brought back to him by force, and now (as his wife) she has to share him with other people… with other women! 
I can imagine how “conflicted” their relationship is.  Remember, Michal had grown up as the daughter of a king, at home with royalty, living in a palace; and she had known little David like a brother when Jonathan was still alive.  Now she’s married to him, and he’s a king…

To use Rufus Wainwright’s words:  “Maybe I’ve been here before?  I know the room, I’ve walked the floor.  I used to live alone before  I knew you. … And remember when I moved in you, the holy dark was moving too?  Then every breath we drew was Hallelujah!”

I can almost hear Michal & David, as a married couple, wondering (as the years have gone by): “What’s changed?  Where’s the magic we once had?  Remember when every breath we drew was ‘Hallelujah!’?”

Wife #2 was Abagail, the widow of Nabal (I Sam. 25:39)… a woman who had first met David as he was preparing to attack her household and kill them all!  David was going to kill them because of an insulting response that her husband Nabal had made to a request from David’s servants, saying: “Who is David?  Who is the son of Jesse?”

This story makes me thank that Lust was not David’s only sin!  He obviously had anger-management issues, too!  However, his anger against Nabal was turned into love for Nabal’s wife Abagail when she came out to meet him… and she gave David a gift of 200 loaves of bread, two full goatskins of wine, five already butchered sheep; five bushels of grain, 100 clusters of raisins, & 200 cakes of figs. (I Sam. 25:18) As I read the list of provisions, I wonder: is there a hint of gluttony?

So David has Michal, Saul’s daughter (wife # 1), who bore no children; and Abagail (wife #2) who gave David his second son: Chileab. That’s the second son.  The parentage of David’s first-born son, Amnon -- the Crown-Prince, the heir to the throne -- is quite revealing!

Remember, when David ascended to the throne, he inherited Saul’s harem. Michal’s mother, Ahinoam was among them.  So… King Saul’s former wife, the mother of Michal, became David’s third wife! 
(I Sam.14:50 and  I Sam. 25:43)   It was Ahinoam who birthed Amnon, David’s first-born son. So, technically, Crown Prince Amnon was Queen Michal’s half-brother, as well as her royal son.  That’s because her own mother is also David’s wife!

It sounds a bit like what goes on in the hills of Tennesee, where (to quote the old Dorothy Shay song):  “Your Pa is your Uncle Fud.  Well, that makes my sister my cousin, too.  Darned if we know who is who.”   With in-laws (and incest!) like that, is it any wonder that the prophet Nathan says that David’s family would be a household in turmoil?

Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me... Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house.    (II Sam. 12:10-11)

And then there was wife #4: Maacah, a Lebanese princess, who was the wife who birthed Absalom (David’s third son, and apparently his favorite) and this wife also birthed Absolom’s sister Tamar. Unfortunately, Crown Prince Amnon fell hopelessly in love with his beautiful half-sister after Tamar went through puberty & he just couldn’t help himself!  Amnon burned with desire for her and so… he raped her!  (II Samuel 13:1-20)

It makes me: wonder how much of David’s sexual immorality had rubbed off on his eldest son? 

It is at crisis moments like these -- when life no longer proceeds at its normal pace, but changes in some way -- that we feel what Leonard Cohen calls: “the 4th, the 5th, the minor fall, the major lift.”  A true “Hallelujah” will include them all!  “There’s a blaze of light in every word.  It doesn’t matter what you’ve heard: the Holy, or the broken… ‘Hallelujah!’”

David as an older man (with family problems & heavy responsi-bilities) is no longer who he was as an inspired youth. The shepherd boy David, who wrote the “23rd Psalm” (as a hopeful, faithful, young idealist!) now composes Psalms of Lament.  David has learned to sing the “blues.”

In Psalms such as “Psalm 51” (which we used as our call to worship) -- which is said to have been composed after Nathan revealed to David the reality of his sin in his actions toward Bathsheba & Uriah -- we hear a more mature David say:

“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy, blot out my transgressions.” (verse 1)
“…I have done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment.” (verse 4)
“You desire truth in the inward being; therefore, teach me wisdom in my secret heart.” (verse 6) 
“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and restore a right spirit within me.” (verse 10)   “O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.” (verse 15)

There we have it, even in the depths of David’s contrition, the word “Hallelujah!”  “My mouth will declare your praise!”  Even in the depths of guilt and shame, of ill-will and bad mistakes, David says: “Praise God.”  “Hallelujah!”  This is a richer, sadder, wiser, & more mature praise.  And I believe, God received it with joy, because it really meant something!

Leonard Cohen put it like this: “And even though it all went wrong… I’ll stand before the Lord of Song with nothing on my tongue but “Hallelujah!”

 We notice the darker tones of a more mature “Hallelujah” – as David (and all of us) recognize the need to “praise God” in everything that life throws at us -- everyday and in everyway -- even in the hard times… perhaps especially in the hard times!

The point I want to make is that the person who composed the first “Hallelujah” (David), and who literally filled the biblical Book of Psalms with that refrain (“Praise the Lord!”) under every imaginable circumstance, became more and more “baffled” as his life spun out of control. 
Things that had once given him pleasure were now the source of heart-ache.  Even the fact that David was now king was no protection from sin & sadness, as Amnon’s rape of Tamar showed. 

How does one sing a “Hallelujah” – how does one “Praise God” – when bad things like that are happening?  How do you praise God when you feel helpless, hap-less, & hopeless?

I get from David’s story the recognition that our own personal experience of “Hallelujah” (the praising of God) (including that “Hallelujah” that is drawn from our lips during the intimacy of love) isn’t always up-beat and cheery.  A true “Hallelujah” will often develop shadows in its former sunshine as it matures;  minor chords will be found among the majors; wider harmonies and more complicated rhythms will come into the mix. 

And once our “Hallelujah” goes there… there’s no going back!  Simple “praise choruses” will feel a bit too light… too trite.

Rufus Wainwright captured David’s fall from grace with these words:   “There was a time when you let me know what’s real and going on below; but now you never show it to me, do you?” 

David realized that he had failed to keep faith with The Ways of God-Yahweh.  He had begun to act like any other old Philistine chief or Canaanite tyrant!  The gradual loss of guidance from God is the consequence of disrespecting God.

As I look at the overall 40-year span of David’s monarchy -- especially as we contrast it with his younger years as a singer & shepherd, as the boy who killed the giant Goliath -- I think I know what Rufus Wainwright was getting at when he wrote: “Maybe there’s a God above… but all I every learned from love was how to shoot at someone who out-drew you.  It’s not a cry you can hear at night.  It’s not somebody who’s seen the light.  It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah.”
We’ve just spent twenty-minutes with the baffled King composing “Hallelujah.”  Despite all the scurrilous, scandalous, and self-serving experiences that David went through as he tried to walk with God through it all with “praise” on his lips, I’m grateful that David pulled no punches.  David put his whole life and thought, his emotions and his angers, his temptations and his resolutions, into his Psalms. 

David’s formerly youthful and enthusiastic “Hallelujah” has matured through decades of life experiences.  But he has kept on praising God through it all!

Changes in life may baffle us; unexpected twists & turns confuse us.  But don’t let them stop you from singing “Hallelujah!”  Through it all, keep on singing: “Hallelujah!  Praise God!”  Amen.

   

"Stuff I Learned As A Kid" (but didn't appreciate until now) based loosely on Proverbs 4:1-7

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton Street, Long Beach, California  90815

June 19, 2011 (Father’s Day)

    My 40th High School reunion is coming up, and the planning team has asked each of us to write down some words of wisdom -- something that life has taught us -- that we would never dreamed of saying 40 years ago.

    My contribution was simply this: "Life is like a teeter-totter.  For it to work, we have to take turns being up
and down.  Things change.  Get used to it."

    Since then, other little flippant remarks (of somewhat similar child-like insight) have crossed my mind.  I offer them here -- mostly without comment -- aware that they may one day become illustrations (or even the core idea) in future sermons. 

    As a long-remembered poster from my childhood put it: "All the flowers of all our tomorrows are in the seeds of today."  You who are parents never know what kinds of seeds your words and behavior are sowing in your impressionable young’uns.  On this Father’s Day, I thought a few random observations about growing-up may serve better than a complicated Bible sermon.

    Like this, for instance:  If you want to know something really well, you have to touch it, smell it, see if you can pick it up, and look at it upside down.  New perspectives give insight. 

    As children, may of us were primary “tactile” – that is, we would reach out and touch things that interested us.  In a store, or at someone else’s house than your own, or in a museum, such reaching and touching could bring a quick reprimand from Mom or Dad: “Keep you hands to yourself!” or “Don’t touch what doesn’t belong to you.”

    Similarly, perhaps especially for boys: sometimes you have to take things apart to see how they work, but then you run the risk that they might not ever work again when you do. (!)  I guess what that taught me is that there's always risk, as well as joy, in learning new things.  You can’t always go back, if it’s broken, and “make everything alright again.”  Life doesn’t always allow for a “do over.”  So, we’ve got to learn how to handle “regret” and not let it weigh us down.  If we allow our regrets (memories of our mistakes & failings) accumulate without relief, life can become unbearable.

    As I said a moment ago: new perspectives give insight.  I’ve found it very positive to look at situations from someone else’s vantage point; to put yourself in their shoes. However, seeing something from “all sides” isn't easy.  Back in High School, I was on the debate team.  Success in school "debates" required our team knowing all the possible arguments and evidence to the contrary of our position, and then to formulate a response.  To see things from other positions and perspectives than your own helps forge a path for compromise or, better, reconciliation.

    As a kid, I was forever reminded to "look both ways" before crossing the street. That principle serves me on the highway of ideas, too. 

    Another area of life that seems to have changes since I was young is how fast time flies!  I remember as a child thinking that sometimes "tomorrow" takes a really long time to come.  When my Dad was on the road as a bank examiner, he’d be gone from Monday through Friday.  Weekends seemed to be a lifetime apart. 

    Or another example of slow-moving time: on Christmas Eve, when we kids couldn’t sleep, we’d huddle in each others beds talking about what would be there in the morning. Every passing minute seemed to take an hour!  And, didn’t we all (as kids) say: “Are we there yet?”  And when Mom would say: “In  a minute,” you knew it would always take longer than that!

    The passing of time filled up the whole day, when I was younger.  Ten minutes seemed too short if it was "recess," but it was an awfully long time if it's "a time out."  Now that I’m pushing 60, however, hours -- days, years! -- seems to race by without leaving hardly a trace… not leaving even very many new memories in its passing. 

    For example, I can’t believe that it’s already been 16 months that I’ve been the Pastor of Los Altos U.C.C.!  That’s nearly a year and-a-half!  We’ve been through two Easters, two Pentecosts & Stewardship campaigns, together.  I’ve preached 64 sermons, led 125 Bible studies… And yet there are some ways in which it feels like we’re just still getting acquainted… like I’m “the new kid on the block.”  People are still trying to “get used to” the way I do things, or how I say things.  Apparently, personal relationships, unlike a transplanted tree, take a long time to take root… an even longer time to grow in trust and develop intimacy.  Time flies, friends, so let’s make the most of it. 

    So, what’s that so far: (1) Things change, get used to it.   
(2) If you really want to get to know something, touch it, taste it, turn it over, look at it from all sides… because new perspectives give insight.  And (3) time flies, make the most of it.

    At camp, we used to sing Harry Chapin’s classic song: Cat’s in the Cradle. You may recall the refrain:  “The cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon, the little boy blue, and the man in the moon.  When you coming home, Dad? I don’t know when.  But we’ll get to get together then, son.  I know we’ll have a good time then.”  In the early verses, the boy wants his dad to play catch with him, ride a bike with him, spend time doing things together Dad & son.  But his Dad was always too busy -- on the go, on the road, making money, making a name for himself and making a life for his family.  By the final verse, the tables are turning: 
“My son came home just the other day, so much like a man I just had to say: Come on, son, let’s sit for a while. “Sorry, Dad,” he said with a smile. “I’ve got things to do, and people to see.  Can I borrow the car key? Can I have it, please?”  And as he turned away, you know I could see: He’s grown up just like me. Oh, my boy is just like me.”
“And the cat’s in the cradle, and the silver spoon, the little boy blue, and the man in the moon.  When you coming home, Son? I don’t know when.  But we’ll get to get together then, Dad.  I know we’ll have a good time then.”   Time flies.  Make the most of it.

    Thinking of recess, I remember that if you’re the one who brings the ball, you sometimes get to pick the teams.  And hitting the kid who has the ball might get you the ball, but it won't get you anyone to throw it to.  On the other hand, if you toss a ball to a kid, they will probably toss it right back to you.  Seems more fun to do it that way...  Sharing with others, including them in your game, makes for firm friendships.  Ever after 40 years!

    A fourth lesson I learned as a child was to be honest.  Even in the little things -- especially in the little things! -- because that’s where your foundation of integrity (or lack of it) is based.

    As a child, I used to think I could fool my mother into thinking I had washed my hands just by wetting the soap and messing up the towel.  It never worked.  Maybe she saw the dirt on the outside edge of my hand, where I forgot to look.  Maybe she really did have “eyes in the back of her head,” like she said.

      Since then I have begun to realize there are no "degrees of honesty" -- there is only "the truth" or "not the truth."  It may be as little a thing as saying that you brushed your teeth when you didn't, or asking someone to "say you're not at home" when you really just don't want to talk to the person on the phone.  When it comes to integrity, I like to remember: it only takes a little hole to empty a big bucket.

    "Honesty" does not come automatically; it is learned behavior.  And while "the truth" -- that is, the "reality", the actual events -- are clear-cut, black & white, factual (either it happened or it didn’t), the meaning & importance we give to that particular event is always shadowed by our own peculiar shades of grey. 

    So, my fourth life lesson is this: "Honesty is the best policy," but it is not always easy.  To be honest (forth-right, precisely true) is a decision -- an act of will! -- not only to face the truth, but "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so, help me, God!)."  In some situations, truth-telling seems harsh; it may not be kind; to tell someone the honest truth is often a hard decision to make!  But I suspect that's also why honesty, even in little things, is able to build character on a solid foundation of personal integrity.

   At one point (back in the early 1960’s), when my father’s Construction Company was over $100,000 in debt -- owing his workers and the building supply vendors for work that had been done, but for which the contracted client (the motel owners and their investors) simply delayed paying upon completion.  The bank said that my Dad could declare bankruptcy, close his Construction Company, and thereby eliminate those past debts… but my father said no. 

    “I gave them my word that they’d be paid,” he said.  “It’s my good name that’s at risk.  They will get their money, every penny, even if I have to hold down three jobs.”  As a family, we down-sized our home, moved to a new town where my Dad worked as a Vice-President of a Savings and Loan, and he gradually paid off those debts over the next decade.  Having moved away, and gone beyond what any statute of limitations could have required, my Dad continued to make payments to his former employees and vendors until it was all paid off in full.

    So what have we covered thus far?  (1) Things change, so get used to it.    (2) New perspectives give insight; look at things from all sides, if possible.  (3) Time flies, so we should make the most of it.  And (4) honesty is the best policy.

    Going back to those childhood days, I loved summer vacation, even though three months away from the classroom meant not remembering all that much when we started up again in the fall. I wish I had a job that had three months off every year!  But the school year did teach me a few things beyond the curricula and the studies.

    The first thing I learned in school was that recess is the best part.  And it's more fun to play than to watch. "Follow the Leader" is a lot more fun when you're the leader.  On the playground, it seems you're either chasing, or being chased.  And I think it’s okay to make up the rules as you go along, so long as the others agree to the new rules.  Play fair, or don’t play.  It doesn't count that your swing is going highest if you're getting pushed and the others aren’t! 

    And... you need to know just when to jump off.  As a kid, I had plenty of “goose-eggs” on my forehead (and “shiners” on my eye), for miscalculating where a swing was headed!  And it may be that crying gets you more attention, but not more friends.  “Whiners” have to play alone.  And, whatever you do, my last bit of advice learned on the playground is: don’t tease a big kid!

    A lot is made nowadays about the clothing choices our kids make.  Girls want their belly-buttons and bra-straps to show; boys droop their drawers so low that the slogan on their Boxers can be read across the room.  Abercrombie & Fitch have sexualized pre-teens, and some sneakers are so popular and expensive that kids resort to stealing them!  Kids won’t be “caught dead” in home-made clothes, and without the right signature brand, they’d just as soon not wear anything.

    I came of age before all that; and I wore my older brother’s clothes all the way through High School, getting them the year after he outgrew them.  “Hand me downs” we called them.  At Christmas, our grandparents gave us new underwear and socks   (I suppose it was because my Grandpa worked at JC Penney), so those items and my shoes were bought just for me.  Frankly, I didn’t care, because clothes were not the measure of the person in those “olden days.”


    However, I do remember having certain preferences about clothes as a kid.  Maybe some of these things will ring true to you, too:  Wearing big clothes makes you feel smaller.  Pants with pockets are better than ones that don’t have pockets.

    As a rule of thumb: don't wear it if it itches.  If you're going to lose a sock, you might as well lose both.  On the other hand, there is no good reason why clothes have to match. Old shoes are more comfortable than new ones.

    And, why is it that nobody notices when your zipper is up, but everyone notices when it's down! 

    And why is it you always spill your juice when you're wearing your best clothes?  For that matter, tell me: why do they even make white pants for kids?  Because one of the bigger lessons in life is that “if you stay clean, you'll never have fun.”  Kids aren't supposed to have clean fingernails!

    Well, by now, you can tell that I don’t have children of my own, or I wouldn’t wax so eloquent about letting them get dirty! 

    But every one of us has BEEN a child at some earlier stage of our lives.  We’ve been through it ourselves long before we accept the challenge, and the blessing, of being a Dad or a Mom to someone else. 

    I applaud those of you who have set firm limits and been fine role models to the young people that grace our church, and in whose hands the future will one day rest.  May you feel good about who you have been to them on this Father’s Day, and may they grow up to be all that you wish them to be.
                                Amen.   

"LUST: Making Love, Breaking Love" based on II Samuel 11:1-18 & 26-27

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton Street, Long Beach, California  90815

July 17, 2011

    This morning I am going to be talking about the sin of “lust.” 
The dictionary defines “lust” as a personal inclination toward pleasure or delight, an intense longing or craving, usually an intense sexual desire or urge.  Its Latin root is “lascivus” – lasciviousness – “wanton” or “lewd.” However, our English word “lust” is also related to the Old High German word “Lust” meaning “pleasure” or “desire” or “enthusiastic.”

    I wish we could focus on the more positive “lusty” pleasures that the German word connotes, rather than the craving for sexual desire that we mean by the word in English.  But that wouldn’t be true to today’s Scripture reading, in which King David gives in to his lust for Bathsheba. 

    The Church includes the sin of lust in its list of Seven Deadlies. So, before we get into the specifics of “lust”, we might want to be clear about what the Bible calls “sin.”  The most general definition of sin is “anything that misses the mark of God’s aim for life” -- anything that takes us “off the track” of God’s Will (which is God’s love and desire for the good of all).  Every occasion of sin breaks God’s heart!

    A more practical definition would be that sin “tears down” rather than builds up; it hurts and harms instead of helps.  Sin breaks hearts and breaks up homes; sin harms relationships and hurts people. And yet… we keep on doing it!

    There is a peculiar “twist” in human nature -- a “bent” toward violence (so long as we think we can get away with it); a lust for power over others; a general impatience with others; a self-serving desire to claim good for ourselves & blame evil on others...      We are inclined to overlook our own obvious short-comings and to scapegoat others.  We tend to spend a lot of time and energy trying to “fix the blame” for what’s gone wrong, rather than trying to “fix the problem.”  Such traits are so common, we assume they’re universal.

    On an individual (or personal) level, all of us wrestle from time to time with inclinations & temptations toward sin.  But also on a social level, there are conditions that orient us toward sin. 

    Foremost among them (I suspect) is the deference of privilege that is shown toward some in society, while looking down on others.  That is, some folks are considered “worthy” people; while others are not!  To divide the world into “Us” and “Them” is often the first step toward committing social sin.  Once you decide “they” are not like you, all manner of evil can be laid on them; or they can be dismissed, ignored.

    It is customary in Church settings to list “Pride” as the first of the “seven deadly sins” and the source of the other six sins.  And there is no question that we see “pride” in today’s text, when King David presumes the right to behave toward his neighbor Bathsheba (and subsequently toward her husband, Uriah the Hittite) in very disrespectful ways!

    But… he’s the king!  And by this time, David’s been king of Israel and Judah for close to 30 years!  Who’s going to stand up against the King!?  By definition, to be king is to be “royal” -- to be “sovereign” -- a cut above all other mortals.  And David (in particular) knows that he has been chosen -- anointed -- by God to rule over the people. The whole institution of monarchy has “set David up” for the sin of pride.

    “Sin” always involves (1) a personal decision with (2) subsequent moral consequences.  In other words: we can choose to act for “the good” of others, or we can act against their good.  The former is moral virtue; the latter is what we call “sin” – moral failure.

    A few years ago, when I mentioned that I would be taking seven Sundays to discuss the “seven deadly sins” (one a week), someone said:  “Be sure to tell us which week you’ll talk about lust, so I can be there!”   Someone else asked in passing: “What are the other six sins, anyway?     I mean, we all know about immorality, but what are the other sins?”

    Peculiar, isn’t it, that in our society, “sin” has come to mean “sexual immorality” above all else?!  Pride, greed, gluttony, sloth, envy, & anger... all that we can accept.  But mention “lust” and it makes us squirm.  I probably should have posted a warning in last Sunday’s bulletin that today’s sermon would be rated “R” – or maybe “MA” for Mature Audiences only.

    So, the first thing I want to say about “lust” -- or “luxuria” (which is lust’s name in Greek) -- is that it is not the first (nor the worst) form of “immorality.”   It’s just gotten that reputation here in America, where the so-called “Moral” Majority, & the “Christian” Coalition, our Puritan ancestors & some TV preachers (among others) -- who willingly wink at greed, who play upon people’s anger, and who flirt with pride -- point only to sex and sexuality as a measure of America’s “immorality”! 

    Just look at what “wedge issues” are splitting some Christian churches: gay & lesbian concerns, the battle over abortion, redefining marriage (to include all committed couples), and the role of women.  As a society, we seem to fixate on matters of sex and gender! But in all those examples, the real issue is power (matters of justice), not sex.  These divisive issues become perverted when we think that it’s about sexual intercourse.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, there is an element of “lust” in this story of David and Bathsheba that needs to be addressed.  And David is the guilty party! 

    First, David is guilty when he lusts “in his heart” as he watched Bathsheba taking a bath.  His desire for her was kindled… his intense longing, craving, sexual urge.  That’s the dictionary definition…and David has it!

    And, frankly, that’s quite natural...  As a man, I can imagine he caught his breath when he saw her, and stopped walking... Maybe he even thanked God that he, by chance, had been walking past his window just as this woman stood up from her bath on a near-by rooftop.  (“Thank you, God, for this beautiful creature!  What a joy to see her splendid form in the moonlight!  Thank you, God!”) 

    Depending upon our attitudes about nudity -- much of which is formed in the social norms of the family we grew up in, and in the expectations of the people in the community around us -- one might say the naked body is a gift from God to be appreciated and to be enjoyed, or it is something to keep hidden, lest it incite a neighbor to lust. 

    Here in sun-drenched Southern California, where girls wear short-shorts on the streets and bikini’s on the beach, I think we must like to see exposed flesh as a thing of beauty. 
In sun-drenched Musilm nations, on the other hand, where women are sequestered at home -- or clad beneath burka veils in public -- female flesh must be other-wise thought of.

    Ask yourself: is the naked body a gift from God to be appreciated and to be enjoyed, or is nude flesh something to keep hidden, lest it incite lust in a neighbor?  In today’s story, Bathsheba’s innocence and beauty becomes an object for King David’s lust.  (That is the sad reality for many men.)

    One could say that this Bible story is probably one of the world’s earliest “porno-graphic” texts -- (porne: being the Greek word for “a harlot” and graphein: meaning “to write”), except that Bathsheba is not a harlot!  She is not a sexual object to be used by men. 

    Bathsheba is a woman, a wife, who is purifying herself at home with the necessary mikvah/bath following her monthly period.  Any telling of this story that turns Bathsheba into a harlot – portraying her as a willing accomplice in “seducing” the King -- is not true to the biblical text.  (This happens, for example, in the 1985 movie “King David” starring Richard Gere. Bathsheba lusts after the King; she seduces him.)

    Make no mistake about it: in the Bible story, it is David’s imagin-ation that turns this beautiful woman (and the innocence of her “nudity”) into an object of his lust.  The sin is in David, not in her.  It’s not Bathsheba’s “fault” that she is bathing; nor her fault that she is beautiful.  It is David, in his lusty imagination as he watches her, who initiates the sin, and -- as King -- has the power to summons her to his bedchamber! 

    David was lusting in his heart as he watched Bathsheba taking a bath. David’s desire for her was kindled.  If he had not acted on that desire to have sex with his neighbor’s wife, one might say: “No harm; no foul.”  But David doesn’t resist the temptation; he gives in to it.

    The first immoral act takes place when David summons Bathsheba to appear at once before him.  That is an act of “hubris”:  pride.  It’s a misuse of his power, his royal status, his ability to issue commands to his subjects.  In our day we would say it’s a blatant case of sexual harass-ment, where one in authority makes inappropriate demands upon one’s subordinates.  The lust in David’s heart becomes a sin in deed when he takes Bathsheba to his bed-chamber and consummates adultery.
It’s adultery since both of them are married to other people.

    In other words, the sex act in itself is not sinful.  It’s David’s choice of Bathsheba to be his sex-partner, when she is married to someone else, that is the sin.  He, too, is married to someone else (and we’ll get into that next Sunday!)

    What I want you to notice this morning, though, is that sexuality is not “immorality.” That may surprise you to hear, so let me say it again: “Sexuality” is not immorality. (I think we may have to define our terms yet once more.) 

    “Morality” has to do with right or wrong behavior, as it affects other people.

    The dimension of “morality” arises whenever something we do affects another.  For an action to be “immoral” means others are affected in an ill-way by your decision: what you do hurts or harms them. 

    To be “moral” simply means you have not harmed anyone by your action: your decision has enhanced them, or empowered them, or at least left them in peace.  If your action affects only you, then there is no question of its “morality” (by definition)!  The “moral dimension” is null and void if your deed only affects yourself.  “Morality,” by definition, is measured by its effect upon other people.

    If you only think something, but take no action on that thought, there is no moral consequence, regardless of what you may be thinking.  Or if your behavior affects no ill upon anyone, then there is again (by definition) no “moral dimension” -- no sin has been done. Sin is a personal moral decision which produces ill-being or ill-will in others. 

    Still (as we’ve have already noted), certain “tendencies toward sin” have become institutionalized in our society, rationalized, and very often excused.  “Times have changed...” we say. “C’mon, everybody’s doing it!”  Frankly, it’s not easy to be moral in an immoral world. 

    Some sins have become so common, so accepted, that they are almost expected -- like having sex on prom night, or getting drunk at college... (“Who’s it gonna hurt?” we ask.)  I’ve said it before: to hold Christian ethics is considered a liability in some circles & businesses.

    Let me now say, for the record: “Lust” is not the first, nor the worst, of the seven deadly sins... even though it is the most passionate of them, & it strikes us straight on!  There’s no mistaking the ill effects of giving in to LUST.  It’s a temptation too many people say “yes” to.  Without a doubt, King David committed the sin of lust -- first, in his heart as he watched Bathsheba bathing; then, in his act of summoning Bathsheba to his bedchamber to consummate adultery with her. 

    But the story is about much more than David’s voyeurism and lusty passions.  It’s luxuria, luxuria!   A personal inclination toward pleasure & delight, an intense longing or craving! It is “lascivus” -- “wanton” or “lewd,” an intense sexual desire or urge.

    David was immoral in his behavior, which (at the very least) would be a disappointment to God, against whom every sin is personally felt.

    But beyond his insult to God, David’s primary sin is toward Bath-sheba… by taking advantage of his high position to command her compliance; and by taking advantage of his high house to peek down on her!  Today, we would call David a “Peeping Tom” or a “dirty old man.”

    David was immoral in his behavior (secondly) toward Uriah, his faithful friend and loyal soldier.  First, it was clearly immoral for David to initiate an adulterous affair with Uriah’s wife.  At the very least, that was a rude thing to do to Uriah; a betrayal of his trust, an unforgivable breach of neighborliness.  Remember, the 10th Commandment is “Thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s wife!”  Not to mention his failure to keep the 7th Commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”  

    David was further immoral toward Uriah in his attempts to cover it up, when Bathsheba was found to be pregnant. Especially on the second night, when David forced Uriah to get drunk in hopes that he’d weaken his resolve and go home to sleep with his wife... Please note that none of those sins were sexual, but they far outweigh the brief blaze of sexual passion that started the whole unfortunate episode.

    David was immoral (third) as regards Joab, his Army commander  -- giving illegal (and immoral) orders by which his own troops would be slain!  David was immoral in sending troops out to war while he stayed home (in luxury) – something Uriah made very clear, by refusing to sleep in his own bed, while Israel’s troops were camped out in battle-lines.  David was immoral, above all else, in demanding the Hittite’s death!  He murders Uriah in order to cover up his adultery!

    Unfortunately, David didn’t see any of that as “immoral.” 

    To this day, many of us are quick to point fingers at any suspected “sexual immorality” while letting the really big sins (matters of pride, violence, abuse of power, betrayal...) go unchecked.

    You may remember when the Assemblies of God stripped two of their big name “TV-evangelists” of their ordination -- Jim Bakker & Jimmy Swaggart -- for having confessed adultery and having consorted with prostitutes.  And yet we don’t seem to much mind the other six sins in our leaders: pride & greed run rampant, and we don’t seem to notice!  A man may be greedy & grasping; selfish & spiteful; unscrupulous, un-just, jealous; violent... even cruel!;  he may be lying, arrogant, stubborn, stupid, depressing, & dull... and yet we are not ready to call HIM immoral.  That distinction we save, it seems, for the sin of lust alone. 

    And so, the Church inflicts its own brand of damage on the psyches and sexuality of our young people, by our fascination with sexuality as sin, and our failure to see it as God’s most powerful gift for intimacy (an expression of love and commitment)!

    Well, David lost the glory of his kingdom due to his lust for Bathsheba.  The tragedy of his “fall from grace” is well known to us.  His lust led to adultery & led to pregnancy. (As an aside: can you imagine how Solomon felt when he learned this was his mother & his father’s story?)  The sin of Lust led to adultery, cover-up, drunkenness, betrayal, & murder!  The death of Uriah the Hittite was “government sanctioned,” but it was nonetheless a murder of an innocent man.

    David’s lusty imagination, when indulged, triggered a chain reaction of other sins...and ended badly.  David’s story shows, better than any other, that LUST is a fool’s game.

    Some people, like David, feel free to act from lust because they have the power!  It is not love/sex among equals!  Some people act from their LUST, because they suppose no one will ever “find out.”  They think they’ll just carry it as a secret in their heart. 

    While there may be a few who do “get away with it” in this life -- disregarding the calluses that grow on their heart from the little lies they must tell to “cover” their dirty little secret -- but I am absolutely certain that there are far more who are found out.  They just never dreamed they’d be caught!

    So, “was it worth it?”  The answer for David, the now-corrupted king, is the same for us: “No...” 

    “The risks are too great for love-making to be casual (instead of committed).  The pain which is inflicted (upon one-self, one’s spouse, kids, society) is too hard to repair, and too heavy to bear.  The stakes are too high.  Only a fool plays this game!”  

    We call it “making love;” but lust actually breaks love...  Lust breaks hearts & homes; it breaks reputations, and breaks lives.  Thus, it is a deadly sin!  Lust is not love!  Not in the least!  And yet, it is an easy mistake to make, since some of the outward behavior which marks “lust” is also a hallmark of true love.  Intimacy, nudity, flirting fun, seductive behavior...  Let me be perfectly clear (for any young people here): we cannot “make love” when our motive is “lust!”  Lust is a perversion of love -- a twisting of love into its very opposite!

    Yes, you heard me correctly...  Hate is not the opposite of love.  LUST is the opposite of love!  Hate has a lot more to do with the sins of envy, anger, & pride, than it has anything to do with “love-making.” Lust is the opposite of love, and that’s why it is so devilishly easy to twist the words around each other.

    While others around us may be content to live lives that fulfill their lusts -- pursuing luxuria and what they can get out of it for themselves, regardless of who gets hurt -- we Christians are called to live lives that express love: love of self, love toward others, and love of God. By the power of the Holy Spirit, may we be freed from our lusts and become motivated by love! 
                                        Amen!

“How the Mighty Have Fallen” based on II Samuel 1:23 thru 2:7

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton Street, Long Beach, California  90815

July 10, 2011

    As we prepare for the Fourth of July (Independ- ence Day) celebrations later in the week, it seems most appropriate that our Scripture lesson this Sunday focuses on the transfer of power -- handing over the reins of government -- from King Saul (in ancient Israel) to the new king, David.

    Two weeks ago, we heard the story of  David being “anointed” by the prophet Samuel.  Anointed (or Christ-ened, Messiah-ed) was a formal ceremony by which he would be ordained the next king of Israel, after Saul.  That event took place many years before David actually began to rule.  He had a lot of growing up to do; wars to fight; songs to write; giants to slay...

    Last Sunday we heard a second story of young David, as he defeated the Philistine warrior, Goliath. 

    In that sermon, I lifted up David’s words: “The battle is the Lord’s!”  And I suggested two principles were at work:  First, a sense of “divine destiny” -- the belief that God has a plan for your life, your people, your nation; and that your deeds, as you act on the side of God, will make a difference.  Divine destiny. 

    And, second, the reminder that God doesn’t “play favorites.”  God doesn’t side with any one nation (or race or religion), per se; it is up to people, through their values and attitudes and behavior, to see to it that they are in line with God’s Will.  In other words, we can join God’s team; but we can never presume that God has joined ours. The battle is the Lord’s.  (That was last Sunday’s sermon.)

    This week we are several years further along in David’s story. He has grown up and he is married.  He lived for many years “like a son” in King Saul’s house -- like a brother to Jonathan, the crown-prince.  They were best of friends.  David has become famous both as a singer (inventer of the harp and writer of many Psalms) and as a soldier for Israel (having killed tens of thousands of Philistines and other invaders).

    But David also fell out of favor with King Saul, whose “big ego” couldn’t stand seeing David loved and honored more than they loved King Saul. 

    Saul felt “threatened” by David, even though David intended him no harm.  This is not the last time in human history when a boss, with a big ego and only marginal competence, has turned against the best and brightest among his associates for fear of being surpassed.  (I suspect many of you and I have worked for just such a boss at some time in our careers!)   This is not the last time a king turned against his subjects, but it is one of the most tragic.

    Saul, in a fit of insecurity, twice tried to kill David.  The king eventually declared that David (his loyal colleague and commander of Israel’s Army) had become a “traitor” (which wasn’t true), and King Saul launched a full-fledged war against David.  It tore up his family, it caused confusion among the citizens, and it weakened his Army.  It wasn’t long before Saul and Jonathan died in battle.

    Today’s Scripture began at that point:  David weeping for Saul, and lamenting the death of his friend, Jonathan.  “How the mighty have fallen...!” 

    The egomania and insecurity of King Saul not- withstanding, David wept upon hearing of his death.

    And the words Davod spoke about Jonathan are among the most tender in all the Bible: “I am distres- sed for you, my brother Jonathan.  Greatly beloved were you to me.  Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.”

    The insanity of King Saul, and David’s official status as a “traitor,” did not reduce the fact that the first King of Israel was now dead, and so was his son, the heir apparent to the throne. Israel will need a new leader.  A new monarchy.  David turns to the Lord and asks: “what shall I do?” 

    “Settle in Hebron,” was the answer.  And there, together with his wives and all the “outlaw soldiers” who sided with David, another “anointing” took place.  The people of the tribe of Judah christened David as their king.

    His first official act as their king was to extend a word of blessing to the followers of King Saul, to the people in Gilead who buried him, so they would know the animosity was over.  “May the Lord/Yahweh show steadfast love and faithfulness to you... Be valiant, and let your hands be strong.  For Saul, your lord, is dead; and the house of Judah has anointed me king over them.”  

    So, the transfer of power from the King of Israel to the King of Judah -- from Saul to David -- though set in a bloody time of war, was not a “Revolution.”  The war was based on egoism and insecurity, not on an effort to change the form of government. And once Saul’s line had died out, a new bloodline (David’s) was appointed to the throne.  Monarchy continued...

    How different was the American War of Inde- pendence. It was truly a “revolution.”  In place of monarchy, we designed “presidency.”  In place of bloodlines, we designed “elections.”  In place of the assassination of one’s opponents, we designed “term limits.”  The American Revolution was not merely a Civil War (citizens efforts to overthrow their rulers); it was an effort to change the very form of government.

    It seems strange to me that America should look at revolutions everywhere else on our globe as some- thing “evil” -- even to the point of sending our mili- tary into those wars of liberation, usually (ironically) on the side of the oppressor regime rather than the freedom-fighters! -- and yet consider our own revolu- tion as something to be revered.  The 4th of July “up- rising” in 1776 is celebrated with fireworks & parades & political speeches, while other uprisings and revo- lutions are squelched as a matter of state security!

    Have you ever considered what “America” would have meant nowadays if those delegates to the Continental Congress had refused to sign that docu- ment on July 4, 1776?  What do you think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin would be called today if the war had gone the other way?  Do you realize how Benedict Arnold would have climbed in our esteem?

    As David discovered, much to his regret, the label “traitor” is bestowed by the people in power.  And it sticks... so long as those same folks are writing the history.  If they’re defeated, history gets rewritten.

    If the American Revolution had failed, our class- rooms would not have portraits of George Washington & Abraham Lincoln & William Jefferson Clinton -- but rather the watchful eye of Queen Elizabeth -- as we studied about an unfortunate uprising back in 1776, that ended with the hanging of men like Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry.

    Of course, maybe it wouldn’t be like that at all.  Maybe (if the Revolution had failed) others would have taken up the cause of democracy & anti-coloni- alism.  Maybe other voices would have (eventually) settled the disputes over taxation & representation in London’s Parliament.  One never knows.

    But I have found, as I say in my sermon title, that the unique originality of our American Revolu- tion stands out as we compare it against others.

    Zaire is now called the Republic of the Congo.  A long war of native militiamen against a tyrant’s standing Army has come to a close... but where is the declaration of principles of human rights that the new administration is committed to follow?  Where was it in the Civil War in Somalia, and in the bloody battles of Rwanda?  When Hutu & Tutsi trade off “being in charge,” all we seem to get is more blood- shed; only the tribal allegiance of the victims changes.

    Very few of our modern-day revolutions (with the possible exceptions of the Iranian fundamentalist takeover & the Nicaraguan Sandinistas) feel obligated to make a declaration of principles, such as America did 221 years ago.  All they seem to have in mind is a change of administration (of who’s in power); they do not seem to be attempting a revolution that touches the very principles of human society.  America did!

    Some nations -- like India, Egypt, Tunesia, Zim- babwe -- struggled long and won their independence with relatively little bloodshed.  But, having establish- ed themselves as nation-states, have not looked much beyond that.  They got what they were after...They were satisfied.  Now they strive only to make themselves greater, richer, more respected.

    The founders of the United States of America did not consider it enough merely to fight for their own independence.  They gave the world a true revolution, a change of spirit!  Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington seem to have known instinct- ively that it is at the very moment when a nation is in danger of losing all that it has, that it must give the most of itself to the world.  It is then that heroes are needed.

    David, the youngest son-of-a-shepherd, may have remained an unknown peasant, lost in the depths of human history, had he not been given a mission (“anointed”); and had he not heard a call from Goliath that needed an answer from Yahweh; and had he not relied (in faith) on God’s steadfast love through all the hell King Saul had put him. 

    His first act as king (extending blessing to the loyal followers of his adversary) paved the way for a United Monarchy under God.  “Love you enemies, and pray for your persecuters” Jesus said 1,000 years later.  That’s exactly what David did as the new king. It wasn’t a revolution, but it was a good start to have at the helm, a man with a good heart.

    As I said in last Sunday’s sermon: If we want America to be in the Winner’s Circle in the 21st century, it is up to us to “get in step” with God.

    While he was President, Dwight D. Eisenhower challenged the American people with these words:
“If we are to win the beliefs and hearts of men, we have to return to the fundamentals.  Our founding fathers said it was a religious concept they were trying to translate into government... Our govern- ment has no sense unless deeply rooted in religious faith.”  (I hope you noticed he said “return to the fundamentals” not to the fundamentalists!)

    And what are the fundamentals of the American Revolution?  I’ll speak of them more next Sunday, but for now suffice to say they are the same faith that sustained the shepherd boy in his battle against the giant and (later) against the king:  replacing our narrow “ego” desires with a sense of divine destiny -- that the battle is the Lord’s, and that in God we trust. 

    It is my prayerful hope that the vast “silent ma- jority” of Americans, who have watched the narrow- ing of our liberties, the betrayal of our trust by civic leaders, and who have endured the denigration of God in public debate, will boldly & willingly recommit ourselves to those ideals afresh. (Happy 4th of July!)

“Surface Appearances” based on I Samuel 15:34 thru 16:13

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton Street, Long Beach, California  90815


July 3, 2011

    In today’s story, from the Book of Samuel, we meet the Messiah -- “meshiach”: the Lord’s Anointed -- for that’s what the word means in Hebrew.  We Christians tend to use the title “messiah” exclusively for Jesus, forgetting that it is derived from the coronation ceremony of the Jewish kings.  Today we meet the first Messiah, the Lord’s “chosen leader”: the “anointed” one, David.

    If you are surprised to learn that the Bible’s first Messiah (the Lord’s “Anointed One”) is the boy, David (the youngest son of a common working-class shepherding family in Bethlehem), you are not alone in that surprise.  Even Samuel was surprised! 

    Surely, if God was to select “the best and the brightest” from among the people of Israel, it would be someone with wealth and power!  Someone tall and handsome, strong of stature, with an authoritative, commanding presence.  After all, it’s no easy job being the Lord’s Anointed, the Chosen “Messiah!”

        Samuel, who can be considered the last of the judges and the first of the prophets, had been tasked by God to find someone appropriate to serve as the head of state of the kingdom of Israel.  Saul, who was the first king of Israel -- one who had been elected by a unanimous outcry of the people (a man who stood “head and shoulders above the rest”) who had been selected from an influential family – Saul was charismatic and handsome!  These are characteristics we still look for in our politicians and celebrities:  they’ve gotta look good on camera!

    As the first King of Israel, Saul had let the acclaim and the power of his position go to his head.  He thought he was “above the law” (as do so many wealthy and powerful folks in our own day!).  Because Saul was the “king,” it meant that he was the law-maker, the ultimate authority to whom everyone else was a “subject.”

    It’s a sin of hubris – pride – that monarchs and other social elites often fall victim to: those that make the laws (who set the rules) too often feel free to exempt themselves from having to obey those laws.

    Take for example “franking” privilege extended to Senators and members of Congress, who can simply put their signature on the front of a letter and it goes through the US Postal System for free.  The ones who set the prices of stamps for the rest of us, are themselves exempt!

    Our lawmakers have established their own private pension plan such that they need not be under Social Security – a public trust fund that those same politicians have been raiding and spending on other government programs.  Their own pensions are not at risk, as are ours.

    I could go on, but you get the drift.  King Saul thought he could do as he pleased, since he was the King!  He thought he could do as he pleased, regardless of God.

    King Saul had been successful in battle.  The newly consolidated Kingdom of Israel was militarily secure under Saul in a way it had never been during the generations of the Judges.  Under King Saul, all police powers and economic authority was consolidated under his command, unified and centralized. 

    Not only was Israel consolidating its power under Saul, Israel was growing rich by the plunder of its Canaanite neighbors as well as the tribute paid to the King.  By those measures, Saul was prospering and Israel had becomes a kingdom the neighbors had to reckon with. But… Saul had not been successful in the eyes of God, who looks upon the hearts of people. 


    Military might and the accumulation of wealth is not how God measures success.  Saul’s power went to his head.  He disobeyed God by building a statue in his own honor and by keeping the spoils of war for himself. (I Samuel 15:10-19)  Our story begins with these words: “Samuel grieved over Saul, and the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.”  What a sad testimony (a sad legacy) that is.

    But God has a plan of action.  In the Bible, God never judges a situation without offering either (a) an alternative path (for which the advance warning should prompt a change of direction, or a change of heart, a turning around (what the church calls “repentance”).  Or (b), if no change is forthcoming and the consequences become dire, God will provide a relief, or a rescue, or a redeemer, so that the people may recover from the error of their ways.

    Samuel, as the spiritual leader of the nation -- as the judge who had sworn Saul into office and as the prophet who spoke God’s Word (even if it opposed the decrees of the King) -- Samuel was to go to the little town of Bethlehem and find a new king from among Jesse’s sons.

    At first, Samuel is afraid to obey, knowing that King Saul would kill him if he found out.  You see, to the people in power, the coming of a new “messiah” (a new leader, redeemer, rescuer) is seen as a threat.  You are “taking sides” politically whenever you try to hold your rulers (your overlord, your boss) accountable to a higher authority than them-selves! To publicly follow God’s leadership, instead of supporting the ruling powers, would be considered an act of disloyalty (even treason)!

    Samuel is afraid for his life if he does what God has suggested: to anoint a new king to replace King Saul.  It makes me think of those patriots in 1776, who drafted -- and then publicly signed -- the Declaration of Independence (the 235th Anniversary of which we celebrate tomorrow with the national “Independence Day” holiday).  Those 56 colonial men were risking their lives! 

    The representatives from each of the 13 colonies who met in the Philadelphia State House were people of considerable means and well-educated. 
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, like John Adams.  Nine were farmers and owners of large plantations, like Thomas Jefferson.  King George III had denounced all rebels in America as traitors and had sent regiments of his “red-coat” British Army to find and arrest them.  The punishment for treason against the King was hanging.  That was the risk those 56 men were running as they placed their names on the Declaration of Independence, which final sentence reads: “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other: our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

    I would assume that fear and trembling is part and parcel of every “anointed one” who decides to put God’s desires ahead of the state’s rules.  Jesus, the Christian Messiah, knew that risk as well… and as we all know: he was executed for “treason” by the people in power in his day.  Following God’s will, as a Messiah must, will bring a person into conflict with the vested interests of people in power.  That’s why prophets of old were mocked, rejected, imprisoned, and even stoned to death… and that’s why Jesus was crucified!

     To focus on things of God (which are: attitudes of the heart, matters of morality, looking at the consequences of our actions, drawing implications of ethical behavior, being willing to believe that a better world is possible, and willing to make the necessary changes to achieve it), is risky business – then as well as now!  To bring public attention to things of God instead of simply supporting the rulers and going along with the status quo, is a cause for fear and trembling!

    “If Saul hears of it, he will kill me,” says Samuel.  And when Samuel arrives in Bethlehem, the elders of the city (who know who he is, and whom he speaks for!) came to meet him: they were trembling! 

    “Do you come peaceably?” they ask; for the judge (the prophet, the one who speaks God’s word) brings unrest, dis-quiet, un-easy feelings that things are not right.  Whenever the status quo encounters the Word of God, the elders (who are the enforcers) begin to squirm!

    Samuel gathers the people of Bethlehem, sanctifies them, and then starts a procession of young men... Jesse’s sons.  Eliab, the eldest, must be the one (Samuel thinks) because patriarchal custom gives precedence to the first-born son.  It was simply assumed that the father’s authority within the family would go first & foremost to his first-born son.

    The laws of Moses insisted that the eldest receive double whatever the other siblings received by way of inheritance.  To this day, even in radically egalitarian societies such as ours here in America strives to be, the family’s reliance upon the older brother or older sister to be the “responsible” ones in the family is simply assumed to be how it has to be!  It’s their social role!

    But seniority is no credential with God. The Lord does not judge as mortals do.  Patriarchial (patrilinial) succession based on seniority is a cultural custom, friends, not God’s way! I hope that is no surprise!

    Seniority has become a primary criterion in Congress and Senate appointments to committees, and it’s important to military rank (where time in grade, plus time in service, pretty much sets your “pay grade”).  Seniority still has a lot to do with teacher hirings and firings, with civil service jobs and at the Post Office, and it plays a role in “unionized” labor relations: Last hired, first fired.  Most Americans value seniority.

    But, as I said, seniority is no credential with God. The Lord does not judge as mortals do. Jesse’s first-born son, the elder, is voted out!

    Then Jesse called Abinadab, and everyone was impressed by the second son’s size.  Strength and stature, surely, would be important to God in choosing the next king.  But Samuel admits: “Neither has the Lord chosen this one.”  If not seniority, and not one’s size & stature, what is God looking for in a person?

    Before we go on, let me ask you: “What does the Lord require of you?”  (We say it often: Micah 6:8.)  To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God!  What matters to God is: To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God! According to Psalm 24, God is looking for one who has clean hands, and a pure heart, who has not lifted up their soul unto vanity, and who does not swear deceitfully.” That’s God’s criteria for a good role model, a civic leader.

    Let me repeat those seven virtues -- to do justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with God, with “clean hands” (that is, no bloodshed, no injustice) and a “pure heart” (that is, with no self-serving agenda, no secret immorality like Anthony Wiener’s “sex”ting photos), refusing vanity, refusing to swear deceitfully -- where is any of that in our quest for new leaders, for celebrities, for the next American Idol?

    Sure, it would be nice to find some of that in our politicians, but let’s get real.  Politics is a dirty, cut-throat business and you need money, stature, and ruthlessness to win!  Christian virtues tend to be seen as liabilities in the worlds of business, politics, & war.

    In today’s story, Samuel has declined Eliab’s seniority, much to everyone’s surprise.  He then declined Abinadab’s strength and stature.  When Shammah, Jesse’s handsome middle son, passes by, Samuel thinks: “Surely, the Lord’s anointed is he.”  But God’s word startles us all:  “Do not look on his appearance, nor on the height of his stature... for the Lord does not see as mortals see.  They look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart!”

    When I was a teen-ager living in Michigan, I used to paint houses during the summer to earn a bit of money.  One of the paint companies (I recall) had as its advertising slogan: “Save the surface, and you save everything.” 

    Of course, the paint manufacturers meant that a new coat of paint on your house or your fence would keep the weather out and the moisture from seeping into the wood. It would block termite damage & reflect the harsh sunlight.  Walls & barns, & eves & porches, would last longer with a new coat of paint.  It’s how I made money. OK.

    But I knew that too many people were living their lives and making their decisions with the false idea that “if you save the surface, you’ve saved everything!”  And that’s a lie!

    Churches were full of people with plastic smiles -- praising the Lord on the surface, but crushed with defeat and loneliness, enduring abuse at home, or harassment in the workplace, with all kinds of loss and despair beneath that “Christian” mask.  They were good at saving the surface, while their inner lives were dying!

    One of the reasons I chose to go into the ministry was to help our church members to get inside their own stories, to face their fears and hidden hurts; to let the mask slip a bit in a safe & loving – even thera-peutic community.  I knew that such open “warts & all” honesty was not the traditional reason people came to church, but I believe that’s the kind of church that Jesus wanted: a place where people could remove their religious mask and get to the raw & risky faith, the hopes & pos-sibilities of a fully human life, which would be contagious such that the community of love (extravagant welcome) would change the world!
(No one ever accused me of not having lofty goals!)

    And I believe that it is not only possible to be that kind of church, but that Los Altos UCC is already on that road.  We just need to move forward at a sustainable pace.  We don’t want to scare anyone away with too many changes coming too fast.  Relationships take time to mature.

    We all know families who don’t want their neighbors to know what is really going on in their marriages... They would subscribe to the slogan: Save the surface and you’ve saved everything!  It’s a lie!  It’s empty vanity.  It’s hypocrisy.  But when you’re afraid to let the truth be seen, the box you’re living in can become stiflingly small!

    “The Lord does not see as mortals see.  They look on the outward appearance,     but the Lord looks on the heart!”

    How often I’ve wanted teenagers to know that their outer appearance is not who they are.  (But that’s pretty much futile.)

    Samuel’s search for the Messiah, as recorded in the Bible, is a lesson we all need to learn.  The world of traditional social values will often lead us astray by accenting attributes that (while assumed to be universal) are far from the heart of God.

    Seniority. Whether seniority in age (giving more credit & weight to the opinions of our elders and less respect to the youngers) or seniority in status (where you get more pay as the senior partner than as an associate, more respect is given to the senior minister’s opinion than to the youth minister’s).  Whether one’s concept of “seniority” is based on relative age or relative status, it can lead us away from God’s true desires by giving preference (favoritism) to one “category” of person over another. 

    In God’s eyes we are all of the same seniority.  (I mean, what’s the difference between a 9-year-old and a 90-year-old when seen in the light of God’s eternity?)  In God’s eyes, we are all of us worthy of respect, every one of us able to be agents of God.

    Samuel said to Jesse: “Are all your sons here?”  “There remains yet the youngest,” Jesse replied, “but he’s working, keeping the sheep.”  “Bring him,” said Samuel, “for we will not sit down until he comes!”

    Everyone was surprised!  This was a reversal of all expectations!  Samuel would prefer the youngest… not the oldest?  The ruddy, hard-working field-hand, a mere boy, nothing but a common shepherd – in place of the handsome soldier-boys, or the first-born inheritors -- this is the one chosen by God to be “anointed” as king?

    Yes!  Little David.  The Psalm singer with the sling-shot!  The harp-playing, song-writing, little shepherd boy, David.  If he’s good enough for God to bless and to anoint as a future leader of his people, well, then there’s hope for every one of us!

    Perhaps we, too, can break the bad habit of trusting surface appearances, and (like God) try our best to look on the heart.

"The Battle Is The LORD’s!" based on I Samuel, Chapter 17:1-11, 31-37, & 41-50

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton Street, Long Beach, California  90815

June 26, 2011

    Hear again one sentence from the story that the prophet Samuel records for us... the story of David and Goliath.  These are the words young David used to explain why he fought the Philistine:

    “So that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,
    and [so that] all this assembly may know that the Lord does
    not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and
    God will give you into our hand.” (I Sam. 17:46-47)

    Good words, worth memorizing!  Brave words, especially when put in the context of a young shepherd-boy facing a nine-foot tall, fully armed & armored, soldier!  A man with at least ten years of combat training, with the very latest in Bronze Age weaponry, a veteran champion of many battles: the Philistine super-soldier Goliath!

    What audacity!  What absurdity, to think of this young, untrained shepherd-boy, armed only with a sling, hurling insults at the reigning champion!  What nerve.  Who does David think he is?  Samson?

    There are many principles we can learn from David’s success in bringing the giant down, but (to me) the key is found in the phrase:  “...the battle is the Lord’s!...”  He believes, with youthful passion, that God is involved.  And because the battle is the Lord’s battle, even the smaller ones (the fledgling, the youngsters like him) can succeed.

    So, the first principle (I believe) is to remember that the destiny of the world is in the hands of God.  (I hope that lifts a burden from your shoulders!)  It’s not up to you or me to succeed; that’s God’s job.

    In the hustle of daily business and the bustle of daily routines, we may forget the overarching patterns of power, the trends and lessons of history.  It is so easy to forget the powerful reality & presence of God when most of our day is focused on “little me” and our humble horizon of narrow self-interest.

    The soldiers of Israel, apparently, forgot that “the battle is the Lord’s!”  Saul, their king (their commander-in-chief), had long since forgotten that he was God’s servant. “When Saul and all Israel heard the words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.”
(I Sam. 17:11) When the Jewish soldiers saw Goliath, the Philistine champion, they fled from him… and their King (Saul, who stood a head and shoulders taller than the rest, and who was himself already an acclaimed war-hero) was afraid.

    But there was someone in Israel who believed that the destiny of the world was not in the hands of the giants (nor in the hands of soldiers & kings, for that matter), but in the hands of God/Yahweh -- someone who believed that the battle is the Lord’s -- and it is that faith (that trust in God!) which plunged David into deeds of greatness.

    In the story, everyone is surprised at David’s courage.  But they ought not to have been surprised.  After all, it was in much that same way that their nation was founded...  It was the call of divine destiny coming to a middle-aged shepherd named Moses, exiled from Egypt, grazing his father-in-law’s flock in the mountain wilderness of Sinai, who heard God say: “I am Yahweh, the God of Israel, and I am with you.”  A call to serve that sent a stuttering, stammering Moses to confront Pharaoh and to change the face of history.  That’s Israel’s primary story in all of Torah: the Exodus!  The battle is the Lord’s; not Pharaoh’s, not the Egyptian Army’s! (After all, in the end, the mighty charioteers drowned in the Red Sea.)  God was really the one in charge.

    David’s boldness should not have surprised the soldiers, for it is the story of Moses (and of Joshua, and of Gideon and the judges) all over again.  God is in charge, not the kings, nor the soldiers. 
God saves, not with sword & spear, nor with chariots, nor even with giant walls (remember the battle of Jericho?).  The soldiers should have remembered their basic Bible history 101: the battle is the Lord’s!

    Nor should this story of little David come as a surprise to us “Christians,” for our primary story similarly suggests that the call of divine destiny comes to an unwed peasant girl (Mary); and her son, Jesus, born in a barn!  People of no account, and yet who brought the presence of God alive in Israel with such relevance and in such power that it eventually out-distances the entire Roman Empire; the Gospel of Jesus Christ has out-lived the history of every nation since year 1! 

    The battle is the Lord’s!  And God can recruit whomever God chooses: little David (a Bethlehem shepherd-boy) or young Mary (an unwed-Galilean girl)… or maybe even little you-&-me!  The call of divine destiny comes to a rural fisherman on the Lake of Galilee (Simon Peter), and transforms him into a “fisher of men.”  The Rock!  The call comes to an I.R.S. agent, a tax collector (Matthew Levi), and he enrolls citizens into a new kingdom (the kingdom of God). 

    The call comes from God to “the least of these, (my brethren)” and a new world is born!  A new creation!  History is forever changed by those little people who know that “the battle is the Lord’s!”

    Moments in history may seem to serve one nation or another.  Back in July of 1997, the world watched the sun set on the formerly great British Empire, as the governing of Hong Kong reverted to the Chinese.  Before the First & Second World Wars, European nations claimed colonies throughout the East Indies and everywhere in Africa.  Now those same nations cluster like twelve small stars in a circle, claiming only Europe itself as a Common Market.  What used to be their individual nation’s world-wide economic and military reach has been reduced to the narrow confines of their Old World homelands. 

     Some historians suggest that the 20th Century will be known as the “Great American Century,” since the United States played such a huge role around the globe. 
But by naming it such (the American Century), those historians are also marking it off from the present century, since our national impact (as a part of the world’s economy as well as a military force) will soon be surpassed technologically & economically by “globaliz-ation” in the 21st Century.  The day of American power (they say) is past.

    The helm of history always seems to belong to some great Army, or to some masterful ideology (like Nazi Fascism or Soviet communism), for a time.  But, ultimately, history is being guided silently by a “Higher Power” greater than Pharaoh or the Roman Caesars at the peak of their splendor; greater than Napoleon, sweeping unchallenged through Europe; greater than Alexander, weeping for more worlds to conquer.

    I believe that what David was really saying (when he accepted the challenge to fight Goliath) was that God had plans to use Israel as a special agent (a change agent)… to use Israel as an instrument to bring divine blessing to all the world; and no giant, however powerful, was going to thwart the Lord’s plans.  David simply knew in his heart that the one who trusted in God would win.  So, don’t be afraid!

    The warrior champion, Goliath, and his Philistine comrades, were “out of step” with the Supreme Commander’s battle plan.  And they were doomed to be defeated despite their arrogance, ruthlessness, size.

    American poet James Russell Lowell reminds us (in the words we sang as our middle hymn “Once to Every Man & Nation”):
    “Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ’tis truth alone is strong. 
    Truth, forever on the scaffold; wrong, forever on the throne. 
    Yet that scaffold sways the future! And, behind the dim unknown,
    standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.”
   
    When the God who stands in the shadows, keeping watch, sides with a little David against a giant Goliath -- sides with a rag-tag bunch of American colonial settlers against Mother England’s seasoned soldiers…
…or sides with a Corazon Aquino against Marcos’ over- whelming troops in the Philippines, or sides with peasant Sandinistas in Central America against government death squads, or sides with an Ayatollah’s devout followers against a secular Shah’s military machine, or sides with dirt-poor peasant Bolsheviks against a Czar’s overwhelm-ing wealth & power) -- it sways the future!  When truth is on the scaffold, and wrong is on the throne (by God), reversals will come!

    Now, back to David...  On the surface, it may appear that the cards were stacked against the Philistines from the beginning, since God is said to have “chosen” Israel.  But that’s not necessarily so.

    Remember, Israel was only victorious when they were in step with divine destiny through their obedience to God’s will (for justice at home and blessing abroad) and when they kept God’s moral command- ments.  Throughout the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures), each & every time they were disobedient (or “unjust”), and some other power was more in step with God, the Jews were conquered by their enemies.

    Which is the second principle to keep in mind:  God doesn’t play favorites!  God takes sides with no nation, per se.  God is not a tribal God, nor a nationalist. God is not a racist. It is up to Israel to side with God; and when they don’t, it’s up to someone like David to do it on their behalf, even if he has to do it all alone.  Which suggests to me that it is still up to us, my friends, to side with the Lord if we want America to be in the Winner’s Circle. 

    But how do we know if we are “siding with the Lord”? 

    First: we do those things which bring honor & glory to the God of Israel: doing justice at home and extending blessing abroad.  What does the Lord require of you?  “To do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” (That’s a start, friends. Micah 6:8)

    According to Jesus, we are to “love our neighbors” in the same way “as we love ourselves,” showing no partiality. (Mark 12:31, John 13:34-35; see also James, Chapter 2) 
We are to keep all the commands from our Rabbi, Jesus, but most specifically to love one another, and to forgive everyone who asks us.  If you treat people in the same way as Jesus would have done (keeping the “Golden Rule” and all that jazz), you can act boldly, knowing that you’re on God’s side... dead or alive!
   
    And so, David ventured alone onto a battlefield to face a giant...

    Whether he would come back dead or alive, he wanted the world to know that the battle is the Lord’s!  So, too, Mohandas Gandhi refused to honor the British Mandate in India; so, too, John Hancock signed his name boldly across the bottom of our Declaration of Independence.  These were people of enormous moral character, people with faith in God (in step with God) and therefore in step with history.

    It is no small thing that American coins & currency are minted with the words “In God We Trust” on them.  For it is that thought which sustained the shepherd lad in his battle against the giant.  “In God We Trust!” … the battle is the Lord’s! 

    It is that thought which motivated our early American statesmen to declare independence from England.  “In God We Trust!”   It is that thought which can replace our narrow, personal “ego” desires with a sense of divine destiny... knowing that the battle we wage for the good of the world is the Lord’s battle!  We can take “risks” because (ultimately) we trust.

    May your faith in God empower you to take an occasional risk, knowing that the ultimate outcome of our joint efforts toward the good is in God’s hands, and on God’s shoulders.  Let us simply do what little part we can, within the space of time and talent and available resources that God has given us.  Trusting, that the battle is the Lord’s and we’re not really facing the giant problem on our own… because God is with us, in Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit.  Trust God!  Lean into it; find that extra support, & then take action, for God’s sake.
                                        Amen!

"God Loves a Cheerful Giver" (A Stewardship sermon based on II Corinthians 9:1-8)

Rev. Dr. Paul A. Lance, Pastor
Los Altos United Church of Christ
5550 Atherton Street, Long Beach, California  90815

June 5, 2011

    I suppose these words from the Apostle Paul are among the most familiar he ever wrote: "Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly nor under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver!" (II Corinthians 9:7)

    Since next week is the Sunday when we will receive our "pledge" forms in the worship bulletin, and, in the course of the service, we will dedicate our pledges of financial support for the programs and ministries here at Los Altos UCC, this Scripture about "giving" -- cheerful giving! -- comes immediately to mind as an appropriate text to get us ready.

    It's nice to be reminded once in a while that our offerings (of time, talents, and treasures) in service to the work of the Church are intended to be a source of joy for us and blessing for others. Our resources (of time, talents, and treasure) are freely given to us by God, in order that we in turn can share them freely with others, in Jesus' name... not begrudgingly, but willingly.  We give our money to the Church, not because of guilt induced, nor from fear of financial shortfall here at the church if we don’t pay our fair share, but cheerfully, freely! 

    Giving of oneself -- giving one's resources in support of the vision (and the implementation!) of the Good News of Jesus' ministry through our local church -- is supposed to be a source of joy!  It should give us deep & lasting pleasure, knowing you are making a difference for the good in our world! 

    But, if you’re like me, you already know that!

    So, why do we even need to be reminded that God loves a cheerful giver?  Why do we even need to be asked to pledge financial support? 

    If you're like me, you do it almost automatically, all through the year, because you know it is a right and good thing, and it brings you real pleasure to be able to be generous.  It "feels good" to be able to "do good!"  (As a matter of fact, would you please say that with me? "It feels good to be able to do good!"  Thank you.)

    If you're like me, you also probably wish that you could do more --  win the lottery, perhaps! -- in order to take off the pressure the church has of having to meet our overhead operating expenses from week to week. That's part of the sign that you have a generous heart, you always want to do "a little more."  And I thank each and every one of you who feels that way.  I thank you not only for what you give now, which helps to pay my salary, but I thank you for the extra giving that you would like to have given, if only you had it to give.  It’s the desire to be generous that is a virtue, regardless of what you can actually afford.

    Do you remember the widow in the Temple that Jesus pointed out, who had given her last two copper pennies – not much money in purchasing power – but which represented all that she had to live on?  (I preached about it last October on Marathon Sunday when we worshiped at the Los Alamitos UCC church.)  Jesus said that in God’s eyes, she had given more than all the wealthy men who gave only a portion of their surplus income.  They still had 90% of their wealth to spend on themselves, while she had given her all!  That’s why I say: it’s the desire to be generous that is a virtue, regardless of what you can actually afford.  The willingness to give is a first step toward discovering what it means to be a “cheerful giver.”

    If you're like me, this is nothing new.  You already know how good it feels to use your resources in ways that show real improvements – whether the improvement is by buying a new car, or by up-grading your computer or TV, or by investing in your house by adding on to it or putting in new carpet.  The same thing is true when you put your resources to work in support of things that promise to make a difference in people's lives:  helping pay for schools or someone’s higher education, paying taxes to refurbish our roads and provide police and fire protection, giving to the Red Cross for disaster relief or a better blood bank, giving to the Salvation Army or your church.
So, if most of us already know how good it feels to put our money where our heart is, why does Paul feel the need to write this little reminder that "God loves a cheerful giver"?

    Apparently, someone in the Corinthian Church wasn't like us.  Some-one needed urging and reminding. 

I especially like the "tongue in cheek" way that Paul begins Chapter 9: "It is not necessary for me to write to you about the ministry to the saints, for I know your eagerness -- [I know of your readiness to give] -- which is the subject of my boasting about you to the people of Macedonia, saying 'Achaia (that is, the Greeks who live in Corinth) have been ready since last year!' and [my telling of] your zeal has stirred up most of them!"

    But then comes the reality and the rub: after a year of promising to give, the Greek Christians in Corinth (a wealthy urban congregation, in contrast to the rural Macedonians) have yet to send along any money!  And so, the Apostle Paul continues:

    "So that our boasting about you may not prove to have been empty in this case -- so that you may be ready, as I said you would be -- lest some Macedonians come with me and find that you are NOT ready… We would be humiliated (to say nothing of you) for being so confident in this undertaking."

    "So, (writes Paul) I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you, and arrange  in advance  for this bountiful gift  that you have promised, so that it may be ready as a voluntary gift, and not as an extortion. [That your contribution be ready… not as an exaction, but as a willing gift.]"

    Tongue in cheek, perhaps... but Paul has a serious concern, nonetheless.  Promises of support were made... pledges to provide financial assistance to the saints in Jerusalem were counted upon... but, after a year of waiting, the cash never came. 

    It would be like (perish the thought!) that some of us were to make a pledge to support Los Altos UCC for such & such an amount, and, after a year of counting on that income, we failed to live up to our pledge. Uh-oh!

    Paul wants them to live up to their promises (their pledged support), but doesn't want it to seem like a burden to them, like a tax, or a "forced" thing.  For God loves a cheerful giver, where the gift represents a willing heart.  For that is the blessing which, in its turn, multiplies.   

    We didn’t read it this morning, but the letter goes on in verse 12: "The rendering of this service... (that is, their giving money to support the Mother Church in Jerusalem, who were going through hard times and persecutions) not only supplies the wants of  the saints (writes Paul), but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God..."

    In other words, people begin to praise God when they see that our deeds are as good as our words (or, more commonly said, that we at Los Altos UCC: "we put our money where our mouth is!").

    The "generosity" that is referred to in Scripture is not merely one's monetary resources (even though that is the Apostle Paul's primary concern in this particular chapter).  Our generous giving may be of our time, as we volunteer to help (and take the time to attend) various Church activities… and our generous giving may be of our talents as we serve in a variety of formal & informal offices in the church: help with the bookkeeping, provide child-care, sing in the choir, teach Sunday School, serve on the Leadership Council.  Our generosity can be shown through our use of our time and of our talents, as well as the giving of our material resources.

    Last Sunday, a dancer, Kiku, took time to come down from Montebello Plymouth UCC and used her talents here during worship as she brought the choir’s anthem "On Eagle’s Wings" to life.  I will close this sermon with her affirming words: 

“Last Sunday I had the distinct pleasure of attending your church and performing with your choir.  It is not often that one is invited to such a lovely
church.  In the past, our Pastor Mitchell had encouraged us to visit other churches and now I know why.  I had become content with my own, without a desire to look beyond.  Yet, at Los Altos, people were so friendly, so kind, and there was something more, a feeling of harmony, a feeling of grace.  I thank the Lord for his guidance as I performed with your choir under the direction of your talented director David.  I also thank Mr. & Mrs. Solt, who sent me photographs to remember.  For on that day, I felt as though I had met family and had danced to the voices of angels.  Thank you, and many blessings to you and your congregation.”              

Sincerely, 

Kiku Yamada Kobashigawa