St. John's Episcopal Church

Homily for the Memorial Service of Charles Fred Kerr

Monday, October 27, 2008 • St. John’s Episcopal Church-Grand Haven

In one of the collects for the Burial Office, we pray that God will let his Holy Spirit “lead us in holiness and righteousness all our days, that, when we have served you in our generation, we may be gathered to our ancestors… in perfect charity with the world.” (BCP p. 504)

That prayer is a special favorite of mine, because it includes two images which have been a great comfort to me through the loss of my parents — my father ten years ago, and my mother in January of last year.

The first image is of being gathered to one’s ancestors.  This image has a long history, running back to the earliest days of the Judeo-Christian experience.  In Genesis each of the patriarchs, those to whom God entrusted his promise of land, children, and blessing, is described at his death as being “gathered to his people.”  Of Abraham, for example, we read that he breathed his last “and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people.” (Gen. 25:8)  The same is said of Isaac, Jacob, and Aaron.

To me this image makes it clear that just as we are born into a community we call our family, and just as we lead our lives in a community of relatives and friends and coworkers and neighbors, so also at death are we gathered into the community of those who have gone before.  Death is just as much an experience of community as life is.

Not everyone believes that.  Many would tell us that death is the end of community, and that when we die we are condemned to spend eternity in isolation.  I find that a very chilly vision, to be sure, and one that religion opposes.  Note that the English word religion reflects the Latin root word ligare, which means “to bind,” combined with the prefix re-, which means “back.”  Thus religion is that which “binds back” or more helpfully, binds us together with God’s world, God’s people, and God himself, just as ligaments bind together the bones of the human body.  This community is at the very heart of religion.  We live our lives in community.  And community an essential characteristic of the new life that comes at death.

I very much wish I could say of Fred that he died an old man, full of years, as scripture says of Abraham.  That was not to be.  Illness cut short his life at far too early a moment, and too soon deprived us of a father, brother, friend, coworker, neighbor, and church member.  But I believe that Fred is now bound together with his Dad and all those loved ones who now live with the Lord.  Fred has been gathered to his ancestors.  And in due course you and I will join Fred, for we are all part of that larger community which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls the great “cloud of witnesses” — the saints at work and saints at rest — who are beloved of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The second image in that prayer is of being in “perfect charity with the world.”  These days, when we speak of charity, we generally mean benevolent giving to some worthy group or directly to a person in need.  That kind of charity is a great blessing, of course.  But in this case the reference is to charity as the greatest of Christian virtues — in Latin, caritas, or unlimited loving-kindness.  It is a virtue because, when practiced in one’s life, it both honors God and reflects God’s glory.

I did not know Fred a long time.  In fact, it was really just a matter of weeks.  But I am convinced that this virtue of charity — unlimited loving-kindness — was a key element in Fred’s way to life.  He lived his life outward, most especially for the good of his family, but also for the benefit of the many children he worked with over the years, and in companionship with his friends, neighbors, and coworkers.  He was a man of strong opinions, but he was also a man of great generosity and deep commitment to the welfare of others.  We have been blessed by his presence among us.

I believe that true charity — this virtue of loving-kindness practiced in one’s life — brings peace.  When I talked with Fred just a few hours before his death, I had no doubt whatsoever that he was at peace — or as the prayer puts it, “in perfect charity” with his world.  This was more than just acceptance of his approaching death, although acceptance was certainly there.  Working again with that passage from Hebrews, it seemed to me that Fred had run with perseverance the race that had been set before him, and now he was ready to move on in hope to a new phase of life, looking to the Lord who has opened the gates of heaven to all who love God and love their neighbors as themselves.  Had Fred achieved the “perfect charity” of the prayer?  Not many of us can leave this world in perfect charity, but I think Fred came pretty close.  He loved his family; he loved you, his friends; and he was at peace, ready to be gathered to his people.

Let us pray.

O God, whose days are without end, and whose mercies cannot be numbered:  Make us, we pray, deeply aware of the shortness and uncertainty of human life; and let your Holy Spirit lead us in holiness and righteousness all our days; that, when we shall have served you in our generation, we may be gathered to our ancestors, having the testimony of a good conscience, in the communion of the Catholic Church, in the confidence of a certain faith, in the comfort of a religious and holy hope, in favor with you, our God, and in perfect charity with the world.  All this we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

—The Rev. John E. Laycock, Interim Pastor

Sermon for Sunday, October 19, 2008 (Proper 24)

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?” (Matt. 22:18)

Today’s gospel continues Matthew’s account of Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem and his heated encounters with the religious authorities.  Jesus has castigated the priests and Pharisees by telling against them the parables of the Two Sons, the Wicked Tenants, and the Wedding Feast.  Our Lord’s opponents withdraw briefly, regroup, and then try again to entrap this maddeningly inconvenient rabbi from Galilee.  This time some Pharisees and their associates approach Jesus as he teaches in the temple, where as always he is surrounded by a crowd.  They plan to ask him a question the answer to which will discredit him publicly.  They think will make it easier to have him arrested and punished.

Jesus’ opponents begin by casting a line of oily flattery: “Teacher, we know that you are sincere… teach the way of God… [and] do not regard people with partiality.” (Matt. 22:16)  But the worm at the end of the line conceals a hook.  “Is it lawful,” they ask, “to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” (Matt. 22:17)

This is a trick question.  To understand its subtlety we must recognize that taxation was as hot a topic in the 1st century as it is in our day.  The Jews labored under a triple burden of taxation — by Rome, by Herod, and by the temple priesthood.  The procurators (or Roman governors) taxed land and personal property, levied import-export duties at seaports and city gates, and imposed a special house tax in Jerusalem.  Herod levied taxes on the produce of the field, as well as a sales tax on items bought and sold.  The right to collect these taxes was auctioned off to the highest bidder — the notorious publican, or tax collector — who had the help of the army in doing his work.  Although tax collectors (like Matthew himself) were paid for their services, they often extorted an additional percentage which they pocketed, becoming quite rich in the process and earning the taxpayers’ hatred.

On top of all this, the temple authorities collected a half-shekel tax on all Jewish males 20 years of age or older.  Each year tax collectors went from town to town collecting this “head tax,” both in Palestine and in the diaspora.  Thus for the Jews — most of whom constituted what scripture calls “the people of the land,” those who lived by subsistence farming — this tax burden was crushing and threatened their very existence.

Jesus’ opponents, then, pose a subtle question.  If our Lord says one should pay taxes to Caesar, then the people might see him as siding with Rome against his own community.  On the other hand, if he says that one should not pay the Empire’s taxes, then the authorities could accuse him of fomenting sedition and have the Romans arrest him.  

In the end, Jesus avoids the trap by pointing out that Roman coins carry the image of the Emperor.  He says, “Give… to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  (Matt. 22:21)  In other words, Roman coins are the property of the emperor; therefore, Jesus says, return that property to its owner.  At the same time, God makes demands of his people.  In Jesus’ eyes that includes faithfulness, obedience, and compassion for the vulnerable and marginalized.  Therefore, people should give to God what belongs to God.  It’s a subtle answer to a subtle question.  Once again our Lord’s opponents withdraw, but they continue to plot against him.

Let me pause here to note that if you doubt that theologians have a sense of humor, today’s gospel proves otherwise.  Those scholars who put together our lectionary — the lessons we read in church each week — undoubtedly knew that from time to time Jesus’ comment on paying taxes would fall just a few days before a national election.  Since taxes are always a hot topic in election years, I’m sure these seminary professors decided (with a slight smirk) that Jesus’ teaching would add a little spice to the Sunday fare… and perhaps make the preacher tap dance a bit more vigorously.

By this time in the election cycle, we voters have been treated to a seemingly endless argument over which candidate will raise, lower, or leave unchanged the burden of taxes that you and I contend with.  Each candidate says he has a better tax plan, and each candidate assures us that the other side’s nefarious schemes will surly oppress the long-suffering American taxpayer, cripple the economy (or this year, economic recovery), lay waste to democracy, and ensure the downfall of Western Civilization.  Meanwhile, both sides speak in generalities about their tax plans, because giving details simply offers the other side more opportunity to criticize.  Besides, if the truth be known, both candidates really don’t know what they will do, and won’t know until one of them gets elected, takes office, and has a chance to assess the situation as it then exists.

However, regardless of what the politicians or talking heads may say, you and I can be certain that the garbage has to be collected, and sooner or later, someone has to pay for it.  The question, as always, is when and how.

Some of my ordained colleagues believe they know the answer to that question — indeed the answer to all significant political questions — and assert that the proper role of the Church is to instruct the faithful how they should vote.  Last month the Alliance Defense Fund, a group based in Arizona, organized a “Pulpit Initiative” in which participating pastors would endorse a candidate from the pulpit.  The ADF’s goal was to spark action against these churches by the Internal Revenue Service which, in turn, would give the churches standing to challenge the half-century-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt religious groups.

This is hardly a new argument.  Some clergy and their parishioners have been grumbling about the ban since then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson added it to a piece of Internal Revenue Service legislation in 1954.  No one knows why Johnson did this.  There is no legislative history indicating that this amendment was in response to a particular problem.  But the amendment’s effect was to ban intervention in a political campaign by a congregation which is exempt from payment of income taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.

Since 1954 various groups have challenged the intervention ban, arguing that it interferes with the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Last month Erik Stanley, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, “For so long there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church.  It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of the church in society.  It is not for the government to mandate the role of church in society.”  (Quoted in the Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2008, page A03)

The courts have not found such arguments persuasive.  Nor do I.  The 501(c)(3) exemption has clear advantages for St. John’s Episcopal Church, as it does for many other religious, charitable, educational, and scientific organizations.  Specifically, it encourages financial support by allowing contributors who itemize to deduct their gifts against taxable income, so long as they receive no goods or services in exchange for that gift.  Most lay leaders and clergy recognize that without this exemption, financial support would be significantly diminished and the task of raising money to run this and most other churches would become considerably more difficult.  The “price tag” for this bit of government assistance — refraining from telling my parishioners how to vote — strikes me as quite modest.

Moreover, as a priest, I feel that it is manifestly not my place to tell you — from the pulpit, or in my professional capacity — which candidate you should vote for, or whether you should support or oppose some ballot initiative.  (I can do so privately, of course — just not when I am performing my official duties.)  I happily accept that limitation because, over the years of my ministry, I’ve come to see my role as that of what the French call an agent provocateur, one who incites or entices another person to do something.  What I seek to incite or entice you to do is not to commit an illegal act, but rather to actively engage Holy Scripture and your relationship with Jesus Christ with the task of living your life as a child of God and a disciple of our Lord.  

You would be amazed how many people find this juxtaposition of faith and daily living unacceptable.  Years ago I ran across a quotation (the source now long forgotten) which declared, “Nothing is so offensive as encountering in the marketplace an idea which properly belongs in the pulpit.”  Alas, some Episcopal congregations enshrine this attitude in their common life by prohibiting any discussion, especially from the pulpit, of any subject that any person might deem even vaguely political.  The rationale usually given for this is that Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith might hear a disagreeable opinion and flee, pledge in hand, to some other church.  In my experience, the problem usually isn’t Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith, but the person who presumes to speak for them.  But that’s another sermon.

My point is that the congregation which keeps every concern of modern society at arm’s length makes itself irrelevant to the lives of most people.  How are we to live in this complicated world?  The competing demands of God and Caesar are not easily reconciled, and sometimes simply can’t be reconciled.  What do we do then?  These are the issues Jesus addressed in his day.  If you and I can’t talk about such issues in our day — bringing to bear Jesus’ teachings, the collective experience of Christians across the ages, and our own intelligence and good sense —  then our faith will be just an empty shell. 

Therefore, if I do my job as an agent provocateur — in my preaching, teaching, and pastoring — then it’s very likely that you, my parishioners, will be encouraged to spend a fair amount of time dealing with things political.  That’s because all significant moral issues that you and I face have, at some level, their political dimension.  War and peace… freedom and tyranny… capitalism and justice in the marketplace… racism… gender and age bias… marriage and family concerns… the rights of gay people… abortion and family planning… health care and the lack thereof… education… immigration… capital punishment… energy policy and environmental responsibility… taxes, taxes, taxes… even the role of the Church in contemporary society — all of these are points at which faith, daily life, and politics intersect.  And Jesus himself stands in the intersection.

I submit, then, that the proper task of the Church is to encourage a robust engagement of religion and life.  In an election year like this, the Church can and should provide useful information (as we have tried to do on the St. John’s Blog), stimulate conversation about candidates and issues, and always honor opposing viewpoints.  I believe it was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian and heroic opponent of Naziism, who said that the first duty one Christian owes another is to listen — just to listen.  Above all, the Church can and should insist that casting your vote on Tuesday, November 4th, is both a legal right and a moral duty.  

However, it is neither the Church’s job nor mine to tell you to approve the library millage or to vote for Millard Fillmore for President.  Deciding who and what you will vote for is your responsibility.

May God, our Governor and the fountain of all wisdom, guide us in this important work of citizenship, that we may be at peace among ourselves, and a blessing to the peoples of the earth.  Amen.

Readings for Year A, Proper 24:  Old Testament — Exodus 33:12-23  |  Gradual — Psalm 99  |  Epistle — 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10  |  Gsopel — Matthew 22:15-22

Collect for Proper 24:

Almighty and everlasting God, in Christ you have revealed your glory among the nations:  Preserve the works of your mercy, that your Church throughout the world may persevere with steadfast faith in the confession of your Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

Sermon for Sunday, October 12, 2008 (Proper 23)

“Once more Jesus spoke to the people in parables, saying: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.’” (Matt. 22:1)

The parables provide some of Jesus’ most memorable teachings.  Consider, for example, the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.  Both stories illustrate a message of hope.  On the other hand, this morning’s gospel — Matthew’s Parable of the Wedding Feast — is one of Jesus’ more difficult teachings.  With hopeful parables close at hand, it’s not surprising that some interpreters try to find a message of hope here, too.  However, I think that misses the point.  

As you know, a parable is a brief fictional story which illustrates a moral or religious lesson.  While Jesus is the most famous teller of parables, these brief narratives are found in non-biblical literature as well.  Parables typically sketch in a setting, a main character, an action, and a result.  Most contemporary scholars believe that these little stories are intended to convey one primary message.  Hence, my own definition is that a parable is a little story with a big point.

In this morning’s parable Jesus tells us of a king who gives a feast in honor of his son’s marriage.  Those guests invited to the feast refuse to come when summoned; they are too busy.  Insulted, the king slaughters the disrespectful guests and destroys their city.  Then he orders his slaves to go out into the streets and round up another group of guests.  When the king comes to see these new guests, he finds one among them who is improperly dressed.  This fellow is bound and thrown into the “outer darkness.”  The story ends with the statement, “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This is a remarkably grim tale.  The king is ruthless.  His treatment of the original guests — not to mention the innocent bystanders who live in their city — is brutal.  The new group of guests do not come willingly to the party; they are forced to attend.  As for the man without a wedding garment, his crime seems trivial compared to the punishment the king metes out.  Frankly, this is not a story that leaves one feeling buoyantly hopeful.  

And yet many, perhaps most, interpreters seem determined to wring something positive from this short narrative.  Perhaps that’s because in many translations of the Bible this parable begins with Jesus saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.”  The word like suggests that God’s kingdom and the parable share many of the same characteristics.  If the kingdom of heaven is good, then this parable must illustrate the kingdom’s goodness.  

The problem is compounded if, as many do, you analyze this parable allegorically, so that each element of the story stands for something about the kingdom.  Using the allegorical method, you might find the following shared characteristics:

> the banquet hall stands for the kingdom of heaven;

> the king is God and his son is Jesus;

> the original guests are the Jews;

> the destruction of the original guests is God’s judgment on Jews;

> the new guests are Christians;

> the guy without proper dress is a Christian whose faith is imperfect; and

The moral of the story must be that many are called to be residents of God’s kingdom, but in the end only a few are chosen — these being Christians, and then only a few of them.

Over the past week I’ve read a number of commentaries on this parable that follow this line of reasoning.  Some commentators give Almighty God a big old pat on the back for being so discerning and assertive in his judgment, and for making it clear that only the few (that is, the most deeply committed Christians) will enter the kingdom of heaven, while the many (that is, all nonbelievers, Jews, and those Christians whose faith is not rigorous enough) will find themselves cast into the outer darkness.  

Other commentators claim find in this parable a paradox — on the one hand, God’s free gift of grace “with no strings attached” and, on the other hand, God’s requirement that one “put on” something appropriate to his or her calling.  “The trick” as one writer puts it, “is knowing when to appropriately apply each one” of these alternatives.  (Brian P. Stoffregen, Crossmarks, on Matthew 22:1-14)

Personally, both these approaches are unimpressive.  I find it impossible to reconcile the compassionate Father we see in and through Jesus Christ with this parable’s brutal king who snuffs out human life so lightly.  And, while I admit that Christian faith has a deep vein of paradox running through it, I cannot believe that one must master certain spiritual “tricks” in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

In short, when I read this parable and ask, “Where is the gospel?… where is the good news in this story?” the only answer I come up with is, “There isn’t any.”  The Parable of the Wedding Feast isn’t good news!  And, moreover, I think that is exactly the message Jesus intended.

Let me put unpack my analysis by making three brief observations.  First, the context for this story is the same as for our gospel readings for the past two weeks.  This is Matthew’s account of Holy Week.  While teaching in the temple Jesus is confronted by the chief priests and Pharisees.  They demand to know why (from their point of view) he is stirring up trouble during the feast of the Passover.  Jesus responds to their challenge by telling three parables — the Parable of the Two Sons, the Parable of the Evil Tenants, and finally this Parable of the Wedding Feast.  The first two narratives highlight the failure of the authorities to be faithful stewards of God’s people.  I think we can assume that today’s parable serves a similar purpose.

Second, the translation we use — that being the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible — begins, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.”  As I noted a moment ago, other translators read, “The kingdom of heaven is like….”  Like indicates a strong similarity, or even a complete equivalence, between God’s kingdom and the kingdom in the parable.  However, I think the NRSV translation better fits Jesus’ purpose.  In this parable our Lord compares the earthly kingdom described in the parable to the Father’s heavenly kingdom.  No 1-to-1 identification is intended.

Third, we can assume that those who heard Jesus tell this story were familiar with the nature of 1st century oriental kingship.  In fact, they had a good example of that institution close at hand — their own Herodian dynasty.  Herod the Great, who ruled at the time of Jesus’ birth, was a right nasty fellow who protected his crown by killing off any competition — which included his wife and two of his sons.  The surviving son, Herod Antipas, succeeded his father and ruled at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.  He is best remembered for putting John the Baptist to death.  In short, monarchs in Jesus’ time didn’t spend their days cutting ribbons at new factories and fund-raising for charitable groups.  Kingship was a brutal business.

Small wonder, then, that the king in Jesus’ parable is a nasty fellow who celebrates his son’s marriage with murder and invites people to his dinner party at the point of a sword.  Small wonder, too, that one man is severely punished merely for violating the king’s dress code.  I submit, then, that Jesus’ purpose in telling this parable is to show the religious authorities — who accuse him of being a troublemaker! — that they are no better than this brutal monarch.  They have thrown in their lot with the Herods and Caesars of this world who use their power to oppress and exploit and brutalize the weak.  The authorities get the point.  After this third parable, they withdraw and begin plotting Jesus’ downfall.

I think Jesus’ purpose in telling this grim little story is clear, but then what are you and I to take away from it?  If the good news is not in the parable itself, then where is it?

Well, I’d suggest that the good news is that God’s kingdom is not at all like that portrayed in the parable!  In fact, the true kingdom would be closer to that other dinner party we find in the gospels, that is, the Parable of the Great Feast in Luke chapter 14.  Luke’s and Matthew’s stories share many similarities, such as the original group of guests who are too busy with their own affairs to attend the party.  But in Luke’s narrative the host does not order the destruction of these rude folks.  Instead, he tells his servants to go out “into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.” (Luke 14:21)  When this is done, there is still room in the hall.  So the host orders his servants to find more and more people, “so that my house may be filled.” (Luke 14:23)

Alas, there are some Christians who cannot conceive of the kingdom of heaven without a heavy-handed, vengeful God in charge.  It strikes them as perfectly acceptable that God will destroy those who reject him and mete out harsh judgment on those whose offenses are minor.  If, indeed, “many are called, but few are chosen,” they take pride in believing that they are among the chosen few.  But these folks simply create a vision of heaven in their own image, and a God small enough to fit that vision.  They have fallen into the same trap of pride as the chief priests and Pharisees who confronted Jesus in the temple.

You and I will not decide who enters the kingdom of heaven and who does not.  That’s God’s work.  Our task is summed up nicely in a little plaque that friends of mine display in their home.  It asks, “What on earth are you doing for heaven’s sake?”  Our role is to be the Body of Christ — literally the hands and feet and voice and heart of Christ on earth.  We are to share his ministry of reconciliation, drawing people into relationship with the Father.  We are to be the kind of people Paul encouraged the Philippians to be: gentle, prayerful, joyful, and busy with the Lord’s business.  Sometimes we are even called to be troublemakers, opposing injustice, defending those who cannot defend themselves, speaking for those who have no voice.  And most especially we are to be merchants of hope in a world where hope is too often in short supply.  

If we commit ourselves to this kind of discipleship, then the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.  Amen.

The Rev. John E. Laycock, Interim Pastor

Readings for Proper 23:  Old Testament — Exodus 32:1-14  |  Gradual — Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23  |  Epistle — Philippians 4:1-9  |  Matthew 22:1-14

Collect for Proper 23:

Lord, we pray that your grace may always precede and follow us, that we may continually be given to good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.  Amen.

Health08.org — Election News, Analysis and Events

Kaiser Family Foundation

McCain Health Care Proposal

On the main page under ElectionStuff ’08, click on Kaiser—McCain Health Care, or paste the URL below into your browser.

http://www.health08.org/candidates/mccain.cfm#mccainplan

(Note:  On this page find links for McCain on Health Care, including: On Health Care, Health Care Proposal Details, “Jobs for America: Health Care Reforms”, Economic Plan, On Autism, On Cancer, as well as videos, ads, press releases and speeches.)

Obama Health Care Proposal

On the main page under ElectionStuff ’08, click on Kaiser—Obama Health Care, or paste the URL below into your browser.

http://www.health08.org/candidates/obama.cfm#obamaplan

(Note: On this page find links for Obama on Health Care, including: On Health Care, Plan for a Healthy America (Overview, Details, and FAQ), On Increasing Transparency in the Health Care System, On Supporting Latino Families, On Fighting HIV/AIDS Worldwide, On Helping America’s Seniors, On Combating Cancer, as well as videos, ads, press releases and speeches.)

Source:  Kaiser Family Foundation — Health08.org

“A leader in health policy and communications, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., with a growing role in global health. Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.  We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public. Our product is information, always provided free of charge – from the most sophisticated policy research, to basic facts and numbers, to information young people can use to improve their health or elderly people can use to understand their Medicare benefits.  The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.”  (From Who We Are, on the KFF web site)

_________________________

Consumer Reports

November 2008

(Note: The November issue of Consumer Reports, which arrived just a couple days ago, includes a feature article entitled “Two Prescriptions for America’s Ills: McCain and Obama offer conflicting health plans.  Here’s how you’d fare.”  The article analyzes the candidates’ proposals by focusing on five households — 1) Over 60 and struggling; 2) Well-insured; 3) Young and uninsured; 4) No safety net; and 5) Ill and underinsured.  In each case the editors indicate how you, as a member of one of these cohorts, would fare under McCain’s plan and Obama’s plan.  I have not found this article on the internet, but will keep looking.  In the meantime, you can find the November issue in the library or through a friend who subscribes.)

Source: Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports is published by Consumers Union, the world’s largest independent consumer-product-testing organization.  We also survey millions of consumers about their experiences with products and services.  We’re based in Yonkers, N.Y., and are a nonprofit organization.”  (From Who we are, in the magazine)

_________________________

Sermon for Sunday, October 5, 2008 (Proper 22)

Jesus said, “Listen to another parable.  There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watchtower.  Then he leased it to tenants….” (Matt. 21:33)

This week’s gospel, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and last week’s reading, the Parable of the Two Sons, are both part of a single episode in Matthew’s account of the passion.  Last week we noted that Jesus enters the Holy City with the crowd hailing him as king, and then goes to the temple where he drives out those selling sacrificial animals and changing Roman coins into temple coinage.  All this takes place during the feast of the Passover, ever a dangerous time in Jerusalem.  The city is awash in pilgrims who are resentful of the Roman Empire’s brutal control over Palestine.  It would take very little to spark a riot.  In a kind of 1st century “surge strategy” Pilate, the Roman governor, moves in additional troops to maintain control of the situation.  But the primary burden of maintaining order falls on the Jewish authorities.  They view Jesus as a troublemaker who must be dealt with.  

On what seems to be his second day in the Holy City, Jesus returns to the temple.  As he is teaching a crowd, he is confronted by an angry group of chief priests and Pharisees, the latter identified as “elders of the people.”  They demand to know by what authority Jesus has (in their view) profaned the sacred precincts and disrupted temple commerce. (Matt. 21:23)

In response Jesus tells the Parable of the Two Sons.  If a parable, in Jesus’ hands, is a little story with a big point, then this parable makes it clear that the religious authorities in Jerusalem have failed in their duty to care for the Lord’s vineyard, which is a symbol for God’s people.  The point is pretty obvious.  You and I get it.  I’m sure the crowd listening to this dispute gets it.  But the text suggests that the chief priests and elders don’t get it!  So Jesus tries again, this time telling the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.

The story is elegant in its simplicity.  A landowner builds a vineyard, leases it to tenants, and then goes off to “another country.” (Matt. 21:33)  At harvest time the landowner sends his agents to claim his share of the produce.  But the tenants covet the harvest — all of it.  They badly abuse the two groups of slaves the landowner sends to collect his due.  Finally, the landowner sends his son.  Seeing that this is the heir, they conspire to kill the son and thereby get his inheritance.  Jesus asks what will happen to these wicked tenants.  The chief priests and elders say, quite reasonably, that the landowner will have those miserable wretches put to death.  Then he will lease the vineyard to new, more responsible tenants.

Jesus’ opponents finally get the message.  They realize that he has been speaking about them. (Matt. 21:45) They are furious!  But with a crowd standing around, they are unwilling to have him arrested on the spot.  And so they withdraw to wait for a better moment.

Now, perhaps you’ve noticed that the gospels are pretty hard on these religious authorities — the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes — who are Jesus’ primary opponents.  They are portrayed as almost uniformly nasty or spiritually dull.  Indeed, these opponents seem almost to be bit players sent over from Central Casting!  That’s almost certainly because the authors of the gospels had no love for these people and no desire to portray them in even the smallest glimmer of positive light.  But that creates a problem for the discerning reader of scripture, who may wonder how potent Jesus’ teachings are when those who disagree with him are made of cardboard.  In this regard, then, it may be helpful to note that these people — Pharisees, chief priests, scribes, the lot — were probably good people at heart, or at least people who believed that they were doing the right thing in difficult circumstances in order to please God.

The Pharisees were a group within 1st century Judaism which believed that God called his people to a life of holiness based on ritual purity.  They did their best to observe not only the law of Moses, but also an oral law handed down from the “elders.”  Theirs was a complex and exceedingly rigorous vision of the spiritual life.  And because they honestly believed that this kind of life alone was acceptable to God, they looked down upon everyone who would not, or could not, share their strict standards.  This included Gentiles, of course, but also most of their brother and sister Jews.  These Pharisees had clean hands, but hard hearts.

Meanwhile, the Sadducees, another group within Judaism, and the scribes who served them, tended to dominate religious and political life in Jerusalem.  They controlled the temple, collected the temple taxes throughout the country, and enjoyed all the benefits that come with being at the center of power and influence.  However, Rome was the ultimate authority in Palestine, even choosing who would be chief priest.  Thus these Sadducees held their positions at Rome’s convenience.  They were responsible for maintaining law and order, collecting Rome’s taxes in addition to the temple tax, and otherwise keeping Palestine off the Empire’s radar screen.  They knew that if they failed in this role, things would go badly for them and for all Jews.  Thus they believed that their collaboration with Rome was in the best interest of the nation — and if it made them far more comfortable than most, so be it.

It is against this background of hard-heartedness, exploitation, and political expediency that Jesus tells the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, his little story with a big point.  These religious worthies are evil tenants whose behavior oppresses the “little ones” whom God favors.  In time, their misdeeds will bring down disaster on their own heads, and on the nation as a whole.  Jesus has their number.  They know it.  And they resent it.  

So why do the religious authorities persist in a pattern of behavior which is ultimately self-defeating?  Because, says Jesus, they have been poisoned by greed.  They don’t want just their fair share of the harvest; they want all the fruits of the vineyard, and the vineyard as well.  As a recent electronics store ad puts it, “I want it all… and I want it now.”

I think it’s safe to say that greed never goes out of style.  Centuries ago its enduring attraction for the human heart led Catholic theologians to list it among the seven deadly (or cardinal) sins, along with lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.  Greed is deadly in the sense that it has power to undermine good judgment and snuff out any desire for true spiritual enlightenment.  And it has such power because for a person seduced by greed, the word enough is not part of their vocabulary.

This week I heard an interview with John Bogle, the 79-year-old founder and retired CEO of the Vanguard mutual fund house.  Bogle is widely regarded as the father (or at least the popularizer) of index funds.  Index funds, of course, are computer programs which replicate the results of a major index, like the S&P 500.  Bogel considers index funds superior to traditional actively-managed mutual funds, and he has published several books extolling their virtues.  In this interview he talks about his new book, his seventh, which is being readied for publication.  This book, however, is not so much about investing as about life.  Its principle message is framed by a story Bogle read in the New Yorker magazine.

It seems that a very wealthy man threw a party in New York City many years ago.  Among the rich and famous guests were Joseph Heller, author of the classic satire Catch-22, and Kurt Vonnegut, whose novels Cat’s Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five are among the 20th century’s best.  (Alas, both men are now deceased.)  At this party, Bogle said, Heller and Vonnegut were chatting, and Vonnegut drew his friend’s attention to their host.  “Look at him,” he said.  “That billionaire made more money today than Catch-22 has made you over the past 30 years.”  Heller studied his host for a moment.  Then turned to Vonnegut and said, “That’s OK, Kurt, because I have something that guy will never have — enough.”

Bogle says his new book explores this concept of “enough.”  It’s an idea that many American business leaders would consider quaint, if indeed they could understand it at all.  In the realm of popular values, enough is a poor stepchild compared with “more is better” and “a lot more is a lot better.”  Enough smacks of giving up, coming in second best, or failing outright.

I submit, however, that this is an important concept for us, as Christians, and for our country, to grasp.  Over the past few days we’ve seen what havoc can be done by those whose vocabulary does not include the word enough.  Our economy is a mess.  No one disputes that we are in a recession.  The banking system is in tatters; the credit market is frozen; and Congress has passed a $700 billion rescue plan that might actually be helpful.  The American people are justifiably angry.  And a lot of important people in Washington and on Wall Street are saying, “Who?  Me?  No, I never so much as looked at a mortgage-backed security.  It’s the other guy’s fault.”  

We’ll be many months straightening out this problem, understanding its origins, and fixing what’s broken.  I suspect that as this problem is unpacked and resolved, we will find that many of those responsible had no desire to put the American economy, and indeed the global economy, in the ER.  They probably felt that what they were doing was good for the country, and good for their firms, and especially good for themselves.  If a few “little ones” got picked clean in the process, well, they should have been smarter.  After all, in 20th and 21st century America, we’ve learned that “more is better” and “at lot more is a lot better.”  Enough, as a value, is un-American.       

Jesus’ Parable of the Wicked Tenants — that little story with a big point — makes it clear that people for whom enough is not enough are self-deluded and dangerous.  They act irresponsibly, injuring others, and in the end they inflict great harm on themselves, as well.  So it was in Jesus’ time, and so it is in ours.  If greed is a material and spiritual poison, then the concept of enough may be the best, and perhaps the only, antidote.  Amen.

— The Rev. John E. Laycock, Interim Pastor

Readings for Proper 22:  Old Testament — Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20  |  Gradual — Psalm 19  |  Epistle — Philippians 3:4b-14  |  Gospel — 21:33-46

Collect for Proper 22:

Almighty and everlasting God, you are always more ready to hear than we to pray, and to give more than we either desire and deserve:  Pour upon us the abundance of your mercy, forgiving us those things of which our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things for which we are not worthy to ask, except through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

USA TODAY Issue Comparisons

Fairly current

Paste into your browser:  http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/issues.aspx

Or on the main page click on the USA Today Issues link under Election ’08, on the right.

(Note: USA Today explains the candidates’ positions on Iraq, immigration, health care, education, gay civil rights, and abortion.  Use the links at the top for “Candidates” and “Issues.”  You can also play a “candidate match” game.  Express your opinion on various issues, and the game will match you with one of the candidates!  If the game tells you to vote for General Grant, perhaps you can do a write-in.)

Source: USA Today

“USA Today is a national American daily newspaper published by the Gannett Company… The paper has the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United states (averaging over 2.25 million copies every weekday), and among English-language broadsheets, it comes second world-wide, behind only the 2.6 million daily paid copies of The Times of India.”  (from “USA Today” Wikipedia article)

_________________________

The Center for Michigan: A Forum for Our State’s Future

Updated frequently

(Note: This is newspaperman Phil Powers’ web site for discussion of issues relating to the State of Michigan: economic development, employment, tax policy, etc.)

Paste into your browser:   http://www.thecenterformichigan.net/

Or on the main page click on the Center for MI link under Election ’08, on the right.

Source: Center for Michigan

“The Center for Michigan is a “think-and-do tank” founded by Phil Power in early 2006. A 501(c)3 non-profit organization, The Center’s objective is to assist our state through its current period of wrenching economic trouble and to lay the foundation of informed hope for a better future Michigan. It will help develop and execute comprehensive, long-range and, in some cases, radical policy solutions to transform Michigan’s business, economic, political and cultural climate. In so doing, it will work to help reform the structure and workings of Michigan’s political system.” (From About the Center, on the Center web site)

I’ve discovered something about blogging — it’s more interesting when a number of people chime in with their opinions.  And I’ve discovered something about new blogs — it takes awhile to round up a group of people willing to share their opinions.  So I’m going to start this new topic — ElectionStuff ’08 — The Conversation — as a place where comments about the upcoming election can be focused.  Perhaps this will make it easier for people to toss the conversational beach ball back and forth.

I’m still looking for “compare and contrast” treatments of the positions of the two presidential candidates from sources that most folks would consider reasonably unbiased.  If you find something that fits the bill, please let me know.  I’ll add it to our data bank.

The easiest way to add a comment is to click on the headline (in this case, “ElectionStuff ’08 — The Conversation”).  This takes you to a copy of the post, followed by comments made to date.  At the bottom is a box where you can write your own comment.  Then click on “submit” and the deed is done!  You are not limited to one comment per person.  Chime in as often as you wish.

— Fr. John Laycock +